Why Trump Won ... Based on Data

[Bruce Gourley]

Why did Trump win? Here is an interesting analysis based on data.

And economic angst is not the answer.

[William Thornton]

I wouldn't argue too strongly against it...but is it the reason Hil lost? Different question.

Did you have to link the story that had the photo of the guy in a "Trump won. Suck it up buttercup" sweatshirt?

[KeithE]

Why did Trump win? Here is an interesting analysis based on data.

And economic angst is not the answer.

Real DATA strikes again!

And Bruce's Myths and Realities of Islamic Terrorism article in Nurturing Faith (May-June edition) started out with some DATA from the CATO Institute as well. Not available to non-subscribers but those of you that get Nurturing Faith can read it.

Here is more of the CATO Institute DATA (not in Bruce's article) on the cause of deaths in America (read http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1)

Minimize screen to see whole chart. You will discover that there is a 1 in 45,808 lifetime chance of being killed by any foreign-born terrorist. There are 33 other causes of death more potent than foreign born terrorists - none of which were campaigned on by Trump.

Race and fear of foreign-born terrorism were the “Trump” cards (false though they be).

[Sandy]

Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.

The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.

[William Thornton]

Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.

The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.

Buttercups will earn PhDs while trump governs...all the better to analyze the next election. Somewhere there's a delicate snowflake who will focus on how to get a decent candidate nominated and run a winning campaign.

[Jon Estes]

Why did Trump win? Here is an interesting analysis based on data.

And economic angst is not the answer.

Real DATA strikes again!

And your Myths and Realities of Islamic Terrorism article in Nurturing Faith (May-June edition) started out with some DATA from the CATO Institute as well. Not available to non-subscribers but those of you that get Nurturing Faith can read it.

Here is more of the CATO Institute DATA (not in Bruce's article) on the cause of deaths in America (read http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1)

Minimize screen to see whole chart. You will discover that there is a 1 in 45,808 lifetime chance of being killed by any foreign-born terrorist. There are 33 other causes of death more potent than foreign born terrorists - none of which were campaigned on by Trump.

Race and fear of foreign-born terrorism were the “Trump” cards (false though they be).

Take out the ways people die that are not directly caused by the specific choice of another to kill someone. It is dumb to use such data when most of these deaths are clearly oranges to the apple of terrorism.

Oh, such data will not make the point you want to make... I understand why it is used.

[Jon Estes]

Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.

The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.

When does the whining stop. Trump didn't make or break the system to win. The seasoned... best candidate since sliced bread... the unbeatable / unsinkable / political "how to play the game superior" thought more votes was enough. ROFL. If that is the best the Dems had, good thing Trump won.

I bet Clinton would have graciously received and even honestly thanked every racist the article is trying to paint as evil, if she would have gotten their votes.

How many "we want cops dead now" ... "fry them like bacon" votes did HRC get? All of them.

I guess each candidate got votes from people we politically, socially and culturally disagree with.

Trump is President.

[KeithE]

Take out the ways people die that are not directly caused by the specific choice of another to kill someone. It is dumb to use such data when most of these deaths are clearly oranges to the apple of terrorism.

Oh, such data will not make the point you want to make... I understand why it is used.

Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways?

My point is we are making way too much out of this fear of terrorism - in fact, it is being hyped up for political purposes.

I'd go so far to say our funding for NIH (or other health related agencies) should be more in line with that received by DoD and DHS combined (as revolutionary as that sounds). That would be a Jesus-based budget who called for care of the sick/poor and didn’t think much of retaliation. And our political candidates should be measured by how much they would fight deaths/injustices (vs ignore it) across the board putting emphasis where emphasis is needed and effective.

And then there is the matter of how our fight of terrorism has in itself affected the lives of the living (e.g. irrational fear generation/psychoses, long lines at airports, changes to travel plans). We are letting the terrorists win when we take anti-terrorism measures ourselves.

[Sandy]

Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.

The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.

When does the whining stop. Trump didn't make or break the system to win. The seasoned... best candidate since sliced bread... the unbeatable / unsinkable / political "how to play the game superior" thought more votes was enough. ROFL. If that is the best the Dems had, good thing Trump won.

I bet Clinton would have graciously received and even honestly thanked every racist the article is trying to paint as evil, if she would have gotten their votes.

How many "we want cops dead now" ... "fry them like bacon" votes did HRC get? All of them.

I guess each candidate got votes from people we politically, socially and culturally disagree with.

Trump is President.

If you've got some data on the "fry cops like bacon" vote, I'd like to see that. I don't think that's a large enough constituency to target for votes, or even a large enough group to use as a valid comparison in this discussion, but since you claimed they all voted for Clinton, then let's see the data.

Yeah, the buffoon is President, for now. But there's an FBI investigation going on, that has already discovered evidence confirming Russian interference in the election on behalf of Trump, and that investigation has already discovered connections to officials in the Trump campaign. As was suggested elsewhere, I've got my popcorn out, I'm kicking up my feet and enjoying the show. The attempted diversions and distractions by the administration are confirmation of what must be a mounting pile of evidence against them. So he should probably enjoy spending millions of our tax dollars on his split living arrangements, and his four day weekends at his resorts while he can, because he might not be there very much longer. This isn't going away, and it is far worse than anything Nixon ever did.

On the other hand, it's getting more difficult to explain to students why a couple of disciplinary write-ups prevents someone from being inducted into the national honor society of their Christian school, but it's OK for adults who claim to be Christians to vote to put an adulterous, corrupt, potty-mouthed, genital grabbing, strip club and casino owning jack*** in the White House. I have to wonder how that preaches from pulpits on Sunday morning.

[KeithE]

On the other hand, it's getting more difficult to explain to students why a couple of disciplinary write-ups prevents someone from being inducted into the national honor society of their Christian school, but it's OK for adults who claim to be Christians to vote to put an adulterous, corrupt, potty-mouthed, genital grabbing, strip club and casino owning jack*** in the White House.

It is quite amazing that so much has been overlooked in Trump's background/character/campaigning. Fear mongering/latent racism was effective as was the anti-Hillary campaign of FoxNews/Russia/RW Republicans. It is clear that the negatives of Hillary (and the mathematical breaks of the Electoral College) won this election more than the character or astuteness of Trump.

[Jon Estes]

Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.

The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.

When does the whining stop. Trump didn't make or break the system to win. The seasoned... best candidate since sliced bread... the unbeatable / unsinkable / political "how to play the game superior" thought more votes was enough. ROFL. If that is the best the Dems had, good thing Trump won.

I bet Clinton would have graciously received and even honestly thanked every racist the article is trying to paint as evil, if she would have gotten their votes.

How many "we want cops dead now" ... "fry them like bacon" votes did HRC get? All of them.

I guess each candidate got votes from people we politically, socially and culturally disagree with.

Trump is President.

If you've got some data on the "fry cops like bacon" vote, I'd like to see that. I don't think that's a large enough constituency to target for votes, or even a large enough group to use as a valid comparison in this discussion, but since you claimed they all voted for Clinton, then let's see the data.

Sorry, I have no data. You may be right, at least one of the anti-cop group probably voted for the pro-cop president. I doubt it but, hey, stranger things have happened.
"

Yeah, the buffoon is President, for now. But there's an FBI investigation going on, that has already discovered evidence confirming Russian interference in the election on behalf of Trump, and that investigation has already discovered connections to officials in the Trump campaign. As was suggested elsewhere, I've got my popcorn out, I'm kicking up my feet and enjoying the show. The attempted diversions and distractions by the administration are confirmation of what must be a mounting pile of evidence against them. So he should probably enjoy spending millions of our tax dollars on his split living arrangements, and his four day weekends at his resorts while he can, because he might not be there very much longer. This isn't going away, and it is far worse than anything Nixon ever did.

How many senior politicians n Washington do not have some sort of Russian connections?

You ought to enjoy the show. You probably liked the 20+ minutes of Maddow's stirring up the crowd about Trumps taxes. When the evidence she released only said he made a lot of money you probably bought the scandal she was presenting that wasn't there.

There is no evidence Trump or his team worked with Russia to affect the outcome. We do have evidence that unmasking was done and the excuses built upon the first lies of having no information of such unmasking keep changing the original position Rice took.

On the other hand, it's getting more difficult to explain to students why a couple of disciplinary write-ups prevents someone from being inducted into the national honor society of their Christian school, but it's OK for adults who claim to be Christians to vote to put an adulterous, corrupt, potty-mouthed, genital grabbing, strip club and casino owning jack*** in the White House. I have to wonder how that preaches from pulpits on Sunday morning.

Have no idea what you speak of here concerning students.

The other choice has her list of moral failures also. Different, I agree but I wasn't weighing the list of failures between the two but the hope for the future between the two. We are better off.

[Jon Estes]

Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways? .

Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?

To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.

Apples and oranges...

[KeithE]

Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways? .

Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?

To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.

Apples and oranges...

In terms of punishment, there is a difference. No one person to blame/punish for cancer; though there may be industries to blame and attempt to regulate for cancer.

But in terms of national priority, it makes sense to spend more on what is the greater problem in terms of human life and well-being. It is true that cancer may never be eliminated; but neither is terrorism likely to be eliminated. We should not expend "all we can" on factors that rarely afflict us (1 in 45,808) when there are many other harms that are much more prevalent. That is plain, dispassionate logic based on DATA.

In terms of fruit size, I'd say we are comparing a watermelon (cancer) to a watermelon seed (terrorism).

It is a matter of perspective. I try to not be influenced by media/political hype; more by data/logic of what would lead to a "more perfect union" for the "common good". Think about it.

Peace.

[Jon Estes]

Are we as a nation so motivated by revenge that we are only concerned about “specific choice of another to kill someone”? and not those facts of life that either cause the death of others or make our lives less livable in other ways? .

Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?

To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.

Apples and oranges...

In terms of punishment, there is a difference. No one person to blame/punish for cancer; though there may be industries to blame and attempt to regulate for cancer.

But in terms of national priority, it makes sense to spend more on what is the greater problem in terms of human life and well-being. It is true that cancer may never be eliminated; but neither is terrorism likely to be eliminated. We should not expend "all we can" on factors that rarely afflict us (1 in 45,808) when there are many other harms that are much more prevalent. That is plain, dispassionate logic based on DATA.

In terms of fruit size, I'd say we are comparing a watermelon (cancer) to a watermelon seed (terrorism).

It is a matter of perspective. I try to not be influenced by media/political hype; more by data/logic of what would lead to a "more perfect union" for the "common good". Think about it.

Peace.

I think about it a lot. I see no reason based on what you share to even consider changing my position.

To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.

Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.

[KeithE]

Is it right to compare deaths where the actions of no one intentionally took a life with those who live to kill?

To date we cannot cure cancer though we should continue to keep looking for a cure. Dropping a bomb on anyone does not stop the spread of most things on the list. Dropping a bomb on those who live to kill you or me or any other person who disagrees with them can be a noble thing. Our country needs to do al lit can to protect us. We can't, for now, stop cancer, but we can and must do all that is possible to stop terrorism.

Apples and oranges...

In terms of punishment, there is a difference. No one person to blame/punish for cancer; though there may be industries to blame and attempt to regulate for cancer.

But in terms of national priority, it makes sense to spend more on what is the greater problem in terms of human life and well-being. It is true that cancer may never be eliminated; but neither is terrorism likely to be eliminated. We should not expend "all we can" on factors that rarely afflict us (1 in 45,808) when there are many other harms that are much more prevalent. That is plain, dispassionate logic based on DATA.

In terms of fruit size, I'd say we are comparing a watermelon (cancer) to a watermelon seed (terrorism).

It is a matter of perspective. I try to not be influenced by media/political hype; more by data/logic of what would lead to a "more perfect union" for the "common good". Think about it.

Peace.

I think about it a lot. I see no reason based on what you share to even consider changing my position.

To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.

Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.

We will have to disagree on this emphasis question.

[Sandy]

To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.

The US has had such a vetting system in place for decades. Like any system, it has required upgrading and adjusting to new threats, technological advances, and shifts in responding to changes in potential terrorist activity. There are quotas in place, and different sets of requirements for people coming from countries that are higher risks. It takes between 18 months and two years to clear. Given the number of terrorist attacks in the US committed by individuals here as refugees, I'd say it is highly successful in keeping out terrorists.

There are over 6 million Syrian refugees now. The largest number of them are in Turkey, with almost as many in Lebanon, and over a million in Jordan. The highest number proposed by Clinton during the campaign was 65,000, not "hundreds of thousands." Under the current program, they have to be self-sufficient in 90 days, so it isn't feasible to bring a large number.

Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.

I agree with that, to a certain extent. Medical research and health care is not an economic commodity to be exchanged for profit based on a market motivation created by the pain and suffering of people. It is a basic human right, and it is as significant an aspect of the sanctity of human life as protecting the unborn. I could write a book on the immorality of medical research (almost all of which, in this country, is funded by contributions and not-for-profit institutions) discovering a cure for cancer, and then "pricing" the cure on the free market, because you are putting a price on the value of a human life. If you believe in the sanctity of human life, then health care is a basic human right, provided by the gift of knowledge given to those who have it by God.

[Jon Estes]

To think about slowing terrorism, there are things that can be done which do not affect the US budget much. Stopping people from coming into our country until there is a vetting system in place that works best.

The US has had such a vetting system in place for decades. Like any system, it has required upgrading and adjusting to new threats, technological advances, and shifts in responding to changes in potential terrorist activity. There are quotas in place, and different sets of requirements for people coming from countries that are higher risks. It takes between 18 months and two years to clear. Given the number of terrorist attacks in the US committed by individuals here as refugees, I'd say it is highly successful in keeping out terrorists.

There are over 6 million Syrian refugees now. The largest number of them are in Turkey, with almost as many in Lebanon, and over a million in Jordan. The highest number proposed by Clinton during the campaign was 65,000, not "hundreds of thousands." Under the current program, they have to be self-sufficient in 90 days, so it isn't feasible to bring a large number.

Living in a free market country, it should be the marketplace that finds the cure for cancer and the government who finds the way to stop terrorism. I'm in for the government to get out of the businesses boardrooms and stop the flow of checks to prop up a business. If it cannot succeed on its own, let someone else do it.

I agree with that, to a certain extent. Medical research and health care is not an economic commodity to be exchanged for profit based on a market motivation created by the pain and suffering of people. It is a basic human right, and it is as significant an aspect of the sanctity of human life as protecting the unborn. I could write a book on the immorality of medical research (almost all of which, in this country, is funded by contributions and not-for-profit institutions) discovering a cure for cancer, and then "pricing" the cure on the free market, because you are putting a price on the value of a human life. If you believe in the sanctity of human life, then health care is a basic human right, provided by the gift of knowledge given to those who have it by God.

So if they have that right and yu want the government involved, let's just send all; who need healthcare and have no insurance to the VA hospital. Change the name and make it noticeable. Lets promote it as government provided healthcare...high quality... quick service... years of experience... So good we created oit for our veterans, the soldiers who keep our freedoms frfee.

Yeah. Government should oversee the health system, they have it figured out so well.

[Tim Bonney]

Real DATA strikes again!

Race and fear of foreign-born terrorism were the “Trump” cards (false though they be).

We abviously need to ground all air planes and park all cars. They are way more dangerous than immigrants and terrorist. Or, look at the top of the list and get Americans more preventative healcare if we all really care about living longer.

Great chart Keith! The whole terrorist piece is obviously so over blown as to be ludicrous when shown as a statistical risk.

[KeithE]

The bad thing about Bruce's article is that it is a bonafide error/sin in the voters that enabled Trump to win.

Convincing those voters to flee from their errant ways is very difficult.

Economic angst can be changed by experience of worse economic angst when Trump’s march to even more corporate profits pay becomes apparent.

[Sandy]

So if they have that right and yu want the government involved, let's just send all; who need healthcare and have no insurance to the VA hospital. Change the name and make it noticeable. Lets promote it as government provided healthcare...high quality... quick service... years of experience... So good we created oit for our veterans, the soldiers who keep our freedoms frfee.

Yeah. Government should oversee the health system, they have it figured out so well

The Republican sequester, and the Bush tax cuts, bear almost all the responsibility for the difficulties the VA healthcare system has faced, going back at least 15 years now. If you're going to use this as an example, you've got to include the number of times Republicans voted to cut the budget for it. From what I can see, at least a dozen major cuts, and blockades of any of President Obama's proposals to increase the budget and staffing levels. That's an apples to oranges comparison anyway. A single payer system would be much more adequately funded than the VA healthcare system is.

The quality of medical care in the US, compared to the industrialized world, has declined as the number of for-profit health care providers have increased, and bought out the non-profits and church-operated systems. We don't have the best, in terms of results, or research, the socialized medicine countries do. And what good is a health care system with all kinds of bells and whistles that is only accessible to those with money? If a fourth of your population\n can't access it, what good is it?

If you want to discuss health care, then it needs to be a basic human right, and is as essential a component of the sanctity of human life as protection of the unborn. Otherwise, there's no context for discussion.

[Jon Estes]

If you want to discuss health care, then it needs to be a basic human right, and is as essential a component of the sanctity of human life as protection of the unborn. Otherwise, there's no context for discussion.

I guess the discussion is over since you have nothing to say outside your set parameters. That's a way to end a discussion. We can keep talking as long as you talk according to my rules.

Soon you might be the only one in the conversation.

[Sandy]

If you can justify health care as a privilege only for the affluent, especially from a Christian perspective, go ahead.

[JE Pettibone]

If you can justify health care as a privilege only for the affluent, especially from a Christian perspective, go ahead.

Ed: So Sandy, why did the one for whom the "Christian Perspective" is named not heal all the ill around him? Yes, that question bothers me, and so does the fact that there are a nations around the earth with significantly lower life expectancy than in the US, despite your naive idealism. Most of us on these boards have access to significantly higher level of health care than many others. around the globe.

Buy the way I am curious about out how much direct experience you and others here who talk about the VA health services actually have? I have had both private and VA health services for the past 16 years, and find little difference.

[Jon Estes]

If you can justify health care as a privilege only for the affluent, especially from a Christian perspective, go ahead.

Can you tell me of any one specific citizen of the USA prior to the ACA that could not go to a hospital and get treated? Maybe you can give me one name of someone who got turned away when they told the hospital they had no insurance. Other than those hospitals who sent non-emergency patients to local and qualified clinics so the ER would not be backed up.

As far as a Christian Perspective in this discussion - why need there be one given if medical treatment is available with or without insurance.

[Sandy]

Emergency room care cannot, in any way, be equated to access to the kind of health care that is available for those who are affluent enough to afford the insurance to get it. An ER isn't going to provide chemotherapy or radiation treatments for cancer, dialysis, surgery beyond what is required for the emergency, treatment for the underlying causes of a heart attack, or provide any medication beyond what is immediately needed. And a lot of for-profit hospitals are getting out of the ER business by simply closing them down.

I'm old enough to remember when hospitals that had the names of Christian groups on them actually belonged to those groups. You can pick up an old Texas Baptist Annual and look through the reports of the Baptist hospitals and easily discern, from the mission and purpose statements, what Baptists believed about health care because they were putting a lot of money into caring for those who had no other means of getting it. The names are still, for the most part, on the hospitals, and the for-profit companies that operate them even use them to self-identify, but the charitable care is gone. I developed a chronic atrial fibrillation from a viral infection in my late 20's, and had trouble getting health insurance. When I lived close enough to Nashville, because I was an ordained Baptist minister, I could get treatment and care at the Baptist Hospital there, until it was sold to a conglomerate that also bought the Catholic hospital. Fortunately, my doctor got me enrolled in a program at Vanderbilt and I got treatment that way, and when I moved back to Texas, got transferred into one at the UT Texas Medical Center. I would most likely be dead now if I had to depend solely on emergency room treatment.

If the way most conservative, right wing Christians want to handle health care in the US were applied to the Bible, I wonder what the price tag would have been on Lazarus' resurrection? Jesus could have made a fortune.