Update no.814

Update from the Heartland

No.814

31.7.17 – 6.8.17

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- To my surprise, the Wall Street Journal reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller [807] has impaneled a grand jury in Washington as part of his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections.  My surprise is not that a grand jury has been impaneled; rather, it is that it was impaneled so quickly.  While a grand jury is not a sign of malfeasance, it certainly suggests to me there is more fire behind the smoke than we may have realized.  I would also say it is another positive sign we might hear the findings of the investigation sooner than expected.

            For the record, I am with President Trump (at least in part).  I strongly believe a special prosecutor should be assigned to independently investigate Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her use of eMail and her insistence upon using a private, personal server for official communications.  She may not have violated the law in the creation of her private system, although some staffers may have done so in assisting her.  However, what she did after she was out of office is well beyond probable cause for violation(s) of federal law.  She should not walk away from what she did.  Where I disagree with the President is such a special prosecutor should not supplant the current Mueller investigation, which must proceed unobstructed to its conclusion.

            Well now, from a rather insular Kansas perspective, kudos must again go to President Trump.  He nominated Governor Samuel Dale ‘Sam’ Brownback, our illustrious governor of Kansas, to be the United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.  The position was created during the Clinton administration by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 [PL 105–292; 112 Stat. 2787; 27.October.1998].  From a very selfish position, I implore the Senate to confirm the President’s nomination as quickly as possible.  And, I choose to thank President Trump for nominating Brownback to this important position . . . hopefully, the governor will leave the state soon, never to return . . . at least in any official capacity.

            I suppose so much of my criticism of Donald John Trump boils down to one question: is this how we want other human beings to act?

            My answer has been a consistent, resounding and emphatic NO!  I would not tolerate such conduct and behavior in my neighbor, my grandson, my barber or any other human being I come in contact with in life.  If his behavior is not acceptable in John Q. Citizen, then why is his conduct acceptable in the President of the United States of America – the man that represents ALL of us?  Are we really saying that if the Dow Jones Industrial Average rises to 30,000 and beyond, if the U.S. achieves full employment, if all illegal immigration is stopped at the border wall everything he does, says, does not do, or imposes on all of us is acceptable?  If his conduct is not acceptable in our neighbor, why do we tolerate it?

            Comments and contributions from Update no.813:

“Well, big mistake on my part for taking a glimpse of this week’s update before sending it to the trash bin.  Unfortunately, the following caught my eye.  I am not refuting the fact that President Trump makes things worse for himself—who among us hasn’t—but it appears to be another comment coming from the hypocritical left, typically and conveniently forgetting all of the chaos the left creates in an attempt to take the heat off of their own nefarious and subversive activities all done in true Alinski/Soros/Obama and Clintonesque fashion—speaking of dictators—with suspicions that should have occurred long before now.  Perhaps, if I am lucky, I will be found in a roadside ditch having been found to have committed suicide by shooting myself in the back of the head with a silenced weapon, but finally free from watching and listening to all those who are part and parcel to helping our country spiral further down the toilet with their hypocritically biased reporting and preying upon those to whom Marie Harf referred to when she said ‘too nuanced to understand.’”

My reply:

            First, thank you for your comments.

            Second, friendship can and does exceed political division.

            Third, I truly regret you do not find any redeeming value in public debate over societal issues before us.  C’est la vie!

            Now, I shall offer a few thoughts on your contribution.

            Oh yes, we all make matters worse for ourselves.  Unfortunately, I expect more of the President of the United States, or the Commanding General, III Marine Expeditionary Force, or the Pilot-in-Command of a commercial passenger transport aircraft, or the President of Apple, Inc.  I expect leaders to conduct themselves with dignity, integrity and respect for others.  Donald Trump does not get a pass because he is a human being.  He chose to become President; no one forced him to take on that job.  I will continue to judge him by the metrics I expect of the POTUS.

            I think we can and will agree the left is not without sin.  I also believe I have made my condemnation of Bill’s AND Hillary’s multitudinous sins quite clear.  Just because the Democrats have sinners too does not absolve the sins of Republicans and specifically the current president.

            The single trait (among many) that brings my denunciation is his consistent penchant for his pronounced “Ugly American” conduct.  Add in just one more of his predilections – his demonstrable affinity for dictators – we have an odiferous concoction.  The more of his peculiarities we throw in, e.g. his contempt for ethics, the worse the admixture gets.

            As I have written many times, I have long advocated for shaking up the nasty, partisan intransigence and out of control largesse of the Washington ruling elite.  To me, compromise is not a disgusting word.  As much as I want sanity and sense of this Grand Republic to return to Washington, he is NOT the man to do it . . . the cost and collateral damage is simply too great.

            Regardless of my objections to the man, I expect he will be our president for the next 3.5 years.  I shall remain critical of his conduct as long as he continues to act like an ugly American.

Round two:

“I expected no less of a challenging rebuttal.  No doubt we know where each of stands, though in my defense of Trump you may not realize my distaste for his stupid antics.  However, it is the hypocritical attitude from the liberal extremist left and the passes given to the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Cummings, Warren, Schumer, and their ilk, that I find even more distasteful.  Let us not forget how wide Hillary’s legs were spread for the Russian Bear and how far Obama was bent over for the Ayatollahs of Iran. Yes, the admixture does get exceedingly bad.  Okay, I will grant you that President Trump may not be the man to do it, but I will also state that the cost and damage already incurred and to be incurred—by those that are unwilling to let him do it—have already been too great and most likely continue to be so.  There is no defeating hypocrisy.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Thank you for your perspective.  There was no doubt on your position.

            Interesting.  You apparently condemn Obama’s outreach to improve relations with Russia (Putin) and appear to accept Trump’s bro-mance with Putin.  Perhaps that is caught up in the cult of personality as well.

            Re: “those that are unwilling to let him do it.”  For the record, I am ready, willing and able to let him improve relations with Russia.  I would love to see the day that we are allies for the common good of Earth.  Unfortunately, as I have written, he appears to be doing and acting in a manner that is absolutely counter to that objective.  Lastly, I’m not going to give him a pass on his abhorrent behavior.

            Re: “hypocritical attitude from the liberal extremist.”  Pray tell, as Sir Winston liked to say, am I one of those from your perspective?

 . . . Round three:

“While my political position may easily be deduced, the point I am trying to take is that I abhor hypocrisy.  It is too commonplace for the agenda-backed media to present and espouse the stupidity of someone they don’t like while ignoring, deflecting, excusing any rational criticism against their favorite son.  I just find the comportment of these types of individuals way too hypocritical and destructive to the well-being of our society.

I was not advocating giving President Trump a pass.  Hillary was related to my comment regarding the Russians.  Obama was related to Iran and the Ayatollahs.

“I wouldn’t want you to give him a pass, but don’t give others a pass either.  Conversely, if he or anyone else does something good, give them praise were praise is do.  You may have done this in recent times, but I stopped reading months ago when The Update became too one-sided.

“Not to the point of inflicting violence against those with differing views, but you lean in that direction.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Re: hypocrisy.  Likewise, absolutely.

            Re: “agenda-backed media.”  Just a related FYI: in the intelligence biz, analysts must deal with all sorts of mis-information, subterfuge, dishonesty, mistakes, errors, and such.  The way they overcome all that confusion is corroborating information from dissimilar sources with assessments of the accuracy and trustworthiness of their sources.  If the Press is biased (and I am not convinced they are), the way we overcome whatever bias may be present is a spectrum of dissimilar sources.  We make our own analysis.

            Re: “I wouldn’t want you to give him a pass, but don’t give others a pass either.”  None of us should.  Just a related FYI: I see far too many people who are blindly partisan, i.e., if Obama was for it, then I’m against it.  To me, that is the ultimate hypocrisy.  I will gladly give Trump credit when he deserves it.  I would love for the U.S. & Russia to be allies, but I am not willing to condone or accept the annexation of Crimea & Eastern Ukraine, and acting like an adversary of the United States.  I will not accept any president becoming the lapdog of Putin & the Kremlin.  Full stop!  Trump’s actions to date have pointed in that very direction . . . every single word, statement, everything.  Even the sanctions bill he reluctantly signed yesterday, he denounced his own signing.  What are we supposed to take from all this?  Trust him without question . . . nothing burger?  Why on God’s little green earth are his actions so bloody guilty?

            Re: “I stopped reading months ago when The Update became too one-sided.”  It is only one-sided because that is what he presents us.  I have not rejected contributions – for or against.  I simply call ‘em as I see ‘em.  I invite anyone to show me where I am wrong.  More than a few have taken that challenge.

            Re: “you lean in that direction.”  I suppose it will be no surprise when I say I do not see my words that way.  However, I can understand why you see me in that light.  I must examine my words and actions.  Conversely, I would ask you to take a broader view of Trump’s words and actions.

 . . . Round four:

“Agreed ‘…because that is what he presents us.’  Numerous times through the years I have presented incidents or asked specific questions regarding nefarious misdeeds by the left—hypocritically in contrast to current events happening or being conducted by the right—only to have them not answered, answered by deflection, or have my rebuttal twisted around such that answers were provided to things taken out of context, or excuses having been cited as that’s how they did things 50 or 75 or a hundred years ago or so ‘…because that is what he presents us.’”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            I am not quite sure what you are referring to here.  Have I not answered your contributions with respect?

            Nonetheless, it seems you are suggesting two wrongs make a right.  The Democrats did it, so the Republicans can and should do the same thing . . . 10 times over according to Trump.  I can only ask, where does that get us at the end of the day?

            The extent of history has been a common topic in this forum.  Do we hold grievances 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, 10,000 years . . . how far do we go back to set things right?  When does it stop?  Where do we stop revenge and retribution?  When do we rise above the politics of personal destruction?  Do we burn the whole house down and start over?

 . . . Round five:

“Quite the contrary, you have answered many of my questions and issues I raise with the utmost respect.  But, and I don’t mean to deflect here, it would be very cumbersome and time-consuming for me to go back and put together a list of the items/issues you chose, for whatever reasons, to not answer or to deflect on in some way or other.  Several times you have chosen to pawn off as an excuse that it was done that way in the past, but my contention is that if it was wrong before, should they, whomever they happen to be, continue in their amoral way.  I should think not.  I would hope not.  Just because someone was not prosecuted in the past I don’t think they should get a pass in the here and now.  By no means am I suggesting two wrongs should make a right.  Quite the opposite.  I want justice.  I want prosecution.  I want the nonsense to stop.  It seems one of us has gotten off track.  I don’t want anyone going back dozens or hundreds of years to set things right.  But how long do we let things slide and go unpunished so that we can say it’s too far back to mete justice upon?

“To cite some examples that readily come to mind:

-- Is the Benghazi debacle—the proliferation of the video lie and subsequent media appearances by the State Department to further proliferate that lie too far back to prosecute?

--  Is the use of the IRS to target conservative organizations too far back to prosecute?

-- Is the lie that we (0bama & coconspirators) took care of the poison gas situation in Syria too far back to prosecute?

-- Is the Eric Holder gun running lie too far back to prosecute?

-- Is the Russian collusion (uranium deals for very profitable speaking engagements) to far back to prosecute?

-- Is the gazillion dollar payoff to Iran and backing of the nuclear proliferation too far back to prosecute?

-- Is the devious Wasserman-Shultz screw Bernie Sanders business too far back to prosecute?

-- Is the Wasserman-Shultz protection of her IT guy too far back to prosecute?  -- However, it looks like justice might be gaining some traction with this.

-- Is the destruction of evidence—Hillary deleting emails/destroying hard drives—too far back to prosecute? – Let alone the blatant ignoring of national security issues and subsequent subterfuge to thwart attempts at justice?

“Yes, when do we allow justice to prevail so that we may rise above the hypocrisy?  Unfortunately, I think we both know the answer to that.”

 . . . my reply to round five:

            First, my apologies.  If you had asked me if you should go back and find your examples of my transgressions, I would have said save your time and would have apologized, then.  I am terribly sorry I caused you to waste your precious time.  I am truly sorry.

            I should have at least acknowledged your list of transgressions by Democrats.

            I remember.  I chose not to respond as they were your opinions, and I could only offer my opinions.  I have too many other higher priority projects to go ferret out the facts . . . and in many of those cases, there are insufficient facts to refute your opinion or to support mine.  You believe you are correct in your view of the issues cited.  At the end of the day, I should have acknowledged your opinions, and I do not agree with your perspective of those events cited.

            In small part, I think you will appreciate one of my opinions in this week’s Update.

            I would like to see justice prevail as well.  Full stop!

Another thread contribution:

“First paragraph or so is ironic because It appears to others that the left is creating the chaos to make Trumps job as difficult as possible, to us it is very obvious what with not only the leaks but black lives matter (now also protesting in London?) etc .. all intended to cause friction and divide and much if not all of it funded and directed by George Soros radical left foundations. You need to read Sal Alynsky to learn just who is ‘historically’ trained to cause the chaos and confusion intentionally to derail the presidency and American ideals.

“Trumps appearance (in a liberals eyes) of dictatorship is merely a President bent on serving his voters, something most Republican politicians have rarely done .. when they faced opposition they automatically caved.  Trump is using his power to his (and more importantly OUR) advantage and he should be respected for that!!  I notice those who accuse him of acting like a dictator tend to be the envious, laid back, do nothing but talk sort of people.  John McCain has the gall to call Trump supporters bombastic and demanding.  As soon as Trump takes away his special health insurance and puts him on Obamacare he will be singing a different tune. And years ago when McCain was running for reelection he spoke of FULLY repealing Obamacare!! So NOW he is expected to be honoured for helping the American people because he wants to keep it in place??  He is blatantly just anti anything Trump might do that the RINOs should have done years ago as they claimed they would!!

“All I want is what Trump has proposed to allow competition among health insurance companies. Perhaps hospitals and specialists for cancer etc should offer insurance premiums for that matter since they make up most of our costs.

“Cap, you say repeatedly there is nothing wrong with socialized medicine so would you give up YOUR military insurance to go on it???  As one of your readers who lives where they have this admitted below ... ‘Yes our system has its problems with overloaded hospitals’ ... key words, this is not what we want when we are deathly sick .. and neither do you!  We just want affordable insurance and we’re willing to work hard to pay for it!!  We don’t want FREE care and the risk of improper treatment! 

“I love that Trump uses modern technology tweeting his own words, however silly as they may be at times, so that the public gets his own words and not some twisted version MSM would spew.”

My response:

            Thank you for sharing your opinion.

            Re: “left is creating the chaos.”  Interesting.  I had no idea anyone, set aside those of the left persuasion, had the ability to make the Donald speak words he did not agree with.  Amazing!  His words alone are causing most of the chaos.

            I get the impression from your words that anyone who does not support or believe in the Donald must be communist operatives.

            Re: “dictatorship is merely a President bent on serving his voters.”  Of that, I have no doubt.  Unfortunately, a president represents all citizens, not just people who voted for him; therein lies part of my objection to his conduct.  I surmise from your words that you may actually believe Marinus van der Lubbe actually started the Reichstag fire (27.2.1933) and Polish radicals actually attacked the radio station in Gliwice, Germany (31.8.1939).

            Re: “those who accuse him of acting like a dictator tend to be the envious, laid back, do nothing but talk sort of people.”  Envy is not a word I would associate with critics of Trump.  Laid back . . . perhaps.  “nothing but talk” . . . well . . . that’s me, exactly; so, perhaps you are correct.

            OK, for the sake of public debate, let us assume you get your wish and PPACA is repealed in toto and we return to the status quo ante (pre-2010).  Is access to proper health care for all citizens a worthy social objective?  . . . even for those who cannot afford it?  If not, why not?  Why is it acceptable to require mandatory auto insurance, but not health insurance?  Sure, those who cannot afford car insurance do not need a vehicle; however, how does one avoid medical treatment and especially preventative care?

            Re: “blatantly just anti anything Trump.”  Interesting.  I suppose just as you are apparently blatantly against everything Obama.  This silly parochial nonsense has got to stop.

            Re: “allow competition among health insurance companies.”  That would be a good start.  Unfortunately, that is NOT what the Republican American Health Care Act of 2017 does in any form, as so far presented.  Trump is spot on correct, it will take cooperation and compromise with the Democrats to reform and improve the PPACA, so best get on with it.

            I’m not sure why or how you think I am for socialized medicine.  I am for universal health care.  There is a difference.

            Re: “We just want affordable insurance.”  While the risk calculation for an insurance company is not an easy one, all insurance depends upon having sufficient subscribers to spread the cost-risk basis.  Low cost insurance depends upon the broadest possible participation.  There is no such thing as “free” health care; someone has to pay; it is only a question of how.  We have been paying for uninsured people through grossly inflated hospital overhead costs due to uncollectible emergency room expenses.

            For the record, I have absolutely nothing against using modern technology to communicate directly with the People.  In fact, it is a fantastic and really valuable technique.  Trump deserves praise for using modern technology.  What I object to is his use of that technology to insult and disrespect other human beings.  If he stuck to the politics, I would be an advocate.  What he does is wrong in any form, and even more so it goes everywhere.  I use his words directly . . . no interpretation, no nuance, no supposition . . . his words, full stop.  If he is seeking to communicate only with those who voted for him, then he is failing miserably, because the rest of us see his unvarnished, unspun words.  If those words are his choice, he would be better served by not speaking.

 . . . Round two:

“And thank you for sharing yours .. I don't know if you read the email I sent on Obama's accomplishments..these were not my words but very much supported .. they were screenshots from an online blog.  Would love to read your response to any of it you find untruthful .. the man was literally UN-American and his ‘fundamental change’ involved the decay of our country.  ‘The Donald’ is a refreshing opposite of ‘The Hussein’.. Just in 6 months he has improved the military, the GNP was never over 1 percent growth and is now over 2.7, soon 3.. as he promised.. I could go on but bottom line Trump has achieved more in 6 months than any other president in the last 50 years in their first 6 months.  Those that don't believe he's doing well, don't WANT to believe.  What would you want him to do to make you happy as a non-Trump voter? I shouldn't use the word voter.. I should just say he's bent on serving all Americans..not just his voters. It's just that the non-voters don't seem to want him to do well.”

“I agree with you it will be a monumental task for team Trump to work with insurance companies to get them to compete .. companies do have to determine their base of low risk participants vs high risk to even ascertain their premiums etc .. I do believe some form of health insurance should be required as hospitals do transfer their extra costs to everyone when they are forced to treat non-insured.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Yes, I read yr msg of Sat, July 29, 2017; 2:05 pm.  I saw nothing for me to comment upon.  “The Hussein” . . . that’s rich.

            We shall respectfully disagree on Obama’s accomplishments as you listed them and on Trump’s accomplishments.

            “Those that don't believe he's doing well, don't WANT to believe.”  I cannot agree with your statement.  I have criticized the actions of every administration since I was a teenager.  I am not going to stop now, just because you happen to believe, as you say.

            “What would you want him to do to make you happy as a non-Trump voter?”  A good starting point is acting like a decent human being and stop acting like a schoolyard bully, an ugly American and a dictator.  He chose to take a position that invites criticism.  No one forced him to take the position.  I would say, grow up and be a man.

            “I do believe some form of health insurance should be required”  OK; on that we agree.  So, the issue is how do we help people who work for those companies who do not provide health insurance, or they are unemployed and cannot pay for health insurance?  Just an FYI: hospital emergency rooms are not “forced” to treat the uninsured; medical ethics compels them to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay.

            Imbedded text replies are difficult to handle in this forum.  They are even more difficult to address if they are not uniquely configured, e.g., distinct font of different color.

            I’m not sure what your point was regarding co-authoring our TWA 800 book.  Please try again.

            Re: “PLEASE POINT OUT ONE INCIDENT WHERE HE INSULTED OR DISRESPECTED SOMEONE” [Emphasis by original writer].  I will start with the most obvious –  Megyn Kelly [Sat., August 8, 2015].  I cannot and will not spend the necessary time to create an exhaustive list.

 . . . Round three:

“+++  Hussein is Obama's name and there is still no proof he was born in America .. either he or Michelle is on tape saying BHO was born in Kenya ..

“+++ The screenshots I sent you were from a blog of someone who researched BHO .. I was just curious if you disagree with any of the statements that were made about the detrimental actions BHO has taken .. many in his years of politics .. he was great at talking BS but his actions were shameful.

“+++ I am more interested in concentrating on what he can accomplish than how ‘politically correct’ he is .. 

“+++ At the end of this year I will be one of those people with no health insurance as my cobra expires.  I will be having to select something from the Obamacare offering, which is limited in benefit and more expensive.  The repeal of Obamacare would not take insurance away from anyone for two years while the Trump team develops something much better, which I am confident they would.

“+++ You didn't copy and paste my complete post .. it ended with ‘when they didn't insult or disrespect him FIRST’ Megyn was very negative toward him and he reacted ..”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I shall do my level best to respect you as a friend and follow citizen.  So, here goes . . .

            Re: “Hussein.”  So, should I call you Gayle [middle name]?  Yes, it is his given middle name; he has never denied it; he has never denied it; he has never tried to change it; that was one of two names he was given by his parents at birth. 

            Re: “still no proof he was born in America.”  The best I can say is you must read the law; FYI: Act of May 24, 1934 [PL 73-250; 48 Stat. 797].  Or, are you now questioning whether Stanley Ann Dunham gave birth on 4.August.1961, to a son, she and her then husband named: Barack Hussein Obama II?  Further, by your statement, are you suggesting than Ann Dunham was not an American citizen?  Lastly, are you suggesting a (woman) mother’s citizenship does not matter?  The law says it does not matter where a child is born, only whether the father OR mother is a U.S. citizen.  What am I missing in your statement?

            Re: “blog of someone.”  Not interested.  I put my name on my Blog, and I quote my sources where appropriate.  There are far too many red herrings on the Web, and I have too little capacity to chase them.

            Re: “I was just curious if you disagree.”  Short answer: Yes!  All of it.  Yes, BHO did things I did no support.  However, he did a lot of good things, too.  You asked that we be balanced with Trump.  I urge you to provide Obama equal balanced treatment.  I do not agree with your assessment of Obama’s performance as President.

            Re: “politically correct.”  We are agreed.  I am not concerned about political correctness.  I am far more interested in performance.  However, that said, Trump’s words are FAR beyond the politically correct threshold and his performance has been dreadfully short.

            Re: “health insurance.”  I do not envy your position, and I am sorry you face this issue.  In our political debate, simply put, I do not trust the Republican majority Congress or the President to replace the PPACA.  Full stop!  Before PPACA, you would have faced a far more daunting situation – no coverage.  I hope you will properly evaluate PPACA to see what assistance can be provided.  I wish you good luck.

            Re: “didn't insult or disrespect him FIRST.”  Wow!  So, a credentialed journalist cannot ask Trump to explain his own words.  For the record, let us return to the Fox News Republican presidential debate held at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday, 6.August.2015:

Kelly: “Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter.  However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.  You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs' and 'disgusting animals' ...”

Trump: “Only Rosie O'Donnell,” he interrupted with his right index finger raised.

Kelly: “No it wasn't.  For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O'Donnell.  Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks.  You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.  Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”

I felt the question was spot on the money given his past statements and conduct.  Why did she deserve his bullying post-debate insulting statements?  How are the words Trump used acceptable in public discourse for anyone, set aside the President of the United States?

 . . . Round four:

“Ok Cap .. aside from establishing a means for those who could not get insurance to get it, (even though it was unfairly set up so the middle class pays high premiums so the poor can pay nothing .. and I mean nothing .. I have talked to people who pay zero and conversely to those who are forced to pay over $250 a month and higher, on a salary of $30k annually.)  I would enjoy seeing what you feel were Obama's accomplishments economically and in terms of providing security for our country.  Personally, I feel many were as duped by Obama's suave nature as you feel are duped by Trumps ‘brash’ nature.  As an alumni of the armed services, how can you support a man who told military men and women they should buy their own private insurance because they ‘volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences’?  There are just SO many atrocities that occurred during his administration, neatly listed on those screenshots I sent you.  If someone sent me a listing of atrocities of that magnitude committed by Trump I would stand back and reassess my support for him.

“These are not my opinions, they are facts, therefore I am not wrong .. :)

“Please continue respecting me as a friend and fellow citizen who cares about our country.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            I am truly sorry you face this medical insurance issue.  The law’s provisions depend upon income.  I have not gone (and most likely never will have to go) into the PPACA exchanges.  The largest factor to lower premiums for everyone is attaining the greatest possible participation . . . thus the mandate.  I am not a supporter of how the PPACA tried to accomplish that objective, but it was the best attempt to date.  The PPACA was a noble effort that was deeply flawed.  My position has been and remains, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.  Let us improve the PPACA to properly serve all citizens, not just the monied elite.

            You are free to choose your view of Obama’s performance.  Let it suffice to say, I do not share your assessment that we were duped.

            Re: “brash.”  IMHO, that descriptor grossly understates his offensiveness in modern society.

            Re: “they should buy their own private insurance.”  I have never heard this, seen it, nor am I aware of even a hint of such an outrageous notion.  Personally, I believe this to be parochial, anti-Obama, fake news . . . there is a lot of that flying around.

            Re: “atrocities.”  Perhaps we should review the definition of the word.

            I’ll offer just one of his latest offenses.  On 26.July.2017, Trump tweeted:

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...... Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.  Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming..... victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”

Even his Secretary of Defense and our generals (the Joint Chiefs of Staff) rejected his words, and proclaimed they would take no action until the President clarified and properly documented his instructions.  It would appear Trump could careless about performance and is only concerned about his image among his supporters.  While his tweet does not rise to an “atrocity,” it is offensive to humanity and civilized society.

            FYI: I see only opinions in your words.  I do not see facts.

            I will do my level best to continue as I have done.

A different contribution:

“Regarding the so-called health care legislation: First, let's admit that Obama Care and the pitiful efforts to reform it are not about health care so much as about health insurance, largely influenced if not dictated by the prodigious insurance industry and its huge lobby power.

“Second, let's not join in the mistake, revealed by your words, which I now take out of context but do so because of the context in which you used them: ‘This is NOT some ideological battle.’

“This CERTAINLY IS an ideological battle, or more importantly, an ideological war.  We are far down the road to abandoning the stated objectives of our Declaration of Independence, and there are few opportunities like this one to battle in the war against continued erosion of liberty.  The current battle against expanded welfare and taxpayer-funded insurance industry bailouts is not just a battle against the evils of the insurance middleman phenomena, which by definition raises the bottom line costs of health care.  It is a battle in the war against the nanny state, in hopes of preserving (restoring?) liberty as the founders envisioned it.  They hoped for and perhaps idealistically expected personal responsibility and accountability, advanced under the protection of a government peopled by patriots elected to devote part of their best years (not a lifetime) to public service.  Giving up on this one battle is a step toward giving up on the war.  This is to say nothing about the transparent exemption of Congress from the current law.

“The myth advance by the left is that millions will be left without health care if we don't preserve ObamaCare.  That is similar in its false alarming purpose to the myth that the U.S. will default on our prodigious debt is we don't again raise the debt ceiling, a subject for another day.)  No, the truth is that millions (some of whom actually are poor, as compared with thousands who qualify for Medicaid only because they have put assets in trust for the enjoyment of their heirs, etc.) may well be restored to their previous status of being without taxpayer-funded health insurance but not without health care!  Yes, this is a problem for emergency rooms, but the answer is not ObamaCare.  It is the insurance ingredient that drives up the cost.  The insurance industry should be left to address the risk at their own risk, but, no, its lobby is more powerful than the American voter, and members of Congress are personally immune from the problem.

“I despair, but I look forward to your proposed solutions.”

My response:

            Re: “pitiful efforts to reform [PPACA].”  I do not think there have been any serious efforts to reform and improve the PPACA.

            Re: “about health insurance.”  I would not disagree; however, I think the observation understates the reality.  We have no other obvious means of health care cost coverage.  One of PPACA’s greatest flaws is failing to reform the insurance industry, in that the medical insurance companies are first for-profit companies and they are being protected by semi-monopolistic conditions.  The first and best measure of reform would be introducing genuine competition and open-market operations, which in turn would be superseding state authority (and protection) of insurance companies.

            Re: “the war against continued erosion of liberty.”  OK.  I’m having a little struggle seeing this one.

            Re: “raises the bottom line costs of health care.”  The basis of our health care system is medical insurance.  For-profit companies offer that insurance.  Most of us have had decent medical insurance coverage through the military or our employment.  I am not an advocate for the medical insurance companies.  I am an advocate for universal health care for our citizens.  How that care is paid for should be a topic of public debate.  The dichotomy of universal health care and shareholder return has always bothered me.  There must be a better way.  Conversely, I truly struggle with the single-payer option and the injection of the government in our health care process.  The single greatest weakness of the PPACA is the failure to reform the insurance industry and the regulation of the industry; we need greater, broader competition – not less.  So, how do we solve the health care problem without encouraging the nanny state?

            I suppose we could go back to colonial days when there was no health care insurance and marginal medical care at best, and most folks did not live so long.

            I am not interested in playing games with the alarmist rhetoric you illuminated.  I am only interested in proper medical care for all American citizens – universal health care.  The issue has been and remains how do we achieve that objective.  The PPACA was a deeply flawed effort to achieve the proper objectives, but it was virtually destined to failure from the get-go.  The biggest single weakness from my perspective was the failure of PPACA to reform the medical insurance system and especially to create greater and broader competition.

            Re: “their previous status of being without taxpayer-funded health insurance but not without health care!”  Without insurance, what medical coverage can a poor family obtain?  What health care do they have?  “this is a problem for emergency rooms”  No!  It is a problem for all of us.  Whether you know it, or recognize it, or acknowledge it, we all pay for the emergency room medical care provided to the poor and those who choose not to pay.  Those uncollectible expenses go directly to the overhead and are spread to every single dollar charged to the rest of us.  It is one of many reasons an aspirin cost $25 in a hospital.  We must not be blind to what happens behind the business office door.

            Re: My “proposed solutions.”  First and foremost, we must have greater and broader competition in the medical insurance industry and across state lines, which means states must relinquish their control of insurance in their states.

            Re: “Congress are personally immune from the problem”  Absolutely.  I am all in favor of that, not just in this area, but all areas; they should never be immune or exempt from the laws they make.

Comment to the Blog:

“It’s hard to say who, if anyone, is directing the White House insanity. I would not put anything beyond Trump’s nonexistent moral values, but his cognitive abilities are another matter.  The various scandals, personnel issues, and what not are not consolidating his power.  That does seem to be his goal, but his ability is questionable.  Trump’s speeches leave me embarrassed, not stirred.  It’s hard to imagine even hardcore Trumpettes supporting such events as the Boy Scout speech.

“The PPACA issue is not an ideological battle.  It consists mostly of party hacks doing the bidding of their owners while trying to avoid losing elections.  There are exceptions, but nobody sees ‘cooperation, collaboration, compromise’ as workable methods, and they’re probably right about that.  We’re beyond those methods.

“I suspect the issue of transgender soldiers is another distraction.  Certainly cost of treating them is not a legitimate issue.  The military medical system spends five to ten times as much on Viagra as on transgender medical issues.

“While I support limiting Trump’s power, we have only the word of spies about Russian interference in our elections.  I would not impose new sanctions without something more substantial.  The North Korea issue is, as we have discussed, volatile and bizarre. However, the current South Korean government represents those with the most to lose, and they are not taking a confrontational stance.

“Trump’s surrounding himself with military people is another mark of dictators generally.”

My response to the Blog:

            I continue to seek understanding of support for Trump.

            Re: PPACA.  As you will see in this week’s Comments section, there are those who do see the PPACA reform process as an ideological battle.

            If compromise is a thing of the past, then there is no solution short of dictatorship and subjugation of the minority.

            Re: transgender military.  Making them the whipping boy for the President’s distraction is another abuse.

            I am hopefully that we will finally see some real evidence when the Mueller report is published.  Unfortunately, I suspect that is still a long way off.

            Re: DPRK.  Secretary Tillerson’s public statement yesterday was encouraging, but not likely to play well in Kim Jung Un’s mental state.

            Re: surrounding with generals.  Yes, that is a common feature of dictators, but I will not go that far with that criticism of Trump, yet.  I want to think he is trying to stabilize the White House staff.  Kelly demanding the termination of the ‘Mooch’ was a positive sign to that end.

 . . . Round two:

“Ordinary people see PPACA as ideological, but those with actual votes are following instructions. In a few cases, they are not following instructions, but that has to do with getting re-elected.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Well, I think of myself as an ordinary person, but I do not see the PPACA as ideological.  I see the opposition to the PPACA as predominately political, i.e., Obama & Democrats were for it; therefore, I’m against it. 

 . . . Round three:

“This line of discussion comes from your statement that ‘there are those who do see the PPACA repeal process as an ideological battle.’  I don't see racism and personal bitterness as ideological.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I would ask, why not?  Racism certainly qualifies to my thinking.  Personal bitterness as it translates into personal conduct in the public domain would seem to qualify as well.  But hey, that is just my opinion . . . and as you know, I could be wrong.

 . . . Round four:

“I guess we'd have to define ‘ideology’ or ‘ideals.’ It's too late in the day for me to dabble in that.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Well done.  ‘Nuf said.

One last contribution for this week:

“This is going to the Group for hopeful contribution/replies/retort/and maybe even a requested rebate (LOL).  Certainly it is most interesting (and likely controversial to many in my Group) about the comparisons between Hitler & Trump.  We live, indeed, in most interesting (and I say dangerous) times, so it seems.  Everything seems an illusion these days with much use of smoke, mirrors (if not magic).  Seems like everything is being run-up (from real estate value, stock market, geopolitical tensions) for some climax I would rather not approach.”

My reply:

            Oh, I’m sure of that.  There are staunch Trump supporters in your Group . . . and criticism of their boy is not welcome . . . the nature of the beast.

            Avoiding the comparisons with past dictators is easy to achieve . . . stop acting like them.

            Re: some climax.  I hope not.

            All reasonable contributions welcome.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)