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

[RobDownSouth]

The number of jobs in the coal industry has barely budged in this century, and most of the fluctuations can be explained by growth or lack thereof in the wider economy.
Trump's obsession with coal is really inexplicable. It's a minor (no pun intended) part of the economy and getting smaller all the time.

The efficiencies of natural gas are fast rendering coal as an expensive alternative. The whole world is going to natural gas.

Trump's obsession is completely understandable if you understand what he is selling: He is selling a vision of 1950s-era "Leave it to Beaver" Americana, where Ward went off to work each day, June vacuumed the home wearing pearls, etc.

It was a gauzy, idealized vision of Murica that never quite existed. Hard-workin' coal miners were a part of that mythos, and Trump is promising a return to the "good old days" that never were.

 

[HisArpy]

Well I appreciate you being specific. Now we go to school!

I've got almost-first hand experience with spinal stenosis, I had a girlfriend with early-onset spinal stenosis. You are correct, there are a wide variety of treatment options depending on severity (and often, age). Some people are "cured" via chiropractic (I'm being facetious here).

If I'm not mistaken, and I rarely am, they first try and treat spinal stenosis with regularly scheduled injections, especially in lumbar stenosis. Surgery is always a second option in lumbar spinal stenosis (I suspect you'd already be in a wheelchair if you had the cervical variety).

So I assume you are waiting on a lumbar laminectomy to alleviate your pain. Those ARE expensive. My mother had one of those, my ex-gf is waiting on one of those. I am fairly sure (not 100%) that virtually ALL insurance plans in the US require a second opinion on that sort of surgery, to minimize risk to you (prevent unnecessary surgery) and maximize profits for them (Oxycontin is much cheaper than surgery).

And I'm willing to concede that there are far fewer surgeons accepting ACA-backed health policies than the bigger insurance companies. The ACA cannot FORCE doctors to accept patients, that's the invisible hand of the market. But once you go through the paperwork (including the second opinion), you should be covered 100% less your deductible (assuming you are in-network). THAT is what I am talking about. I continue to stress that you in no way have "reduced coverage" as a result of the ACA.

1. Unless you are a board certified MD whom I have come to for medical exam, consultation and advice, please do not pretend to lecture me on my medical condition. What you THINK you know about someone else is irrelevant to my actual condition or diagnosis.

2. As I just discussed with my doc today while I was out, my plan was so penalized under the ACA that it was renegotiated as to coverage. Now I pay MORE than what I was paying - for less. My current premiums are MORE than what they would have been had the plan remained the same and the cadillac tax paid on top of those. My co-pays are higher and not all of my doctor visits are covered. Which means I pay out of my own pocket even though I have medical insurance which USED TO pay for everything.

And now I get to play paperwork games with the ACA sponsored gatekeepers who tell me I'm perfectly fine, fit, and healthy and that my plan doesn't cover the things I need it to cover anymore. So, please, do not tell me that my coverage is the same. You have no idea how stupidly fucked up you sound when you talk out of your ass about shit you really have no idea about.

3. My situation is not unique. Talk to any doctor and they will tell you the ACA is a horrible, HORRIBLE law for the havoc it causes in people's lives and how it's wrecked the health care industry. You progressives FORCIBLY FUCKED EVERYONE and think we're just being ungrateful for not liking the fact we were socially and politically raped for your pleasure.

4. I am not in the best head space right now. Beware.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

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

Religious people, especially Christians, being less hypocritical would be a pleasant turn of events.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Now I pay MORE than what I was paying - for less. My current premiums are MORE than what they would have been had the plan remained the same and the cadillac tax paid on top of those. My co-pays are higher and not all of my doctor visits are covered. Which means I pay out of my own pocket even though I have medical insurance which USED TO pay for everything.

LOL...my old man just pays the fines, his HC insurance went from several thousand a year to nearly 25k/yr....he just pays cash for HC now, no hassle, no wait, no fucking around.

I do the same thing for all the shit the VA doesn't cover.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

It's been a few months since the election and they've done some serious number crunching on voting blocs and demographics.

One of the most fascinating factoids was the relationship between Trump and the self-identified "evangelical Christian". It seems that, among evangelical Christians, the LESS you attended church, the MORE likely you were to vote for Trump. If you went to church on a weekly basis, far fewer (percentage wise) supported Trump, and if you were REALLY involved in church (2+ times a week or more), you sat out this election (or voted third party).

These "unchurched evangelicals" make me wonder: are they really accepting Christ or using Him as a convenient smokescreen to hide their authoritarian agenda?

Rhetorical question, right?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*


Attacks on religion never involve Islam,

A distant smokestack out on the horizon...

 

[HisArpy]

LOL...my old man just pays the fines, his HC insurance went from several thousand a year to nearly 25k/yr....he just pays cash for HC now, no hassle, no wait, no fucking around.

I do the same thing for all the shit the VA doesn't cover.

This works out great. Until you need a couple of surgeries that cost a few hundred thou each.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This works out great. Until you need a couple of surgeries that cost a few hundred thou each.

Nah, usually it's cheaper than the cost of the insane insurance.

If not oh well, that's the risk.

 

[KingOrfeo]

LOL...

N.B.: When you see "LOL" on the Intertubes, it usually refers to something that is not funny.

 

[RobDownSouth]

1. Unless you are a board certified MD whom I have come to for medical exam, consultation and advice, please do not pretend to lecture me on my medical condition. What you THINK you know about someone else is irrelevant to my actual condition or diagnosis.

Yes, yes, you "constant pain" snowflakes all insist that YOUR pain is much much greater than everyone else's pain. It's a three way tie between stenosis sufferers, fibromyalgia victims and whatever disease du jour that Noor has this week.

2. As I just discussed with my doc today while I was out, my plan was so penalized under the ACA that it was renegotiated as to coverage. Now I pay MORE than what I was paying - for less. My current premiums are MORE than what they would have been had the plan remained the same and the cadillac tax paid on top of those. My co-pays are higher and not all of my doctor visits are covered. Which means I pay out of my own pocket even though I have medical insurance which USED TO pay for everything.

You pay more in premiums because of your age and smoking habits. Period. Everything else is negotiated as part of your insurance policy (in-network vs. out-of-network). Certain procedures that are not covered by your insurance policy are paid out of pocket by you. As an example, my doctor requires a certain cardiac blood test from me that my insurance company deems "experimental" and not part of generally accepted treatment guidelines, I pay for that out of pocket. This has NOTHING to do with the ACA.

And now I get to play paperwork games with the ACA sponsored gatekeepers who tell me I'm perfectly fine, fit, and healthy and that my plan doesn't cover the things I need it to cover anymore. So, please, do not tell me that my coverage is the same. You have no idea how stupidly fucked up you sound when you talk out of your ass about shit you really have no idea about.

Again, you're blaming the ACA for things your insurance company has decided is not germane to your treatment.. General treatment plans are covered 100% by health insurance.

3. My situation is not unique. Talk to any doctor and they will tell you the ACA is a horrible, HORRIBLE law for the havoc it causes in people's lives and how it's wrecked the health care industry. You progressives FORCIBLY FUCKED EVERYONE and think we're just being ungrateful for not liking the fact we were socially and politically raped for your pleasure.

4. I am not in the best head space right now. Beware.

Standard treatment protocol (i.e. one-size-fits-all) don't always get things done. I commend your doctor(s) for trying different therapies, but if they go too far outside of established guidelines YOU are going to be the one picking up the tab. That's in no way shape or form a limitation of the ACA.

I understand that pain management is one of the trickier aspects treatment-wise for patients. I've gone through that myself. Hopefully you'll get the pain relief you need soon.

 

[Tryharder62]

Religious people, especially Christians, being less hypocritical would be a pleasant turn of events.

I really am confused about this friend. So, a person is only a non-hypocritical Christian if they are on the left?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I really am confused about this friend. So, a person is only a non-hypocritical Christian if they are on the left?

You must admit there's a lot of lefty sentiment in the red letters of the Gospels, and the early Christian congregations were small-c communist.

 

[Rightguide]

You must admit there's a lot of lefty sentiment in the red letters of the Gospels, and the early Christian congregations were small-c communist.

Since you brought it up let's examine as well the history of William Bradford, the founder of the Plymouth Colony. America wasn't founded by Capitalists, it was founded by Socialists. It's very well known to historians how the socialist allocation of resources written into the founding contract for the colony led to calamity, starvation, and failure. How it led to the implementation of a capitalist system that brought the Pilgrims to Thanksgiving. I suggest we re-learn those lessons of past and recent history all over again:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryb...led-commune-led-to-thanksgiving/#6d240e896dfe

http://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/pilgrims-beat-communism-free-market

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since you brought it up let's examine as well the history of William Bradford, the founder of the Plymouth Colony. America wasn't founded by Capitalists, it was founded by Socialists. It's very well known to historians how the socialist allocation of resources written into the founding contract for the colony led to calamity, starvation, and failure. How it led to the implementation of a capitalist system that brought the Pilgrims to Thanksgiving. I suggest we re-learn those lessons of past and recent history all over again:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryb...led-commune-led-to-thanksgiving/#6d240e896dfe

http://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/pilgrims-beat-communism-free-market

Well, economic practicality is irrelevant to Christian morality, isn't it?

 

[Rightguide]

Well, economic practicality is irrelevant to Christian morality, isn't it?

Socialism fails, has always failed. It violates human nature. Capitalism is what makes America great, government corrupts it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Socialism fails, has always failed. It violates human nature.

The early Christians' congregational communism seems to have worked well enough -- but, of course, they were in little enclaves, living and working within a larger non-communist economy. When the whole Empire later went Christian, it did not go communist.

The anarcho-syndicalist economy of the Spanish Revolution, if that counts as socialist (it lacked any central direction by state or party), worked well while it lasted.

Capitalism is what makes America great, government corrupts it.

N.B.: American independence predates the emergence of capitalism in the industrial sense; it does not predate government.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, yes, you "constant pain" snowflakes all insist that YOUR pain is much much greater than everyone else's pain. It's a three way tie between stenosis sufferers, fibromyalgia victims and whatever disease du jour that Noor has this week.


You pay more in premiums because of your age and smoking habits. Period. Everything else is negotiated as part of your insurance policy (in-network vs. out-of-network). Certain procedures that are not covered by your insurance policy are paid out of pocket by you. As an example, my doctor requires a certain cardiac blood test from me that my insurance company deems "experimental" and not part of generally accepted treatment guidelines, I pay for that out of pocket. This has NOTHING to do with the ACA.


Again, you're blaming the ACA for things your insurance company has decided is not germane to your treatment.. General treatment plans are covered 100% by health insurance.


Standard treatment protocol (i.e. one-size-fits-all) don't always get things done. I commend your doctor(s) for trying different therapies, but if they go too far outside of established guidelines YOU are going to be the one picking up the tab. That's in no way shape or form a limitation of the ACA.

I understand that pain management is one of the trickier aspects treatment-wise for patients. I've gone through that myself. Hopefully you'll get the pain relief you need soon.

Once again, I tell you that YOU DON"T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about.

You are not my doctor. You don't know the extent of my condition. You don't know what tests I need, what my doctor recommends, or anything at all. Let me repeat that: You don't know ANYTHING!

But yet you profess to be an expert who is never wrong because you "know someone who knows someone" and you can do an internet search. And then you come here and try to be condescending.

STFU asshole. WHEN you decide to get out of mommy's basement and go to med school and actually LEARN how to be a decent human being, THEN I might decide to listen to your ASININE meaningless words about medicine and how the ACA affects doctors and patients. I'll still think you're a dumb fuck but I might at least listen. Maybe. But don't count on it.

You need to go get a life you little ass fucker and stop thinking you're all that because you can troll the boards of a porn forum. YOU AIN'T SHIT! In real life or on the internet. You're just an overcompensating mico-dicked moron hiding behind the anonymity of the internet thinking you can say or do anything and no one can stop you. That doesn't make you important. Or smart. Or cool. Or clever. Or anything else except a self proven asshole.

Go ahead and post some smart assed remark back. It only shows your mentality as loser who can't accept what your own psyche is telling you.

 

[HisArpy]

N.B.: American independence predates the emergence of capitalism in the industrial sense; it does not predate government.

Nothing predates government, well maybe sex. But, once Oo decided to use his strength and teeth to ensure that Aa did what she was told, there was a leader who decided what was good and what was bad for everyone. It went downhill from there.

Now even sex is regulated.

 

[hashtag46]

I'm dumbfounded by the healthcare system in the States.

How can one put a price on health? In a civilised society, people should collectively support the vulnerable or unfortunate. Only spartans threw them off cliffs because they were too costly.

Yet the same people who make such astonishing comments and proposals are the ones who cry "racist", or "fascist!" if people want to cut social benefits for healthy illegal immigrants and so on.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm dumbfounded.

How can one put a price on health? In a civilised society, people should collectively support the vulnerable or unfortunate. Only spartans threw them off cliffs because they were too costly.

Yet the same people who make such astonishing comments and proposals are the ones who cry "racist", or "fascist!" if people want to cut social benefits for healthy illegal immigrants and so on.

Serious question:

Why should we "collectively" do this? Is there some sort of social obligation that the weakest, most infirm, diseased, or abnormal get some sort of special treatment while everyone else has to give up something with nothing in return?

Should we continue dumbing down the human race so that the least able of mankind are "equal" to the smartest and most capable?

I read a book once (Follow my Leader) about a boy who had lost his sight. There was a passage where one of the attendants at the rehab place told the boy to be careful because there was a sharp corner of the edge of the fireplace mantle right at the height of his face.

The boy asked why they didn't pad the corner. The reply was that life wasn't going to look out for him and make things easier just because he was blind.

So, my question; is there an actual reason why we should "collectively" care for this segment of the population?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nothing predates government, well maybe sex. But, once Oo decided to use his strength and teeth to ensure that Aa did what she was told, there was a leader who decided what was good and what was bad for everyone. It went downhill from there.

Actually it went uphill from there -- that is, the whole of human civilization happened after that event.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Serious question:

Why should we "collectively" do this? Is there some sort of social obligation that the weakest, most infirm, diseased, or abnormal get some sort of special treatment while everyone else has to give up something with nothing in return?

Of course there is. That's what being a society is all about, it's like a family writ large; you don't begrudge Tiny Tim his health care just because he can't contribute any money towards it.

Should we continue dumbing down the human race so that the least able of mankind are "equal" to the smartest and most capable?

That has nothing to do with the above, and, in any case, what happens in real life is pretty much the opposite.

 

[hashtag46]

Serious question:

Why should we "collectively" do this? Is there some sort of social obligation that the weakest, most infirm, diseased, or abnormal get some sort of special treatment while everyone else has to give up something with nothing in return?

Should we continue dumbing down the human race so that the least able of mankind are "equal" to the smartest and most capable?

I read a book once (Follow my Leader) about a boy who had lost his sight. There was a passage where one of the attendants at the rehab place told the boy to be careful because there was a sharp corner of the edge of the fireplace mantle right at the height of his face.

The boy asked why they didn't pad the corner. The reply was that life wasn't going to look out for him and make things easier just because he was blind.

So, my question; is there an actual reason why we should "collectively" care for this segment of the population?

Citizenship and ethics.
They used to be the main drivers of our western system, a barometer to monitor economic decisions.
Until the neoliberal- corporatist system put them on the bottom of priorities and instead put economics and "efficiency and profit first. Like economics became God.


My ideal society would be:

1.Socialism for
- health (affordable healthcare like in most other CommonWealth countries aka first world countries)
- for people with intellectual disabilities who can't support themselves (but only for basic necessities).

2.Capitalism for the rest.
If you are a healthy minority (whether that's based on gender, ethnicity, job skills or whatever) you shouldn't be given any preferences, and abide by the same laws and competition as the rest.
By this token: out with illegals because they broke the law, and those unskilled or who don't produce should be paid a lot less.

The moment a society starts whineing about how the more vulnerable cost them, it's a sign that they're starting to engage in a gradusl slope of bankrupcy and moral decline.
-- This is the only "Hitler" analogy that I would make (he ended up euthanising handicapped and ill germans, not only jews). I find the Hitler analogy re illegals to be stupid. Nobody wants to do them bodily harm; those are just economic reasons.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I really am confused about this friend. So, a person is only a non-hypocritical Christian if they are on the left?

That is not what I had intended to say, but I can certainly appreciate that interpretation.

 

[HisArpy]

Citizenship and ethics.
They used to be the main drivers of our western system, a barometer to monitor economic decisions.
Until the neoliberal- corporatist system put them on the bottom of priorities and instead put economics and "efficiency and profit first. Like economics became God.


My ideal society would be:

1.Socialism for
- health (affordable healthcare like in most other CommonWealth countries aka first world countries)
- for people with intellectual disabilities who can't support themselves (but only for basic necessities).

2.Capitalism for the rest.
If you are a healthy minority (whether that's based on gender, ethnicity, job skills or whatever) you shouldn't be given any preferences, and abide by the same laws and competition as the rest.
By this token: out with illegals because they broke the law, and those unskilled or who don't produce should be paid a lot less.

The moment a society starts whineing about how the more vulnerable cost them, it's a sign that they're starting to engage in a gradusl slope of bankrupcy and moral decline.
-- This is the only "Hitler" analogy that I would make (he ended up euthanising handicapped and ill germans, not only jews). I find the Hitler analogy re illegals to be stupid. Nobody wants to do them bodily harm; those are just economic reasons.

Citizenship and Ethics. Isn't that the same concept as "collectively"? What obligation do I have to support someone who contributes nothing? You even address that point and your solution is to throw out the non-contributors. Why should it be different for those who are "vulnerable"? Is it because they invoke sympathy by their plight? Is that something which we should encompass as a methodology to advance civilization and society?

I don't have any answers here. I'm just asking the questions.