Dangers of a Trump Presidency - Part 6

[rfisher]

But health care is a catch 22. Our current structure depends on people using healthcare. That's how those CEOs made billions of dollars in stock options. We need people to spend their income on health care. We want people to be hospitalized (we have management meetings twice a year on exactly how to get people into the hospital). How else are physicians to become millionaires?

But, there is a tipping point. If people spend all their money on say cancer treatment (and look at any bankruptcy lawyer's ads and health care costs are usually listed as number one), then they no longer have money for other things. They may be out of work and how will they earn the money to give to the insurance companies, big pharma, local hospital? If they're too sick, they may die and then what? There is a snake with it's tail in it's mouth. How much can it swallow before it chokes?

How many people can die before the cost becomes too high because of a depletion in the work force, a loss on jobs (if all the poor kids die, where will the teachers trying to get student load relief going to work?). Who and how should they die? Once you make those decisions, the problem is you might be the next rung up the ladder. Do only the Donald Trumps get quality care?

It's easy to point at someone else and say they don't deserve care, but I do. Until the finger is pointing at you.

 

[BlueRidge]

A couple more sources for advocating for an expansive definition of human rights are FDR's Four Freedoms and his Second Bill of Rights. Also the preamble to Constitution is a general basis as well: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That said, I think people can work together for health care for all even if they don't agree on the human rights framework. If someone thinks that we should as a society provide health care to all even they don't believe like snoopy that its a human right, I don't really see the need to argue the human rights point to the exclusion of policy advocacy.

I still think you run into the same problems. If society decides to declare that it will provide health care to all, then you are going to have groups such as transgender people who feel they are deserving of protected status arguing that it is discriminatory (and there fore violates the Constitutions protections of equal rights) to provide necessary health care to all but try to except the group of transgender people from that.

In other words, you don't solve the problem of people demanding their rights simply by discarding human rights as a basis. Once society provides a service to all citizens, then each person has a right to receive that service without being discriminated against because they are a the member of a particular group.

 

[jeffisjeff]

I think its pretty generally agreed that societies exist to provide security to their members.

Yes, but how do we define security? And where do we draw the line in providing security? What are our priorities for providing security? Are we protecting just against people being killed by bad guys? Or are we also protecting the American quality of life? What specific security procedures should be provided? Which are too expensive? Who is going to PAY for this security? And, most importantly, what about the impact of this right to security on ME? Maybe I don't want to have to take my shoes off just to board a plane just because some other person demands security!

Clearly, security cannot be considered a human right until we get all of the above figured out!

 

[BlueRidge]

Yes, but how do we define security? And where do we draw the line in providing security? What are our priorities for providing security? Are we protecting just against people being killed by bad guys? Or are we also protecting the American quality of life? What specific security procedures should be provided? Which are too expensive? Who is going to PAY for this security? And, most importantly, what about the impact of this right to security on ME? Maybe I don't want to have to take my shoes off just to board a plane just because some other person demands security!

Clearly, security cannot be considered a human right until we get all of the above figured out!

exactly.

 

[Jenny]

But, where is your complaint about the stock increases in health related services in the US? Let's all stop kidding ourselves and recognize why fee for service is the preferred mode in this country and it's Period.

Indeed. All this discussion about who pays for healthcare misses a key point - and that's who is ultimately getting the money. Others can speak for the profit-based insurance industry and various levels of medical services, but one that always gets me is the pharmaceutical business.

Everyone is about who bears the cost, but is Big Pharma doing their part by offering reasonably priced medicine on a broad basis? They may offer a few special programs here and there, but IMO it's for PR purposes only. They argue that they are covering the costs of medical and scientific research, but we all know that a large part of revenue goes to marketing (including convincing us all that more drugs will solve all our problems, real and imagined) and influencing the medical community to peddle their wares for them, not to mention lobbying. We know that research on rarer diseases is shelved in favour of drugs with more market potential (everyone has cholesterol!), and we certainly know that Big Pharma companies aren't pooling their resources with their competitors (competitors, not colleagues) for the betterment of mankind.

For many years I worked on the fringes of Big Pharma, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that helping people get better and stay healthy was never on the agenda - it's all about profits and share value, and doing whatever it takes to increase both.

 

[rfisher]

For many years I worked on the fringes of Big Pharma, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that helping people get better and stay healthy was never on the agenda - it's all about profits and share value, and doing whatever it takes to increase both.

If they all get healthy, who will buy the product? Can't have that!

 

[Louis]

@Louis a state level society is based on mutual support. The "I shouldn't have to pay for others" argument is false.

I don't disagree with you, but I do think there are limits. E.g., I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's Viagra. (Using Viagra since that's the favorite liberal point.)

I think we need to watch and carefully monitor what the government tells us we "must" pay for. And the left wing usually wants to commit taxpayers to foot the bill for something for much more than I find reasonable.

Schools are another great example, so thank you for mentioning them. Liberal areas have insane property taxes because of gold-plated schools. I'd like to see the property tax deduction eliminated, or limited to the minimum amount any U.S. school district spends on student education. I cannot support, for instance, the state of public schools in New Jersey, and I supported Chris Christie twice because liberals were bankrupting the state with unrealistically extravagant schools that resulted in things like $15,000 annual property tax bills for a 600 square foot condo.

Wait...what? So, in your view, having a military is closer to being a human right (or at least more important to society) than health care?

Yes, societies functioned without healthcare as we know it for millennia. No society has survived without a strong military.

 

[jeffisjeff]

Yes, societies functioned without healthcare as we know it for millennia. No society has survived without a strong military.

You need a history lesson. Should we start with Hippocrates?

 

[BlueRidge]

those ancient greek nuclear weapons kept them strong

 

[ballettmaus]

Is he actually going to attempt to implement the ban?
The female lawmaker who has been pushing the issue certainly thinks so.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said that they won't make any changes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...irman-says-transgender-policy-wont-change-yet


ETA: Trump is trying to blackmail the Alaska Senators to get them, specifically Murkowski, to vote yes on health care. I hope she won't give in but make sure the people of Alaska know what Trump is doing. https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/0...e-could-have-energy-repercussions-for-alaska/

 

[BlueRidge]

They won't make any changes until Trump puts his tweet into the form that is required for a policy change, if he does.

 

[VGThuy]

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said that they won't make any changes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...irman-says-transgender-policy-wont-change-yet

Not yet anyway. If they do end up contradicting Trump's tweets, and stay vocal against it, even if he puts forth action to change the policy, I wonder how he'll handle it.

It seems the DoD report puts to rest the notion that trans members heavily burdens the military.

 

[once_upon]

@Jenny Big Pharma offers those programs ONLY if you have insurance. No insurance you are screwed.

 

[Louis]

You need a history lesson. Should we start with Hippocrates?

Perfect, I'm happy to support the same healthcare as people received in the days of Hippocrates. Good luck with your cancer treatments, gender reassignment surgeries, purple pill medications, etc. Hell, I'll be generous and support the same level of healthcare people had in Americans in the early 1900s. No need for pre-natal care, hospital deliveries of babies, etc. By that standard, all Americans already have what they need, so repeal of Obamacare should be no problem.

 

[Jenny]

@once_upon as I'm sure you know I'm Canadian and therefore do not face the healthcare challenges of Americans. Know that as I follow the news though, you are on my mind all. the. time, and I have used your example to explain to others why this is such a terrible mess. It's absolutely horrible that anyone should go through what you are going through, and I can't help but feel especially bad for someone like you who I know has spent her entire life helping others on the job, in your family and in your church. You are a good person, and I can only hope that things will get better for you, and your family, and all your fellow citizens.

 

[VGThuy]

There are a lot of fundamental rights that the founders recognized and enumerated that didn't exist for millennia as well. In fact, the Federalists, namely Hamilton, feared that by enumerating certain rights but not others in the Bill of Rights would result in people reading that only those rights would be protected from government intrusion, and not others. The need for the Bill of Rights makes it easier for us to recognize certain rights out of the bat but he was ultimately right. Both sides of the political spectrum and those in-between and outside of it have been able to use that to their benefit.

 

[rfisher]

I don't disagree with you, but I do think there are limits. E.g., I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's Viagra. (Using Viagra since that's the favorite liberal point.)

I think we need to watch and carefully monitor what the government tells us we "must" pay for. And the left wing usually wants to commit taxpayers to foot the bill for something for much more than I find reasonable.

Schools are another great example, so thank you for mentioning them. Liberal areas have insane property taxes because of gold-plated schools. I'd like to see the property tax deduction eliminated, or limited to the minimum amount any U.S. school district spends on student education. I cannot support, for instance, the state of public schools in New Jersey, and I supported Chris Christie twice because liberals were bankrupting the state with unrealistically extravagant schools that resulted in things like $15,000 annual property tax bills for a 600 square foot condo.



Yes, societies functioned without healthcare as we know it for millennia. No society has survived without a strong military.

I beg to differ. Society has always had healthcare and healers were available to all! It's only recently that it's been associated with socioeconomic status and limited. Now, it may have been the village shaman, but he/she treated everybody equally to the best of their ability. Country doctors used to take pigs or chickens in lieu of cash to treat the poorest. You argue that technology should equate with differential access to health care. But, there is an issue with this argument as well. I vividly remember when CT was new and have seen the memos sent around to physicians to order as many as possible on everybody because the hospital needed to pay for the scanner. Insurance companies said sure. We'll pay you more and double our charges and deductibles to our customers because who's going to say no I don't want the latest technology that can identify my pathology. And they did. They worked deals with hospitals and with doctors. The Mayo clinic has a current deal with many companies that they'll give a cut rate on back surgery if they send their patients to them. From across the country. They signed a deal with enough companies that everybody is making a profit. And, it's all about profits. Upside is those profits drove research and we have faster, better scanners and can detect smaller cancers earlier. We can treat many of them very successfully. And, its really easy to say the poor shouldn't have access to those diagnostic tests or expensive treatments (meaning you think you don't pay for them) because they aren't you. Except you are paying for others. Employers say I don't want to have to pay insurance as it cuts into our profits. Sure. drop people. Except those people won't be able to buy insurance and when the insurance companies start losing money because people aren't buying, who'll be the first to yell? I've yet to hear a patient say, no don't scan me or treat me because it's a waste of resources and I don't deserve treatment as much as the rich guy. I have heard them cry because they knew they'd have to get a 2nd mortgage on their house or file for bankruptcy because their child was sick.

And, you should also do some review of history or archaeology. Military and defense varied widely from none to elaborate.

As for schools, the problem is the money for schools is NOT distributed equally and those with money do get a greater share because they have a stronger voice and frankly they donate to political campaigns and poor people don't. Ergo, they don't get the money in their neighborhood. Blame the people paying exorbitant sums for real estate to raise the property value, not the schools or the state.

 

[snoopy]

In other Trump admin news, I don't know how binding this is or isn't but the Sessions' justice department reversed an Obama era position on workplace discrimination against gays.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html?mcubz=0

The conservatives are rallying big time to Sessions defense but here is one time I'd like to see Trump win.

 

[VGThuy]

Until Trump speaks out against this move I'm going to think the Justice Department's move is consistent with his official stance. Despite problems he has with Sessions with regard to his inaction in the Russia investigation, this is still his Justice Department in name. He knew what Sessions stood for on these issues when he appointed him.

Anyway, this is why we need ENDA and GENDA.

 

[Japanfan]

I'm very wary of rights that require others to do something, pay something, etc. for you; I want clear, conservative (as in err on the side of caution; not political) limitations on those, whether you call them "rights" or something else. I don't think the Bill of Rights requires me to do anything, other than serve on juries. The left wing's bill of rights would leave the country bankrupt.

What about taxation being a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth? Are you opposed to that?

The bigger question here is what kind of society you want to live in. Do you want hordes of poor and uneducated people in your city? Homelessness, slums, and high crime rates? Do you want to live in a gated, high security community because your city is not safe? Do you want those poor who are sick to be denied healthcare and just left to die? Do you want women forced to have babies because they can't afford birth control or an abortion?

All the things that taxes go towards - roads, parks, libraries, schools, hospitals, museums, community centers - are for everyone's use/benefit.

And when the benefits and opportunities of societies are shared, it is better for everyone.

From that point of view, having a standard of universal healthcare makes for a healthier society in general, which in turn makes for a happier society in general.

Yes, societies functioned without healthcare as we know it for millennia. No society has survived without a strong military.

Some peaceble societies did survive for a long time without a strong military. Google Mbuti pygmies - they are one of the remaining traditional societies on earth and SFAIK have no military, as they have no enemies.

 

[Louis]

Maybe the U.S. should consider a village shaman model.

 

[VGThuy]

I'm confused. I thought this was about whether there has ever been a right to health care not whether we should go back to ancient means of providing health care. So the real question is if the village either explicitly or through practice found that health care was a right for all villagers? Once that's established, then we can discuss how the means of providing health care and what it covers like all rights can evolve and expand.

Anyway, this thing doesn't really matter.

 

[Prancer]

Costa Rica doesn't have a military now.

OTOH, the US is not Costa Rica. Nor are we a traditional village society.

Relevance is a thing.

 

[rfisher]

Maybe the U.S. should consider a village shaman model.

Actually, the village healer model works well in many modern countries, especially in rural areas. Shamanism is alive and well and it's something I make my students read about. Western medicine prefers to ignore traditional medicine because it's not viewed as profitable. And we're all about the profit margins.

 

[VGThuy]

In an indirect way, we have narrowly established the right to adequate medical care in the U.S. It was through the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. Courts have found that the denial of adequate medical care for those incarcerated would violate the 8th Amendment and the state has a duty to those who are not in control of their liberty and are under the custody and care of the the state and inmates have a right to health care.

 

[Susan1]

This really fits the thread title!!!

Watch Lawrence O’Donnell at 10:00. He said he couldn’t talk about this before that time of night!

VERY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. Don’t read the article if that kind of stuff bothers you. I ***d out the stuff like they did on t.v. - below. This is the kind of white house those “Christians” elected. That what bothers me! Scary stuff!

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

“Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to s*** my own c***,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the f***ing strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)”

And some Republican somebody from New York said that's just how they talk after political meetings. How nice. Another great example for the children.

 

[DFJ]

This really fits the thread title!!!

Watch Lawrence O’Donnell at 10:00. He said he couldn’t talk about this before that time of night!

VERY OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. Don’t read the article if that kind of stuff bothers you. I ***d out the stuff like they did on t.v. - below. This is the kind of white house those “Christians” elected. That what bothers me! Scary stuff!

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-...house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

“Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to s*** my own c***,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the f***ing strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)”

And some Republican somebody from New York said that's just how they talk after political meetings. How nice. Another great example for the children.

Just stunning. This guy's as much of a pig as his boss. Jesus, can someone not do something with these people?

 

[Aussie Willy]

Actually something else to add to the transgender debate.

If those people who are in the military want a sex change and it is going to cost the government money, then so be it. If your country is expecting those people to risk their lives for their country, then I don't think it is much to spend money on their medical requirements. Maybe it is a way of saying thank you. Particularly when that amount in a military budget is miniscule compared to all the money spent on weapons killing people and blowing up sh*t.

Not saying that people will join the military so they can all get gender reassignment, but if they are giving what many consider the ultimate sacrifice, then it is a small price to pay.

 

[jeffisjeff]

Just stunning. This guy's as much of a pig as his boss. Jesus, can someone not do something with these people?

Trump clearly believes that the solution to his current problems is to become even more Trump-like. Heaven help us!

 

[Susan1]

Just stunning. This guy's as much of a pig as his boss. Jesus, can someone not do something with these people?

Apparently, this started (today) because he thought Priebus leaked that he had DINNER with 45 and some Fox news people. But they don't have anything to hide, huh? They get more embarrassing and dangerous every single day.