[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2017-December-02, 12:14, said:

Those of us who do buy insurance will wind up paying for emergency room care for those who don't, as it was before. The reason that dropping the mandate produces revenue to offset the loss of revenue from dropping the corporate rate and eliminating the estate tax is that the government won't be subsidizing insurance for those who drop it -- leaving the responsible insurance buyers holding the bag for the freeloaders -- as it was before the ACA.

Not only will the costs of care be paid by insurance buyers, but the quality of care for the uninsured will drop. Here is the pre-ACA requirements for hospitals:

Quote

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination (MSE) to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. The participating hospital cannot delay examination and treatment to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once they have ensured that doing so will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.

2. When an Emergency Department determines an individual has an EMC, the hospital must provide further treatment and examination until the EMC is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.

3.If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

Notice, there is nothing here about preventative care doctor visits or normal check-ups, which end up saving money over the long run.
Once again, the GOP has attempted to turn back time to an imaginary "good time".

[ldrews]

For those that may be interested, here is a list of the significant actions taken by the Trump administration during the first 10 months: http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/4621979/

An even more detailed list: http://www.magapill.com/

[ldrews]

Isn't the federal mandate to purchase insurance a mild form of enslavement?

[Winstonm]

The corruption of this president is only matched by his stupidity; while trying to offer an excuse for himself about Flynn in a tweet today, he accidentally admitted committing a felony - obstruction of justice, Here's the tweet:

Quote

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!
11:14 AM - Dec 2, 2017
45,274 45,274 Replies 17,917 17,917 Retweets 61,774 61,774 likes

If you don't understand, this tweet means that Trump is acknowledging that he knew when he fired Flynn that Flynn had committed a felony, lying to the FBI, and therefore all actions Trump took afterwards to thwart any investigation into Flynn would constitute an obstruction of justice.

Tick-tick, tick-tock.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-02, 14:44, said:

Isn't the federal mandate to purchase insurance a mild form of enslavement?

No

[Kaitlyn S]

I received this email recently. Doug Casey does not favor any political party to the best of my knowledge - he is a money manager (speculator) who frequently opines that most people spend too much time with politics.

I'd like to hear this largely liberal forum's take on this article.

Doug Casey on Why Millennials Favor Communism

Justin’s note: Communism is better than capitalism.

At least, that’s what a growing number of young people in the U.S. think.

I wish I were joking. But a recent study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a D.C.-based nonprofit, found that half of the millennials it surveyed would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist society.

And 22% of those surveyed had favorable views of Karl Marx… while 13% viewed Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong-un as “heroes.”

To figure out what’s behind this disturbing trend, I called Doug Casey…

Justin: So Doug, about half of U.S. millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country… What’s gotten into the youth?

Doug: The youth are being corrupted, and it’s more serious than ever.

I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, however.

That’s because one of the two charges against Socrates when he was executed in Ancient Greece was corrupting the youth. Older people always think the youth are foolish, ignorant, lazy, crazy, and generally taking the world to hell in a handbasket. And of course many of their charges are, and always have been, true.

But as kids get older, they generally get wiser, more knowledgeable, harder-working, and more prudent. Nothing new here. The world has survived roughly 250 new generations since civilization began in Sumer 5,000 years ago. And it will likely survive this one too.

That’s the bright side. And, as you know, I always look on the bright side. But, on the other hand, the American university system has been totally captured by Cultural Marxists, socialists, statists, collectivists, promoters of identity politics, and people of that ilk. These people hate Western Civilization and its values, and are actively trying to destroy them.

Justin: How’d that happen? Don’t young people go to college to learn how to think critically?

Doug: When the average 18-year-old goes to college, he knows very little about how the world works in general. He’s got vague ideas he picked up mostly from TV, movies, and people who got a job teaching high school. They know roughly nothing about economics, government, or history. Worse, what they think they know is mostly wrong.

That makes them easy prey for professors with totally bent views to indoctrinate them.

It’s not so much that they’re taught inaccurate facts. There are plenty of “factoids” (artificial facts), of course—like the War Between the States (which shouldn’t be called the Civil War) was mainly fought to free the slaves. Or that Keynesian economics is correct. And many, many more. But that’s just part of the problem.

It’s not the factoids they’re taught. It’s the way the schools interpret actual facts. The meaning they infuse into events. The way they twist the “why?” of events, and pervert concepts of good and evil.

The real problem, however, is that, contrary to what you suggested a moment ago, they’re not taught critical thinking. Rather just the opposite—they’re taught blind acceptance of what’s currently considered politically correct.

Instead of questioning authority in a polite and rational manner—which is what Socrates did—the current idea is to prevent any divergent views from even being discussed. The profs are basically all socialists, and the kids tend to believe what they’re taught. Those views are buttressed by the other sources of information available to them—Hollywood, mass media, and government.

These bad ideas usually start with “intellectuals.” Intellectuals typically despise business and production, even though they envy the money the capitalists have. Intellectuals feel they’re not only smarter, but much more moral. That gives them the right, in their own eyes, to dictate to everyone else. That’s one reason why they’re usually socialists, and approve of a “cadre,” like themselves, ordering everyone else. Intellectuals naturally gravitate to the university system, where they’re paid to hang out with each other, be lionized by kids, hatch goofy ideas.

This has always been the case. But it’s becoming a much bigger problem than in the past.

Justin: How come?

Doug: A much, much higher percentage of kids go to college now than have ever gone to college in the past.

In the recent past, maybe five or a max of ten percent of kids went to college. These days, almost everybody goes. So a much higher proportion of the youth are being infected with memes that the leftists have put in there.

So yeah, some kids will grow out of it, and will realize that most of what they’ve paid an exorbitant amount of money to learn is nonsense. But most will reflexively believe and defend what they were taught in the cocoon. And I’m afraid those people now make up a big chunk of the U.S. population.

So yeah, I think the numbers that are quoted in that article, about how many kids think socialism is good, are probably accurate. And if they don’t think it, almost all of them feel it. Few know the difference between thinking and feeling…

Justin: Today’s universities aren’t just teaching bent ideas about politics and economics. They’re also dispelling insane notions on race.

For example, an anonymous student at Tulane University in New Orleans recently posted a sign that read “It’s okay to be white.”

Nothing wrong with that, right? Well, apparently the Tulane administration wasn’t pleased. Here’s an official response from Tulane’s public relations department.

We have no idea who posted these signs, but that person is obviously not speaking for Tulane University.

I got a chuckle reading that. But it’s a disturbing sign of the times. Wouldn’t you agree?

Doug: Yeah, it borders on the unbelievable. The insane, actually.

Most whites have been indoctrinated, both indirectly and directly, subtly and overtly, over the years. They’ve bought the propaganda that being white is bad. They believe Western Civilization is a bad thing…that white people have destroyed the world.

Even if they don’t want to believe it, because the concept is so stupid and so utterly contrafactual, they end up believing it just because they’ve heard it over and over. It’s very bad news across the board.

Justin: The mainstream media seems to be peddling these bad ideas, too. Wouldn’t you agree?

Doug: Absolutely. The memes that originated with intellectuals in universities have thoroughly infiltrated the mass media and the entertainment industry—places “thought leaders” gravitate towards.

And you’re getting no defense at all from so-called capitalists and business leaders. All they’re interested in is making money. And—absolutely if they’re wired with the Deep State—they don’t really care how they do it. They’re happy to work with and for the government. They self-righteously make charitable contributions to universities and NGOs, subsidizing the source of the poison.

So, there’s almost nobody to defend the ideas that have brought us Western Civilization. And—with the exception of a few anomalies like Taoism, yoga, and Oriental cooking—it’s responsible for about everything that’s good in the world. Without it the whole world would resemble Africa, or Cambodia, or Mongolia—not even today, but 200 years ago. Western ideas are things like individualism, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, science, rationality and capitalism. These concepts no longer have any defenders anywhere. They’re under attack everywhere.

Justin: This can’t be good for the economy in the long run.

Doug: No. It’s one of the reasons I’m generally bearish.

I mean, how can the markets be healthy when what’s left of the ruling class in the country actually hate themselves? When the middle class is collapsing? When political entrepreneurship is valued more than making money through production?

In fact, the economy and the markets are the least of our problems. The very foundation of civilization itself is under attack. The acceptance of destructive ideas is getting to be as serious as what we saw in Russia under the Soviets, in Germany under the Nazis, or China under Mao. More serious, since civilization is under serious attack in the U.S., which has been the bulwark for the last century.

So, excuse me for my bearishness, but I think it’s warranted.

Justin: Thanks as always, Doug.

Doug: You’re welcome.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-02, 16:11, said:

No

You are right, it is not enslavement, it is extortion. But to the extent that the extortion is ongoing, then it becomes enslavement.

If someone comes up to you and says to you "Buy my service or something bad will happen to you", that is extortion. When the government does it, it is still extortion.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-December-02, 16:17, said:

I received this email recently. Doug Casey does not favor any political party to the best of my knowledge - he is a money manager (speculator) who frequently opines that most people spend too much time with politics.

I'd like to hear this largely liberal forum's take on this article.

Doug Casey on Why Millennials Favor Communism

Where to begin...

1. In general, when people introduce someone as not favoring any political party, it is an attempt to portray that individual as a centrist. Casey is an anarcho-Libertarian gold bug coming out the Murry Rothbart / Lew Rockwell school of Austrian nutjobs... Personally, I think that this sort of context is much more useful that "does not favor any political party / money manager"

In particular, when folks associated with well known bigots like Murry Rothbard start talking about the causes of the Civil War and discrimination against whites on college campuses its a pretty damn obvious dog whistle.

2. He offers a random statistic: "22% of those surveyed had favorable views of Karl Marx… while 13% viewed Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong-un as 'heroes.'"

It is impossible to attach any meaning to this statistic without a host of additional information.

A. How was the survey conducted and how was the question phrased? For example, what does it mean to have a "favorable" view of Karl Marx. He was certainly a great economist...

B. Has this value experienced a statistically significant change over time?

C. If there is a statistically significant increase in the number of people who would like to live in a socialist society, are there similar changes on the opposite end of the spectrum? (Yascha Mounk has been doing some very good work studying whether or not the value that Americans place in living in a democracy is decreasing). The issue here might have absolutely nothing to do with communism, but rather be that the American consensus is unravelling.

3. Most Americans are incredibly ignorant. I'd like to know what percentage of that "13%" actually know who Stalin or Kim Jong-un actually are.... (Same for that 22% who have favorable views of Marx)

4. Maybe the author is posting the following to be provocative, but its deeply flawed, obviously racist, and down right ignorant.

"there’s almost nobody to defend the ideas that have brought us Western Civilization. And—with the exception of a few anomalies like Taoism, yoga, and Oriental cooking—it’s responsible for about everything that’s good in the world. Without it the whole world would resemble Africa, or Cambodia, or Mongolia—not even today, but 200 years ago."

So, I'd pretty much summarize this as

"Typically idiocy from yet another racist Austrian Economist working hard to scam old white people out of their retirement savings..."

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-02, 16:46, said:

You are right, it is not enslavement, it is extortion. But to the extent that the extortion is ongoing, then it becomes enslavement.

If someone comes up to you and says to you "Buy my service or something bad will happen to you", that is extortion. When the government does it, it is still extortion.

Not according to the Supreme Court...

[hrothgar]

Good editorial in today's NYT

Quote

Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later. Mark Halperin and Charlie Rose set much of the televised political discourse on the race, interviewing other pundits, opining themselves and obsessing over the electoral play-by-play. Mr. Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump. The reporter Glenn Thrush, currently on leave from The New York Times because of sexual harassment allegations, covered Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign when he was at Newsday and continued to write about her over the next eight years for Politico.

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status.

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-02, 16:46, said:

If someone comes up to you and says to you "Buy my service or something bad will happen to you", that is extortion. When the government does it, it is still extortion.

By your logic, every tax in the world is extortion. It is true that many might think that way when they open their pay packets but that does not make it the truth.

In a similar vein, if I am aware that someone I know has committed a felony and not only choose not to report it but also actively attempt to derail the investigation, that is going to land me in some very hot water. When the POTUS does it, is it just carrying out the duties of the Executive branch?

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-December-02, 16:17, said:

I received this email recently. Doug Casey does not favor any political party to the best of my knowledge - he is a money manager (speculator) who frequently opines that most people spend too much time with politics.

I'd like to hear this largely liberal forum's take on this article.

Doug Casey on Why Millennials Favor Communism

Justin’s note: Communism is better than capitalism.

At least, that’s what a growing number of young people in the U.S. think.

I wish I were joking. But a recent study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a D.C.-based nonprofit, found that half of the millennials it surveyed would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist society.

And 22% of those surveyed had favorable views of Karl Marx… while 13% viewed Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong-un as “heroes.”

To figure out what’s behind this disturbing trend, I called Doug Casey…

Justin: So Doug, about half of U.S. millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country… What’s gotten into the youth?

Doug: The youth are being corrupted, and it’s more serious than ever.

I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, however.

That’s because one of the two charges against Socrates when he was executed in Ancient Greece was corrupting the youth. Older people always think the youth are foolish, ignorant, lazy, crazy, and generally taking the world to hell in a handbasket. And of course many of their charges are, and always have been, true.

But as kids get older, they generally get wiser, more knowledgeable, harder-working, and more prudent. Nothing new here. The world has survived roughly 250 new generations since civilization began in Sumer 5,000 years ago. And it will likely survive this one too.

That’s the bright side. And, as you know, I always look on the bright side. But, on the other hand, the American university system has been totally captured by Cultural Marxists, socialists, statists, collectivists, promoters of identity politics, and people of that ilk. These people hate Western Civilization and its values, and are actively trying to destroy them.

Justin: How’d that happen? Don’t young people go to college to learn how to think critically?

Doug: When the average 18-year-old goes to college, he knows very little about how the world works in general. He’s got vague ideas he picked up mostly from TV, movies, and people who got a job teaching high school. They know roughly nothing about economics, government, or history. Worse, what they think they know is mostly wrong.

That makes them easy prey for professors with totally bent views to indoctrinate them.

It’s not so much that they’re taught inaccurate facts. There are plenty of “factoids” (artificial facts), of course—like the War Between the States (which shouldn’t be called the Civil War) was mainly fought to free the slaves. Or that Keynesian economics is correct. And many, many more. But that’s just part of the problem.

It’s not the factoids they’re taught. It’s the way the schools interpret actual facts. The meaning they infuse into events. The way they twist the “why?” of events, and pervert concepts of good and evil.

The real problem, however, is that, contrary to what you suggested a moment ago, they’re not taught critical thinking. Rather just the opposite—they’re taught blind acceptance of what’s currently considered politically correct.

Instead of questioning authority in a polite and rational manner—which is what Socrates did—the current idea is to prevent any divergent views from even being discussed. The profs are basically all socialists, and the kids tend to believe what they’re taught. Those views are buttressed by the other sources of information available to them—Hollywood, mass media, and government.

These bad ideas usually start with “intellectuals.” Intellectuals typically despise business and production, even though they envy the money the capitalists have. Intellectuals feel they’re not only smarter, but much more moral. That gives them the right, in their own eyes, to dictate to everyone else. That’s one reason why they’re usually socialists, and approve of a “cadre,” like themselves, ordering everyone else. Intellectuals naturally gravitate to the university system, where they’re paid to hang out with each other, be lionized by kids, hatch goofy ideas.

This has always been the case. But it’s becoming a much bigger problem than in the past.

Justin: How come?

Doug: A much, much higher percentage of kids go to college now than have ever gone to college in the past.

In the recent past, maybe five or a max of ten percent of kids went to college. These days, almost everybody goes. So a much higher proportion of the youth are being infected with memes that the leftists have put in there.

So yeah, some kids will grow out of it, and will realize that most of what they’ve paid an exorbitant amount of money to learn is nonsense. But most will reflexively believe and defend what they were taught in the cocoon. And I’m afraid those people now make up a big chunk of the U.S. population.

So yeah, I think the numbers that are quoted in that article, about how many kids think socialism is good, are probably accurate. And if they don’t think it, almost all of them feel it. Few know the difference between thinking and feeling…

Justin: Today’s universities aren’t just teaching bent ideas about politics and economics. They’re also dispelling insane notions on race.

For example, an anonymous student at Tulane University in New Orleans recently posted a sign that read “It’s okay to be white.”

Nothing wrong with that, right? Well, apparently the Tulane administration wasn’t pleased. Here’s an official response from Tulane’s public relations department.

We have no idea who posted these signs, but that person is obviously not speaking for Tulane University.

I got a chuckle reading that. But it’s a disturbing sign of the times. Wouldn’t you agree?

Doug: Yeah, it borders on the unbelievable. The insane, actually.

Most whites have been indoctrinated, both indirectly and directly, subtly and overtly, over the years. They’ve bought the propaganda that being white is bad. They believe Western Civilization is a bad thing…that white people have destroyed the world.

Even if they don’t want to believe it, because the concept is so stupid and so utterly contrafactual, they end up believing it just because they’ve heard it over and over. It’s very bad news across the board.

Justin: The mainstream media seems to be peddling these bad ideas, too. Wouldn’t you agree?

Doug: Absolutely. The memes that originated with intellectuals in universities have thoroughly infiltrated the mass media and the entertainment industry—places “thought leaders” gravitate towards.

And you’re getting no defense at all from so-called capitalists and business leaders. All they’re interested in is making money. And—absolutely if they’re wired with the Deep State—they don’t really care how they do it. They’re happy to work with and for the government. They self-righteously make charitable contributions to universities and NGOs, subsidizing the source of the poison.

So, there’s almost nobody to defend the ideas that have brought us Western Civilization. And—with the exception of a few anomalies like Taoism, yoga, and Oriental cooking—it’s responsible for about everything that’s good in the world. Without it the whole world would resemble Africa, or Cambodia, or Mongolia—not even today, but 200 years ago. Western ideas are things like individualism, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, science, rationality and capitalism. These concepts no longer have any defenders anywhere. They’re under attack everywhere.

Justin: This can’t be good for the economy in the long run.

Doug: No. It’s one of the reasons I’m generally bearish.

I mean, how can the markets be healthy when what’s left of the ruling class in the country actually hate themselves? When the middle class is collapsing? When political entrepreneurship is valued more than making money through production?

In fact, the economy and the markets are the least of our problems. The very foundation of civilization itself is under attack. The acceptance of destructive ideas is getting to be as serious as what we saw in Russia under the Soviets, in Germany under the Nazis, or China under Mao. More serious, since civilization is under serious attack in the U.S., which has been the bulwark for the last century.

So, excuse me for my bearishness, but I think it’s warranted.

Justin: Thanks as always, Doug.

Doug: You’re welcome.

Looks like another Zero Hedge post. Am I right? My take? It is worthless. Not just to me but as worthwhile information for anyone. There simply is no reason to read and absorb junk input. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Perhaps you might try reading from a Republican who is held by both sides as a reasonable person. I like to read Andrew Bacevich - a Republican and retired Lt. Colonel.

Perhaps you would find this article from The Atlantic helpful.

[cherdano]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-December-02, 16:17, said:

I'd like to hear this largely liberal forum's take on this article.

Sad to see Kaitlyn has fallen even lower. Earlier, you were living in a world of right-wing spin. Now you are falling for the most outright, blatant racism.

[ldrews]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-02, 18:20, said:

By your logic, every tax in the world is extortion. It is true that many might think that way when they open their pay packets but that does not make it the truth.

You are correct, in my view all taxes are extortion. The fact that the majority agrees to them does not change their nature. The extraction of money or goods from unwilling citizens under threat of force is extortion.

Reminds me of the quip "2 foxes and a chicken voting on what is for dinner".

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-02, 19:34, said:

You are correct, in my view all taxes are extortion. The fact that the majority agrees to them does not change their nature. The extraction of money or goods from unwilling citizens under threat of force is extortion.

Reminds me of the quip "2 foxes and a chicken voting on what is for dinner".

Life must really suck for you anarchists...

Maybe someday one of the never ending series of scams (Seasteading! Free Cities Honduras! The Free State Project! Galt's Gulch Chile!) will come to fruition and you and a bunch of like minded idiots can have chance to see how well your theories work in real life...

Until then, I guess you can always hide down in Mexico.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.nytimes....ate-debate.html

Now wealth has become the new identity politics. Tsk, tsk, tsk!

[RedSpawn]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-03, 04:02, said:

Life must really suck for you anarchists...

Maybe someday one of the never ending series of scams (Seasteading! Free Cities Honduras! The Free State Project! Galt's Gulch Chile!) will come to fruition and you and a bunch of like minded idiots can have chance to see how well your theories work in real life...

Until then, I guess you can always hide down in Mexico.

You could hide in Mexico but it has its own corruption problems too.

https://www.nytimes....commission.html

Just hot and messy!

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-03, 04:02, said:

Life must really suck for you anarchists...

Thanks for the compassion, but I am not an anarchist, but a limited government libertarian.

But in essence you are correct, life sucks for us libertarians also. We are surrounded by morally corrupt individuals such as yourself who think the initiation of force or threat of force is an acceptable way to conduct relationships. But, alas, we are outnumbered. So we try to peacefully cope as best we can.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-02, 18:28, said:

Looks like another Zero Hedge post. Am I right? My take? It is worthless. Not just to me but as worthwhile information for anyone. There simply is no reason to read and absorb junk input. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Perhaps you might try reading from a Republican who is held by both sides as a reasonable person. I like to read Andrew Bacevich - a Republican and retired Lt. Colonel.

Perhaps you would find this article from The Atlantic helpful.

Thanks, Winston! I believe what you're telling me is that I'm following the wrong conservatives.

And while I am actively seeking the liberal viewpoint on many subjects, the conservative counterarguments frequently do come from the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. who have made their living riling up people. I've seen many responses to this article but yours got me thinking in a different direction and was quite informative, and ultimately probably beneficial for me.

I'm currently examining the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" I'm hoping that we all do that. For while I frequently accuse American universities of imposing their liberal ideas on young people, and robbing them of the very same critical thinking talent that they should be instilling, I have to take a look at my own education (which includes the media I follow and the people I converse with) and wonder if the same thing has happened to me. Indeed, as I have branched out and entered forums populated mainly by liberals (or at least by people that don't think like I do), I have become convinced that at least two of my substantial beliefs were wrong (I now believe in those cases that the "liberal side" is on firmer ground on the issue.) It has taken some research and the reading of material that didn't fit in well with my current thinking but to me, the truth is much more important than stubbornly sticking to an ideology.

There are certain things I will probably never come over to the other side on. For example, I will never buy into the fact that I should be ashamed to be an American or a Christian, and I still strongly urge those people who think I should be to challenge their beliefs, to ask themselves why it is that they believe that and what it is in their education or upbringing that makes them believe in such an absurd idea. Challenging one's beliefs can be quite enlightening. It certainly has been for me.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-02, 11:17, said:

I am quite sure that there are a whole bunch of "young invincibles" who would prefer to

1. Not contribute towards insurance
2. Pray that they don't have an accident
3. Take advantage of the fact that emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat them when the roll snake eyes
4. Declare bankrucpty to escape their debt

In much the same way, there are lots of people who would very much prefer not to drive without auto-insurance.

Me, I'd be MUCH better off if I didn't need to contribute towards social security. (I have lots of money in the bank, my rate of return is better than what the Social Security administration is likely to provide, and when I die I can pass that money on to someone else.

This is why you NEED to have things like the individual mandate...
Because sets of actions that are efficient for profit maximizing individuals don't create systems that work well for society as a whole...

I don't disagree. I was not celebrating the end of the mandate. Earlier you said "The Republicans decided to take away health care from 13 million people" and many have phrased it something like this. But more accurately, 13 million will drop their insurance because they are no longer required to purchase it. In the first version, people are having something taken away that they want. In the above formulation, they are relieved of the obligation to purchase it. The phrasing matters.

As a society, we now will now have to come to grips with this. It is not just accidents, there is a full spectrum from routine care to cancer treatment. A friend has been battling cancer for almost two years. It's expensive, he is covered sufficiently so that they are managing. Suppose now that a person elects not to carry insurance and develops cancer. Do we just say "Too bad, you should have bought insurance"? The individual mandate was at least some sort of attempt to address this. I would like to see those who voted against the mandate explain what they think should be done when someone who opted out of insurance contracts some long term medical needs. Are we as a society ready to just write them off as not our problem?

It was said last summer that the Republicans failed to repeal the ACA. But now, in essence, they have done so. Without the individual mandate it's dead. I think they owe us an explanation of what they have in mind for health care in this country.
But right here Kaitlyn is back asking what the "liberal forum" thinks about things. I will turn the question around.A person without health insurance develops cancer. Let's say a form that would respond to extensive and expensive treatment. We say "Tough luck, let me give you the name of my uncle who sells coffins", is that the plan? The "conservative forum" is ok with this?

My father died in 1977, he spent a couple of weeks in the hospital. My mother died in 1963, she spent a few days in the hospital. My grandmother died in 1954, she died at home. A trend can be seen. We can now do extensive, expensive, and sometimes successful things. We really need ot think about the implications.