Sunday Musings 9/11/16 Civility in Language

I am struck by how anger can overwhelm common sense in this political campaign.  The Cable TV culture which Donald Trump has used to feed his need for narcissistic approval while camouflaging what he really believes has gotten under Hillary's skin to the point when she is in front of her true believers she has lost control of her common sense button.

Now I do not believe that common sense thrives in the Cable TV culture.  Doing the outlandish is what draws people into watching it, improving ratings and advertising rates and increasing the pay of the reality TV starts.  This is clearly the playbook of Donald Trump but I wish Hillary would simply put a lid on her language and remember that every voter is deserving of respect, even if you don't like what they are saying.

Now I will admit that getting throngs of people saying "Lock them Up" and referring to me would make me angry, but we expect more from our candidates for President.  We expect them to be calm and rational.  Hillary was calm when she disparaged 50% of Trump's supporters, but that was an irrational statement made in the thrall of being the center of attention within a group of people who think similarly.  Not unlike why Donald Trump gets the audience chanting "Lock her Up".

But I believe most voters know people who are supporting or will vote for the candidate of the other party.  They understand that a lack of civility in language and process has made Congress dysfunctional.  And if the President does not lead us in civility, then there is no hope for ending the dysfunctionalty.

While I have written blog postings in anger, because I am always hoping that what I write will convince RedStateVT to support one of my positions, I try to keep my language civil and respectful of what the other side is saying.  That is why I am disappointed in Hillary's language the other day and incredibly impressed by President Obama's ability to be civil in the face of incredible incivility towards him by many in the GOP.

As for Donald Trump, I have written many words about his lack of morality in how he has pursued increasing his personal wealth.  It is this lack of morality combined with his uncivil language that make the potential for him to win this election completely foreign to my way of thinking.  I am incredibly stressed out by this potential.  I don't understand how any person who cares about civility could vote for him, but I know that this will happen.

Amen, Why GOP Obstuctionism is Bad for the GOP

I couldn't have said it better.  We need two parties working together to solve problems and move the country forward.

Link to an Excellent column by Norman Ornstein

GOP Pundits Agree With Me

Charles Krauthammer says non-criminal undocumented should be given a legal path to residency



Michael Gerson says Conservative Talk Media is Discredited

Donald Trump Receives Endorsements

Before I go off to golf in the NYC borough of Queens, which will require me to battle traffic going to the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament and Mets traffic on the way home, I want to thank Nicholas Kristof for assembling a list of who supports Donald Trump for President.

ISIS and other Jihadists

North Korea

The Ku Klux Klan

Russia

China (PRC that is)

American Freedom Party

American Nazi Party

The National Enquirer

Now as Mr. Kristoff says that list of strange endorsements does not mean that all Trump supporters believe what these people believe, but you do have to wonder why such a list of authoritarian, non-democratic entities do support Trump.  A President whose goals are supported by such entities cannot be one that is good for human rights, world peace and economic stability.

Will the Middle East Politics Continue in Washington?

I suspect so which is why I may have to end this blog.  What is the point of writing about sensible policies that take place in the middle of the political spectrum and draw upon the need for government to help people while remaining true to the sensibilities of market signals; which means good ideas come from both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Anyway I am not at that point yet.

Thomas Friedman is also not optimistic, and is pinning his hopes on Hillary stuffing the Bernista's, while acknowledging the worthiness of their goals, and working with centrist Republicans to solve some pressing issues like corporate tax reform, improving the ACA, and improving our infrastructure.  I would also add to that some realistic discussion on how to pay for the baby boom elderly entitlements while leaving a system that is viable for subsequent generations.

Link to Friedman column

Lawyer's Need To Support the End of Anonymous Ownership & End RoboCalls from the

60 Minutes reran a piece on how U.S. Lawyers facilitate money laundering and how their lobbying has until now convinced Congress that they should not pass a law requiring every company to identify the beneficiary of its ownership.

If every company was required to disclose the beneficiary of its ownership the Helfinstine swine that own the call center system behind "Lower your interest rates" would be disclosed.

But beyond that what we would find out it who owns all these expensive condominiums that are sold to shell LLC's behind which is some anonymous owner.  I am sure a number of these people own Trump properties through shell companies and Trump is potentially complicit in money laundering selling properties to people who use such a technique.  No doubt Donald Trump would not be behind such a law.

On the other hand, I know my friend RedStateVT hates lawyers who make money off questionable behavior and use it to lobby Congress.  So I am quite sure we would agree on this.

I Get It Now, Medicare for All is the only solution for viable Health Insurance System

My Dr friend that I have previously cited had the idea that the transition for the employees and companies that are in the private insurance space could be managed by simply lowering the age people could sign up for Medicare by one year for 47 years until it was 18.  And he would leave the employee insurance plans in place.

But that didn't convince me that the transition issues were insurmountable.

But then I read the following letter to the editor this morning.

"How many times must it be demonstrated that health care cannot be treated like any other market commodity before our legislators get the point? This article once again confirms that affordable health care can’t be delivered using a private, for-profit system."

"One cannot make a profit insuring sick people. Therefore, health insurance companies are most profitable when they avoid sick people while continuing to collect premiums from healthy customers. When this does not work, raising prices is necessary to keep profits up."

"But health insurance premiums are already unaffordable for most of us. That is why the young and healthy are not buying. The only way to make health care affordable is to have everyone paying into the pot in proportion to their income while eliminating the unnecessary expensive middleman: health insurance companies."

"Must we wait until only the billionaires will be able to afford health care before we join all the other industrialized countries and switch to such a government-funded single-payer system (Medicare for All)?"

ELIZABETH R. ROSENTHAL

Larchmont, N.Y.

The writer is a dermatologist.

Remember that Medicare Part D is the private insurance space within Medicare.  It is also for healthy people the most affordable component of Medicare.  So it is likely that younger people would migrate to this part of Medicare keeping people who work in the private insurance space employed.

Meanwhile, the entire health care system is moving to networks and other things to try and control costs.  Only by having Medicare negotiate with Drug companies are we going to stop price gouging like the epi-pen debacle.  And where is the FDA in approving generics on this product?

But the real problem is new techniques that require a lot of RnD keep being found for people to survive things they wouldn't have survived previously and they want to survive and they want those treatments.  And the capital that funds that RnD needs a return.  I don't have a solution for that unless you simply use costs as a rationing tool and only the more well off will get certain treatments.  This is already the case within Medicare.

But that is a separate issue from how do you make basic health insurance affordable for everyone (or as affordable as it can be).

I now support Medicare for all.  I have no idea how you get that through Congress.