Democrats & Liberals Archives

Pretend Nothing Is Wrong.

Pretend you didn’t just have to inject millions of dollars into an otherwise safe district to win. Pretend that the world things more of Trump than they do about Obama. Pretend it was Seth Rich and not Russian Intelligence. Pretend somebody saying, with an ongoing investigation, that your not being under investigation means you never will be. Just keep pretending, and maybe it will come true.

For the Republicans, winning this election in Georgia was a matter of pride. Trick is, it's a loss already that they had to devote this level of resources and organization into keeping what was supposed to be safe territory.

Not that I object to the violation of safe territory, politically speaking. I think it should be done more, with fairer districts to keep the politicians on their toes. And yes, even with my party. No gerrymandering, no propping up of parties. Instead? Non-partisan districting with the advantage going to those who can properly appeal to the communities, rather than those who can most lovingly kiss the rears of the party faithful.

Why would I subject my party to that? To keep them more responsive, more attentive to what the locals want. The point of the House of Representatives is not to play as the foot soldiers of the party in power. The point, as a decent reading of the Federalist Papers and other literature of the kind, is to link legislative power back to the local populace and what it wants and needs.

Today's GOP-driven house is oblivious to what most people want. The members are chosen for their loyalty to a party, loyalty to a set of ideologies, rather than for their willingness to actually represent the local needs and interests of their citizens on the national level.

Folks keep pretending that the key to redeeming Washington is to allow one part or the other to take power. But that's not how it works. Truth is, both sides are corruptible, and it's not just Washington that has the problem. State legislatures, local governments also suffer from the corruption. Special interests practically dictate the agenda, the average person cut out of that formulation of policy, and injected with partisan sentiments to dull the pain of the betrayal.

The thing is, the Conservative media allows the corruption to work in a more insidious manner on the right than it does on the left. The MSM media has no scruples about sending a Democrat down in flames when they cross the line. It wasn't put together to be a deliberate support network for the Conservative special interests, for the Republicans in Washington and elsewhere. It had more organic origins.

As I believe that we need competitive districts to avoid losing touch with the needs of local communities and interests, I also believe we need a non-aligned news media to hold leaders accountable, to keep the constituents and supporters of the politicians from being the last to know when their leaders are doing something they don't want.

Ideology, party politics- these are a brainless way to approach policy. Worse yet, they create sanctuaries for the incompetent and corrupt, for the abusers of power and betrayers of trust. The tribal instinct to protect one's own clashes with one crucial, painful truth: these people are not our friends, not our family. We do not owe them our protection, our help, unless they have earned it. It's best to think of it like hiring an employee, rather than, say, having somebody marry into your clan. Folks use the more tribal instincts we're wired with to bypass our critical thinking skills, to get us to ignore what's in front of us.

The Framers, in general, were believers in the Enlightenment. They believe in regular citizens being able to govern themselves by use of their own faculties. They thought the old notions of some people, that we needed some special breed of people who were better than everybody else to lead was an old, outdated, and dangerously wrong idea. It's an idea that some have tried to revive since then, with the idea being that if you're successful, rich, etc., you automatically know better and are a better person than those who fall below you in the economic pyramid.

It's a fairy tale, really, and a replacement for a kind of notion that requires more hard work and self-improvement on our part.

We all have certain talents, certain abilities that early experience and innate qualities of our minds and bodies make easier for us. I believe that your average person doesn't know the half of what they're capable of! I believe your average American drastically underrates what they're capable of learning, understanding, and doing. Some idealize society being full of lowest common denominator drones who don't rise above their station, ruled by elites who know better and think better than them. But my sensibility is that not only is this wrong, but it's a waste. People are living less fruitful, more painful lives for the sake of the soft security of a few.

If there's a theme I'm developing here, it's this: those who are on top should not be secure in their victory. They should be forced to constantly maintain whatever skills and talents they have, maintain good character and good behavior to maintain their good fortune. We can get a lot through luck in our lives. But if we depend on luck alone, well, it eventually runs out.

Republicans have been fortunate in recent times, but their luck is running thin. Democrats, whether by the good fortune of having a jackass like Trump to play off of, or a disillusioned public turned against the Republicans, are outperforming their normal averages.

The tide may be turning against the Republicans, and why not?

At the end of the day, the policies of the GOP matter. Not merely the policies they roll back from the Democrats. They can please the most bitter partisans with that, but most voters will care whether their fortunes rise or fall with the legislation, whether the nation's situation improves or worsens. They were able to leverage tough times and their own obstructionism again Obama and the Democrats, but in the end, now fully responsible, the questions switches from what they are against, to what they are for.

The Republicans are having to play a double header game of "It's not what it looks like," trying to convince voters that the populist policies Democrats promote hide insidious, conspiratorial elitist evil, while trying to convince the same voters that their own policies aren't the elitist, warmed-over policies that ran us into the ditch before Obama took power. Nowhere does this stink any higher to high heaven than with the healthcare debate.

You can argue all the partisan slogans you want, but at the end of the day, millions lose healthcare under ANY of the scenarios where Republicans pass Trumpcare. The AHCA is so poisonous, it A) rolled back the public's dislike for Obamacare, and B) is running at less than twenty percent popular support. Is it worse if Republicans pass it, or don't pass it? After years of hyping how bad Obamacare is, and singing to the heavens of the immaculate good of repealing it, the Republicans are stuck with plans whose objective effects will be so terrible that they'll sink party fortunes for years to come. That, or they fail to pass legislation and lose core supporters.

No wonder Republicans in the senate crafted their bill with zero public input.

At each turn, the GOP closes a door it could escape through, because the whole point of the way things were set up was to inhibit people from turning to the other side of the political fence for anything. If they compromise, then Republicans can end up in the position Democrats were in before 2006, capitulating on matters rather than holding firm. If Democrats are an option for people, fewer seats are safe, and party's agenda might not be carried out so purely, and that would be such a pity for those who are paying good money to buy the organization.

The trick of it all is that we don't live in the limited world of the rich and powerful who foster this corruption. We live right in the path of their externalities. They might remain rich, but we end up taking the losses they're powerful enough to avoid. Sooner or later, simple survival will dictate rebellion against such a system. You can coddle a system by holding back accountability, but you can't permanently safeguard it. Sooner or later, people want a system that isn't corrosive to their interests.

The trick of all that is that people seem to work in two modes, competitive and cooperative. If you get them in a cooperative mode, they're far more willing to make concessions themselves, because they'll see it as dealing with common interests on common ground. If you make the damn thing competitive, then just as you see it as your interests pit against theirs, so will they see their interests as exclusive of yours. Some competition is healthy, a part of the system. But if your notion is that you can win every political battle between now and forever, you've got another thing coming.

The Leadership on the right is simplistic, uninspired. It's more interested in pulling and stretching one party's ideology over everybody else's no matter how poor the fit is. They see themselves as following some competitive ideal. They call themselves alpha wolves (see this for how behind the science they are), and practice this philosophy of trying to dominate others in just about every interaction.

The truth is, the Republicans forget something critical: People aren't wolves, or even dogs. They're humans. Humans have both individual and social qualities. We feel equivalent stress with a social injury as we do a physical one. In our Hunter-Gatherer days, nobody really had to resources to lord themselves over another, so getting too arrogant about things was likely to backfire on you.

Though modern society has retrofitted all kinds of hierarchical relationships onto that original modern of interaction, the truth is, among equals, people do not want to concede much of anything to those who are not conceding things in return. Relationships where one is forced to give at one's own expense, while others merely take, can be fairly stressful, and can reach breaking points.

There's a reason why Republican rhetoric consistently insists on framing regulations in jobs terms. If you objectively look at who benefits from deregulation, it isn't the worker, it isn't the people in the community, it isn't the bill-payer or the average shareholder. It's the big guys. They have to inspire a cooperative sense of common interest, despite the objective absence of stuff, because otherwise, what's really going on?

What's really going on? Polluters are able to make the environment around us more toxic, increase hazards like Global Climate Change. Folks who push bad drugs and rotten food have more leeway to get sloppy, to put profits ahead of our health. Folks who want to profit immensely off of financial schemes that gut shareholder value for others, endanger depositor's savings, undermine the strength of our economy, the robustness of pricing mechanism that prevent wild swings in a value, get more free room to make their harmful maneuvers

In short, our interests are being sacrificed to theirs, and we're not getting anything back to compensate. This isn't capitalism, this is feudalism with a new excuse, and it's fundamentally un-American. Fairness isn't some wussy sort of value, it's an instinct built into us that says, "make your relationships as equitable as possible so that you're not getting taken advantage of." It's a protective instinct.

Now it can be negotiated, of course, and there isn't necessarily an objective standard on what's fair or what's not. It's a ghost in the machine of social interactions. It's not necessarily built on complete equality. People can stand it if somebody gets rich if the prosperity is shared enough. If I'm not struggling to make ends meet, I have no problem with the guy up the road making a million dollars, even if it's just for playing sports or making movies.

What people won't tolerate is a situation where the relationship is predatory, where your life, your time, your resources, even your family life become consumed by the interests of the elite. When Jefferson talks about inalienable rights, he's talking about rights that are inherent to the human spirit. We will fight to defend our lives, our liberty, to keep what belongs to us, and to live a relatively happy life.

Imbalances in society have a way of manifesting in tension, and yes, even violence. You can't send a whole portion of our population on a downward trajectory and long prevent a rebellion against that system. If American politics works on a cycle, Republicans would be well advised to look at how the last cycle of this type played out.

Then, they should ask the critical question: would they and their interests not be better served by figuring out a way to defuse these tensions, improve the lives of these people, rather than blithely and blindly taking a hammer to the lives of millions?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2017 3:15 PM
Comment #417552

“Non-partisan districting with the advantage going to those who can properly appeal to the communities…”

Great idea? How would you have state legislatures draw districts with no political ingredient Stephen? Define “properly appeal(ing)” that does not involve politics.

“Today’s GOP-driven house is oblivious to what most people want.” Facts please, your opinion does not match mine.

How do we elect house members if not by majority vote. Only the presidency uses an electoral college.

“We will fight to defend our lives, our liberty, to keep what belongs to us, and to live a relatively happy life.”

Sorry Stephen…you are fighting to take my liberty and my stuff. You continue to whine about it being wrong that I am free and successful. You tear me down to build up yourself. That never works…Pal. Build your future on your talent, hard work, and effort…not by taking from me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 23, 2017 5:56 PM
Comment #417559
The point, as a decent reading of the Federalist Papers and other literature of the kind, is to link legislative power back to the local populace and what it wants and needs.

I agree with that statement, Stephen Daugherty. I’ve been saying that for years.

I’ve also stated that campaign financing should be limited to the district the Citizen is allowed to vote in. There wouldn’t be 30 million dollar elections if contributions were limited to the voters of that district.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 23, 2017 9:29 PM
Comment #417574

Trump tells lies at a prodigious rate. Someone actually bothered to record them. This link might be a useful resource for citing the lies Trump has told about Obamacare.

Trump told a public lie every day for the first 40 days of his presidency. These were not half-truths or spins or merely dubious statements. These are whoppers- flat out, verifiable, demonstrable lies.

Meanwhile, the Senate GOP has put an absolutely horrendous bill out there. It is ostensibly to repeal and replace Obamacare, but reality, health care takes a back seat to giving corporations and the richest of the rich a huge tax cut. Easily the ugliest bill I have seen in my lifetime. The GOP is not even bothering to pretend. They could at least have the decency to say they are cutting health care and applying the savings to the national debt, but no. This is so incredibly ugly. They are literally taking away hundreds of billions of dollars in health care, and they are taking it away from the poor, the handicapped, and people in nursing homes, and giving it to corporations and rich people.

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2017 4:33 PM
Comment #417577

Why didn’t you care when Obama and Hillbilly and any number of Democratics were lying to us, phx8?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 24, 2017 6:06 PM
Comment #417582

phx8, You could have linked a more reputable source then the N. Y. Times. The lying Times talking about someone who lied, LOLOLOL.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 24, 2017 6:58 PM
Comment #417583

You take it as an article of faith that Obama Hillary were liars. That is wrong. WW, you went so far as to post a list of 50 Obama lies. It was pretty funny. One was ‘Obama said he is not a socialist- but he is!’ Yeah. That happened. There have been times when Obama and HRC were wrong. When they made mistakes, they corrected them. In the 2016, fact checkers ranked HRC the 2nd most honest candidate in a field of 18. Trump came in at the bottom. By a lot.

The thing is, Trump lies almost constantly, he repeats lies even after being debunked, and he does not apologize. Remember, Trump started his political campaign in 2012 pushing a lie about Obama not being American. He repeated the lie 37 times in tweets, and many more in personal interviews and on the campaign trail.

But let’s look at at a topic that will come up this week: health care. What did Trump say about it?

2/24/27 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.
Fact: (Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

4/5/17 “You have many states coming up where they’re going to have no insurance company. O.K.? It’s already happened in Tennessee. It’s happening in Kentucky. Tennessee only has half coverage. Half the state is gone. They left.”
Fact: (Every marketplace region in Tennessee had at least one insurer.)

Here is what Trump pledged during the campaign: “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”


“everybody’s got to be covered.”


“​I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. ​The government’s gonna pay for it.”

Here is what he just tweeted:
“I am very supportive of the Senate #HealthcareBill. Look forward to making it really special!”

That “really special” bill will cause tens of millions to lose coverage and take hundreds of billions out of Medicaid, and then, quite simply, give it to corporations and the richest of the rich.

This is not trivial stuff.

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #417584

Obama Care was a lie phx8 and you know it was. Obama told 2 lies about it before it even passed actually 3, 1. You can keep your plan. 2. You can keep your doctor, and 3. It will be affordable.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 24, 2017 7:34 PM
Comment #417585

The Republican Bill hasn’t been voted on yet phx8. It still has to go through the house. So it still has a long way to go yet and changes are inevitable. So you can unwad your panties phx8.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 24, 2017 7:39 PM
Comment #417586

We would like phx8, and his Pals on the Left, to verify that they believe Obamacare is good for America; that it helps everyone, not just the poor.

Tell us that Obamacare is good for working Americans with no government subsidy. Tell us that no American lost his choice of doctor or care provider because of Obamacare. Tell us that no working American, with no government subsidy is paying substantially more for their health care.

Finally, tell us that you do not want Republicans to make any changes to Obamacare.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2017 7:40 PM
Comment #417587

“…take hundreds of billions out of Medicaid, and then, quite simply, give it to corporations and the richest of the rich.”

I have not read the bill phx8. Please point me to the link verifying this comment.

I can provide you the link showing $800 billion being taken from Medicare as seed money for Obamacare. Did you like that theft?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 24, 2017 7:53 PM
Comment #417594


“It would also repeal most of the tax increases imposed by the Affordable Care Act to help pay for expanded coverage, in effect handing a broad tax cut to the affluent in a measure that would also slice billions of dollars from Medicaid, a program that serves one in five Americans, not only the poor but also almost two-thirds of people in nursing homes. A capital-gains tax cut for the most affluent Americans would be retroactive to the beginning of this year.”

If you do not like the NYT, or you do not want to wade through the actual bill, there are a LOT of articles on this, including NPR, NBC, and more. In a nutshell, the Senate bill would limit the amount of Medicaid it would cover down the road, thereby shifting the cost to the states. This is a large amount of money, and unlike the federal government, most states have stipulations to balance their budgets- they can not run deficits. They will have no choice but to cut coverage.

And if I do say so myself, that is a pretty darn good summary of how killing Medicaid coverage will work.

In terms of the big picture, the GOP & Trump need a political victory fast. That is not a very good reason to pass this bill. They are addressing health care first because that is the biggest pot of money they can grab in order to pass huge tax cuts. If they just pass tax cuts, or spent a trillion on infrastructure, it would blow the budget deficit to smithereens.

Personally, I prefer single payer, universal health care. Lacking that, Obamacare is better than nothing. Personally, I think Obamacare allows the private health care corporation premiums and deductibles to go too high. Nevertheless, the situation will be far worse without Obamacare. Unless both healthy and unhealthy people are included in the insurance pool, the premiums and deductibles will be unmanageable.

Passing the BHCA or AHCA or whatever will be so bad, it will actually bring us closer to single payer, universal health care. Unfortunately, I can not be happy about that because so many people will suffer in the interim.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2017 1:22 PM
Comment #417601

“Obamacare is better than nothing.”

For some Americans that is true phx8. For many other Americans, who are paying the bills for others, it is not true.

The trade-off with any government subsidy is trying to balance between who pays and who benefits.

Some believe that every person, regardless of ability to pay, should receive the same health benefits. This group is convinced that the best health care available to anyone; should be available to everyone.

I don’t subscribe to this theory. I have not found a constitutional basis in calling for government to provide health care as a right.

Poverty is not a “right” and a remedy for it is not a “right” either.

We compassionately care for those unable to care for themselves. We should have little compassion for those able to care for themselves, but choose not to.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 25, 2017 3:19 PM
Comment #417603

Not long ago, and in another column, our Pal phx8 was making a financial link between candidate Trump and the Russian oligarchs. It seems he was a wee bit premature in pulling his “gotcha-trigger”.

CNN deletes, retracts story linking Trump and Russia

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 25, 2017 4:21 PM
Comment #417604

The financial links between Trump and the Russian oligarchs are part of the criminal investigation into Russian influence on the election, and collusion between the Trump campaign and them. I have never heard of the CNN story that was published and retracted, nor have I heard of any of the people mentioned in the article.

Here are the people to watch: From the Trump campaign; Trump, Manafort, Page, Flynn, Sater, Kushner, Cohen, Epshteyn, Ross, Prince.

Among the Russians; well, there are too many to list. This article names some:

As I have said before, it will ultimately be the money laundering that brings him down. Trump does a lot through shell corporations in an effort to conceal participants in transactions. Fortunately, our government is VERY good at penetrating those shells and tracing dirty money. Trump is right to be so concerned about Mueller.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2017 4:42 PM
Comment #417605

Many thanks for the link phx8. I found the following quote interesting…

“Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection to any of the individuals mentioned in this article.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 25, 2017 5:16 PM
Comment #417606

True, Trump is still a free man. What are the odds he dies in prison? Can a president pardon himself?

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2017 5:52 PM
Comment #417607

Don’t be so silly phx8. The key words in the quote from your link is “not been accused”.

Does that really disappoint you? If so, why?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 25, 2017 6:32 PM
Comment #417608

There is an opportunity here phx8 for you to help me understand the mindset of the Left.

As a noble, patriotic and fair American phx8, please tell us how it enhances you personally, and as an American; if President Trump, not accused of any wrongdoing, is speculated by you to die in prison?

Does such speculation, not warranted by facts or reasonable assumption; somehow enhance your persona? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Will it lead others to adopt your view?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 25, 2017 6:45 PM
Comment #417611

Royal Flush-
Population centers, communities, etc. That’s what you use to determine the lines. When the Framers came up with districts, they were looking to represent people, not parties. It’s a mark of how reliant your party is on gerrymandering that you consider it an essential element of your districting approach.

The AHCA is one bit of evidence for non-majoritarian legislation. The damn thing struggles to keep above twenty percent, at best. Paris Climate accords, the Russia controversy. Answering to party more than people is that gets you there.

How do we elect house members if not by majority vote. Only the presidency uses an electoral college.

You pack in unfriendly votes into a few majority democrat districts, then redistribute your friendly votes to the other district. The majority in part does not have to resemble the majority as a whole, so you end up in a situation where evenly split states get lopsidedly Republican representation. What makes it worse is that in states like mine and North Carolina, we end up seeing documentary evidence that they deliberately disfavored minorities that didn’t vote for them.

I’m not fighting to take your liberty. You seem intent on ruling me and mine regardless of whether you have the popular mandate to do so. So you’re taking mine. You charged down an alley for decades, and now you find it’s a dead end. So you’re pulling all kinds of crap, depriving people of their rights so you can force your kind of government on everybody else. You might think that you’re so very justified to do so, but it doesn’t change the nature of what you’re doing.

And by the way: it wasn’t talent, hard work, or effort that put Trump over the top, and that’s why until very recently, he couldn’t even admit Russia messed with our system. He followed a man who genuinely was well qualified, had some experience in actual governing, who had class and intelligence. You increasingly let the fortunes that men already have dictate what fortunes will follow. You don’t reward hard work, you reward being rich.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2017 8:12 PM
Comment #417614
I’m not fighting to take your liberty.

Stephen has an odd definition of ‘liberty’ I fear… The whole basis for progressivism is the taking of liberty FFS.

A great example:

See how ‘pro choice’ Democrats are? Meaning, they aren’t. They are as authoritarian as the Republicans are, just in different areas. Hell, it was Obama who (illegal) took over the DNS entries of foreign businesses to keep them from providing services to US citizens (Pokerstars, PartyPoker, etc). Progressives decided that US Citizens shouldn’t be allowed to play poker online, obviously they know better than we do on how to spend our money and time, eh?

How about private property rights? Progressives have no such word in their vocabulary…

The worst part, Stephen can’t even see the hypocrisy in his own stances and then says things that makes any freedom loving person shake his head in disbelief.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 26, 2017 12:33 AM
Comment #417618

When the original progressive movement started, the “liberties” that were being taken included making children work rather than attend school, forcing people to work more than eight hours a day for miserable play, life-threatening working conditions, etc. At the heart of the progressive movement is the notion that our Republic should make life better for the vast majority of its citizens, not just an entitled few.

There’s a sort of naturalistic fallacy going on with your notion of freedom. If somebody hadn’t forbidden Congress from writing laws to establish religions, restricting the free practice of it, clamping down on free expression, free press, etc., we wouldn’t have the rights we do there.

There is what we idealize, what we think out to varying degrees, and then there’s the real world, and how it unfolds. What the Framers figured out is that governments without firmly defined powers and the ability to maintain their power are as much a hazard to liberty as ones with powers too strong, too rigidly defined.

There’s another dimension to this you’re not appreciating. Not just weak vs. strong government, but conditional power versus unconditional. A warrant and/or probable cause is required to search, arrest, and otherwise act, but once the conditions are satisfied, the police and other investigators can robustly employ their authority.

This is what I like to discuss. When people just pile on with the kind of rhetoric you’re using, I just end up disgusted, disappointed, and insulted. Who are YOU to tell ME what I BELIEVE? I speak to what I believe ALL THE TIME. Yet I get greeted by this bond villain BS about how I’m such a freedom hating a*****e, who just wants the worst possible outcomes for my country. What bull****!

I agree that the gambling stuff is pretty lame, but then it’s not high on my priorities of injustices to correct.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2017 10:41 AM
Comment #417622

The Senate version of health care reform, the BHCA, is similar to the House version, and its CBO scoring came out this afternoon: 15 million will lose coverage next year alone. How bad is it? To put this one way, 875,000 Americans will lose coverage so that the 411 wealthiest families will receive a tax cut. To put it another way, in 10 years 209,000 Americans will lose their lives due to lack of health coverage.

Would this become the worst law ever passed? It is really bad, but there are some that are even worse. I spent a little time researching, and here are some:

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
The Indian Removal Act of 1830
The Volstead Act (Prohibition)
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (Viet Nam)
The Iraq Authorization to Use Military Force
The Fugitive Slave Act (1850)

Killing over 200,000 Americans in order to give corporations and richest of the rich tax cuts will put the BHCA in the running.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2017 6:04 PM
Comment #417623

phx8, How many will be without health coverage when Obamacare crashes? How many will drop coverage because the mandate is not there? How many people just want coverage that they need not what the Government says they need? Even you will lose coverage when Obamacare crashes and burns, what6 then phx8?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 26, 2017 6:22 PM
Comment #417624

Obamacare will NOT crash. It can be improved, but left to itself, it will NOT crash. It can be killed, though, and that is what Trump has been doing. He has repeatedly threatened to withhold CSR’s, the funding the federal government pays to insurance companies for the subsidies. Several big providers have already dropped out because of that threat, and while I am no fan of health care corporations, I do not blame them for dropping out. Faced with the real possibility that the Trump administration will stiff me on promised funds, I’d drop out too.

The problem with the BHCA/AHCA is that it is not really health care reform. They are looking for a way to give one of the biggest pots of money in the federal budget, health care for the middle class & poor, to corporations and the richest of the rich. This is pretty simple. There is no mystery.

And that is what makes it so incredibly ugly. If the GOP said, ‘hey, we have to reduce the deficit and debt, so we are going to pay it down, and too bad for everybody not getting health care coverage,’ I would think that was a really terrible idea, but at least some good would come of it. That is not what is going on here. The BHCA/AHCA will take money from the poor & middle class for health care coverage, and then give it to corporations and the richest of the rich as tax cuts. In terms of statistics, that means 1/830 Americans will die because of the change. That translates into 209,000 for the BHCA over 10 years.

That is not the end of it, either. Next will come the ‘tax reform’ bill that will give even more tax cuts to corporations and the richest of the rich. The BHCA/AHCA is necessary to make the next tax cuts possible. Once the GOP can rip $800 billion away from the poor and the middle class, they can go hog wild giving it to corporations and the richest of the rich.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2017 7:01 PM
Comment #417625

Keep dreaming phx8, Obamacare is going to crash and burn because that is the way it was designed so that Hillary, who everyone thought was going to be president could go into a single payer but due to circumstances beyond her control she didn’t get the chance, THANK GOD! Also phx8 if and when the Senate passes their bill it still has to go down to the house and then back to the Senate after the house make it’s revisions so it still has a long way to go.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 26, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #417626

phx8 likes to throw around figures showing the cost of doing without Obamacare. Perhaps our Pal would like to share the cost to folks who don’t quality for Obamacare and CSR’s?

I can easily provide facts showing how many millions of middle-class working Americans are doing without going to the doctor or hospital as they can’t afford the deductible.

Millions of working Americans have had to choose between paying higher premiums and buying medicine or some other needed item.

Those huge crocodile tears the Left is shedding for the poor are never shed for those who work and pay full price for their health care.

phx8 and others like him should be ashamed of themselves. They get some benefit from the government so they tell those who work and pay premiums to kiss their rosy azz.

I will tell my Pals again…those who work and pay taxes deserve more from government than those who don’t work and don’t pay taxes. If you don’t like it, tough shit.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 26, 2017 7:29 PM
Comment #417627

How many people think the health care industry would evaporate if government dropped all association with it?

Seriously, if the government washed it’s hands of it, excluding criminal behavior, would health care in the U.S. collapse?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 26, 2017 9:11 PM
Comment #417628

“… those who work and pay taxes deserve more from government than those who don’t work and don’t pay taxes.”

What would happen to the handicapped? The mentally ill? The elderly? Children?

I’m totally fine with replacing Obamacare. But I think it is reasonable to expect an improvement. The current replacement would result in higher premiums AND 15 million losing coverage in 2018 alone. That is not an improvement.

If there was no government involvement in health care, the country would collapse with the first epidemic.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2017 9:55 PM
Comment #417629

Are you saying only the federal government can protect us from an epidemic?

I thought the best way to fight an epidemic was to get to the source as quickly as possible. Who is better qualified, the first response teams at the local level, or the federal government? Are people at the local level not qualified to respond to an epidemic?

Is that what you’re saying?

If there was no government involvement in health care, the country would collapse with the first epidemic.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 27, 2017 1:31 AM
Comment #417641

Rich Kapitan-
Trouble is, Trumpcare, in any form, isn’t actually designed to keep people on insurance. In fact, in a move that demonstrates a stunning lack of insight into markets, it penalizes people FOR getting insurance, if they’d been off it, where the mandate in the ACA stops the penalty when people get back on. Premiums might go down for some, but deductibles will go up for many, and many practices that voided the promise of healthcare coverage will arise once again. Every major healthcare organization is against it, and with good reason.

Fifteen million people will lose their coverage by next year, and millions who could afford insurance, now will be unable to, potentially causing the very crash you fear Obamacare would.

You can’t win here, because you never really played the right game. The game you played was “Let’s stick it to this hated man,” and the right got so hung up in winning political victories, winning elections off of this hate that they didn’t ask one critical question: What kind of objective result would be tied to the GOP and the Conservative movement at the end.

As for what would happen without the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Federal government puts into it? It would cause a great many rural hospitals to close for one thing, but for another, if the Federal Governments involvement were to completely go away, not only would that be a huge revenue stream destroyed for them (Medicare and Medicaid together, among others) but it would also be the government’s presence in the market, bargaining for lower prices. Healthcare for the elderly would become prohibitively expensive, and the emergency rooms that would remain would become triage clinics.

As for Epidemics? They have a bad habit of not respecting state lines. I know you have this political fantasy based on your perpetual need to break down all power down to the local level, but the truth of the matter is, people no longer stay in one place the way they used to. There are these modern inventions called planes, trains, and automobiles which allow people with infections to move at rapid pace across the country. Your people simply wouldn’t know what was coming until they were too late, and then they’d have nobody to report it to in order to warn others.

I mean, really, all these arguments of yours are about this fantasy of reaching utopia by removing a government you’ve been indoctrinated to see as an evil.

What you don’t see is that our government evolved to meet the needs of the public. We got the CDC and other such organizations precisely because of the way infectious disease defies easy local containment by cities and states.

While there are certainly qualified people at the state and local level, they need the help from others to do their job better, not to get blindsided by something that might be coming down the road.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2017 7:04 AM
Comment #417642

Royal Flush-
Quit your crocodile tears, period. Democrats would be more than willing to rewrite the law to better cover those who pay too much now. The way you’re rewriting the law, not only do they end up paying higher deductibles, they may not be able to afford insurance at all. In the meantime, those working class people you pretend to cry for would end up having to support, perhaps to the detriment of their job, the people who aren’t able to work, the elderly, disabled, and young.

You guys love to demonstrate how tough you are by making OTHERS suffer, rather than taking on and enduring burdens yourself. I can remember my father suffering in silence first because he had no healthcare, for most of the time he worked his last job, and then finally, because the insurance offered was too full of loopholes. We could do something about that, and maybe if some sort of reform had already been in place when it mattered, he could have managed things. But twelve years on, we struggle.

For you this is an opportunity to stick it to Democrats. For me, this is about a hard set of facts that your Rich, coddled libertarian dilettantes with superPACs can’t seem to absorb, because they don’t have to suffer what the rest of us do. They go to the hospital, they can afford to pay off their debts if they’re not covered. The rest of us aren’t so lucky.

You advocate for rules that benefit people who can blithely go around saying that everybody should toughen up and have to survive what they do because they endure what they endure with all the padding an protection a big fortune allows us, where the rest of feel the impacts directly, often lacking the economic strength to deal with the obligations. You advocate for a system that only would make sense if everybody was as rich and fortunate as the people bribing the politicians to make it so.

The problem for you and yours politically is that these clueless political crusades of yours end up creating conditions that are hostile to people’s good fortunes. 15 million people, and those who are older and poorer paying the most. I know that voters on the right can sometimes end up compromising their own interests, and that they can rationalize that, but when the cause (the Senate bill as it is now) and the effect (millions losing coverage with in the space of a single year) are so profoundly obvious and connected, I can imagine there will be a great many who reconsider who they vote for, if anybody, in 2018, and perhaps even for good. It’s sad, but there’s nothing like personal pain and suffering to put people off supporting a particular party.

Your party is just about to blow up it’s base, and decimate its broad appeal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2017 7:25 AM
Comment #417648

Ah, tons of leftist hyperbole and hypocrisy with this one.

Allowing people to keep more of their own money, is somehow giving them money they have not earned.
Suggesting that a bill might lead to rationing is bad, but falsely stating that hundreds of thousands will die as a result of a bill, as if it were fact, is fine.
Taking care of yourself so that you are not a burden on society is “making OTHERS suffer.”
Spending your time and money online complaining about how others spend their time and money is “taking on and enduring burdens yourself.”
Disagreeing with leftist policy isn’t about supporting limited government, it’s all about sticking it to Democrats.
People who support their individual rights over money, are “compromising their own interests.”

“I can imagine there will be a great many who reconsider who they vote for, if anybody, in 2018, and perhaps even for good.”

Gee Stephen, you’ve been imagining and predicting this for what, 10-15 years now? Post after post after post about how the Republicans better become just like the democrats if they wish to stay relevant.
Do you really think that it’s finally the year for this to happen?

Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2017 8:42 AM
Comment #417649

Stephen, Government is needed but in a limited capacity. Not like we have today where government like you want will wipe your a** after you take a crap. As far as health care Obama care is going to implode. So if left to implode how many people will be left without care? Stephen it’s people like you who ruined the Democratic party.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 27, 2017 10:15 AM
Comment #417654

There is nothing false about pointing out over 200,000 people will die over the next ten years as a result of the BHCA. It is a simple matter of statistics and actuarial tables. That is how insurance of all kinds is calculated. If people do not have coverage, 1/830 people will die due to lack of preventative care, among other things.

Stop repeating the same lie about Obamacare. It will NOT implode. By 2026 premiums are projected to increase 5.5% a year.

What will kill Obamacare is if Trump decides to withhold federal money promised to insurance companies, the CSR’s. Trump has made the threat to withhold the money more than once. If he goes through with it, 7 million people would immediately lose their insurance.

“Are you saying only the federal government can protect us from an epidemic?”


First responders react to the immediate situation. In the case of an epidemic or an unusually dangerous disease, they may not recognize what they face. They may not have the proper treatment available. They will not have the resources to deal with a large scale epidemic. They will not have the ability to develop and distribute a vaccine.

We are fortunate that we have not had to face a pandemic. The Spanish Flu of 1918-1920 killed 50 to 100 million of the world’s population- that is, 3-5% at the time. It killed millions here too, and dropped life expectancy in the US by 12 years. The Spanish Flu primarily killed young, healthy people because the disease caused an overreaction of the immune system; the stronger the immune system, the more danger the Flu posed, which is why so many strong, healthy young people died. Incidentally, the Spanish Flu originated in a stockyard in Kansas.

There is a good reason to support worldwide health care organizations, and a nationwide system in the US through the federal government. We do not usually think about the importance of the Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Health, or other such organizations, but they are critical.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2017 12:36 PM
Comment #417655

We have faced potential pandemics in recent years, but they have been contained. Avian Flu, HIV, SARs, and Ebola all had the potential to be much worse, thanks to the federal government and worldwide coordination. Right now Zika is a big problem, and yet another example of why universal health care would be a good idea for ALL of us.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2017 12:48 PM
Comment #417656

Correction- it sort of made sense, but should read “… but thanks to the federal government and worldwide coordination, those outbreaks were kept from being much worse.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2017 12:50 PM
Comment #417657

phx8, Get out of your dream world, Obama care will implode. 200,000 will die in 10 years is a good prediction because death is inevitable but it will not be because of the lack of health care. You keep saying people will lose their insurance, but how many of those numbers that are thrown around because of the mandate being cancelled will outright drop their ins. because they are young and healthy? How many will lose their ins. because of companies dropping coverage because of Obama care? Get out of the Grocery store tabloids phx8 Obama care is going to implode.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 27, 2017 1:25 PM
Comment #417659

“The ways in which federal agencies, states, insurers, employers, individuals, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by the legislation are all difficult to predict, so the estimates in this report are uncertain.”

“CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes.”

And yet, you guys are dishonestly “pointing out over 200,000 people will die over the next ten years” as if it were fact.

Add in that they also estimate for most of that increase to be due to people CHOOSING not to have insurance, and the reasons for the lefts dishonest claims and unjustified fear mongering become quite clear.

Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2017 1:50 PM
Comment #417660


“Conway said that Republicans are not cutting the Medicaid program. The Republican health care proposals would slow the rate at which Medicaid spending increases, but spending would still increase.

However, the proposals include policy changes that will leave fewer people eligible for Medicaid. That’s a cut.

Conway’s claim has an element of truth but leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.”

It is true, without the mandate, some people will choose not to buy insurance. There is actually another form of mandate in the BHCA which prevents people from buying insurance for six months if they let their coverage lapse. Let’s ignore that for the moment. The problem with people choosing not to purchase insurance remains the same: when they need treatment, they go to the emergency room. That is the most expensive care of all. Half of the people treated in emergency do not pay their bills, yet hospitals treat everyone anyway- in essence, because we all recognize health care is a right. The cost of people treated in emergency rooms who do not pay is passed on to everyone else. (By the way, emergency room care leaves the entire issue of preventative medicine unaddressed).

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2017 1:58 PM
Comment #417666

Phx8, That is a chance some people take because they are young and healthy. I know I did it but I never used the ER., even when I had ins. I hardly went to a Dr. That I when I was young and healthy now it is a different story. People need health insurance, that is a fact. Mandating that they get a government approved plan in which a lot of what they get they don’t need is not the answer. Let people buy what they need, Why should they pay for things they don’t need?

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at June 27, 2017 2:26 PM
Comment #417667

phx8 asks; “What would happen to the handicapped? The mentally ill? The elderly? Children?”

Simple, the same thing that will happen to them when enough working class people go broke paying for others and they also go on the government dole.

I don’t respond to Stephen any more as all he does is whine about himself and his lack of success which he claims is caused by me and others. The rich made him poor. The educated made him learning disabled. The skilled made him lack skills. We are all responsible for what happened to his father.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2017 3:56 PM
Comment #417668

“There is nothing false about pointing out over 200,000 people will die over the next ten years as a result of the BHCA. It is a simple matter of statistics and actuarial tables.”

Pure, unadulterated, cow manure. I might remind my Pal that with no anti-global warming participation by the US; some say we will all perish in ten years.

If AlGore had been correct in his predictions; we would all already be dead.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2017 4:05 PM
Comment #417669

I’m not saying there isn’t a need to coordinate and educate. Rapid Response teams are available from top to bottom. I’d like to know what abortion and birth control have to do with federal response to epidemics. What effects do paperwork that is mandated onto each and every facet of the healthcare industry have on the federal government’s ability to respond to epidemics? I think if anything, it retards the federal government’s ability to respond in a timely manner.

My comments were directed, not to advocate for a return to a simpler, naive time, but to find the most basic common denominator and look at the entire picture from a different perspective. That most basic common denominator is the individual person. Everyone who needs healthcare is a human being, and every human being needs healthcare.

It looks to me that the government is trying to write a law that is geared around groups. I never understood the segregation of people’s healthcare by workplace, and a person who owns their workplace is treated differently than one who doesn’t. I can’t wrap my head around that concept.
What happened to that concept that caused it to deteriorate to the point the federal government feels the need to “overhaul” the health care industry? I believe that malfunction occurred when the fed tailored their laws to groups instead of individuals. Government intervention missed the point when it started to separate and categorize the people who use healthcare.

The solution to the federal governmet’s influence on the health care system is in the ammendment process.

A healthy society, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to access a robust healthcare system shall not be infringed.

Can everyone agree we can start from there and make more progress than we are now?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 27, 2017 4:14 PM
Comment #417670

What happens when 13 white guys, including three named John and two named Mike, go behind closed doors and then produce a bill they demand everyone vote for right away? A bill that includes defunding Planned Parenthood, along with creaming rural areas by slashing Medicaid? Well, it turns out there are a couple loud women with opinions, and they are refusing to be compliant little ladies.

Senator Lisa Murkowski was angry about this bill. She was spitting nails. She was demanding the GOP work with the Democrats to produce something decent. Senator Collins already said ‘no,’ and Senator Capito seemed unlikely to get on board. The other Republican female Senator, Jodi Ernst, remained uncommitted. As for the 48 GOP male Senators, they will have to regroup and try again when no one is looking.

At precisely 2:50 EST the Republican Senators were behind closed doors, meeting with billionaire Steve Wynn. I doubt the Senators were happy about being called on the carpet to explain why to the billionaire why he wasn’t getting his tax break.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2017 4:21 PM
Comment #417671

“I’d like to know what abortion and birth control have to do with federal response to epidemics.”

The Zika virus has horrible effects on pregnant women.

“I never understood the segregation of people’s healthcare by workplace, and a person who owns their workplace is treated differently than one who doesn’t.”

I agree. Why should a business have anything to do with health care? Everyone needs it, regardless of whether they are working, unemployed, a child, elderly, whatever. That is why universal health care makes sense. It expands the pool of participants to the maximum extent possible, and on average, that lowers the cost for everyone. I see no reason why health care should involve a deductible at all. That is another one of those things that makes no sense.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2017 4:30 PM
Comment #417672

The workplace situation boils down to this. Deep pockets. The government has limited the number of businesses to 50 employees or more. Smaller businesses are treated differently. Why? Because they don’t have the money.

What happens when you make a large pool of money available for something? It’s gets spent, right? Regardless on what they spend it on it’s still spent. Right now the heathcare industry is building structures, purchasing hospitals and equiptment, and hiring people like drunken sailors. Would they do this if they didn’t have the money? Absolutely not.

It may very well be the availability of easy money(high prices) is fueling this “crisis”. Where is most of the money coming from? Do I really have to name all the government programs that supply money to the health care industry?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 27, 2017 4:43 PM
Comment #417673

Universal health care with no deductibles would mean that over one-half of Americans would have no “skin” at all in the cost of their care. With no cost them them; many will argue for ever greater benefits.

I understand the Liberal desire to get the United States into full socialism as quickly as possible. The sooner we collapse as a capitalist nation with Constitutional underpinnings, the sooner we can be part of the Global community where all but a few are in the same miserable boat floating on a sea of poverty.

Finally, we proud Americans will be brought down from our high horse and get what we deserve…misery.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2017 4:45 PM
Comment #417674

CBO Gets ObamaCare Reform Estimates Wrong — Again

“In 2013 CBO predicted that 24 million people would be on the exchanges in 2017, but only 9.5 million are now enrolled.

If 15 million people were to immediately drop coverage next year due to lack of penalties, then they are only buying insurance today to avoid the penalty. The insurance itself has little value to them.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2017 5:11 PM
Comment #417675

Our government has been interfering in the health care industry for over 50 years. Why are we having a “crisis” in healthcare? Could it be what we’re doing isn’t working? Why tinker another 50 years with a system that doesn’t work?

It’s time to think outside the box.

It’s too bad our government gave the banks that 780 billion dollar bailout. That’s 2 million for each and every citizen. Do you think we would have a healthcare crisis if the government mandated 3/4 of that money go to a health savings accounts for every citizen, and allowed the rest to be spent paying off debt and starting businesses?

To be honest, I think the average Joe got screwed in that deal. If they could do that to us, what else are they capable of doing.

Did anyone notice, also, that that steel structured building in England that was a torch for half a day is still standing? Why didn’t that building come down in it’s footprint?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 27, 2017 5:18 PM
Comment #417676

Let Consumers Repeal Obamacare

“The reason health insurance is so expensive is because there so many legally mandated benefits that must be covered. Over the decades the chiropractor and podiatrist lobbies and so on have descended on state capitals around the country and successfully demanded that their services be required coverage for all insurance policies sold in that state. There are now thousands of such mandates across the country. Obamacare only added to this mandate mess.

What consumers need is the ability to shop for policies they can afford.”

Wow…what a great idea.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2017 5:22 PM
Comment #417685
Did anyone notice, also, that that steel structured building in England that was a torch for half a day is still standing? Why didn’t that building come down in it’s footprint?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 27, 2017 5:18 PM

Pretend Nothing Is Wrong.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 28, 2017 11:08 AM
Comment #417687

Question: How bad is Trump?
Answer: Really bad.

Trump approval rating (RCP Average): 39%
Significant legislation to date: None
Senate Health Care Repeal and Replace approval rating: 17%

Worldwide confidence in Obama at end of term: 64%
In Trump: 22%

Number of countries polled that saw declines: 35
Number of countries that saw increases: 2 Russia and Israel

Steepest declines: Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, France, Spain, Canada, UK, Australia, Japan…

Note these countries have traditionally been our best allies.

Global Views of Trump’s top three characteristics: Arrogant, Intolerant, Dangerous

The article is long but very informative. It is NOT good news for the United States.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2017 3:34 PM
Comment #417688

Thanks phx8 for all the research to confirm what you wanted to read. There is plenty of great stuff that President Trump has already accomplished. I won’t bother listing some of them again.

My opinion of the president remains the same as it was on election day. I don’t care if the rest of the world is pissed-off because the president isn’t a globalist willing to take the US into ever deeper debt to fund their desires. Trump is America first and that is exactly where I want my president to be.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2017 3:53 PM
Comment #417689

Two more polls on the BHCA, with approval ratings of 16% and 12%.

“There is plenty of great stuff that President Trump has already accomplished.”

Uh huh.

The lack of confidence in Trump among our allies matters. It matters for trade and it matters for the military. It also matters in terms of advancing our ideals- human rights and the rule of law. Lack of credibility also matters.

“Trump is America first and that is exactly where I want my president to be.”

You don’t have much company.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2017 4:05 PM
Comment #417690

Love this story phx8. Didn’t you use this fake news to disparage President Trump?

Citing sources, the Post’s Emily Smith says CNN “immediately caved” after Anthony Scaramucci threatened a $100 million suit after the network falsely linked him to an investment fund owned by the Russian government. CNN later retracted the story.

Do you have any negative facts regarding our allies concerning trade and our military phx8?

Please don’t give us the Left BS about our allies following our lead on human rights and rule of law.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2017 4:22 PM
Comment #417691

“Didn’t you use this fake news to disparage President Trump?”

No. I did not. I never saw it until you brought it up. Apparently the story was taken down by CNN almost immediately, and the people who reported it lost their jobs.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #417692

And I marvel at the irony of you and Trump using the term ‘fake news.’ It refers to Russian propaganda.

Will you keep using terms like that while you follow Trump’s assault on the MSM, the free press, “the enemy of the American people”?

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2017 4:29 PM
Comment #417693

No irony phx8. “Fake News” is just that…it is not limited to one subject.

You wrote; “Trump’s assault on the MSM”

I don’t understand why your fingers didn’t freeze up writing that BS. Trump is defending himself in a way that is novel for past presidents. The MSM played no role in helping him achieve the office of president and he is not beholden to them or anyone or anything else.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2017 4:36 PM
Comment #417694

“The MSM played no role in helping him achieve the office of president…”


The MSM gave HRC slightly more positive coverage than Trump, but gave Trump more attention overall.

“Overall, Trump received more press attention than Clinton, with Trump receiving an average of 15 percent more coverage than Clinton did… Trump’s dominant presence in the news stemmed from the fact that his words and actions were ideally suited to journalists’ story needs. The news is not about what’s ordinary or expected. It’s about what’s new and different, better yet when laced with conflict and outrage. Trump delivered that type of material by the cart load.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2017 5:28 PM
Comment #417695

Major newspaper candidate endorsements in 2016

Clinton 57

Trump 2

Johnson 4

Even Johnson got twice as many endorsements than Trump.

Does phx8 really believe Donald Trump is beholden to MSM?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2017 5:46 PM
Comment #417724
Even Johnson got twice as many endorsements than Trump.

You sound as if you don’t believe Johnson deserved twice as many endorsements as Trump Royal. This foolish argument doesn’t prove squat about the media because you nay say the probability that Trump earned the endorsements he deserved instead of what you would like to see.

Many conservatives forget the 1st amendment to the constitution and the right to a free press. Caught up in their own ego they choose to vilify the media if the media doesn’t agree with their preconceived notions.

We have problems with the press in this country but Trump misses the point when he foolishly attacks the MSM instead of accepting responsibility for his talk and his actions.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 30, 2017 8:16 PM
Comment #417726

When does the media get to accept responsibility for their actions, j2t2?

Today we find out 17 Intel Agencies is actually 4. Meetings reported didn’t even happen. The collusion is a “nothingburger”. We’re all Dumb as shit, so keep the lie going for better ratings.

Your precious media is falling apart around your very ears, j2t2. I haven’t believed them in years. You really should reconsider what you consider your facts. Let phx8 know also that most of his comments are turning out to be based in lies.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 30, 2017 11:30 PM
Comment #417746
When does the media get to accept responsibility for their actions, j2t2?

The media gets called out frequently Weary, they often correct and/or withdraw their “news” when it is factually incorrect. The problem Trump and his ilk bring up are strawman arguments for the most part Weary. They would have us believe stuff like “the MSM is biased because Clinton got more endorsements than Trump” which is silly on it’s face. But they don’t stop with this nonsense they tell us the MSM is biased because they report factual information!

The real problem IMHO isn’t the reporting of factual information it is the sensationalism that the corporate news media uses to sell ads. The partial stories, the misleading headlines and other marketing tactics used to bring the reader/viewer to the paper/site/outlet. If we use the term MSM as you guys do it would include certain outlets that you would consider biased towards the left in their coverage. If the particular outlet,competing in the free market, sells it’s goods to left leaning people then I’m sure the stories they cover tend to make the left l4eaning feel better about themselves and therefore buy the products and services the outlet is selling and advertising. But that doesn’t correlate to the exaggerated claims of alternate facts/outright lies/ fake news/biased reporting of news as the Trumpsters claim.

ON the other hand the same can be said of the more conservative MSM outlets read and viewed by right leaning Americans.

Then of course we have the many “anti-establishment” media outlets like Info Wars, Breitbart and some left leaning sites that rely upon fake news/alternative facts/slanted reporting/biased opinions/outright lies and other strategies to sell their agenda. Like the lie they are really “anti-establishment”.

So to sum up Weary the MSM consists of both left and right wing outlets, as does the “anti-establishment” outlets. What they have in common is they are all corporate news outlets that use many marketing strategies and tactics to sell to the public what ever the public will buy. If we don’t read/view well researched factual news but instead rely upon sensationalized news and misinformation that is what we get. The real free press suffers the fate of corporations that don’t make profits for it’s shareholders.

Have a good holiday weekend, I gotta go.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 1, 2017 10:42 AM
Comment #417747
Breitbart and some left leaning sites that rely upon fake news

It was Breitbart who held CNN and the AP accountable with their reporting and exposing their “Fake News”, j2t2.

CNN didn’t fire 3 people because Breitbart lied. CNN fired 3 people and retracted their “fake news” after Breitbart held their feet to the fire. The AP has yet to administer any repercussions to their employees who manufactured a totally false story. There are 2 ways that will go. (1) They will continue to promote lies, or (2) they will go the route CNN did and get rid of the reporters who mislead the public.

What do you think they will do, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 1, 2017 11:11 AM
Comment #417750

“You sound as if you don’t believe Johnson deserved twice as many endorsements as Trump Royal.”

You sound as if you didn’t read the post from phx8 that I was responding to. That’s OK. I have proven that President Trump is not beholden to mainstream print media. You j2t2, have proven that you can’t respond to what is written.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2017 3:52 PM
Comment #417753

Trump was beholden to the MSM, especially televised media, and most of all, CNN. They gave every rally air time- unfiltered air time.

He was not, however, beholden to print media. That does not mean the print media was biased. The owners and editors on the opinion page are not the same as the reporters. Journalists report facts as best they can, using sources. Owners and editors on the opinion page are expected to express bias. Journalists seek to provide unbiased reporting.

Trump also owed a lot to social media and the internet, and by extension, to the Russians. They flooded them with stories intended to encourage hatred of Hillary Clinton. Sites like Breitbart and InfoWars pushed Russian propaganda. Supposedly they were unwitting conduits.

If there is one thing that has become even clearer in the past few days, it is that Trump is utterly unfit for office. He is temperamentally unfit. He may be mentally unfit.

He is also grossly incompetent. His nepotism is hurting the country. Kushner is a 36 year old with no experience. He blew up talks in the Mideast by presenting a list of Israeli demands as the US position. That worked out poorly with the Palestinians, as you can imagine. Worse, he and a guy in personnel have been preventing SoS Tillerson from filling dozens of vacancies. Tillerson wants to fill the positions based on merit and competence. Kushner wants to use the positions for patronage. So much for draining the swamp! Tillerson blew up at Kushner, who responded by calling Tillerson “unprofessional.”

It is not just State that is failing. There are still 100 District Attorney positions open. FEMA. NOAA. After the top three at DOJ, the next five positions are open. Could get interesting if Trump fires Rosenstein and the next two.

At the EPA, Pruitt is emptying the place of scientists, and placing industry lobbyists on the science advisory board. Funny. I thought draining the swamp meant kicking out the lobbyists; instead, they are being brought in en masse.

The Trump administration and the GOP Congress are freakin’ disasters. Our standing in the world is already in the toilet. Democrats and Republicans are openly questioning Trump’s fitness for office.

He sure is making it easy for Republicans to impeach him.

Posted by: phx8 at July 1, 2017 4:28 PM
Comment #417755

Thanks for your assessment phx8. You never let “facts” temper or influence your judgement.

I suggest you ask a candidate for office if they feel beholden to newspapers whose editorials endorse them. Surely, no one on WB is naive enough to believe newspaper endorsements don’t come with strings attached.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 1, 2017 6:13 PM
Comment #417760

Isn’t it telling how Trump was elected because people are sick and tired of how government is working and Democratics can only complain how Trump isn’t doing it the same way?

How long do you think it will take for them to realize no one is listening to their whining. BzzBzzBzz

My kingdom for a rolled up newspaper!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 2, 2017 9:27 AM
Comment #417871
Stephen Dauhgerty wrote: Pretend Nothing Is Wrong.

Pretend you didn’t just have to inject millions of dollars into an otherwise safe district to win. Pretend that the world things more of Trump than they do about Obama. Pretend it was Seth Rich and not Russian Intelligence. Pretend somebody saying, with an ongoing investigation, that your not being under investigation means you never will be. Just keep pretending, and maybe it will come true.

As usual, this statement, and the other non-stop, circular gobbledygook and fueling the partisan warfare, is what IS truly hypocritical and pretentious.

By the way, I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary, so I’m not here to defend either of them.

Stephen, IS someone paying you to spew this nonsense?
Or IS this your real attitude about things?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least, possibly, until rewarding corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 7, 2017 12:17 PM
Comment #417879

Shock Map of Insurance Rate Hikes Released… Devastates Dems

Go ahead Stephen, pretend this isn’t happening.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2017 4:30 PM
Comment #417880

Sorry, here’s the link to the insurance rate hike map and article.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2017 4:32 PM
Comment #417910

Royal you act surprised that premiums increased so much after your boy Rubio got a law passed that sabotaged the ACA. THat was the intent of the law and it worked. Perhaps the real question should be why are costs so high in this country but not in the rest of the industrialized world.

The problem is insurance companies are middle men, time to get rid of them. The hospitals overcharge by so much it’s laughable when the free market is mentioned when healthcare is the issue. The repub plan is a joke that won’t solve the problem, hold your team accountable make them work, make them fix it.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 8, 2017 11:51 PM
Comment #417911

Meanwhile while conservatives are pretending nothing is wrong -

Posted by: j2t2 at July 9, 2017 12:02 AM
Comment #417913

Part of the reason universal health care works so much better than the US system is that it stresses prevention. People in other countries pay an average of about 60% of what an American pays. They spend two dollars on prevention for every dollar of treatment. The US does precisely the opposite- two dollars on treatment for every dollar on prevention. Other countries also invest more in the things that make for a healthy population, through social programs, nutrition, and so on.

Obamacare changed the focus from treatment to prevention, and changed the focus of care from specialists to the GP. The idea that Republicans were going to repeal Obamacare “root and branch” was profoundly stupid. They would just have to put a lot of the ACA back in place.

Posted by: phx8 at July 9, 2017 3:11 PM
Comment #417914

Health insurance premiums are rising beyond the ability of many in the middle class to pay. Millions of Americans are now having premiums subsidized by government. Subsidy’s are paid by other Americans. It is called wealth transfer.

The Left is proud to have, as it primary constituency, those who receive more in government benefits than they pay in federal taxes. Consequently, the Liberals want ever more benefits for their voters which they know must be paid for by working class Americans. They simply don’t give a damn about working people.

Why is the Left so intent on making ever more Americans dependent upon government rather than upon themselves?

We all know the answer to that.

They believe that Americans should surrender their choices in medical care as many other citizens have done around the world. They believe that a government bureaucrat is better equipped to make their health care choices for them.

Why is it cheaper to have government ration health care and eliminate individual choice? I believe j2t2 can answer that if he is honest.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2017 3:22 PM
Comment #417915

My Pals on the Left believe universal health care is just great. I wonder if they would feel the same about universal food care?

Like medical care, everyone needs food. Food would be much cheaper and probably more nutritious if it was controlled by the federal bureaucracy.

The Left would love eating the same food as the very poorest or richest among us. No one would starve. Food would be free for all but the taxpayers.

We don’t need all those pesky and expensive restaurants and fast food joints. Folks traveling can pack a lunch. Our government will control what we eat and how much we eat. People would be healthier.


Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2017 3:44 PM
Comment #417931

Royal very good look into the logic of a conservative mind, I have to say. You equate restaurants and fast food joints with hospitals and clinics. It explains why you think the free market should work for health care insurance and health care. IMHO health care isn’t a commodity to be bought and sold on the stock exchange.

Lets look at your example and notice we don’t see the employer paying a middleman insurance company premiums that force you to certain restaurants with only certain meals included in coverage. Or a plan that refuses to cover pork or any meat that violates your particular religious belief and forces others to believe the same.

I’m sure we can extend this out much farther with other comparisons so why not take a crack at it?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2017 8:46 AM
Comment #417951

“You equate restaurants and fast food joints with hospitals and clinics.”

I do in the sense that our Pals on the Left insist there is a constitutional “right” to health care because it is necessary for life. Is food not the same necessity for life?

I don’t understand your “middleman” reference. Universal health care most certainly would result in only certain “meals” (medical procedures) being available in only certain “quantities” (no doctor of choice). You may want a meal of “pork” (knee replacement) but with bureaucrats in control you will eat soy beans and may be given a pill for pain rather than an operation.

“I’m sure we can extend this out much farther with other comparisons…”

Go ahead j2t2.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2017 5:09 PM
Comment #417965
I do in the sense that our Pals on the Left insist there is a constitutional “right” to health care because it is necessary for life. Is food not the same necessity for life

Are you sure it is the Constitution that is referenced when it comes to health care being a right Royal? The Constitution is a political document that covers certain inalienable rights mostly protecting we the people from a government that abused its power.
A great start for sure but a flawed document in that it restricted the rights granted by the Creator to some white men, no blacks and in most cases the “creator” didn’t include women when it came to rights.

I would suggest the United Nations declaration of human rights, a document created in the late 1940’s, as the document that makes medical care a human right for all people on this planet. This document expanded the rights given to us by the Creator to include all people and seems more to reflect the times we live in.

Universal health care most certainly would result in only certain “meals” (medical procedures) being available in only certain “quantities” (no doctor of choice).

Boy if only the rest of the world didn’t make you guys that believe this look like yahoos. Even Medicare/Medicaid gives the flexibility you claim wouldn’t exist. In the “free market” system of today it is your employer that limits the meals and the quantities. Your employer and the middleman, the insurance company, that is.

You may want a meal of “pork” (knee replacement) but with bureaucrats in control you will eat soy beans and may be given a pill for pain rather than an operation.

It hasn’t been the bureaucrats that have been the problem it has been the conservative politicians and their fatcat donors that have limited the meals and the quantity as they have did what they could to get rid of medicare/medicaid.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 11, 2017 12:19 AM
Comment #417997

There is no doubt, from his comments, that j2t2 is not cognizant of the restraints and restriction imposed by national health service in other countries. He is blithely ignorant.

Favoring declarations by the United Nations over our Constitution is hardly surprising j2t2. I have been writing about the end-game conclusion of Liberals and Left-wingers for years now.

They seek a one-world government with a common currency, no national borders, with severe restriction on speech, gun ownership and religion. This nirvana will be ruled by a dictator(s) whose iron rule will be enforced by bureaucrats appointed by them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 11, 2017 6:00 PM
Comment #418008
There is no doubt, from his comments, that j2t2 is not cognizant of the restraints and restriction imposed by national health service in other countries. He is blithely ignorant.

Well once again you say something but you have no links to back it up. Tell you what Royal prove your accusation with some facts, mine says you are wrong.

Royal the UN is made up of many nations why do you assume it is a one world governement. The declaration of human rights is addressed to many countries as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 11, 2017 8:22 PM
Comment #418325

j2t2, are you saying Royal Flush has no links to back up your blith ignorance?

The United States is made up of many countries but you insist the federal government is superior over all of them. Why do you contradict Royal Flush when he describes the One World Government?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 17, 2017 11:25 PM
Post a comment