Monday, February 27, 2017

Mon AM

 In more ways than one, it was a tough weekend.

I know it was the right thing to do, and Karen and I probably waited far too long, but we finalized our "living trust," along with our estate plan, last will and testament, etc.  It's all necessary, but it's very sobering to consider our own mortality.  I found the entire process very educational and enlightening; our lawyer was very, very good.  But it was hardly a cheery experience.

And I turned my ankle, if only slightly, again this weekend out running on the increasingly rutty roads.  The weather cold and wet and warm and cold and......  It's not been a winter conducive to good running, at least not for me. It's been a winter of sprained ankle, recovery, sprained ankle, recovery......  But it was really really great to get out on my bike for most of last week--gee, a week's worth of bike rides in the middle of February.

There's more, but......

I didn't watch the Oscars and had no intention of doing so.  I really don't do movies and likely would not have recalled the names of 90+% of those films and people on the show.  I am not at all interested in what dress so-and-so is wearing and don't find many of the jokes funny, esp the insider ones that require some knowledge of Hollywood.  If some folks want to watch all this, that's fine with me.  I prefer not to.

But Karen was watching her AM television show and there were clips after clips of the host, the presenters, and the recipients of giving their seemingly obligatory condemnations of the current administration.  (More about that in a second.)  It's as if the Hollywood-types must make some sort of anti-Trump comment or they'll be drummed out of the business.  It must be trendy.  "Oh, your anti-Trump diatribe was so, so, so......"  Give us a break.  Most of Middle America doesn't care what the Hollywood-types think.  Most of them live lives we could only dream about.  They have no idea, or have forgotten, what it's like to struggle with the storms and stresses of everyday life here in the Middle.  Again, I question their commitments; I think many of them are hypocrites.  Gee, if they had given up half, only half, of their incomes, lived in houses not quite so lavish, etc. maybe they could have bought health insurance policies for all those they claimed were "uninsured."

And, I repeat, where are the Establishment Republicans in repealing Obamacare. Oh, they were big talkers and maybe even doers when their repeal bills were doomed from the start by the inevitable prospect of an Obama veto.  Now, without the safety net of a veto, they have really backed off.  Is it all right if I call that political cowardice?  How about selective indignation?

Many are decrying that repeal of Obamacare will cause millions to lose their coverage.  First, I hardly think that will happen.  There are safety nets all over.  If those don't work, a repeal can include more safety nets.  I don't often hear anyone (OK, well I do, but few from the Establishment.) express much concern over the high costs--premiums, deductibles, co-pays, worse coverage--of health insurance to those in the Middle.  Did I recently read that the average cost of health insurance for a family exceeds $10,000?  We're not quite that high, but could have been very close had we not opted to change policies, gambling, I guess, on our health and accepting higher deductibles and co-pays.

"Empowerment."  I have never liked that word, esp not in the context it's been used over the past few decades.  But I was reminded of it the other AM, when, of all things, passing a pick-up truck with a "Trump" bumper sticker on it.  It seems, like so many things, "empowerment" is only "good" if a certain agenda is concerned.  Women can be "empowered."  Blacks can be "empowered."  College students can be "empowered."  And more "power" to them.  Aren't many folks selective in this, thpough?  The man I saw driving the pick-up surely felt "empowered" by Trump's victory.  I'm guessing, but don't know, he wasn't really enamored, not deep down, with Trump.  But it was his way of sticking it to the Establishment, one that has thumbed its collective nose at him and his Middle for years and years.  Instead of celebrating his "empowerment," he is derided as "a deplorable," as "ignorant," "stupid," "racist," "bigoted."  Maybe if the Establishment hadn't ignored and marginalized the concerns, the lives of the Middle there'd have been no Trump??????  There really is a divide in this country.

Speaking of Trump, when is he going to grow up?  I suspect never.  I keep waiting for some adults to come into the room, but so far they haven't shown.  Is there not enough work for Trump to do as President?  He keeps that tweeting or twittering or whatever it's called.  Grow up, man!  Why is he going after the LameStreams?  That isn't necessary.  He won; they (and Clinton) lost.  Most of America doesn't believe the LameStreams anyway; they have lost our trust and deservedly so.  I keep waking up thinking, when I hear "President Trump," I'm still deep into a bad dream.  (And remember, always remember, I think I'd have the same nightmare with Clinton!)  This is rapidly turning into a Clown Show.  I thought I'd only be able to use "Clown Show" in regard to our local school board and administration.  I guess not.

8 comments:

guslaruffa said...

Watching the Oscars is a waste of time. This is nothing more than a self serving pageant of people who know nothing more than what is placed in front of them. Warren Beaty. Remember him, he was going to run for president 20 plus years ago announced the wrong winner. It just points out what bafoons these people are. And they think the have the right to pass judgment on us!
And speaking of pre Oscar shows, this morning when I got up for breakfast, I turned on ESPN. What do I see, a recap of last nights Oscars. And you wonder why ESPN is losing over 13,000 subscribers per month. You just can't get away from Hollywood!
As far as that horrible health care system we have now, the Unaffordable Health Care Insurance, we have been told by the President that we will see something this week. It will not be an easy Act to repeal and fix. It has been very carefully written to be very destructive. We must be patient.
I too am tired of both the Twitter and battles with the media. I think everyone in this country knows where they stand. We do need to get on with the business of running this country.
Empowerment, is that from the Greek word Anarchy?

Grant said...

"Many are decrying that repeal of Obamacare will cause millions to lose their coverage. First, I hardly think that will happen. There are safety nets all over."

I have no way to understand this comment. It makes no sense at all.

Since the ACA, most estimates say the percentage of adults without insurance has dropped from 17.6% to 9.9%. That is over 17 million people who have insurance now that didn't before. Prior to the ACA, people went bankrupt or people died from lack of treatment. Those things really happened to a lot of people. It was not made up. There was nothing protecting people from bankruptcy if they developed a serious illness.

No Republican plan has mentioned anything about adding new safety nets. None! I have no idea where you get that idea but it is ludicrous.

Just today our President said, "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." First of all, everyone with any knowledge of healthcare knew darn well that it is very complicated. The man we have elected to lead us is the only one who didn't seem to understand its complexity. Second, while he was running, he claimed to have a plan that would be better, cover everyone and be cheaper. Most of us who were paying any attention and know anything at all about healthcare knew he was lying. As I commented on your Feb 3rd post, there is no way to cover everyone including those with pre-existing conditions and make it cheaper. No way!!

Anyway, most estimates are that repeal of the ACA will cause 24 million people to lose their insurance. The Republicans know this and that is why they have been hesitant to do the very thing they tried to do over 50 times while Obama was in office. I don't mean to be rude but the fact that you think millions will not lose their insurance if the ACA is repealed shows a complete lack of knowledge on your part of insurance/healthcare in America. I generally have a lot of respect for your opinions even if I disagree with them but the statement quoted above is simply sloppy thinking.

Ron Marinucci said...

Boy, this is, as Yogi Berra once said, "Deja vu all over again." IT reminds me of the reaction to Hillary Clinton's screed that people shouldn't have to work at jobs they don't want or like just to pay for health insurance. Nah, they should be able to pursue their dreams! Of course they should. Work to take care of their families? How outdated! Why work at a job that's not liked or wanted when other people can pay for a family's health insurance? That's this all over again. Silly me--all those years working four and sometimes five jobs to take care of my family. Too "poor" to be able to afford college; too "rich" to get any financial aid. And I'm still a sap. Approaching 70, still working two jobs to "get things" instead of expecting others to pay for what I want. Yep, a real sap......

Grant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Grant said...

I don't see what your comment has to do with anything I said at all. I never said people shouldn't have to work or anything like that at all. Sorry you don't like being called out on your sloppy thinking but claiming people won't lose their coverage if the ACA is repealed is sloppy and lazy thinking. Every single bit of evidence, both that provided by experts and that provided by those hard to remember days of eight years ago, show that you are entirely wrong.

I fully believe in working and supporting yourself and nothing I said in any way disputes that. However, we KNOW that some people won't work and won't have insurance. We also KNOW that some people who do work (and some who work two jobs just like you!) will still be too poor to afford their insurance and medical treatments. We also KNOW that some people with insurance will be kicked off their plans due to preexisting conditions. So, knowing these things, it is apparent that without some plan to cover those people we will have people dying of treatable diseases. What do you think we should do? Let them die?

If that's your answer than at least be honest about it. If you think our country is one that should allow people to die of treatable disease because they didn't work as hard as you or aren't as smart as you then just admit it. If people who are against Obamacare would just admit that is what they think should happen to those people I would have a lot more respect for that opinion instead of this "it will all work out" crap. The safety nets have been there, they don't work for everyone. Prior to the ACA people died of treatable diseases frequently when they were cut off their treatments due to lack of money. But of course they should have worked harder and everything would have worked out, right?

Ron Marinucci said...

Nobody I know wants anybody "to die." Come on. It's Obamacare that is the problem. It is a bad, bad law. For instance, how many people, due to the rising costs, now have worse health care coverage? Yes, they are now "covered," but not as well. How many people now pay double and triple what they once paid? How many people now pay 15%, 20%, and more of their disposable income on health insurance--and worse coverage? Who cares about their lives being diminished? Nobody wants anybody "to die."

Grant said...

Sure, it's easy to say no one wants anyone to die. However, repealing Obamacare without a substitute plan to get people insurance will result in people dying of treatable diseases. That is a fact.

The middle class certainly got hit hard with rising costs under Obamacare. That is the cost we have to pay as a society to provide insurance to the poor and those with preexisting conditions. There is no way to provide those things for free.

Obamacare is actually the conservative plan to insure more people in this country. It was hatched for the most part by the Heritage Foundation. The reason why Republicans have not come up with another plan is because Obamacare was the most conservative plan possible to enable millions of additional people to have coverage and care.

If Obamacare is repealed without keeping protections for those with preexisting conditions or providing a way for the poor to get coverage, people will die of treatable diseases. You are trying to play the game where you don't have to take responsibility for the inevitable outcome of policy decisions you support. It would be like me saying I would like to remove all of the traffic lights but I don't want there to be more accidents. There are inevitable outcomes of policy decisions and you don't get to deny that you have a part in those outcomes when you support a particular policy.

Grant said...

Sorry, I should have answered your direct questions.

How many people now have worse health care coverage? The answer is very few to none. Everyone's coverage now likely costs more but it is better in almost every way. There are no more lifetime or annual maximums, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition and those with preexisting conditions are not kicked off their plan.

How many people now pay double and triple what they once paid? Those with employer provided insurance probably do not pay double or triple. Those on the individual market likely do pay double or triple but (as noted above) their coverage is much better now.

How many people now pay 15%, 20%, and more of their disposable income on health insurance--and worse coverage? As noted above, almost no one has worse coverage despite your assertions. I would guess many people on the individual market are paying 20% of their disposable income on insurance. I would also guess that prior to the ACA there were many people paying 20% of their disposable income on insurance as well.

What gets me about all this Obamacare kvetching is people acting like there was not a problem with rising insurance costs before it was enacted. There were myriad problems in healthcare before the ACA. The only real answer is to go with single-payer healthcare in this country like every other industrialized nation on the planet. All of those people thought about what kind of country they wanted and apparently every country but ours did not want people dying of treatable diseases. Our country says they don't want that either but no one is willing to adopt (or pay for) a solution that would prevent that.

Once again, just because I say I don't want a certain outcome does not absolve me of responsibility for enacting policy that inevitably will lead to that outcome.