There are hotels worldwide that choose to use stainless steel to highlight specific aspects of the structures for interior and external features. Today I am going to share with you a few examples of how stainless steel is used in the utmost highly acclaimed hotels located across the globe. Let’s start this list with an infamous brand name chain that originated in the USA, Trump International Hotel & Tower®.

Donald Trump seems to own everything. There is no denying that. You see him on ads, hosting television shows and his name brand extends to clothing and jewelry lines too but his most prominent founding arena of success stems from his residential and commercial property dealings.

Trump International Hotel & Tower® Chicago is sample of Donald Trump’s legacy and his use of stainless steel for the design and structure of this hotel is remarkable.

Steel and glass adorn this impressive 1,389 feet high hotel. It has a breathtaking peak that tops out at 1,170 feet. The stainless steel incorporated in the building is not solely assigned to one segment of the exterior or interior. It is actually utilized throughout the property. For instance, there are approximately 45,000 tons of steel bars reinforcing the support of the hotel. There are bowed, polished steel pieces created to form a division between units of the windows extending beyond 9 inches from the glass line. Smart applications of this metal are uncovered throughout the property.

Another structure that features stainless steel is the Miura hotel in Czech Republic. This hotel uses the metal in a unique manner by incorporating a 30 feet high stainless steel man pressing against the outside of the hotel. It is a sculptor created by the artist David ÄŒerný who is notorious for his large-scale installations.

Staircases at hotels are another means to make a statement and this use of stainless steel at The W at the New York Times Square is equally impressive. This trendy hotel makes it easy to get into a festive mood immediately. Between the hot spot city location to the stylish décor, it is definitely a place that does not disappoint. The way this property uses this material is through the design of a floating steel staircase that guides guests upstairs to an exquisite, semi-private dining area.

These are only a few examples of how metal can change the entire look, vibe and feel of a property. To find out more talk a specialist today.

Becoming a business magnate is not a very easy task, like many believe. It takes years and years of hard work and a lot of determination. Almost every person who is termed as a business magnate today had to work a lot in order to achieve what they have today. The biggest challenge is in maintaining the status and position of a business magnate after attaining it. There are business magnates in several fields today. The fields of computers, steel, bio-chemistry and entertainment business have produced many business magnates.

Samuel Insull, William Randolph Hearst, John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Laxmi Nivas Mittal and Donald Trump are a few examples of business magnates. Among all of the above mentioned business magnates, Donald Trump can easily be termed as the most glamorous and flamboyant business magnate. Donald trump has donned many roles. From a real estate developer to a television personality, he has done it all.

His casinos and resorts are popular all over the world and every year millions of tourists visit his casinos and hotels because of the extraordinary sense of glamour and style associated with all of them. His Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza and Trump Marina come under the most popular casinos in the world and in fact many more are still being constructed or being planned. With such great profits that can be earned along with the incredible intelligence and charm of Donald Trump, we can be sure that they will prove to be great business ventures as well.

Introduction

The extraterrestrials at the Olympics have been amazing. We are smitten with wonder, admiration and respect for the beyond-belief levels of sustained brutal training, laser focus and genius-level skills exhibited by those who rose to Olympian heights, let alone scaled the summits-called podiums. And then there are people like Katie Ledecky, Simone Biles, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and other Superpersons, who no way could have been born on this planet. Somethings going on here, and I hope Donald Trump will soon be asking pointed questions, raising suspicions about these Promethean heroes and heroines who infiltrated themselves amongst us mere mortals.

Speaking of Michael Phelps, let me raise a question: "What's with those circular bruises?" A little investigating reveals that "Michael The Great" might suffer from some credulity concerning New Age, alternative / integrative / traditional Chinese medicine BS.

Cupping is a fad involving "the flow of one's vital life force via the suction of heated glass bowls applied to the skin." Holy hocus pocus. How come American or other Olympic officials indulged athletes flaunting their cups on prime time world TV? Such appearances were free ads for pseudoscience. The exposure of cupping marks on winners bestowed an air of legitimacy on baseless and potentially harmful treatments-all of it beamed into the consciousness of impressionable children and gullible adults. C'est dommage.

As for cupping, this silliness has no medical or scientific basis-and it can be quite dangerous, often leading to burns and infections.

Olympian Gullibility

Did you observe the indicators of woo woo testimonials during interviews? No, I'm not referring to the many signs of the cross before or after races (is that a good luck charm or a request for assistance from a deity?). I'm referring to interviewees who claimed, "I am so blessed" (as opposed to their rivals who did not get blessed?), The fingers in the air pointing to a god in the sky watching the event or other indications that some athletes rely upon and believe in homeopathy, acupuncture, kinesiology tape and yes, cupping.

What ever happened to the rabbit's foot?

Cupping?

Basically, cupping entails having someone stick heated suction cups or glass bulbs on your skin. Olympians said they cupped to ease soreness in order to swim or run faster, jump higher, stay cooler, align their chakras and qi, and / or do whatever they wanted cupping to do for them. But, of course, they had to believe, that is, have faith, just like in religion.

In addition to the ancient Chinese, it seems some North American Indians engaged in cupping, as did Egyptians more than a thousand years before we got to AD 1. It was part of bloodletting at one time, which might now be seen as another form of alternative medicine that might make a comeback one of these days, if a movie star, celebrity or a Dr. Oz or Deepak recommends it.

In recent days since Phelps was shown before the 400 IM with cup marks on his upper body, images have popped up on the internet showing victims of cupping gone bad. It can be dangerous to allow a quack to suck "poisons" or "toxins" from your body. Medical doctors consider some cupping marks as second or even third-degree burns. Such wounds can become infected and possibly septic.

Consider what a renowned physician named David Gorski wrote on "The Science Blog" on July 1, 2016:

Cupping is nothing more than an ancient medical practice based on a prescientific understanding of the body and disease, much like bloodletting and treatments based on the 'Four Humors.' it's all risk for no benefit. It has no place in modern medicine, or at least shouldn't. After all, we don't still believe in the four humors that Hippocrates and ancient 'Western' medicine invoked for many hundreds of years. TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) is based on much the same concepts, just with different names, substituting, for example, the 'Five Elements' for the 'Four Humors' and attributing disease to imbalances in them, just as ancient Western physicians attributed disease to imbalances in the 'Four Humors.' Yet 'integrative medicine' rejects one and embraces the other when it should be rejecting them both.

All Hail the Olympians, Anyway

Cupping and other superstitions aside, there is nothing but wonder and appreciation in my view for the magnificent performances shown by nearly all competitors (Hope Solo? Maybe not so much). Olympians are indeed amazing, even more so if not extraterrestrials, after all.

Maybe those who inadvertently promoted medical silliness will use their platforms in the future to promote evidence-based medicine, scientific acumen and skeptical inquiry, and maybe even REAL wellness, in the years to come.

Be well, enjoy the quest and die healthy, but not until you're good and ready.

Introduction

I predict that in order to reduce the Federal deficit, pay for extraordinary government spending on defense and infrastructure, protect the viability of Social Security, fund a substantial tax cut for low and middle class citizens and diminish the growing wealth gap between the vast majority of Americans and the 1 percent, a one-time tax on estate values ​​over 15 million dollars will be introduced by the Trump Administration the end of the year.

The wealth tax will be applied to personal assets, including owner-occupied housing; cash, bank deposits, money market funds, savings in insurance and pension plans, investment in real estate and unincorporated businesses and corporate stock, financial securities and personal trusts. However, liabilities (primarily mortgages and other loans) will be deducted from wealth accountability. For this reason, the one time levy might more accurately be termed a net wealth tax.

I hope Trump and his minions will expand the basic idea to a variable one-time wealth tax. While it should begin with a 15% tax on net wealth of 15 million dollars, it should increase as follows:

• 25% over 20 million.
• 30% over 30 "
• 35% over 40 "
• 40% over 50 "
• 45% over 60 "
• 50% over 70 "
• 60% over 80 "
• 70% over 90 "
• 75% over 100 "
• 80% over 500 "
• 50% over 1 billion dollars

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to go further than this. The super 1 percenters might Swift Boat me and the merits of the net wealth tax prognostication if extended beyond a billion dollars. Besides, I don't want to be the Eugene Debs or Upton Sinclair of wellness, though of course I admire both immensely.

There are vastly more taxpayers whose net wealth is far below even the lowest net tax rate foreseen in the expected Trump proposal. Once this plan gains escape velocity, that is, gets the kind of attention a single Trump tweet attracts on Twitter, there will be no stopping it. Any legislator opposing it will be defeated; Fox News commentators and other critics will lose caste.

You may be surprised to learn that Donald Trump himself proposed a one-off 14.25% wealth tax on the net worth of individuals and trusts worth $ 10 million or more in 1999. Trump claimed that his proposal would generate $ 5.7 trillion in new taxes, which could be used to eliminate the national debt.

I'm told by Robert Miles, an expert on the sage of Omaha and one of the most respected investors ever, Warren Buffett, that Mr. Buffett is likely to favor the realization of the Ardell prognostication and the Ardell Rules re tax rates for the very wealthy. Warren Buffett put forward a not too dissimilar idea as part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011. The plan would have applied a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than one million dollars a year.

According to a White House official, the new tax rate would have directly affected 0.3 percent of taxpayers.

Buffett Rule: Raise $ 20 billion from ultra rich (50,000 earning $ 1,000,000 +) by requiring 30% tax rate (same as middle class). Buffett Rule net effect: Lower 20 million struggling families tax burden by $ 1,000 each.

As an aside, Buffett solves the budget deficit in 5 minutes (actually in a 43 second video):

George Will recently lamented the kind of society being bandied about in current (and past) futuristic novels. He observed that they foresee a government system of transfer of income from those who do things to those who don't. That, he says, suggests that one half of the country would support the other half.

An associate named Bruce Midgett thinks this is right in theory, wrong in the numbers. It's more like ten percent of the country would support the other ninety percent – as they damn well should be expected to do. Their wealth was not accumulated in a vacuum. Bruce added this to the conversation "

However, others see little choice – it will follow logically. The late Harold Tascher as early as the mid-50's suggested that, with continued rapid technology advances and business growth, the labor force needed to sustain a healthy and growing national economy cannot reach full employment. This will require some restructuring in ways wealth is acquired and disposed of to ensure dignity for all citizens. Tascher believed the combined wealth of the country could easily provide for this contingency without placing hardships on anyone.

Another, Warren Buffett, noted that we will need fewer and fewer people in our labor force to produce the products and services for our economic needs in the future. Buffett went on to suggest that the only solution to that situation was a progressive system of taxation that recognized the fact that some people will wish to be in the labor force and others will rather go fishing. He also concluded that the nation had more than enough combined wealth to undertake such a conversion to accommodate such an eventuality.

None of these propositions strips anyone of the possibility of earning obscene amounts of income or legacy wealth. We know the problem; we have the need. We have the wealth to solve the problem and address the need. And please, labels be damned. Call it what you will, but assess it for what it is – consideration for the value of every individual and an effort to up that value to its fullest potential for both that individuals and society.

It will be interesting to see how the conservatives respond to this concept, if Trump puts it forward as I predict he will. If he wants money to spend for needed programs, he has little choice.

With the recent election of Donald Trump those of us who don’t know much about free and fair trade are learning about it from our nightly cable TV news. Trump explains that it is unfair when we allow products into US markets with no duty or tax, but then those same countries like China or Mexico put a 45% tariff on our goods. No one probably understand this better than an International Franchisor – someone who sells franchises or master franchise license agreements globally. I can remember when I was negotiation the sale of a master franchise for my company in Mexico. My franchise buyer was in Monterrey, Mexico. The family was well-connected with the government there and had many distributorships and license agreements with major US companies already – Auto Dealers, Truck Dealers, Tractor Dealers, Soda Pop, etc.

It seemed perfect, however as we got to talking about the cost of the master franchise and the requirement to operate at least one actual unit – for training purposes, etc. – I quickly learned that I would have to pay the import duties or charge those to the buyer. This immediately added costs. It became an additional burden for the master franchise because, each time he sold a franchise, the franchisee would have to get their equipment from the US, also at a 45% import duty, drastically raising the price of the franchise and hurting their chances for a quick positive ROI.

We therefore had to come up with some sort of manufacturing there in Mexico to sell into that market, but in doing so, I risked giving away all the technical plans of the equipment which made it unique to our franchise company – and that’s a lot of hard won intellectual capital, not in the sense of patents mind you, but in real terms, trial and error, development and weeding out what didn’t work in the evolutionary changes and upgrades along the way.

Interestingly enough, now 20-years later, the 2016 December issue of Global had a brilliant article; “The Fourteen Questions a Master Franchisee Needs to Ask.”

The article questioned; “Where is the product to be sold coming from?” and stated; “The franchisor will mandate that the quality standards established in its domestic country be properly maintained by the master franchisee and sub-franchisees. That requires a protocol for the franchise system in every Territory to obtain access to the same products and/or services being sold to retail customers. The franchisor may supply product to the master franchisee or sub-franchisees but, more likely, the obligation will be on you, the master franchisee, in the foreign country to access local distributors and get the distributors approved by the franchisor.”

Indeed, it was about quality, intellectual capital, and availability of supply. It turned out at the time, I wasn’t willing to adjust my master franchise agreement to accommodate such changes, it wasn’t until I was more well established some 5-years later that I took the risk and worked through the trade issues and figured out how to deal with our supply chain. Please consider all this and think on it.

Trump Network was created through a merger between Donald Trump and Ideal Health.  Ideal Health was started in 1997 and is based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  It is a supplement company that markets a urine test that is designed to determine an individuals metabolic trends and nutritional status.  Based on the results of the urine test and the answers on a questionare, customers are provided with monthly supplements designed to meet their individual needs.

The Trump Network has given Ideal Health a huge shot in the arm since the Donald Trump name is very well known.  New “Trump Network” members are blitzing the internet with marketing pitches about the “new MLM  that is going to create more millionares” and people are joining in droves.

As a supplement company, Trump Network/Ideal Health is one of the better ones.  The urine test (called the PrivaTest) was designed by J. Alexander Bralley of MetaMetrix Laboratory and the supplements themselves are created with very high quality standards.  The PrivaTest has a cost of $79.95 and the monthly supplements retail for about $50 plus shipping.

With the home business marketplace overwhelmed by nutritional juices and supplements, the adding of the Trump name gives the company some “sizzle” that sets it apart.  Many people have read the best selling books by Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki that herald the benefits of multi-level or network marketing as a great way for people to start a business with low start-up costs and minimal risk.  These books, combined with the excitement of having Trump himself talking about the business on major television networks, will enable many people to recruit people into the new, rebranded supplement business.

To succeed long term in the Trump Network, members will need to learn how to brand themselves online so that they can stand out from all of the other people pushing the Trump name.  On Twitter, one can see hundreds of Tweets from people talking about this “revolutionary new MLM that is going to change the world”.  These people are largely using replicated landing pages which does not encourage people to join their team over anyone elses.

To avoid the inevitable attrition that will happen once people realize that the business requires that they sell a urine test kit and purchase vitamins every month, successful members will form teams that train and provide tools that allow individuals that create branding that adds to the Trump name.  Failure to self brand and not using attraction marketing methods to bring people into the Trump network will only increase attrition rates and further sully people’s opinions of network marketing.

Luckily, all of my five closest neighbors are true Americans who believe in the Constitution, the United States and the freedoms and liberties we stand for – thus, they are all Republicans or Libertarians leaning right (I am one of the latter). Unfortunately, speaking out and exercising your right to free speech isn't so easy in Southern California. My neighbors have had political signs for local Republican politicians stolen off their property or vandalized. I've had signs stolen, stakes broken and signs knocked over – sometimes early in the morning, sometimes after dark.

I assume the signs brought down in the morning are from liberal-socialists walking their dogs in the morning, and the signs taken down at night done by spiteful leftists who won't afford me the same opportunity to involve myself in the political process as they demand I afford them. I am tired of the hypocrisy, tired of being called a racist (I am not). Turns out this is not just a left-coast thing, it's happening also on the East Coast, in the Boston Area where people are tearing down campaign signs for Donald trump.

Who is the left trying to fool? Demanding politically correct talk, demanding that I adjust my speech to their approved narrative – folks, that isn't free speech, that's coercion and if I was to speak out of turn at the office, I could lose my job, but they can spew hate speech for Donald Trump across the land, at our schools, agencies, Universities, corporations, even at Starbucks. Why do we have a double-standard, and how is this acceptable – how does this fit into our rights as citizens – how come our ethics are challenged by those who disagree?

Now then, I take issue at all this and want to switch gears and start asking questions of the other side:

Is It Unethical To Skip Government Ethics Classes.

There was an interesting story in the Washington Times titled; "No Evidence that Hillary or Aides Took Ethics Training,"

"The RNC had sued to get a look at the records for Mrs. Clinton and nine of her top staffers, including many who have shifted over to work on her presidential campaign. Of those, only three had records showing they completed the training. revelation came as Mrs. Clinton and her team face deeper questions about whether she used the department to benefit the Clinton Foundation, an international charity run by her family and close friends, "and it turns out that; "Six Clinton confidantes at the State Department who lack any record of taking the required ethics training were Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Anne Marie Slaughter, Caitlin Klevorick, Jake Sullivan and Kris Bladerston."

Were these employees told not to take the required training courses or sign that they had just in case the issue came up later? If so, there is a conspiracy, if not, how is it that these employees, including Hillary Clinton herself were exempt? Did they purposely miss those classes so they could say that; "We didn't know what we were doing was illegal." And of course, the ethics administrator supposedly felt intimidated for their job to push the issue? Again, no "Equality" when it comes to Hillary, she is a white woman above the law, just ask her?

To hell with Hillary's Hypocrisy – I am sick to my stomach over this BS. Presidential Material – Surely, you jest.

On March 26, 1865, my great-grandfather, John Christian Baumann, his pregnant wife and four children arrived at the Ellis Island immigration center in New York Harbor from the Kingdom of Württemberg in Germany.

Less than a mile away, the Statue of Liberty greeted them after their two-week voyage on the North German Lloyd steam/sail ship, America.

Fast-forward 75 years to a Bauman family reunion in Catonsville, Maryland, a suburb of the then heavily German-American city of Baltimore. A gregarious little Bobby is being questioned by his German immigrant great-aunt, Annie Witkopf.

“Sprechen Sie Deutsch?” asks my smiling, elderly, white-haired Großtante.

After translation, I reply in youthful innocence: “The only German word I know is one my father says a lot – scheisse.”

“Mein Gott im Himmel!” says great-aunt Annie,so shocked she drops her cane. “Never use that word!”

Now, a variation of this same multimillennial-old Proto-Germanic scatological word has gained international notoriety, uttered by a frustrated President Donald Trump meeting with lawmakers last week.

When discussing immigration from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries, Trump, himself the grandson of German immigrants from Kallstadt, demanded to know: “Why are we having all these people from s-hole countries come here?”

The Answer

Perhaps one good answer to the president’s grandiloquent question can be found in the oft-repeated sonnet of Emma Lazarus inscribed on a bronze plaque attached to the Statue of Liberty in 1903:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Othering

Trump may not realize it, but he may be afflicted with an inherent belief in “othering.”

Yiannis Gabriel, Ph.D., is a Greek-British sociologist affiliated with the U.K.’s University of Bath who has written extensively on the social concept of “othering,” and its victims and perpetrators.

He defines “othering” as “the process of casting a group, an individual or an object into the role of the ‘other’ and establishing one’s own identity through opposition to and, frequently, vilification of this Other.”

Greeks describing non-Greeks as “barbarians” is a typical example of nationalistic othering. The New York Times recently reported that the Amish in upstate New York refer to all non-Amish people as “English,” a mild form of othering.

Othering exceeds scapegoating and denigration because it denies for the Other characteristics enjoyed by your own group. Thus racial, religious or sexual minorities and other nationalities can be exploited, oppressed and even killed by denying their essential humanity.

Othering occurred in history when civilizations without previous contact confronted each other, as when colonizing Europeans viewed the Americas as populated by savages. It occurs between closely associated groups, as witnessed by the EU states’ rejection of Middle Eastern refugees, the related radical Muslim jihad and the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in Myanmar.

Neighborhood Improvement

It is much more explosive when the othering is between groups that know each other and have lived in close proximity. Repercussions can run from petty antagonism to civil war, expulsion, exclusion and genocide of the foreign, the deviant or the stranger. This sort of “othering logic” dehumanizes or devalues opposed people as primitive, uncivilized and inferior.

Because of the closeness physically, the group is portrayed as a major threat to one’s own identity and pride, as happened to millions of Jews in Germany and Europe; as happened to Native Americans; and as now may happen to thousands of Haitians, Salvadorans and young Dreamers.

It should be possible to transcend “othering” with a genuine understanding of others using reason and compassion based on common humanity – but will that happen?

That depends on whether we still believe that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Well, here we are in the middle of a full-blown, gloves off Presidential Race in 2016 and the amount of name-calling and political correctness is surely causing chaos. Friends and relatives have stopped talking to each other, the media is fanning the flames and new terms and labels are being added daily. Sure, we still have the other labels such as; Racist, Homophobe, Corrupt, Fraudster, etc. but we also have a new one, which hasn’t been used much in the last few elections; Narcissist.

The left calls Donald Trump this daily, and the commentators on CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. That’s kind of funny because most of the left’s biggest cheerleaders and donors in Wall Street and Hollywood are twice the narcissists as Donald Trump who has more of an earned ego, not a fake one.

Not long ago, I read an interesting article by Jennifer Leigh, a blog post titled: “Are Bad Boys Really Narcissists” posted on July 5, 2016.

“There are many girls who are drawn to bad boys, the flashy, arrogant and charming types. Interestingly the bad boy stereotype fits in with the average narcissist perfectly, who are often charismatic and self-serving with little empathy. What is perhaps more concerning though is that seemingly ‘nice guys’ can also be narcissists – they can be faithful despite their narcissistic persuasion.”

Interesting points and one could say that people are drawn to narcissists because they embody the essence of strength, toughness, and look ready to take on anything. Of course, I think we too often use this label to describe people. One problem I see in our society is how quickly people prejudge and label others as Narcissists. If someone is very confident, has a great deal of self-esteem or is not necessarily modest by society’s standards – “he must be a redneck” whoops I mean “narcissist”.

The reality is that with so many people being of low self-esteem, needing Facebook for self-validation, they just do not understand someone who is “self-contained”, self-assured, and confident. Often superstars and very competent people, who might get on our nerves, are not narcissists, rather they just have an “earned ego” and if we’d stop to learn about them more, we could appreciate their achievements, successes and contributions rather than fearing them, labeling them, and criticizing them to make ourselves feel better.

Sometimes those who call others narcissists are ugly people inside, folks who’ve never done a damn thing in their lives, never lived through and conquered adversity or achieved anything. Think on this before you buy-into the narcissist claims of the left – like Clinton’s aren’t?

For decades, if not longer, the United States of America, has been discussing, the best, most responsible/ responsive way, to address the delivery of health care, to our citizens! Should quality medical care, be every American’s right, and should it be considered, one of those inalienable rights, we expect, and deserve? A decade ago, President Obama, fought for his so – called, hallmark program, which was enacted, as the Affordable Care Act, and, popularly, referred to as Obamacare. It seemed, for a considerable period of time, his Republican opponents, made overturning it, one of the principal focuses! Several times, during that period, the G.O.P. attempted to overturn it, unsuccessfully, and, nearly, dramatically, did so, in 2017. When Donald Trump ran for President, he promised, repealing this program, and replacing it, with something, far better, would be easy, and he would achieve it, in a short period. However, promises and rhetoric, achieve little, without a clear – cut, viable solution, and he did not articulate a meaningful alternative. Once again, we are witnessing, the political version of football, where the President is offering his complaints and blaming his predecessor, while most of the Democrats, running for the highest office in the land, are chiming – in, with their personal opinions, etc. With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, some of the options and alternatives, including: Idealistic; Pragmatic Idealism; Status Quo; or something, probably worse.

1. Idealistic: Several candidates have supported, what is referred to, as Medicare – For – All. The claims are, it would be fairer, less expensive (overall), provide superior care, etc. Their positions include: a) Everyone likes Medicare, so, this is the best course; b) It would reduce overall costs; c) It would be better for individuals; d) While there would be taxes, it would cost less, in the longer – run. They point to the programs, in other nations, and their successes. Ignored, in the discussion, is, today’s Medicare is not free, either. We pay into the program, during our entire working lives, and continue, paying, after age, 65. It doesn’t pay all the costs of health care – in fact, only about 80% of Part B/ Medical costs. Most, then purchase a Supplement, and, when one adds all these components, up, it’s obvious, it’s not free! In addition, while physicians, presently, are willing to accept the reduced payments, involved with these reimbursements, for part of their practice, how many, might not, be willing, if it was their sole payments. With the escalating costs of malpractice/ litigation, etc, and the many years (and dollars), it costs, to become a doctor, would this result in far fewer, physicians? In addition, since over 150 million Americans, receive employer – paid, health insurance, would they be willing, and happy, to have to pay this, themselves, now? We are being provided with estimates, but few, are apparently, thoroughly evaluated, to include contingencies, and ramifications! Would this, have the ability to be enacted, in the political process?

2. Pragmatic idealism: Should the goal, be, providing quality care, or, demanding a specific approach, without flexibility, or, perhaps, reality? Pragmatic idealism, would create, a goal, of providing, universal health care, combining a public and private options, and offering several viable alternatives/ options! Instead of, being narrow – minded, and, saying, it has to be, My way or the highway, wouldn’t it make more sense, be less disruptive (think about the hundreds of thousands, who are employed by private insurance companies), and, desirable, to combine the options, and seek a meeting, of the minds? Wouldn’t it, make more sense, to address the weaknesses of the Affordable Care Act, and improve it?

3. Status quo: With the stagnation, and congestion, and partisanship, occurring in our Congress, little to nothing, seems to be occurring!

4. Worse: President Trump’s apparent solution is to offer, less expensive, higher deductible, more limited, health insurance? How is that an improvement? Isn’t that, far worse, both, in the present and future? How about, those with pre – existing conditions, higher health – care costs, etc?

Wake up, America, and, refuse to be, lied to, and manipulated, by politicians, with a personal/ political agenda, etc? Either, you demand, responsible leadership, or, lose something, needed, and necessary?