You are the owner of this page.
B2 B2
Letter: Replacing Obamacare

With Republican Congress bent on depriving 22 million Americans of medical insurance, this is a great time to provide our own, totally free and totally effective health insurance — a plant-based diet.

A study with 131,000 participants, in last year's Internal Medicine, found that consumption of animal protein is associated with higher risk of death. A couple dozen other massive studies in the past four decades had similar findings. None reached opposite conclusions.

According to National Institutes of Health, 1.4 million, or 68 percent, of identified U.S. deaths are attributed to heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes, linked conclusively with consumption of animal products.

Cost of medical care was estimated by National Institutes of Health at 3 trillion dollars in 2014, or $24,000 per household, and rising at 6.5 percent annually — nearly four times the rate of inflation. Incredibly, this amount rivals our national budget and represents 17.5 percent of our gross domestic product. Even so, it does not include the costs of lost productivity, disability, and premature death.

We have little control over the national cost of medical care. But, each of us has a great deal of control over our household’s $24,000 share every time we visit the grocery store.

Edward Philips

Twin Falls

Other View: A more sensible take on the wall

This appeared in Saturday’s Washington Post.

While President-elect Donald Trump continues touting the value of a beautiful wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, a more lucid analysis was offered this week by his nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, retired Gen. John Kelly.

Kelly gained expertise on cross-border issues as head of U.S. Southern Command for more than three years, until his retirement from the Marine Corps a year ago. He explains that a wall will not, on its own, do much to protect Americans.

In confirmation testimony Tuesday, he was explicit on that point, as well as on the importance, for America’s security, that he would accord to good relations with Mexico.

In his news conference Wednesday, Trump lauded America’s southern neighbors in one breath—“so nice,” “respect,” “terrific”—while in the next breath asserting categorically that Mexico has “taken advantage of the United States.” Presumably he meant, as he said in the past, that Mexico has “sent” its least desirable inhabitants northward.

In fact,the net flow of Mexicans in recent years has been southward, out of the United States and back to their native land. To the extent that they and other migrants from Latin America continue to travel north, it is not as a result of some clever or malicious plot, but by the laws of supply and demand in the labor market. Mexico and countries farther south are a source of cheap workers, for which the U.S. economy has for many years had a voracious appetite—to work in farms, kitchens, gardens and some of Trump’s company’s own construction sites. That’s the “pull” factor that has drawn migrants from the south. The push factors, in addition to poverty, include an epidemic of drug-related violence, especially in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

Kelly gets that, and even expressed a measure of empathy. For the most part, he told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is weighing his nomination, migrants “don’t want to come up and leave their homes, their families. But there is not an awful lot of economic opportunity for them there.”

As for the wall, the Homeland Security nominee offered a clear-eyed view. “A physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job—it has to be a layered defense” that includes sensors, Border Patrol officers and, Kelly emphasized, cross-border cooperation, “including partnering with some great countries.” We hope his understanding, if Kelly is confirmed, will inform Trump administration policy.

Krauthammer: What happened to the honeymoon?

WASHINGTON — The shortest honeymoon on record is officially over. Normally, newly elected presidents enjoy a wave of goodwill that allows them to fly high at least through their first 100 days. Donald Trump has not yet been sworn in and the honeymoon has already come and gone.

Presidents-elect usually lie low during the interregnum. Trump never lies low. He seized the actual presidency from Barack Obama within weeks of his election — cutting ostentatious deals with U.S. manufacturers to keep jobs at home, challenging 40-year-old China policy, getting into a very public fight with the intelligence agencies. By now he has taken over the presidential stage. It is true that we have only one president at a time, and for over a month it’s been Donald Trump.

The result is quantifiable. A Quinnipiac poll from Nov. 17-20 — the quiet, hope-and-change phase — showed a decided bump in Trump’s popularity and in general national optimism. It didn’t last long. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the numbers have essentially returned to Trump’s (historically dismal) pre-election levels.

For several reasons. First, the refusal of an unbending left to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. It’s not just the demonstrators chanting “not my president.” It is leading Democrats pushing one line after another to delegitimize the election, as in: he lost the popular vote, it’s James Comey’s fault, the Russians did it.

Second, Trump’s own instincts and inclinations, a thirst for attention that leads to hyperactivity. His need to dominate every news cycle feeds an almost compulsive tweet habit. It has placed him just about continuously at the center of the national conversation and not always to his benefit.

Trump simply can’t resist playground pushback. His tweets gave Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes screed priceless publicity. His mocking Arnold Schwarzenegger for bad “Apprentice” ratings — compared with “the ratings machine, DJT” — made Trump look small and Arnold (almost) sympathetic.

Nor is this behavior likely to change after the inauguration. It’s part of Trump’s character. Nothing negative goes unanswered because, for Trump, an unanswered slight has the air of concession or surrender.

Finally, it’s his chronic indiscipline, his jumping randomly from one subject to another without rhyme, reason or larger strategy. In a week packed with confirmation hearings and Russian hacking allegations, what was he doing meeting with Robert Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist pushing the thoroughly discredited idea that vaccines cause autism?

We know from way back during the Republican debates that Trump himself has dabbled in this dubious territory. One could, however, write it off as one of many campaign oddities that would surely fade away. Not so, apparently.

This is not good. The idea that vaccines cause autism originally arose in a 1998 paper in the medical journal The Lancet that was later found to be fraudulent and had to be retracted. Indeed, the lead researcher acted so egregiously that he was stripped of his medical license.

Kennedy says that Trump asked him to chair a commission about vaccine safety. While denying that, the transition team does say that the commission idea remains open. Either way, the damage is done. The anti-vaccine fanatics seek any validation. This indirect endorsement from Trump is immensely harmful. Vaccination has prevented more childhood suffering and death than any other measure in history. With so many issues pressing, why even go there?

The vaccination issue was merely an exclamation point on the scatter-brained randomness of the Trump transition. All of which contributes to the harried, almost wearying feeling that we are already well into the Trump presidency.

Compare this to eight years ago and the near euphoria — overblown but nonetheless palpable — at the swearing-in of Barack Obama. Not since JFK had any new president enjoyed such genuine goodwill upon accession to office.

And yet it turns out that such auspicious beginnings are not at all predictive. We could see it this same week. Tuesday night, there stood Obama giving a farewell address that only underscored the failure of a presidency so bathed in optimism at its start. The final speech, amazingly, could have been given, nearly unedited, in 2008. Why it even ended with “yes we can.”

Is there more powerful evidence of the emptiness of the intervening two terms? When your final statement is a reprise of your first, you have unwittingly confessed to being nothing more than a historical parenthesis.


Protesters against Trump’s controversial border wall proposal outside the Republican National Convention in July.