Bribing our way to Trumpcare

The disgraceful act under consideration by the Republican senators(the Democrats cannot propose any legislation) has never been openly promulgated,has no CBO analysis,eliminates medicaid,takes money from states that complied with law and hands it to states that did not,ultimately makes preexisting conditions uninsurable,provides for the destruction of medicare,is opposed by almost all the health care associations from AMA,RNA,APA,APHA,…on and on,
almost all of the health care ADMINISTRATORS,{CIGNA,UNITED HEALTH,HUMANA…on and on, almost all of the universities associated with medical education and research,Yale,Columbia,Harvard,Princeton,Stanford,UCLA,Rutgers,Northeastern,U.of Cincinatti,on and on.
The basic reason is that this proposed legislation has nothing to do with health but is a transparent way of using the health care budget(1/5 of the national budget) to effect tax reform in favor of a promised,wealthy few.

Categories:

26 Comments

  1. In a comment dated 11 Oct 8:55AM SB writes: “This discussion has been exhausted. Don’t you agree?”
    As long as there is a question, or something about which we wonder, the “subject” is never exhausted. Put another way:
    In science, nothing is supposed to be beyond question. But, we should want our questions to be reasonable!
    President Donald Trump is “a strange bird indeed”, but that doesn’t mean that he is anywhere near the degree of evil that many are claiming he is. I am not one to normally use biblical quotes to advance an issue of truth, but there is much wisdom to be found in the bible. Number nine of the Ten Commandments tells us “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. It relates to: “Don’t tell lies”. My life’s focus is not that of politics but is that of philosophy which has to do with discerning probable truths from other options. In my lifetime, in this country, I have never seen so widespread a dispersion of lies about an individual or about that which he represents. About this there is much to wonder and to question. For instance, there are many who do not know that they are spreading falsehoods and therefore for them they are not lying, but the spreading of false belief imposes real and often fatal consequences. Hopefully no one wants to be a Typhoid Mary who unwittingly spreads a disease that kills. It will take injections of reasonable criticism to cure this disease. Cherished beliefs (about social “what-is-good” and “what-is-bad”) have caused a resistance to build against this form of cure, but logic and reason need to prevail if we indeed want the healthiest future to prevail.

    1. POTUS may be liberal Democracy’s Typhoid Mary but there is nothing unwitting in his actions.To me,the spurring on of race war and nuclear foreign war is clear and deliberate.S.B,we are exhausted but there’s miles to go before we dare rest.Evil never sleeps.

      1. Yes, every opinion Daedal2207 presents may be true, but we don’t see from him the supporting evidence (CNN and MSNBC tend to share his sentiments, however valid facts to the contrary, along with their corresponding sentiments, exist in material covered on FOX News and Radio. So, provide the more convincing facts along with supporting logic and we would be foolish not to march to the same drummer. Here are a couple of facts that support several of President Trump’s policies: Had France’s superior military (1936) stopped Hitler’s army from marching into the Rhineland (a violation of the Versailles Treaty) it is highly likely the European war with Germany would have been avoided. Fact: All previous peaceful efforts to prevent North Korea from acquiring nukes have failed. Fact: Talking imminent war is something not tried UNTIL NOW. That has a BETTER CHANCE at deterrence than repeating what has many times proven to be a failure. Right? Daedal2207’s very serious accusation that President Trump is actively engaged in fomenting a race war has me perplexed. I see absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. I have seen Trump widely accused of saying to the press that there were good people marching for the Nazis in Charlottesville. But a read of the transcript (LA Times made this available on the internet) proves that this widely spread interpretation is a lie (So clear that it is hard to believe that this fabrication is not intentional). Fomenting a race war is about as serious as it gets. PLEASE PROVIDE GOOD EVIDENCE – . without it a fantasy drummer could lead us anywhere – likely to a lesser place..

  2. At the end of her comments dated 29 Sep, SB writes a question: “I did notice that DS avoided addressing the need for protective regulation. Omission?”

    Answer: I have mentioned the importance of protective regulation often. It has various forms. Most basic is the following: Freedom and discipline. Freedom cannot exist for long without an application of its opposite – discipline. But each can be destructive of the other. So, we need to orchestrate them “appropriately”. Regulation is a form of discipline. Used well, it opens more healthy doors than are closed, which equates with our having more healthy options (freedom). The qualifier “healthy” is selected to give meaning to “appropriate”. But each could be used “inappropriately” and thus be unhealthy. This tells us that the challenge facing us has to do with knowing the quality or not of specific freedoms and the quality or not of specific disciplines as it exists within the contexts of a world as accurately perceived as possible (which requires our appropriate use of the discipline called science).

    A few examples:
    We need “protective regulation” in order to discipline our creation and use of structures, both physical and social. I have built houses. In Southern California we expect to experience earthquakes. Building codes related to this expected stress are imposed on builders to protect our lives. The discipline of our Constitution and its branches of laws safeguard our interactions with one another. The discipline of equal treatment under these laws maximizes the range of opportunities (no matter varied traits, aptitudes, and environments) for each citizen to pursue his own vision of happiness (This is called individual liberty).
    Discipline can be overdone as when we allow government to monopolize or usurp what free market competition could do better. Individual freedom can be overdone as when we need a central authority to shape us to meet a specific challenge (such as fight a war).

    So, the “need for protective regulation” is an intrinsic element in ALL that we have been discussing. It is likely that SB was thinking of something specific. If so, to be addressed the question needs to be clarified.

    1. In response to Don Spencer, 10 Oct 2017 at 11:05 am.

      DS: “Discipline can be overdone as when we allow government to monopolize or usurp what free market competition could do better.”

      It was too good to believe.

      DS: “So, the ‘need for protective regulation’ is an intrinsic element in ALL that we have been discussing. It is likely that SB was thinking of something specific. If so, to be addressed the question needs to be clarified.”

      To start with …

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/under-trump-inconvenient-data-is-being-sidelined/2017/05/14/3ae22c28-3106-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.6b6d88a0571f

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/21/trump-administration-halted-a-study-of-mountaintop-coal-minings-health-effects/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.789b5287975c

      The denial of scientific progress in better alternatives?

      P. S. DS: “I have built houses.”

      Me too. Yeah, really!

      1. I tried to communicate the nature of freedom and discipline and the fact that our fundamental task is that of maintaining between them an “appropriate” balance (orchestration). The “disciplines” of EPA regulations are often an important and appropriate part of the balancing act. But even the EPA can be excessive in its requirements thereby costing us not only in terms of various freedoms in the use of property and methods of production, but relative to saving the greatest number of lives. Often, resources tied up by excessive regulations could be more life-saving if free to be used elsewhere. As mentioned in earlier comments, Professor Bjorn Lomborg of Denmark, while acknowledging man’s likely having a part in global warming, argues that very case. Other climate specialists put into question the degree to which man contributes, the degree of change, the degree to which some warming may improve the environment for human use, and the degree to which we can actually alter the apparent trend. With these known unknowns it is legitimately debatable as to which side of the equation we should place the focus – EPA discipline or freedom? Displays of excessive certitude indicate the existence of motives other than those of truth.

        I wrote that I have built houses. SB apparently wants to believe that I am lying –and wants the reader to question my integrity as well. Clearly some of my ideas are offensive to SB. Many means to diminish them (and their messenger) are being employed.

        I have had a diverse and rewarding life. It has provided a wealth of experiences that help in the process of making the best sense of it all. As for “building houses”:
        My father was a blue-collar contractor who built many homes in my area of Southern California. My mother was a money-making artist. Each was a marvelous example of the best that could be, and I have done my best to emulate their qualities. I know the tools and how to use them. Aside from education and teaching, this includes designing and building my own home as well as other properties. It also includes my building next to my first home a 42 foot ketch on which I and my family sailed Mexican, Hawaiian, and California waters. The DISCIPLINES required to create and use an ocean-going vessel are purely linked to survival functions and did not require having to meet externally-imposed building codes. Now forty years in the water it continues to give us options (FREEDOMS) that are not available to most.

      2. I just re-read SB’s statement about “building houses” where she wrote “Me too. Yeah, really!”
        I may have misread her intentions by thinking that she was being sarcastic. But another possibility exists! She too may indeed have built houses! If so, I apologize for my too quick a negative judgment and also admire her for having experienced the adventure. The disciplines required in this task are ever increasing in their complexities, but the rewards are great.

        1. Sir, you are a gentleman.

          DS: “… too quick a negative judgement …”

          For the most part, you were being complimented. Approaches to our shared passions are just … different. And, here’s my unavoidable, double-edged point (it carries a praise for you): how can someone with a core belief and sense of decency defend someone so totally void of those attributes? In using the adjective “TOTALLY,” I mean it in its complete assessment. As “he” reminds us, “we’ll see.”

          P. S. This discussion has been exhausted. Don’t you agree?

  3. (Reference SB comment dated 29 Sep 7:57 PM) Here is another lesson about the hazards of “mindsets”. It is right there before our eyes – that is, if we look!

    Read not only what SB first quoted but add to it the very next sentence which she omitted. You will find that I had written “Yes this is silly, but also is the over-the-top, cover-all-bases negativity directed at our new President.” I used the word “silly” to show that I was having some fun with a humorous, trivial concept (inconsistently unprincipled) in order to transition more interestingly into a subject “which is more serious” – “negativity directed at our new President”. Now why would someone who is as verbally talented as is SB not grasp the meanings of “silly” and then march forward with a scolding long paragraph as if I had been serious?
    I think this omission served what a mind wanted to see, not what was there. Deeply held mindsets can cause us to do this sort of thing. A bigger example (major news organizations pushed it forward as if true) of a mindset omission with significant distortion and broad impact was the misinterpretation of President Trump’s Charlottesville comments to the press. The LA Times provided a transcript of the entire interplay of comments. I quote here the statement of Trump’s where he said that “You also had very fine people on both sides”. The Democrat leftist mindset wants to believe and wants us to believe that he was saying there are very fine people in the Nazi movement. The transcript proves that this statement referred to those marching for and against Confederate monuments, not the Nazis.
    “QUESTION: (inaudible) started this (inaudible) Charlottesville. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest…
    (CROSSTALK)
    TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. (inaudible) themselves (inaudible) and you have some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me — I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
    (CROSSTALK)
    QUESTION: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same (inaudible)…
    (CROSSTALK)
    TRUMP: George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So, will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — excuse me — are we going to take down — are we going to take down statues to George Washington?”

    We love to love our causes. Sometimes this causes us to avoid truths that would weaken such beliefs and distort (lie about) them to strengthen such beliefs.
    Avoiding the (addictive?) sentiments formed from false belief is why I focus so much on the importance of “truth” (the scientific method) being the first priority and the first premise applied in all our lines of logic.

    1. Here is another reference to SB comments 29 Sep 7:27PM:

      SB wants us to know that in support of her criticisms of President Trump she has quoted “minds” from the conservative side of the political spectrum. Sourcing many sides of the spectrum is a good practice. Because President Trump has a complex personality, there are many reasons for concern; and this explains the fact that within the Republican Party there are those who are called “Never Trumpers”. Brett Stephens, George Will and Charles Krauthammer are among those I most admire for their demonstrations of multi-layers of wisdom. None of them voted for Trump (all were against Hillary – leftist rule in general). But all of them have made five-minute videos for Prager University. Dennis Prager, who did vote for Trump, states that his first priority is that of clarity, not agreement. (By the way, view his presentation concerning the 9th of the Ten Commandments, “Do not bear false witness” – do not lie). SB, with one word labels Prager University as “Mediocre”. My judgment about Prager University is “Profound”. Check it out for yourself and don’t look for agreement. LOOK TO SEE IF IMPORTANT IDEAS ARE CLARIFIED.

  4. I think that Daedal2207 (comment 26 Sep 2:31PM) has provided an interesting, even fun hypothesis as to how opinions can be formed (and distorted) POSSIBLY AFFECTING ALL SIDES. It is up to the readers (includes both Daedal2207 and myself) to see how well or poorly the specific parts come together in the light of the OBJECTIVE tools of logic and empirical evidence.

    Daedal2207 surprised me when he writes that he agrees that capitalism is “the most effective means of producing wealth”. (His advocacy of a monopolistic government control of healthcare is the opposite of capitalism.) Then he writes that its distribution of that wealth is “discriminatory” and foments hostility and opposition. I would agree that capitalism “discriminates” in favor of ability. Profits accrue more dramatically to those who produce more and “do it” better. There is plenty of empirical proof that “Individuals” from every race and every background have successfully used capitalism to their economic favor. Conversely, “individuals” from all races and backgrounds have done poorly. But no matter the level of skill, aptitude, or luck, we ALL benefit from capitalism by having available more and better product to meet our needs. To the degree that jealousy is a built-in trait I suppose that capitalism, by distributing rewards unequally, creates the differences of wealth that activate this ugly sentiment of hostility, but government actions to force more equal distributions are not at all linked to capitalism. Indeed, the incentive-killing force needed to require redistributions tends to be destructive of what has been called “the best means”.

    I wish that Daedal2207 had been more specific as to what he calls “a Mickey”. He claims that I have engaged in a “distortion of fact and ad hominem demonization”. Perhaps it has to do with my reaction to his reference that race is a factor. I quote him: “Even for the many who truly hate ,it is becoming clear that undoing the black (partial) President’s legacy is too costly.” I speculated that this “race” belief might be a barrier to what I thought were his misunderstandings about the benefits of capitalism. And then I ask a question of a general nature; what indeed might explain a widespread inability on the part of leftist mindsets to understand capitalism’s benefits? I have noticed how often those on the right are demonized by those on the left as being bad people, greedy people. If this is an operative premise used in the logic structures of leftist thinking, it can explain much of today’ political and social conflict.

    Also, I particularly want to know when I am operating with “faulty premises”. Please be specific so that I can correct this most fundamental of all issues – that of operating with the most probable truthfulness of premises – and thereby can logically reveal truthful conclusions.

    Daedal2207 tells us that sometimes we can be a victim of “transference”, unconsciously adopting “the gestures, language and logic of our Leader”. This might explain why any otherwise reasonable person could possibly accept what Daedal2207 believes is clearly unacceptable. That is, believing that President Trump might actually be in many ways a positive factor rather than despicable and dangerous in (almost?) every way. President Trump has a difficult, unusually abrasive, hyperbolic style, but his governmental actions resonate positively with my decades-long understandings as to “what will work best” to provide for the human future. It is also observed that when a “leader” is not conforming (stylistically or with content) to one’s favored views, falsely-based expansions of perceived negatives will be created out of the thinnest of evidence, or invented out of nothing. Those who hate Trump and his policies are guilty of the most vicious of distortions and slanders! Many of my comments to this blog have been supported-by-objective-evidence efforts to counter the onslaught of faulty beliefs and lies. It has been fascinating to observe the degree to which a challenge to cherished views results in distorted objectivity. If “they” can be so fooled and thereby destructive, I understand that the same danger exists for me. So, the use of OBJECTIVE testing and correction of one’s own views is the best reason to respectfully engage in HONEST debate with those who hold contrary views.

  5. Regarding the Republican effort to improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare we see here by Daedal2207 a number of unjustified certitudes. All of them are structured to demonize as a form of evil the “other” side. The Republicans are presented as being motivated by only one thing; that is using “1/5 of the national budget to effect tax reform in favor of a promised, wealthy few”. It is not enough for the Republicans to be “wrong”. For leftist purposes they must be evil.
    If the Republicans were as Daedal2207 and other favored-by-government medical groups depict them the hate displayed by the left would be warranted. This portrayal is not true, but the consequences of this false belief are tragically real. So, for the sake of the best that we can be, let’s consider some pre-political fundamentals and then their political reifications:
    Basic survival (of any life form) requires access to needed resources. Social systems vary in their efficiency for both the production and the distribution of needed resources. Some social systems encourage the production of resources, some do it less well and some discourage that production. Capitalism rewards the production and distribution of needed resources best when government is involved not as an unfair competitor, but as an umpire guiding us such that the process is honest and competitive. Competition for profits incentivizes the very best brains among us to strive for excellence in every way thereby providing for humanity not only good quality, but good quantity, good distribution, and lowest pricing.
    The Republicans are trying to shake off the destructive distortions of monopolistic control created by the Democrats in favor of a competitive system that based on historic evidence will provide more resources, better quality resources, and a better distribution of resources. Possibly an individual or a corporation will invent a major inexpensive cure for cancer and as a consequence of millions or billions of lives being saved will become very wealthy. Republicans will applaud and honor this achievement. Democrats will complain about the growing “gap” between the greedy rich and the “more deserving” poor.

    1. Humbug!
      “Improving the quality and effectiveness of health care” How , when and where? Even for the many who truly hate ,it is becoming clear that undoing the black (partial) President’s legacy is too costly.

      1. The “how” of capitalism and its ability to generate high-octane incentives and empirically vast range of exceptional production results have been explained by Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and even many of my explanations in this very blog. Indeed, this includes the very comment you have here chosen not to analyze, but to dismiss as “humbug”. Your apparent need to believe that race is even a partial factor suggests that there exists a powerful barrier to understanding the best that could be. This powerful, life-saving tool’s solid logic is apparently resisted by crippling mindsets that insist on equating profit with something bad – a form of “greed” to be condemned in others and self. With this embedded as a fundamental premise, minds so inflicted can only take lesser roads.

        1. I have never argued that capitalism is not the most effective means of producing wealth.My argument has always been that the distribution of that largesse is discriminatory and fomentive of hostility and opposition.But DS has once again slipped us a “Mickey” in the form of distortion of fact and ad hominem demonization.This evokes an image of a scheming,dissembling bigot which we have evidence that DS is not.DS also reasons well,if you ignore faulty premises.I conclude that anyone who is a defender of POTUS the thunderer,unconsciously adopts the gestures,language and logic of our Leader (Priebus,Spicer,Scaramucci,Flynn etc.)It is then a kind of transference.It would appear to be a form of mirroring that can occur when one gazes into the eyes of,and pays obeisance to,the soulless visage of the Character & Behavior Disorder.This may be a psychoanalytic ” The Devil made me do it!” Psychiatrists,psychologists,social workers and social scientists,what do you think of this as a mechanism??

    2. Policies. What policies?!?! So far, the administration has been concentrated in full defending the unethical and unprincipled behavior of its leader. In addition, the erratic behavior makes serious policy discussion … domestic and international … impossible to trust as consistency does not exist … when Trump turns on a dime, sometimes within a 24-hour period, when the winds of ratings shift against him. The beloved “right” would surely not accept the subversive “left” if the behavior were reversed.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-backs-off-vow-that-private-sector-should-help-pay-for-infrastructure-package/2017/09/26/02dd02f6-a327-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.ba9378886795&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Beconomy&wpmk=1

      Unfettered capitalism? No one is arguing against capitalism and its “noble” incentives. Does anyone advocate life/living without behavioral rules … merely relying on our better angels? In other words, moral anarchism? Rules for some, but not for others? How does the below incentivize our citizens trapped in an island?

      “The U-boats are gone and a protectionist law has been exposed. The crony capitalism of the Jones Act does not “protect” anyone and it is choking the economy of Puerto Rico. If the United States has any interest in the hurricane-battered people of Puerto Rico, it needs to take the law off their necks — and now.”

      It is challenging to have discourse when buried under platitudes of generalities as empirical evidence (where is it?). Perhaps we can all benefit from the advocacy of learned disagreement provided by conservative commentator Bret Stephens … lengthy, but respectfully worthwhile.

      The present reality is that we’re stuck in the dry swamp which Trump drained and made part of his administration. In the meantime, the NFL owners and players are united … talk about incentivized capitalism! All at the expense of CTE … and the infrastructure.

      1. Thank you SB. The article you recommended by Bret Stephens is exactly to the point of the following:

        SB declares that President Trump is “unprincipled” and “unethical”, yet she also labels him “inconsistent”. Could that mean that he could be “inconsistently unprincipled and unethical”? That would indicate that sometimes he is ethical and principled! Yes this is silly, but also is the over-the-top, cover-all-bases negativity directed at our new President. Actually, it is more serious than silly. Real life-saving improvements are being delayed. And here is where the actual divide exists. It consists of opposite views as to what is meant by “improvement”. “Individual liberty” and “social justice” are very different things that require for their existence very different forms of government. Related are the even greater differences between the political left and right. So, these need to be understood. But even more basic than that: If we are ever to become unified in a worthy, primary goal, the foundation of every belief needs to be “truth”. We are all being befuddled by many of our historically trusted news sources because for many of them their possession and proselytizing for a good-feeling cause has become more important than reporting truth. We face great danger because so many voters have not invested the time needed to as-reliably-as-possible sort the most important truths from fiction. MSNBC and CNN (among others) have reliably become a source for the growth of sentiments designed to hate and “dump Trump”. So too have become the editorial boards of the New York Times and The Washington Post. For balance, an inquisitive mind needs to absorb ideas also from Fox News. I know that Brett Stephens wrote the following: “Fox News and other partisan networks have demonstrated that the quickest route to huge profitability is to serve up a steady diet of high-carb, low-protein populist pap.” (Notice that he included “other partisan networks”). I disagree with Bret Stephens on this issue. When presented with facts that are true and logic sound we all benefit no matter the source, or its intent. We need to understand that there is biased omission by those who advocate not for overall truth but for narrow causes. Recognize this fact and we can then benefit by going to many sources. I have found the guests and issues being well debated on Fox’s “Tucker Carlson” to be deeply revealing of significant truths! Radio, because it lacks visual methods of manipulation is more cerebral. One of the most outstanding new Internet sources for an inspired exposure to significant ideas about ALL things social and political is “Prager University”. It exists in the form of five-minute U-Tube lectures. It gives us internet access to a variety of topics and experts. Many are professors. Many possess world-famous reputations (i.e. Alan Dershowitz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali). Some come from entertainment (i.e. Mike Rowe and Adam Carolla). Attend “class” whenever you want – and celebrate with some of the best minds in the world the ability to think!

        1. Thank you, DS. You are a master at spinning! Did you teach a course … or, were you in advertising? Or, a spokesperson in a political campaign?

          DS: “SB declares that President Trump is ‘unprincipled’ and ‘unethical’, yet she also labels him ‘inconsistent’. Could that mean that he could be ‘inconsistently unprincipled and unethical’?”

          In an attempt to create an advantageous equivalency, DS synthesizes two concepts into one: behavior and policy. Not as stated, sir. To quote my post: “…the administration has been concentrated in full defending the unethical and unprincipled behavior of its leader. In addition, the erratic behavior makes serious policy discussion … domestic and international … impossible to trust as consistency does not exist …” You’re rearranging my words to suit your agenda. To be clear, for the majority in our country, Trump’s behavior is consistently unprincipled and unethical (do we really have to count the ways?). On policy, on which many again in our country would welcome a discussion, Trump’s inconsistencies have created chaos within his caucus as policy lacks the standard of core belief. When the the ratings wind are the determinant factors in Trump’s ideology, a clear policy discussion is a treacherous territory … his word is not his bond. (Just ask all the thousands of “little” people to whom he owes money! A fundamental character flaw?)

          DS: “… the foundation of every belief needs to be ‘truth’.”

          A lofty and expected ideal. A disciplined society relies on TRUTHS. That which is not true is a lie. How incongruous that DS defends and places his trust blindly on a proven and documented liar!

          DS: “We need to understand that there is BIASED OMISSION (emphasis added) by those who advocate not for overall truth but for narrow causes.”

          If verification is needed, the minds I have quoted in criticizing and objecting to Trump’s character have been from the conservative side of the political spectrum. But, now we are presented with other sources (as if they were unknown!) … “Prager University.” Along with ONA, they’re masters of the omission. Mediocre. Alan Dershowitz … a pariah in many and wide circles. He’s fortunate that Harvard gives him a “home.” However, DS’s very titillating introduction into this discussion was that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Again, not unknown, a fascinating personality whose core issue is religion as its practices/behavior affect human rights and governance. When one challenges religion, the Furies are unleashed. As such, it’s a welcomed discussion for another focus.

          A toast to the ability to think … and the assumption that those who are listening possess some knowledge.

          P. S. I did notice that DS avoided addressing the need for protective regulation. Omission?

        2. The technique of false equivalency is getting a hard ride from the supporters of Trump.The objective ” truths” adduced by DS are neither objective nor true.The petty theft by secretaries,undersecretaries etc,the misuse of campaign funds,misuse of taxpayer money,the bigoted assault on NBA and NFL,the bigoted withholding of a relief ship for Puerto Rico,the failure to allocate funds timely while claiming successful relief work,lying is incessant as is the theft.I can wait for DS’ mimicry and call for ” examples” while deriding fake news.This Pariah POTUS,given sufficient time and enough followers to carry out his orders can destroy America and can plunge the world into chaos.

        3. daedal2207, you “counted the ways”! Thank you, Professor. If I may, to that list I’d like to add the question of where is the surplus of millions of $$$ raised for the inauguration which were boasted to go to charities. So far, no charity has been the beneficiary.
          http://fortune.com/2017/09/17/trump-inaugural-donations-missing/. An additional reminder: where are the jobs (please, not to mention the Carrier slight-of-hand act) … especially related to the infrastructure, power grids? In the meantime, the callousness of this administration is very TRANSPARENT: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/09/30/trump-administration-wont-promise-to-fix-puerto-ricos-infrastructure/23227913/.

          Yes, the con by the grifter-in-chief continues … which proves the contempt with which Trump holds his suckered followers. Pariah indeed … and dangerous.

  6. Yes. I would hope that this is apparent to everyone now. It is truly disgraceful.

    Jeffrey E. Thomas, M.D., FAANS, FACS

    Diplomate, American Board of Neurological Surgery

    Medical Director, Cerebrovascular and Neurointerventional Neurosurgery

    Washington Hospital and Washington Township Medical Foundation 2500 Mowry Ave., Suite 222 Fremont, CA 94538 510 248-1160

    Chairman of the Board of Directors, Jeffrey E. Thomas Stroke Shield Foundation 3053 Fillmore St. , #268 San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 830-6031

    http://www.jeffreythomasmd.com<http://www.jeffreythomasmd.com>

    http://www.strokeshieldfoundation.org<http://www.strokeshieldfoundation.org>

    ________________________________

    1. Now that we have entered this new norm, do we have to worry about boys-wonder, i.e. Zuckerberg? What a dark world “Blade Runner” anticipated! But, then, we always have the Roman Empire as an actual reference of decay and state demise.

  7. daedal2207: “The disgraceful act under consideration by the Republican senators(the Democrats cannot propose any legislation) has never been openly promulgated, has no CBO analysis, eliminates medicaid, TAKES MONEY FROM STATES THAT COMPLIED WITH LAW AND HANDS IT TO STATES THAT DID NOT.”

    These are the amoral standards that our country finds now normal due to leadership by the grifter-in-chief. We have been numbed beyond shock … sucker-punched. As reported in the Washington Post:

    “But (Cassidy) acknowledged that the new version would indeed provide more funding to those states compared to the first iteration of his bill, stressing that it would include $1 billion more in block grants for Maine. And he expressed hope that Collins would support the measure.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/cassidy-on-new-health-care-plan-its-not-for-susan-its-for-the-mainers/2017/09/25/3dc5d74e-a20f-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.61764b685d8d&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bexclusive&wpmk=1

    There is a craven tone … how else to describe the blatantly open bribery … that should instigate affirmation of States’ Rights. How about, then, each state cutting/squeezing its own deal? It’ll be interesting to watch how the “principled” Sens. Collins, McCain, and Murkowsky vote. Or, Lee and Cruz pushing for best bribe? The country or their states? But, worse yet is the lie which hides the purpose of healthcare denial: the tax cut for the minority super rich at the expense of the majority middle class and poor. Let them eat … chocolate cake … and stand by for the consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s