Sneakylong

I am not surprised with your posts. But, you were of the opinion Trump's nomination as a candidate was a guarantee Hillary would be elected. So I suggest you broaden your perspective from the narrow liberal viewpoint.

I posted years ago that Obama's broadened use of the Executive Order would come back to bite the Obama supporters. Now you refer to Trump's use of such orders as a desire to be a dictator. But, in reality many of Trump's Executive Orders have simply put the responsibility back to where it should be in many manners - Congress.

Trump understood what was happening across our nation, which the democrats refused to acknowledge. So whether it was in regard to immigration, Obamacare, taxes, distribution of wealth, forcing of LGBT agenda, etc., the average American was not on board with the liberal democrat agenda.

Trump made promises on all of these issues. He was voted as our President by our nation. From the very beginning many liberals came out saying he is not my President. All they are saying is that they reject the very concept of a democracy and reject the opinions of their fellow Americans. The clear effort to undermine the administration of our President by both the media and the democratic party is akin to a hissy fit of a toddler. Do you expect everyone is going to just jump on board while you show such extreme disrespect for our democracy and the vote of the American people?

      Par4QC

      Don't know where to start. Maybe people are down on him because of his insensitive / vulgar behavior for one. šŸ¤” His own Secretary of State called him a fucking moron. He doesn't know anything. It's like Peter Sellers in the movie Being There.

      If you consider personality disorders are not mental disorders, maybe it's just semantics. He certainly has his issues. When he was younger one of his mentors was Roy Cohn who was Joseph McCarthy's lawyer during the communist witch hunt in the 1950's. Cohn advised him to never admit a mistake and never apologize.

      He may not be impeached, but he certainly can be, but with a Republican Congress it's highly unlikely. Although IMO this scandal is worse than Watergate, because this 'electronic break in' involved a foreign adversary.

      Not sure what you mean by 'show we're a team.' What we need to show the world is if laws were broken no one including the President is above the law.

      I couldn't disagree more with 'not forcing him to use them.' Senator Corker said the Whitehouse is like an adult daycare center. Supposedly McMasters, Tillerson and Mattis have discussed if he goes to for the nuclear codes they'll tackle him. I guess that's comforting.

      This is the same guy who asked if we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them.

      Three more years of this chaos will be exhausting.

          lambo

          For years now Republicans have used dog whistle racism. Trump took it to another level bringing it out in the open with the whole racist birther crap. He realized that was his ticket into politics and is continuing with this white nativism bullshit that is setting the country back. Trump is an empty vessel. He has no political ideology.

          It's obvious he's just trying to keep his 38% base. We'll see if that's enough to get him a second term.

          Yes, we liberals are for expanding human rights / equality including the LBGT community. We also believe in science. We don't believe the earth is 5000 years old. We believe in the idea that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. We believe in a fair tax system that does redistribute the nations wealth to the top incomes like we've seen for several years now.

          Most people if given a series of cultural issue questions will prove to be more liberal than they realize.

          Trump is not a real conservative. He's playing one in his reality TV show in the Whitehouse. The question is how much damage he does in his time there.

              Edit feature not working. Obviously I meant we DO NOT favor a tax system where the nations wealth is redistributed to the top incomes. And it was a typo with the LGBT community.

              Time to watch the Patriots hopefully beat the Falcons.

              lambo I have come to only glance at most liberal media sources

              Given your statement, quoted above, perhaps you'd be more inclined than some predecessors in this thread to actually identify what you consider to be "most liberal media sources"? As I hear it, seems with one exception, Fox, all the rest are liberal in their bias.

              If that's accurate then I wonder why that is so.

                  professor
                  All I did was to google the media related donors to the Hillary campaign and Clinton foundation. One of the oldest principles available - "follow the money." Btw, I did the same with the Republican candidates.

                  There are actually journalist and media sources that openly refuse to donate to either party because they are convicted it is unethical. Some of these sites and journalist clearly have their own political leanings, but I have found them far more reliable and balanced overall.

                    puttnfool ... and Barry Soetoro has proven himself to be a complete hoax upon the U.S. The sheeple elected him and he did as much damage as he could while his tyrannical regime was at the helm.

                    Ironically, this is one of the most sheeple comments I have ever seen. BTW, you forgot to inject a "snowflake" in there somewhere.

                      Sneakylong Rights are things that don't have to be paid for by other people. Speech, life, the pursuit of happiness, peaceable assembly, etc. Why is health care a right? If it is, why is housing not a right? Or is it? What about food? Why is that not a right? Or is it? What about transportation? Should owning a car be a right? If not, why not?

                      Housing, food, etc. are exactly like health care. They are things that are required for a good life, and they have to be paid for by somebody. Therefore, they are not rights.

                          rsvman

                          "[H]ealth is not a consumer good, but rather a universal right, and therefore access to health care services cannot be a privilege.

                          Health care, especially at the most basic level, is indeed denied in many parts of the world... Access to health care services, treatment and medicines remains a mirage. The poorest are unable to pay and are excluded from hospital services, even the most essential primary care." Pope Francis

                          Not a religious person, but I agree with the Pope.

                          I don't believe heath care is a commodity which can go to the highest bidder. Basic heath care should be available regardless of your financial situation.

                          Other civilized countries treat health care as a right, we're lagging behind because we still think the free market will work for health care and it's obvious it does not. We just fundamentally disagree. Too many are excluded when you have a free market health care system.

                          Certain services are provided by societies regardless of you finances. A rich person and a poor person have equal police and fire protection for example. If your house catches fire we don't let the free market decide whether you can afford the fire department to show up.

                          Also, we as a society provide free education for grades K-12. So not everything is based on a 'free market' and your ability to pay.

                          I would put basic health care in the same category as police / fire protection and an education (K-12). It should be available to all regardless of your financial status.

                          Other civilized countries similar to ours have gone that way. Ask a Canadian or Brit if they want to trade their health care system for ours. I have and the answer I got was no.

                              Sneakylong I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I would argue that food and shelter are just as important as health care, but nobody is arguing that these things are rights. Everybody should have food, shelter, and good health care. But who should pay for it? That's the fundamental question. Do you want to pay for my family's health care? Do you want to pay my mortgage? Do you want to pay my grocery bill?

                                  rsvman

                                  Yup, fundamentally disagree. You think healthcare is a good or service that a free market decides who has access (based on cost). I think healthcare is not a commodity and as a society should treat it as a basic human right. Other civilized countries such as ours have turned away from a free market healthcare system. We're on an island in that regard.

                                  We already have a healthcare system for all people over 65. And yes other people help pay for it. Works pretty well. Ask someone over 65 if they want to see Medicare taken away.

                                  Who pays for services like the police / fire, public education and the military. We make choices in a society and so far we've put profit over people when it comes to healthcare. Our free market healthcare system is unsustainable.

                                      Until you stop a doctor from charging five thousand bucks for cutting a wart of your finger health care costs will never be controlled. The only commercials on tv these days are medical. What is the cost of those ads? The cost is absorbed by the customers like any other business. President Trump won because he reached out to blue collar working America. The people in my state could care less about Russians. They saw most industry including GM and Chrysler leave and it devastated the states economy. If Trump promises to bring back decent paying manufacturing jobs with health care and benefits Iā€™ll give him a shot. The democrats that run this state have brought in a few ā€œ progressiveā€ companies life Fisker. They stole our money and ran. The politicians talk about education and training programs that cost millions, bull shit, these people need jobs now. Iā€™m retired with a pension, but I live in the city , Iā€™m civic association president and on a democratic mayors team and the problems in every urban area in the country come down to one thing, no jobs. The ex Vice President comes from my area, he was a customer of mine, he knows the problem he just doesnā€™t have a solution, neither do I, but whatever it takes to bring back jobs Iā€™m for, I donā€™t care who it offends.

                                      Goods, Services, Commodity, healthcare is not? Healthcare Insurance is? Those are the questions.

                                      Basic services such as the Fire & Police Dept, Emergency Services, Public Education, even the military are all normally classified as public servants, the government pays the salaries, define the services, etc. Obviously the money comes from Tax payers. These services are provided equally to all.

                                      Now there are those who buy Homeowner insurance to cover losses, fire, personal injury, etc, none of which the government pays., People buy insurance to protect themselves for law suits, from loss of work, loss of life, all of these would be commodities.

                                      I do believe that a commodity is something that drives/contributes to the economy, Today in the USA that is vey accurate. Until the providers come under government control, it will continue to be a commodity IMO. Our countries pay our medical personal very well as compared to other countries, yet as a country we spend 30 to 40% more person annually and yet at best we rate somewhere in the top 30s in ranking well below all the other countries people reference.

                                      In short we need to change the healthcare model to go from a commodity to government services.
                                      JMO.

                                      Sneakylong I hear what you're saying. As it stands now, we are still giving health care to everybody, even the uninsured. If you show up at an ED with an inflamed appendix, a surgeon will remove it for you, even if you don't have insurance. So it's not like we're tossing people back onto the streets. And yes, other people are paying for those procedures/hospitalizations even in today's system.

                                      Tinker is right that costs are out of control. Surgeons, radiologists, dermatologists, and some other specialties are particularly overpaid. The system has been set up to monetarily reward procedures and to penalize problem-solving and care of complicated problems that require a lot of thinking. I could make more money doing nothing but punch biopsies (which a trained monkey could do) than I can working in my subspecialty. That makes no sense to me at all. But it is what it is.

                                      Maybe it would be better to have a single-payer system, but only if it started by getting rid of the ridiculous financial inequalities among the various specialties/subspecialties. There should not be physicians who make 4-5 times my salary, given that I am a physician with 4 years of med school, 3 years of residency, 3 years of general practice, 3 years of subspecialty training, and now a total of 29 years of practice, and I'm a full professor, to boot.

                                      The other thing a single-payer system would have to do is eliminate the waste that is currently tied up in insurance companies. My concern is that the government, in general, tends to operate things fairly inefficiently (witness the DMV). Over the years I've practiced in a lot of hospitals; the worst one I ever saw was a VA hospital. If a single-payer system involved bringing the entire health care industry down to that level, it would be an unmitigated disaster. People would be begging for insurance companies to come back.

                                          rsvman

                                          Our system has too many stakeholders out for a profit. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical device companies, insurance companies etc.. With everyone trying to maximize profits it's unsustainable.

                                          We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Other counties do it better than us. Don't want to hear from the 'we're number one' crowd, because we aren't when it comes to healthcare. For the amount we spend on healthcare we don't get the outcomes other countries do. We're quite a ways down the list.

                                          And then there's the false argument that countries who have a single payer universal healthcare system, they come here for medical procedures. Maybe some do, but again they're the wealthy one's who can afford it. šŸ˜‰

                                              Sneakylong

                                              If I choose to live a healthy lifestyle... non-tobacco, non-alcohol, maintain a healthy diet, etc... why should I be forced to personally help subsidize the costs of those who personally choose to not live healthily? Why should I be forced to pay for their healthcare coverage?

                                              Isn't a significant portion of these healthcare costs these days attributed to type-2 diabetes? What is the lifestyle (eating/activity level) of those who suffer from this disease?

                                              Why should I be obligated to shoulder the burden of those who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles? What about tobacco and alcohol - should I be obligated to take care of their medical costs despite all of the money spent these days in both the public and private sectors campaigning about the negative health impacts of those habits?

                                              Why should my family be obligated to spend several thousands of dollars each year to take care of those people, when they themselves make such reckless decisions?

                                              We need to improve our healthcare system, no doubt. But a huge part of that should also involve each individual doing his/her part to not add to the burden, when possible.

                                              The ever-growing neglect of people forgoing a healthy lifestyle cannot be overstated as it pertains to this issue.

                                                  PA-PLAYA If I choose to live a healthy lifestyle... non-tobacco, non-alcohol, maintain a healthy diet, etc... why should I be forced to personally help subsidize the costs of those who personally choose to not live healthily? Why should I be forced to pay for their healthcare coverage?

                                                  If I can afford to live in a better area with less crime why should I be forced to subsidize the costs of policing downtown?
                                                  If I can afford to better protect myself from fire etc. why should I be forced to subsidize the fire department in the slum area across town?
                                                  If I can afford to live a better lifestyle and eat healthier foods and get regular checkups, why should I subsidize the poor people who cannot afford the things I can?
                                                  (sarcasm if you don't understand)

                                                  P.S. the government makes way too much money off alcohol and tobacco to do away with those items...

                                                      candukid. Right, so why not communism? All for one, one for all. Why not give up freedom altogether?

                                                      Why reward hard work, persistence, intellect, or talent?