'Religious left' emerging as U.S. political force in Trump era

[KingOrfeo]

Again, your point being what, exactly? That politicians who promise "the wide blue sky" are duplicitous scumbags?

May I remind you of "if you like your doctor..."

Whether you like your doctor or not, you're better off with the ACA than without it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/religious-left-pressing-god-take-trump/

You might like Karen Armstrong's Fields of Blood where she describes how religions redefine themselves in direct response to changing realities and political expediency. The Bible and Torah, for example have had several major rewrites especially in times of great stress when the violence of the leadership needed too be condoned or how peace was underscored during time of great security.

Right now, the Left is feeling very insecure (hell, who are we kidding, a lot of them have lost their farging minds...).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Whether you like your doctor or not, you're better off with the ACA than without it.

It's probably pretty good that our families have less discretionary income. We would have probably spent it on silly crap anyway...


:nods:

 

[HisArpy]

Whether you like your doctor or not, you're better off with the ACA than without it.

I'm actually worse off. My premiums have almost tripled and coverage has been reduced. OTOH, ~10% of the population might be better off because they now have an insurance card they can't afford to use. Unfortunately, they also can't tell the doc they don't have insurance in order to avoid paying the excessively high co-pay.

So, 90% pay 3x as much so that 10% have proof of insurance that does nothing for them. And that's better than before when they could go to the doctor (ER) and get med treatment regardless of whether they had insurance or could afford to pay? There's a line from the movie Forest Gump that absolutely applies here: Are you stupid or something?

THE FIX is to mandate that hospitals/hospital-run clinics set up an insurance program for the uninsured who need medical treatment. They can make this a group plan since all hospitals/clinics would be required to offer the plan. Participants can't be denied regardless of ANYTHING and the premiums can only be a max of 15% higher than the mean of the market for all insureds AND those higher premiums must be justified by risk pool assessments and the differences in the costs of treatments received for their insureds vs market insureds as a trend over time established by a quarterly review system.

Everyone in the plan gets universal unlimited coverage regardless of who they are, where they are, or what their medical status is. The electronic medical system tracks everyone these days, so you can't go here, get fixed up, move and go to another hospital/clinic, and use a different name to avoid the costs and premiums you incurred. Simple access to the database verification via a fingerprint much like the NICS background check.

It's a workable beginning to universal coverage that is much better than ANY single payer system or the ACA. What I outlined may need some industry specific tweaks but it's a much better idea than using government money to prop up a system that's only in it for the profits with none of the risk. Remove the gov money from the equation, mandate that medical providers engage as competition to the insurance market, and watch the premiums and costs stabilize or drop.


In any regard, what has this have to do with your original comment? I quote it for you in case you forgot.

That is true of a lot of things he promises to do.

Set everything else aside for a moment; what is the point you're making in this post?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Set everything else aside for a moment; what is the point you're making in this post?

Pun on "Johnson."

 

[HisArpy]

Pun on "Johnson."

Sorry, my bad. I used a wrong quote. This is the one I was asking about:

That is true of a lot of things he promises to do.

Every politician makes promises. Some of which are do-able and some not. Why is Trump different?

 

[Rightguide]

They've always been a political force in America. Rev. Sloan Coffin, Berrigan brothers, Michael Pfleger, Rev. Wright, Rev. Jackson, rev. Al Sharpton, Thomas J. Hagerty, Diane Drufenbrock, and other leftists and Communists, have long infiltrated the Christian church as a social justice tool for controlling believers.

 

[HisArpy]

They've always been a political force in America. Rev. Sloan Coffin, Berrigan brothers, Michael Pfleger, Rev. Wright, Rev. Jackson, rev. Al Sharpton, Thomas J. Hagerty, Diane Drufenbrock, and other leftists and Communists, have long infiltrated the Christian church as a social justice tool for controlling believers.

The organized part of all religions has always been control of the masses regardless of politics.

NO ONE stands between you and your creator regardless of your branch of faith in modern society. Nor are you required to go to mass to avoid the sin of being unfaithful.

 

[phrodeau]

Sorry, my bad. I used a wrong quote. This is the one I was asking about:



Every politician makes promises. Some of which are do-able and some not. Why is Trump different?

Donald Trump is not a politician; that's why.

 

[HisArpy]

Donald Trump is not a politician; that's why.

I extend my inquiry to you as well...

Your point being?

 

[Rightguide]

The organized part of all religions has always been control of the masses regardless of politics.

NO ONE stands between you and your creator regardless of your branch of faith in modern society. Nor are you required to go to mass to avoid the sin of being unfaithful.

Matthew 6:5

"Whenever you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by people. I assure you: They've got their reward!"

 

[phrodeau]

I extend my inquiry to you as well...

Your point being?

We have an amateur in the White House, who doesn't even think through the clearest consequences of his promises.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'm actually worse off. My premiums have almost tripled and coverage has been reduced. OTOH, ~10% of the population might be better off because they now have an insurance card they can't afford to use.

If your premiums have "almost tripled" it's because you are over 50 and your premiums were artificially low for years because others with pre-existing conditions were excluded from coverage altogether. Either that or you had a "McInsurance" pseudo-policy with "lifetime caps" on coverage and hospital stays.

Let's talk about your purported "coverage reduction"...you seem to be an anomaly. I'm not aware of anyone, with the sole exception of gold-plated "Cadillac" union insurance plans, having their coverage reduced.

Would you mind sharing exactly what is not covered anymore? As an aside, an increase in your yearly deductible is not a "coverage reduction".

 

[KingOrfeo]

Every politician makes promises. Some of which are do-able and some not. Why is Trump different?

Every politician makes promises he has at least some chance of keeping if elected, but which he might decide not to once he gets elected and finds out how things look from behind the desk. Trump promises things which are simply impossible, and which he does not appear to understand are impossible, and which he has no real idea of how to go about even attempting, and he does not realize that either. Make Mexico pay for a border wall that Mexico does not want or need or have any conceivable use for? How did anyone ever believe that? And yet Trump himself appears to have believed it, might even believe it still. Bring back manufacturing jobs? Most have been lost to automation, not offshoring, and that is irreversible. Bring back coal mining jobs in a market dominated by natural gas? Coal CEO gets real on Trump’s coal jobs promise: “He can’t bring them back”.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Cite your sources.

Spent 20 minutes in a vain attempt to make you happy, perused my browser history but cannot find the damned article I read. I believe it was on Salon, so I'll look further, I exist to make you happy don'tcha know.

 

[RobDownSouth]

We have an amateur in the White House, who doesn't even think through the clearest consequences of his promises.

Trump is an unusual man in that I've never seen someone who "lives in the moment" 24/7/365....it's like he never ever has a thought about the consequences of what he is saying. He defies categorization, definitely Narcissistic Personality Disorder but also something much worse. He literally doesn't care about anything other than self-gratification.

 

[hashtag46]

Trump is an unusual man in that I've never seen someone who "lives in the moment" 24/7/365....it's like he never ever has a thought about the consequences of what he is saying. He defies categorization, definitely Narcissistic Personality Disorder but also something much worse. He literally doesn't care about anything other than self-gratification.

It takes one to know one.
Right, Parminderjeet?

 

[HisArpy]

If your premiums have "almost tripled" it's because you are over 50 and your premiums were artificially low for years because others with pre-existing conditions were excluded from coverage altogether. Either that or you had a "McInsurance" pseudo-policy with "lifetime caps" on coverage and hospital stays.

Let's talk about your purported "coverage reduction"...you seem to be an anomaly. I'm not aware of anyone, with the sole exception of gold-plated "Cadillac" union insurance plans, having their coverage reduced.

Would you mind sharing exactly what is not covered anymore? As an aside, an increase in your yearly deductible is not a "coverage reduction".

I have nothing to hide but can only speak for myself. My coverage has been reduced. Prior to the ACA I was in line for major spine surgery. Since the ACA my authorization for the surgery has been modified and I am no longer eligible absent additional injury or degradation which causes a need for emergency intervention. IOW, my spinal damage no longer covered except for the pain meds.

My caps for covered treatment have gone down for both my med and dental. My co-pays for generic medications have doubled from $15 to $30. My insurer is big blue.

I question your statement of not knowing anyone whose coverage has been reduced, are you in the insurance industry? If not, then what sources are you using for your claim? I ask because you seem to not know what's actually going on in the market. This is an industry wide occurrence from all major health insurers as a DIRECT RESULT of the ACA.

 

[HisArpy]

Every politician makes promises he has at least some chance of keeping if elected, but which he might decide not to once he gets elected and finds out how things look from behind the desk. Trump promises things which are simply impossible, and which he does not appear to understand are impossible, and which he has no real idea of how to go about even, attempting, and he does not realize that either. Make Mexico pay for a border wall that Mexico does not want or need or have any conceivable use for? How did anyone ever believe that? And yet Trump himself appears to have believed it, might even believe it still. Bring back manufacturing jobs? Most have been lost to automation, not offshoring, and that is irreversible. Bring back coal mining jobs in a market dominated by natural gas? Coal CEO gets real on Trump’s coal jobs promise: “He can’t bring them back”.

Ok. So your main point is that Trump says things you don't think he can accomplish because the law (which can be changed) prevents it? Versus politicians who say things they have never had any intention of doing?

Mexico will pay for the border wall. They may not write a check but they will pay for it. There are many economic controls that can be used to do it. Renegotiating NAFTA could change some of the trade imbalances that exist. Those trade imbalances can be used to account for the costs of the wall. Reduction in Federal infrastructure costs (ie; courts and law enforcement) as well as medical cost reduction (illegal drug use treatment and intervention and associated other costs) could also partially offset the expense of the wall.

Domestic jobs can be created to support the automationization of industry. The issue isn't what the jobs ARE, but WHERE they are located.

NG is already in trouble with supply issues. Supporting and offsetting those supply issues with coal is a workable idea. Eventually the energy industry will have to come up with a substitute for every source of power we have. Until then, why not use the resources we DO have rather than putting the employees of an entire industry out or work?

It seems as if you use your dislike of the person to justify your position on policy. That is not a successful argument.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have nothing to hide but can only speak for myself. My coverage has been reduced. Prior to the ACA I was in line for major spine surgery. Since the ACA my authorization for the surgery has been modified and I am no longer eligible absent additional injury or degradation which causes a need for emergency intervention. IOW, my spinal damage no longer covered except for the pain meds.

The ACA has nothing to do with "authorization for surgery", that's a function of the insurance plan you are on. I don't know what you mean by "in line for surgery", that's very vague. Were you previously authorized for surgery? Did your plan change? I don't see the connection.

My caps for covered treatment have gone down for both my med and dental. My co-pays for generic medications have doubled from $15 to $30. My insurer is big blue.

The ACA doesn't cover dental at all, period. There are NO caps for medical treatments anymore (with the exception of government paid -Medicare- reimbursements). I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I question your statement of not knowing anyone whose coverage has been reduced, are you in the insurance industry? If not, then what sources are you using for your claim? I ask because you seem to not know what's actually going on in the market. This is an industry wide occurrence from all major health insurers as a DIRECT RESULT of the ACA.

I know what the ACA covers and doesn't cover. It now forces insurance companies to cover all medical procedures your doctor authorizes (they might require a second opinion). The only exceptions are for elective surgery (like bariatric weight loss surgery) and cosmetic surgery (plastic surgery).

Your "major spinal surgery" story simply sounds fishy. Spinal fusion?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Ok. So your main point is that Trump says things you don't think he can accomplish because the law (which can be changed) prevents it? Versus politicians who say things they have never had any intention of doing?

Mexico will pay for the border wall. They may not write a check but they will pay for it. There are many economic controls that can be used to do it. Renegotiating NAFTA could change some of the trade imbalances that exist. Those trade imbalances can be used to account for the costs of the wall. Reduction in Federal infrastructure costs (ie; courts and law enforcement) as well as medical cost reduction (illegal drug use treatment and intervention and associated other costs) could also partially offset the expense of the wall.

Domestic jobs can be created to support the automationization of industry. The issue isn't what the jobs ARE, but WHERE they are located.

NG is already in trouble with supply issues. Supporting and offsetting those supply issues with coal is a workable idea. Eventually the energy industry will have to come up with a substitute for every source of power we have. Until then, why not use the resources we DO have rather than putting the employees of an entire industry out or work?

It seems as if you use your dislike of the person to justify your position on policy. That is not a successful argument.

So T-Rump is above the law and the rule of law is subservient to him?

Mexico will never pay for the wall. Tit for tat retaliation will offset T-Rumps punitive measures.

Let's gut law enforcement and healthcare to pay for it.

The US is a net importing nation. You have a service related economy not a manufactured goods or resource based one. Look at the grip banking has on your economy.

Sri Lanka pays 70 cents an hour. China is already losing jobs to other Asian countries. Got a way to get American workers to afford to live on less than 3 bucks an hour?

Maybe you should bring back asbestos too.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ok. So your main point is that Trump says things you don't think he can accomplish because the law (which can be changed) prevents it?

Not the law alone. Some things are constitutionally possible but politically impossible or economically impossible or technically impossible or any number of other impossibles. Trump does not have the power to bring back manufacturing jobs because technological unemployment is irreversible. He does not have the power to bring back coal mining jobs because in the present environment coal can't compete with gas.

Versus politicians who say things they have never had any intention of doing?

We can't really know, but I think most of them, most of the time, in some sense mean their promises when they make them.

Mexico will pay for the border wall. They may not write a check but they will pay for it. There are many economic controls that can be used to do it. Renegotiating NAFTA could change some of the trade imbalances that exist. Those trade imbalances can be used to account for the costs of the wall. Reduction in Federal infrastructure costs (ie; courts and law enforcement) as well as medical cost reduction (illegal drug use treatment and intervention and associated other costs) could also partially offset the expense of the wall.

You're really reaching there, with all those accounting tricks. That's nothing like what Trump's voters heard him promise. And the wall will not stop drug smugglers, they'll always find a way over it or under it or around it; they're not just guys hoping to find short-gig home improvement jobs by hanging out in a Home Depot parking lot, they have much more compelling financial incentives.

Domestic jobs can be created to support the automationization of industry.

Jobs in support of automation would mostly be technical jobs, for engineers and technicians and high-end mechanics; most of Trump's WWC base would not be qualified, the most they could hope to get would be some few, extremely temporary retail and service jobs catering to the technicians.

The issue isn't what the jobs ARE, but WHERE they are located.

Eh? Why?

NG is already in trouble with supply issues. Supporting and offsetting those supply issues with coal is a workable idea. Eventually the energy industry will have to come up with a substitute for every source of power we have. Until then, why not use the resources we DO have rather than putting the employees of an entire industry out or work?

You don't get it. Nobody in Washington is putting them out of work. The loss of coal mining jobs is not because of government regulation, it is because of market forces; neither government nor coal CEOs have any power over those forces. The only way government would have any power over them would be if this were a totalitarian state, and even then, as the Soviets learned, there are still practical limits to that power.

It seems as if you use your dislike of the person to justify your position on policy. That is not a successful argument.

I don't. The policies themselves do not hold up to examination.

 

[HisArpy]

Not the law alone. Some things are constitutionally possible but politically impossible or economically impossible or technically impossible or any number of other impossibles. Trump does not have the power to bring back manufacturing jobs because technological unemployment is irreversible. He does not have the power to bring back coal mining jobs because in the present environment coal can't compete with gas.

This is a direct result of the EPA regs put in place by Obama. Not market forces.

Coal will not make the comeback to prior levels but coal consumers are already putting in orders and the mining portion is responding with increased output.

We can't really know, but I think most of them, most of the time, in some sense mean their promises when they make them.

So, when a pol says it, it's excusable but when Trump says the same it's not? Who are you to know what he believes in his heart of hearts? What's funny is that I've read things YOU post here which are legally or Constitutionally impossible, yet you say them. Are we to believe you don't really mean what you say? Or is it ok for you and the pols you like, but not for Trump.

You're really reaching there, with all those accounting tricks. That's nothing like what Trump's voters heard him promise. And the wall will not stop drug smugglers, they'll always find a way over it or under it or around it; they're not just guys hoping to find short-gig home improvement jobs by hanging out in a Home Depot parking lot, they have much more compelling financial incentives.

All of the things I mentioned are valid accounting methods under GAAP. No accounting trickery involved either - it's all straight up.

Drug lords have already found a way over the wall. They got States to legalize drugs so they could set up shop HERE.

The wall isn't about drugs. It's about controlling the flow of people in order to stabilize our economy to benefit our citizens by reducing crime, gov costs, med costs, and other risks.

Grocery stores have walls and doors so they know who comes in and goes out. That way they can control what's going on inside the store to control prices, jobs and costs. Why can't the US have the same for the same reason? After all, the national economy can be characterized as just a giant super mega store.

Jobs in support of automation would mostly be technical jobs, for engineers and technicians and high-end mechanics; most of Trump's WWC base would not be qualified, the most they could hope to get would be some few, extremely temporary retail and service jobs catering to the technicians.

So, support jobs, associated industry jobs, and higher level jobs (which, BTW, pay better wages) aren't capable of being performed by displaced workers after training? I think that the entire retraining/re-education network in America would disagree with you. And don't you think it's a bit insulting to call displaced workers too stupid to learn the skills needed for a better job?

Eh? Why?

Simple. Because jobs in the USA benefit US citizens more than jobs in India (or elsewhere). You can't buy goods without income from a JOB. Without an economy supported by the purchase of trade goods, the economy in India (and elsewhere too) suffers. Which leads to a global downturn economically and politically. There is no stability, growth, or benefit in that.

You don't get it. Nobody in Washington is putting them out of work. The loss of coal mining jobs is not because of government regulation, it is because of market forces; neither government nor coal CEOs have any power over those forces. The only way government would have any power over them would be if this were a totalitarian state, and even then, as the Soviets learned, there are still practical limits to that power.

Incorrect. The coal industry downturn is as a DIRECT RESULT of the EPA regs from the Obama admin.

I don't. The policies themselves do not hold up to examination.

It seems as if your examination is based more on skewed facts and preferences rather than actual data.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So, when a pol says it, it's excusable but when Trump says the same it's not? Who are you to know what he believes in his heart of hearts?

No. It is not excusable when Trump promises the impossible, regardless of whether he believes it is possible.

Drug lords have already found a way over the wall. They got States to legalize drugs so they could set up shop HERE.

Marijuana only, and marijuana could always be grown in this country anyway, and I doubt the Mexican cartels make a dime off of Colorado pot shops. The real money is in cocaine, from plants that grow only in South America, and the wall will not interrupt that traffic.

The wall isn't about drugs. It's about controlling the flow of people in order to stabilize our economy to benefit our citizens by reducing crime, gov costs, med costs, and other risks.

Reducing illegal immigration would not do any of that.

So, support jobs, associated industry jobs, and higher level jobs (which, BTW, pay better wages) aren't capable of being performed by displaced workers after training?

No doubt, after training, but most of those jobs will only exist during the transition to automation and then will disappear.

I think that the entire retraining/re-education network in America would disagree with you. And don't you think it's a bit insulting to call displaced workers too stupid to learn the skills needed for a better job?

I'm not, no doubt they can be retrained, but that would take time and effort and money, some of it government money. At present, most of the WWC are qualified only to do the kinds of jobs that are disappearing, and there does not appear to be any real political will to retrain them en masse for the new kinds of jobs that have emerged in the Information Age.

Simple. Because jobs in the USA benefit US citizens more than jobs in India (or elsewhere).

Oh. I thought you were talking about where within the U.S. the jobs would be located.

Incorrect. The coal industry downturn is as a DIRECT RESULT of the EPA regs from the Obama admin.

Cite?

 

[HisArpy]

The ACA has nothing to do with "authorization for surgery", that's a function of the insurance plan you are on. I don't know what you mean by "in line for surgery", that's very vague. Were you previously authorized for surgery? Did your plan change? I don't see the connection.



The ACA doesn't cover dental at all, period. There are NO caps for medical treatments anymore (with the exception of government paid -Medicare- reimbursements). I challenge you to prove otherwise.



I know what the ACA covers and doesn't cover. It now forces insurance companies to cover all medical procedures your doctor authorizes (they might require a second opinion). The only exceptions are for elective surgery (like bariatric weight loss surgery) and cosmetic surgery (plastic surgery).

Your "major spinal surgery" story simply sounds fishy. Spinal fusion?

So you ask for specifics then discount them because "you know what the ACA covers and doesn't cover" even though you are not conversant with the specific details of the industry. In essence, you say that what I've outlined cannot be true because public gossip says so?

I have what is commonly called "creeping paralysis". The medical term is Spinal Synosis. My insurer will NOT authorize surgery because the rules under the ACA allow them to down classify it, require a quack to give a second opinion, which they use to deny coverage to get out of paying the 100's of thousands the combined surgeries are going to cost them. These surgeries were previously authorized until the ACA was signed. .

I so look forward to the day I sit down in a wheelchair to never stand up again. Because my med insurance no longer covers what is needed to prevent it. So now I'm fucked. Thank you very much for playing.[/sarcasm]