A liberal friend of mine asked if I as an conservative would address the following post:
“I would love to discuss this with those who are more conservative than I, because we certainly can work together- we have for hundreds of years until now. Our country is diverse in opinion as well as religion and skin color and immigration status (because we ALL immigrated from SOMEWHERE).
To my conservative friends: You have been given a gift. The gift is this: Your guy won, your team has the house and the senate. And it’s going….not great. My charge to you is this: figure out how you want to be represented in history. You are on the cusp of being the party that rose up and fought for what you told us you stood for, or you can be the people we have to explain to our children when they ask why no one fought the breakdown of our democracy.
If you voted for the president or a Republican senator because you believe in fiscal conservatism, you should be furious that your tax dollars are going to build a wall that will have zero impact on the effects of immigration.
If you hate the left because of “Political Correctness,” you need to be asking yourself if you’re okay with the President censoring communications from MULTIPLE government organizations like the National Park Service, the EPA and more.
If you voted because you hated Secretary Clinton’s email server, I expect you to be calling your representatives to ask why Steve Bannon and others continue to use their unsecured personal emails and why your president is using an unsecured android device still.
If you voted because you believed there would be better protection against terrorists, you need to ask yourself why it’s okay that your president just took away $130 million in anti-terror funds from New York with his punishment of Sanctuary Cities.
If you are angry that your insurance is too expensive, you should ask why your senators are repealing ACA without a replacement, an action that will leave 20 million people without insurance at all.
If you believe the Clinton initiative provided unequal treatment to countries that supported their foundation, you should be livid that your president has moved to block visas from Muslim countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, but not places where he has business ties like Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
This is an opportunity to prove that you voted for the reasons you say you did. I am taking you seriously; I am taking you literally.”
SO…are you going to stand up and be a part of FIXING this horrific scene that you all installed, or are you going to simply watch young men & women go to die and suffer in fake wars, women die in back alley abortions, old people starve? Are you going to allow babies in neonatal intensive care, who have yet to see the light of day, to have their lifetime access to insurance denied because they were born prematurely, or with disabilities? Are you going to let ME die because the next time my kidney fails, my insurance now can and WILL deny me medical access? HOW can you POSSIBLY believe that what you have put in place is in ANY way moral, or right, or good for ANYone other than the 1%?
Please answer these questions directly, with no buzzwords, no bullshit, and no repeating of lies. Please have FACTS at hand to explain your opinions…because all I am seeing is rights being stripped and the constitution and flag being trampled in the mud by thieves, religious zealots, and liars, and I would truly like to know what you intend to do to fix this.
My answer is below:
I know that for most of you this will make no difference in your opinions. I’m fine with that. I am at odds with many on the right because I want more cuts to the government than even they do. Needless to say I will definitely be at odds with the left. You are free to believe as you will, and I am free to believe as I do. I will try though to let you see my point of view on this.
I have given facts in each case, and references where I felt they were needed. Some are my own opinion as you’re not asking for facts in these but my opinion. You know the saying Opinions Are Like Assholes Everyone Has One… My theory is that everyone has one and each one is equally valid.
First. For clarification: I did not vote for Trump. I was #NeverTrump #NeverHillary for the same reason. Both are corrupt to the core. Mrs. Clinton’s email server was literally the least of my worries in regards to her. I spent over 300 hours researching every candidate who ran both in the primaries and in the election. Over 150 hours were focused on Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton alone. I went to the sources, not Wikipedia and the media. I went to the talks they gave, recordings of their conversations, the us government websites (on Clinton’s side) for how they voted and which items they voted on. I looked up the papers written by Mrs. Clinton when she was in college (yes many of these are available online through the schools she attended). I looked up her legal cases, and then where available the transcripts of the cases. Some were sealed and thus unavailable, many were available through previously filed FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. With Trump I looked at what information was available from FOIA requests due to his corporate bankruptcies, his legal issues with New York State regarding discrimination in renting, and the many lawsuits against him from his failed business ventures.
In the primaries I was willing to back Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. My favorite was Ted Cruz but had he dropped out earlier I would have supported either of the others. After these men all dropped out I briefly was willing to support Gov. Gary Johnson until he started spouting absolute crap that I couldn’t back. I ended up voting for Evan McMullan in the November Elections. My ‘guy’ as you put it did not win. The side I lean towards did. The things you’re asking about in most cases I didn’t support.
I am a constitutional conservative that leans Libertarian in party affiliation although I don’t fully agree with their platform. Politically I want limited government, balancing of the federal budget, lower taxes, ending the redistribution from the wealthier to the poor, the right to practice religion in the way you desire, without being a total asshole to others who don’t practice religion the same way you do, and my second amendment rights to not be infringed. I want the federal government out of our schools (Community’s responsibility), out of marriage, abortion, welfare and out of anything else that should be a state’s rights issue. I want a world where each household is responsible for its own place on the socio-economic ladder, even if it means some will fail. I believe as President Reagan did that government is not the solution to the nation’s problems, but rather it is the problem.
I have never been a backer of Mr. Trump’s ‘Great Wall’. I do not want my tax dollars spent building a ‘Great Wall’. I am however a backer of immigration reform in the form of making it easier to legally enter the country. If you are here illegally and commit a crime you should be deported. If you are here illegally and not contributing to the society you are in (on public aid such as welfare) then you should be deported. If you are here illegally but working to contribute to America then I am for opening a path to making your stay in America legal. If you are here illegally but seeking asylum then you need to speak to the authorities within 24 hours of entering the country illegally to make your request.
Censored Twitter Communications:
The heads of the government agencies such as the EPA, National Parks Service, etc for the first 100 days are an interim (temporary) staff that were hired by the previous administration. The current administration has that time to either decide to keep the interim staff or hire new staff for these offices.
They have been posting information that goes against the current administration. While some of the information is partially accurate (photo of Trump’s Inauguration vs. Obama for example the Obama photo’s timestamp is 45 minutes to 1 hour later than the timestamp on the Trump photo). There was no shot shown that shows at the view at same time for the Trump vs. Obama. In fact from personally watching the inauguration of President Trump over 4 different video feeds the shot 1 hour earlier than Obama’s shot was the last show they showed of the Trump crowd with one during the inauguration from behind the president(s) which was out of focus as the presidents were the focus.
While I feel that the way Trump has addressed the issue isn’t the right way, he is their boss and has the right to tell them what they can and cannot do in the function of their jobs. The EOs he issued were legal. A team of legal experts at the DOJ reviewed and approved the EO. They do not take into account how the EO affects the country. Their job is to ensure that the EO is not doing something illegal.
As I previously stated, the email server was the last thing I even looked at in regards to Mrs. Clinton. The unsecured email servers go back several administrations, and I have contacted my representatives Senator Lee and Congressman Stewart regarding the use of unsecured personal servers in the government.
Fist: please note this was not any part of my decision on who I chose to support politically. For me it was a non-issue in the election.
However you’re asking for facts on this issue:
Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follow certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants… The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Trump’s EO issued orders putting cities and counties on notice that they would lose federal funding if they did not start cooperating with immigration agents.
The major legal question in this regard is: Can Trump cut funding to sanctuary cities’ education and healthcare departments while still allowing federal money to support the police? Many say he can only withhold these funds and only legally withhold funds to organizations directly tied to the behavior it objects to which in this case is illegal immigration.
I fully back the President’s decision to withhold federal aid (this isn’t anti-terrorist funds… it’s all federal aid) to these cities until they start cooperating with immigration agents. I would be in favor of defunding the police forces in these cities until they cooperated. The controversy of if it’s legal is due to the exception.
First for reference: I was diagnosed in 2nd grade with ADD, later ADHD when it became a separate diagnosis from ADD. I was diagnosed with Asthma in 4th grade (obtained due to my father smoking in the home). I have had chronic migraines from the time I was 14 or 15 (22 – 23 years). At 19 I was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis due to my asthma. I have other health problems but am not going to discuss them at this time.
My mother took me off Ritalin when I was going into 5th grade due to finding out the possible side effect of sterility if taken during puberty. I have not taken medication for this since and learned to mostly focus myself without it. With my insurance the cost for me to medicate the ADHD as an adult would be $400 a month. I currently take Norco for my migraines as I refuse to take the migraine meds out there. For my Asthma I use Albuterol and QVAR.
Being insured through my employer at a cost to me of over $300 for premiums (with my boss covering 80% of the cost even though he isn’t even legally bound to offer us insurance due to the number of people he employs). With insurance my cost for Norco is $200-$300 every time I have it filled which on average I get 60 pills every 60 to 120 days. My inhalers are $200 each when I have them refilled. I can generally manage to make these last 3 to 6 months unless I get a case of bronchitis which then I use the inhalers in 2-3 weeks and have to refill two to three times before I am fully better.
The ACA did nothing to reduce insurance costs. The act forced those who didn’t want insurance to get it, and for those of us who could afford it to pay for those who couldn’t.
I believe that insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse to cover someone due to pre-existing conditions, but I do believe that they should be able to charge them a higher fee as their condition will cost the insurance company to pay out more. Yes this cost can be somewhat offest by the others who use that company as was done in the past. I believe in capitalism.
Insurance for those who can’t afford it but want it should be addressed on a state/local level. Not the national level. I am for removing the ACA without any replacement and going back to a free market insurance. It will force them to compete with each other and lower overall costs. If they can collectively work together in bargaining such as in countries as Japan, Switzerland and Germany our costs will go down.
In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.
The United States spends more on health care than any of the other OECD countries spend, without providing more services than the other countries do. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.
The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States — the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry — sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability.
We pay twice as much for brand-name drugs as most other industrialized countries ,but the drug companies spend only 12 percent of their revenues on innovation. So yes, some of that money goes to innovation, but only 12 percent of it.
The 2010 health-reform law does little to directly address prices. It includes provisions forcing hospitals to publish their prices, which would bring more transparency to this issue, and it gives lawmakers more tools and more information they could use to address prices at some future date. The hope is that by gathering more data to find out which treatments truly work, the federal government will eventually be able to set prices based on the value of treatments, which would be easier than simply setting lower prices across-the-board. But this is, for the most part, a fight the bill ducked.
Single Payer Systems aren’t the solution, in fact their ‘magic’ is that they set the rates that the drug companies, hospitals and medical manufacturers can charge.
I am for getting rid of the CDC and opening big pharma to competition to lower the cost of prescription drugs as well as opening the market to ‘natural’ cures that the CDC won’t approve of. I believe that these should be available if the patient decides this is the right avenue for them. This includes medical marijuana (not recreational), and other controversial natural remedies.
Why I feel Single Payer Healthcare Systems are flawed:
Most of my research was done from 2002 – 2012. I have followed it since and still come to the same conclusions.
Some of what I know is through a friendship with a doctor in the UK named Steve who I have known since 2002. He came to the US for his residency in heart & brain surgery. He told me that the doctors who were qualified were leaving the UK en-mass to go to the US and other countries with non-socialized medicine. He told me that he wanted to practice medicine in the UK because they have a shortage of qualified doctors. He said that in the UK they have many doctors who got their medical degrees in India and aren’t qualified to practice medicine anywhere other than India and the UK.
Everyone touts Sweeden as the ‘gods’ of single payer systems; however not many people look at the fact that Sweden has moved from a single-payer system to one with private insurers.
In Single Payer Health Care Systems to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply.
Consider the British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months.
Now take a look at Canada.
“Canada has a great healthcare. That’s why people are suing Canada for health care. That’s why, in Canada, they have a lottery to see who gets to go see a doctor this month.” – Glenn Beck
Now for specifics (These are Canadian cases I was pointed to by my British Doctor friend):
Suzanne Aucoin of Ontario Canada had stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body. Her insurance sent her one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. She was finally approved reinbursement in January of 2007.
Shona Holmes, from Waterdown, Ontario was told she would have to wait to be treated for a “rare type of cyst at the base of the brain”, so she went to the US to pay for the treatment. She now warns Americans: “If I had relied on my government for healthcare, I’d be dead.” Holmes re-mortgaged her house to pay for her treatment and is now suing the Ontario Health Insurance Programme to recoup her losses.
George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer was forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement.
The waiting lists are so long in the much-vaunted Canadian single-payer system that some Canadians choose to come to the United States or other countries to receive timely care. Britain’s National Health Service, often held up as model of how single-payer can work, is plagued by chronic problems in the quality of care that put some patients at life-threatening risk. The closest analogue we have to a single-payer system here, the Veterans Health Administration, has been rocked by scandals about untimely access and is staffed by too few doctors, who, one critic charges, “work shorter hours just punching a clock.”
The Canadian government not only acknowledges that many of its citizens have to wait a long time for care, but in 2007 spent an additional billion dollars to examine the issue. The link I have in my notes on this is dead but I’ll give it still. http://bit.ly/2jXcKGl
Another page that was removed was a 10 year study by the canadian government to reduce wait times.
Fortunately this one I copied into my notes:
The 10 Year Plan outlines strategic investments directed toward reducing waiting times for access to care, especially for cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration services. To support the reduction of wait times, the Federal Government committed to investing $4.5 billion over six years, beginning in 2004-05, in the Wait Times Reduction Fund.
The Wait Times Reduction Fund will augment existing provincial and territorial investments and assist jurisdictions in their diverse initiatives to reduce wait times. This Fund will primarily be used for jurisdictional priorities such as training and hiring more health professionals, clearing backlogs, building capacity for regional centres of excellence, expanding appropriate ambulatory and community care programs and/or tools to manage wait times.
Wait times are a fact of life under socialized medicine in the United Kingdom, too. The U.K.’s National Health Service claims that you shouldn’t have to wait longer than 4.5 months for your approved service yet recent reports say patients can wait as long as eight months for cataract surgery.
Now to the US System:
In 2009, Forbes ranked health insurance as the 35th most profitable industry, with an anemic 2.2 percent return on revenue.
To understand why the U.S. health-care system is so expensive, you need to travel higher up the Forbes list. The pharmaceutical industry was in third place, with a 19.9 percent return, and the medical products and equipment industry was right behind it, with a 16.3 percent return.
The problem with Health Care in America is Big Pharma:
An MRI costs, on average, $1,121 in the United States and $363 in France. An appendectomy costs $13,851 in the United States and $4,782 in Switzerland. A birth by cesarean section costs $3,676 in the United States and $606 in Canada. A bottle of Nexium — a common acid-reflux drug — costs $202 in the United States and $32 in Britain.
There are several issues why single payer health-care is not a good idea.
One: single-payer health care encourages overconsumption. While it’s emotionally satisfying to attack those who make money off the sick, “free” health care incentivizes people to use it unnecessarily.
Two: Single-payer advocates argue that the government, as the sole buyer of health care, could use its buying power to drive down prices. The problem is that lower prices set by government lead to reduced output. This can also be seen in Medicare today, as 9,539 physicians opted out of Medicare in 2012. In a single-payer health-care system, some of these would leave the market, leading to shortages.
The bare facts:
In countries with single-payer, advanced medical technology is often hard to come by. The United States has four times as many MRI machines per capita as Canada and five times as many as Britain. Similar shortages are found in CT scanners. Fewer women get mammograms in single-payer countries, which leads to lower five-year cancer survival rates.
Advanced procedures are often rationed. In 2010, Norway, Sweden, and Canada reported that over half of patients waited more than four weeks for specialist appointments.
Patients in Canada wait an average of 13 weeks for surgical and diagnostic treatment. Compare that to three weeks for Americans.
The U.K. and other single-payer countries have higher mortality rates within 30 days of hospital admission for a heart attack, as well as increased risk of postoperative complications. Half of Canadian discharged patients are not given post-treatment instructions on follow-up care, contacts, or treatment options. Compare that to only about a quarter of patients in the U.S.
Quick Answer to the whole healthcare question: No I don’t believe a Single Payer System, nor that an insurance company should be able to deny coverage or hospitals to deny care based on pre-existing conditions. I do believe you can be made to pay more than someone without them.
The Visa Ban:
This 90 day travel ban has legal precedent. Under Section 217 (A) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality act passed in 1965 (and obviously amended since) (See full text of Section 217 at: http://bit.ly/2k1KNhs)
(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
(A) In general Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—
(I) in Iraq or Syria;
(II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—
(I) Iraq or Syria;
(II) a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).
The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, which can be found in full at http://bit.ly/2joCUpm
The pertinent part of which reads as follows:
“(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The 90-day suspension can be waived on a case-by-case basis.
So while I am against bans on people traveling with valid green cards being denied entry to the US, I support the President in trying to do what he feels is best for the United States.
I am of a mind with the LDS Church regarding Refugees
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned about the temporal and spiritual welfare of all of God’s children across the earth, with special concern for those who are fleeing physical violence, war and religious persecution. The Church urges all people and governments to cooperate fully in seeking the best solutions to meet human needs and relieve suffering.
I don’t believe this should be the federal government’s jurisdiction. It should be decided on a state to state basis through the legislature. I don’t believe that women should die in ‘back ally abortions’ but each state and the people therein should be able to decide what is best for their state. I believe planned parenthood should be defunded unless they give up providing abortions. PERIOD. No debate.
I have no issue with their business model except for the abortions. Do I agree with it, no, but they have the right to run the business in the way they see fit. If they had two companies, one that offered the contraceptive education and supplies, and did physicals for those who need them, and one that offered abortion services, then I would say the state governments could fund the first in their states even though I don’t personally align with the values they would teach. I am not for funding other countries birth control/abortion services at all. This is for their government to handle, not the US.
“Every human being has a basic instinct: to help each other out. If a hiker gets lost in the mountains, people will coordinate a search. If a train crashes, people will line up to give blood. If an earthquake levels a city, people all over the world will send emergency supplies. This is so fundamentally human that it’s found in every culture without exception. Yes, there are assholes who just don’t care, but they’re massively outnumbered by the people who do.”
~ Mark Watney, The Martian
I’m not against welfare. I’m against the federal government running it. Each state should run it for their state because the needs of someone in Utah are different from those of someone in Washington or Michigan. Each state knows their economy better than the fed and can better allocate funds in their state as needed. I feel Welfare should be handled on a state level not federal. I grew up on welfare both state and church provided. I see welfare not as a life style as many use it but as a stepping stone to help better your situation and get one on their feet. Welfare should not make one dependent on it. It should be a program that helps you find work and transition over the first few months to help you survive without assistance after you have work. I know welfare is necessary. What I don’t see is a way to help people transition from welfare to the working class. As soon as someone gets a job all benefits are cut screwing them as they usually need 2-3 months reduced benefits to get on their feet as a working individual.
In short I feel that the US Hired the Newest Mail-room Intern to run our country and gave him the Interns that had been there 2-3 months longer to advise him. Yes it’s going to be rough. He’s approaching the presidency as he would a corporate takeover. It’s not pretty, but my hopes are he learns quickly and can unite the people and make better decisions.