The First 100 days

This is true. I don't hate liberals, but I don't trust them. They are like Hyman Roth in Godfather 2. I can do business with them etc, but not trust them.

 

You're making many assumptions.
If an injured party could not pay for a hospital or doctor's services, would they be served by those healthcare professionals?

If "workers" knew they could not obtain free healthcare at a hospital, would they be less likely to work for an employer that didn't have insurance?

Would an employer be more or less likely to buy insurance if they couldn't find workers unless they provided insurance?

 

Obviously, under EMTALA, emergency rooms will treat first and ask questions later (at least if they accept Medicare). Would they do the same if the law didn't require it? I think it would depend on the situation. For minor stuff, I think they'd turn those people away, and I think they'd be more willing to turn away people whose ailments are not patently obvious. For those who don't show objective signs of injury or illness, I think they'd be less likely to CT scan them until they glow in the dark just to find some ailment.

However, when we're talking about construction, you have guys falling from great heights, very heavy objects falling on guys, and very dangerous equipment in use, so you probably see a disproportionate number of injuries that are obviously likely to be fatal or cause major physical disability without medical treatment. I think most hospitals would at least stabilize those guys even if the law didn't require it. Let's put it this way. I don't recall hearing about many hospitals in the US turning catastrophically injured people away before EMTALA. Maybe it happened, but I don't recall that being common. Personally, as a child I went to the ER with a broken leg before EMTALA, and my family was uninsured at the time. They still took care of my leg, and my dad paid them later.

Less likely? Yes. Completely unwilling? At least for many, no. It would depend on how desperate that worker is for a job and how much he prioritized medical care in the short term. Plenty of people go years without seeing a doctor. To be able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads (which are more immediate needs), those people are going to be willing to accept no health insurance (at least for awhile) to have money for basics. If they get sick or need emergency care, they'll hope for the best.

Obviously, the employer is more likely to provide insurance if he can't find workers, but the point is that for low-skilled work in which labor is a dime a dozen, he can find workers without providing insurance. Employers compensate according to what the market demands, and if it doesn't demand health insurance, he's not going to provide it.

 

Joe Biden is trying to get Rudy Giuliani kicked off TV
Kamala Harris wants Twitter to delete Trump's account
Cory Booker thinks Trump should cancel his rallies

What are "progressives" so afraid of?
If Trump's ideas were as bad as they say, then shouldn't they want him to speak more?

 

Wake up liberals, time to chant the daily mantra

 

Short of no nuclear war, this is the one thing that matters the most. By my estimate at least

 

Nuclear war is a bit of a distant memory, but yes that would be the worst.

2nd for me and more imminent is New Green Deal like laws being passed and the consequent starving and death of millions of people.

 

There is quite a bit of chit chat out there about manufacturing jobs.
The truth is that US MFG had a net gain of 117K jobs over the last 12 months and a gain of 383K over the last 24 months.

Further, only three of the last 10 presidents had a net gain in manufacturing jobs at this time in office. Trump is one of those three.

Net Manufacturing Jobs gains/-lost from the start of his Admin through his third Sept in office -

+482K Trump
-792K Obama
-2.75 million W Bush
+408K Clinton
-1,047,000 HW Bush
-1,384,000 Reagan
+1,639,000 Carter
-1,278,000 Nixon
-13K JFK (not a misprint)​

 

I think this guy's story is fairly common out there

 

So is this guy's

CHUCK TODD: Do you not trust the FBI? You don't trust the CIA?

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WISC.): No, no, I don't. Absolutely not.​

 

Ron Johnson says he doesn't trust the Deep State but he voted so that they would keep the power to spy on US citizens. Actions speak louder than words.

 

He's only trumpeting the Deep State now as a Trump defense talking point.

 

Obama weaponized the IRS (Learner), the CIA (Brennan) and the FBI (Comey). All of those departments have thousands of good servants working for them, but the leadership went rogue.

 

What exactly are you disagreeing about SH. Obama definitely weaponized those agencies. You could blame GWB for weaponizing CIA against the people, but Obama pointed them at DJT.

Maybe you meant the leaders have not gone rogue. I agree. They are following their political leadership. It just isn't the person they are supposed to follow, who they technically report to.

 

Antifa is upset that Trump is withdrawing US troops from Syria

If you are wondering what Antifa has to do with the Kurds, this is where Antifa thought they'd be allowed to hold territory with allies in Northern Syria. This is where they thought they could establish a revolutionary communist society.

From my perspective, if Antifa wants to go to Syria and fight the Turkish Army, we should not stand in there way

 

McGregor is right. We need to get back to Jeffersonian policies. Pursue trade, peace and friendship. Don't involve ourselves in regional squabbles.

Sending Antifa to fight for Kurds would be a great solution for all the neocons who want to keep fighting in Syria. Draft Antifa to send them to Syria where they can fight with their Communist brethren.

 

I disagree with the term "weaponized". Did Comey go rogue and not follow department policies and procedures? Absolutely and thats why he's been criticized by both sides of the aisle.

IRS? I understand the conservatives viewpoint but I'm not convinced that situation was anything more than a poor choice of filter criteria to focus resources. My bias is that PAC's shouldn't be tax free entitities.

CIA? Brennan's comments after leaving his post should not color those in the agency.

 

Are these numbers accurate? As far as I can find they appear to be. (Note: these are budget deficit amounts, not debt).

 

Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.”

Yep. And so do Republicans.

 

I read the governmental report about the IRS scandal. "A poor choice of filter criteria" is a very sterile way to say weaponized the IRS against conservative PACs. It doesn't matter what you think on the subject, as of today PACs are tax exempt, and should be treated equally under the law.

The IRS alerted auditers to look for scary words in tax exemption applications like "constitutional", "patriot(ic)", or "freedom". They then showed in their report how long it took for left wing vs right wing PACs to get tax exempt status. For left wing, it was within the realm of expectation, weeks to months. For right wing it was years.

Not only that the right wing PACs were asked to divulge the name of their donors, which is unheard of.

Not only that the right wing PACs were never given an explanation for why their applications were being held up and what they needed to do to get them processed.

Not only that the right wing PACs were repeatedly audited in person and threatened with further legal action.

Weaponization is the most precise way to describe it.

 

I am talking about Brennan lying to all US citizens about putting us all on surveillance. GWB agreed to collecting the data. So he isn't innocent either. But Brennan was directly asked about it and lied. Maybe weaponized is not the right word for him specifically. But was trying to group all these different things together.

 

I haven't read any government reports on this matter so need to take you at your word. There was a huge influx of Tea Party-ish groups at this point so to me is makes sense they'd get extra scrutiny at the time. Still, my bias is that I'd deny them all, left right green or yellow.

 

Yes, he did lie in that testimony. Of course, does anyone think the CIA will ever be public with their means?

 

It's hard to tell which gets liberals more enraged --

1. Not defending Syrian borders
or
2. Defending American borders

 

No. I expect them to lie. That is what spies do. Lie and deceive.

Notice they are still saying things?