|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton launching PAC to act as 'quiet catalyst'
Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to launch a PAC to act as a "quiet catalyst" for organizations she feels strongly about.
Axios reported Wednesday the former Democratic presidential nominee's PAC will also assist 2018 congressional candidates.
A source told Axios the PAC will work with organizations that rose up after the election of President Trump. It will also work with existing groups that were reenergized by the presidential race.
Clinton has already met with some of the groups, the source told Axios.
She will also begin paid speaking, the news outlet reported. Source And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it 
It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were.
|
On May 04 2017 03:01 LegalLord wrote:
I don't really see a problem with people viewing Hillary as a figure of female empowerment, beyond the more idiotic forms of "women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton go to hell" identity politics appeals. In general she is a respectably important figure for showing that women can rise pretty far in politics.
But she's genuinely shitty in and of herself which is where the problem lies. Whereas being a woman shouldn't be a handicap, it also shouldn't be a reason to forgive being a genuinely disdainful individual with little to no sense for effective policy-making and almost zero vision.
I think she has vision, but I also think she is overly pragmatic perhaps to the point of cynical.
Also, forgive my shitpost:
Whenever "Hilary Clinton" is posted on TL
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is for the Democratic party to get taken over by populism.
|
On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton launching PAC to act as 'quiet catalyst'
Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to launch a PAC to act as a "quiet catalyst" for organizations she feels strongly about.
Axios reported Wednesday the former Democratic presidential nominee's PAC will also assist 2018 congressional candidates.
A source told Axios the PAC will work with organizations that rose up after the election of President Trump. It will also work with existing groups that were reenergized by the presidential race.
Clinton has already met with some of the groups, the source told Axios.
She will also begin paid speaking, the news outlet reported. Source And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were.
You're including yourself in this right?
On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism.
lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis.
|
On May 04 2017 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:01 LegalLord wrote:
I don't really see a problem with people viewing Hillary as a figure of female empowerment, beyond the more idiotic forms of "women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton go to hell" identity politics appeals. In general she is a respectably important figure for showing that women can rise pretty far in politics.
But she's genuinely shitty in and of herself which is where the problem lies. Whereas being a woman shouldn't be a handicap, it also shouldn't be a reason to forgive being a genuinely disdainful individual with little to no sense for effective policy-making and almost zero vision. I think she has vision, but I also think she is overly pragmatic perhaps to the point of cynical. Also, forgive my shitpost: Whenever "Hilary Clinton" is posted on TL + Show Spoiler +
LOL that's great.
The LL signal! Add a Russian flag and it would be perfect.
|
On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is for the Democratic party to get taken over by populism.
Why does any of this matter when Clinton loses and we ended up with Trump? The quality of a candidate doesn't matter so long as they lose. This is a 0 or 1 situation.
|
On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton launching PAC to act as 'quiet catalyst'
Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to launch a PAC to act as a "quiet catalyst" for organizations she feels strongly about.
Axios reported Wednesday the former Democratic presidential nominee's PAC will also assist 2018 congressional candidates.
A source told Axios the PAC will work with organizations that rose up after the election of President Trump. It will also work with existing groups that were reenergized by the presidential race.
Clinton has already met with some of the groups, the source told Axios.
She will also begin paid speaking, the news outlet reported. Source And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right?Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis.
Yeah, to be honest. I really thought in 2008 that we were past the Bush years and voting for morons in the office. We elected Obama twice and I really hoped that the country was going to smarten up and start voting more moderate Republicans in to office. I liked McCain in 2008, he reminded me of my grandfather, a Republican who never argued for a flat tax and through that Medicare and Medicare were good programs that helped the poor. I was wrong. That part of the grand old party died and we refused to admit it.
|
On May 04 2017 00:48 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On May 04 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On May 04 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:00 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? None of your business and it doesn’t matter. Your argument is that she doesn’t deserve affordable insurance because we were unlucky. You also don’t think my autistic nephew should be covered because my sister can’t get Medicaid or Medicare because she is also firmly middle class. Ok, well people buy insurance before getting sick. That's it's purpose. We have entitlement programs for those who need help. The government can protect people with PECs in special circumstances, like if you are born w/ a condition, have no supporting parents, fired from job and have a gap, etc. She had insurance when she found out she had this condition. She still has insurance. What you are talking about is depriving her of the ability to move, change jobs or do anything beyond stay where she is forever or risk losing coverage. You seem to not understand the very basics of health insurance, PECs or why people want these protections. She is never going to get rid of this condition. Just like someone who had cancer and is in remission(also a PEC pre-ACA). The basics of health insurance make no sense, why is it tied to employer? Where is the free choice? That is what I'd like to see fixed, not these inefficient band aid systems in place that give blanket coverage and destroy the whole purpose of insurance. Because employers are the only ones that can afford the system by pooling all their employees together. It doesn’t make sense because it is a system that operates on a free market and doesn’t work like providing people with food or transportation. Once we decided we didn’t want people to die from preventable things just because they couldn’t afford the ER, it was just a question of how we are all going to pay for it. It's the entire design of the system. Employers are tax advantaged to provide it, negotiations are borked because they're so far removed from the consumer. One Forbes piece illustrating why, for those that want balance in their understanding. The artcile is correct in that the solution they would propose would be better than what we currently have. The issue would be the 3 to 5 year turmoil it causes before the healthcare cost and insurance cost even out. It still doesnt really address monopolies efficiently though although it claims to try. Medicare for all and a private insurance option would help. Cap payments for procedures like we do today with medicare but also negotiate drug prices as a country to enter the us market. Those are the only way you will effectively drive price down. Without cost transparency AND price controls we are pretty much fucked. Healthcare isnt a good item for free market to handle since you only have 1 life...
And what was Obamacare if not a half decade of turmoil as premiums rose and middle class families got a shittier health plan for two or three times its previous cost? You want a sunsetting benefit, fine, but let's address the root causes and not take a perverted semi-market system and critique it in ways that fall apart if it was truly a market.
We already have legislation against monopolies, the problem is the lack of competition helped along by the lack of a true market. And again, I hate to be pounding the market right now, but you solve gaps in coverage and opaque pricing and you need no price controls. You're already insured against the low chance of a high cost surgery/years of medical treatment by a company that can approximate that through its rolls of covered people.
People should be free to make their own decisions for their own life. Once you get away from the market, other people are nannying you around saying what the best decision should be, what you should and shouldn't provide for, exchanging freedom for the safety of the state. You only have one life; spend it as a slave you masochist.
|
On May 04 2017 02:48 Plansix wrote:I like how we still don’t know the goal of her new PAC. If it was to do something awesome, like combating dangerous clowns like Alex Jones, I would be all about it.(for those who don’t know, families for Sandy Hook are still receiving death threats for “making up their children’s murder) But I doubt it is anything that noble. Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's be friends.
What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. The point of propaganda is to make it hard to find out who produced it and where its information came from. It makes it harder to disprove if there is no source. You are asking for things the FBI and all its resources have been tasked to prove.
On May 04 2017 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 02:47 a_flayer wrote:On May 04 2017 02:39 Doodsmack wrote:On May 04 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:What's that I hear? Is it a bunch of cocks hitting desks at the NSA as they all get erections at the thought of legislation being passed to make this [stopping Russia!] happen? What you need to do to stop the Russians from hacking (which was their only real influence, I hope you will agree) is enforcing that people/corporations/organizations who find bugs - anyone - report those bugs to the software maintainers so they can be fixed. But somehow, I don't think that's the kind of legislation that will be passed. I would wager that social media and fake news had influence as well. Give me a few examples of this fake news originating from Russia that was relatively widespread in social media amongst the US population, if you would be so kind. I'm not sure what examples you're looking for but it's been widely reported that there was a full scale disinformation campaign.
Oh please, the sources for fake news are clearly places like Breitbart (partially funded by the Americans Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer), SuperPACs that come up with exaggerated nonsense (funded by Americans), widespread biased news sources that distort reality to match their biases (aka Faux News, which is more Americans, although obviously anyone in media will do this), absurd headlines that have nothing to do with the articles so they can be used as clickbait (hey, you might be right on this one, the Russian ex-KGB agent current day oligarch at the Independent.co.uk [which is characterized as 'liberal'] is notorious for these kind of headlines).
I don't think Russia is the problem here.
You say that the FBI is still investigating this notion of fake news being funded/spread by Russia, but have you even looked at the ODNI report, where they already concluded that Russia was responsible for spreading propaganda through RT America by doing the following things in the field of news (amongst a few others):
In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham." Would you really make the argument that the two-party system DOES represent the views of the full population? Or is there a sufficient amount of truth to this to not classify it as "fake news"?
RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." Would you also call Bernie a Russian fake news propagandist for using the same mindset (anti-Wallstreet) and phrase (revolution) to describe his campaign? Or were the Americans on RT just displaying the same attitude as all those people who voted for Bernie?
RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. There was an article on Reuters just the other day that once again confirmed this to be simply true. And didn't some black teenager get shot by the cops for driving away from a party? Nothing fake about this.
This is the kind of thing that the FBI considers propaganda undermining US democracy in the field of news. Its nothing short of bullshit.
And again, Russian social media bots? I don't think a bunch of Russian bots retweeting each other in a massive circlejerk will be accomplishing much. It's possible that the Russians employed the same techniques as Cambridge Analytica (oh, that's Robert Mercer popping up again!) to specifically target individuals on Twitter and Facebook with politically minded ads, but to call them a significant source of the fake election news would be absurd.
They most probably hacked. They probably also shared the data with Wikileaks. That's a problem and matches their intent. But from that point on, it was all up to the Americans with their own political agendas.
But Russians didn't make shit up about Benghazi, Russians didn't make shit up about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, Russians didn't come up with trickle down economics.
The main responsibility for fake news is in the hands of the country with the overwhelmingly largest economy, the biggest media empires and cultural influence in the world.
|
On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton launching PAC to act as 'quiet catalyst'
Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to launch a PAC to act as a "quiet catalyst" for organizations she feels strongly about.
Axios reported Wednesday the former Democratic presidential nominee's PAC will also assist 2018 congressional candidates.
A source told Axios the PAC will work with organizations that rose up after the election of President Trump. It will also work with existing groups that were reenergized by the presidential race.
Clinton has already met with some of the groups, the source told Axios.
She will also begin paid speaking, the news outlet reported. Source And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis.
He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary.
|
On May 04 2017 02:07 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:01 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 23:56 Sadist wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:26 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 22:29 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 22:22 biology]major wrote:
If you're going to have preexisting coverage then the penalty for not having insurance needs to go up and there has to be a way for someone in Arizona to get insurance from a company in Wisconsin. Sigh this is why you don't give entitlements, can't take them away. Yeah man, why don't people with a chronic condition do the right thing and just kill themselves rather then be a burden on society. We have Medicare and Medicaid, the rest can just buy insurance like everyone else before getting sick. If they were born with an illness or develop in childhood, then they can get insurance through their parents (a great provision). It's the people who don't have insurance, get sick and try to get it after the fact that I don't like. My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck? Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? Why does it matter? If you have a chronic pre existing condition you are a loss for the insurer anyway. Why even deal with them? The whole system is just an inefficient way of spreading cost around. Insurance is meant to be purchased before the major life event, before pre-existing conditions. So talking about lapses before plans became unaffordable is the direct question regarding insurance. We talk about plans for subsidized/voucher based catostrophic insurance because the rest might as well be called health care direct subsidy. So in the world of dangles, do people never have to change insurance? Do insurance companies never raise prices and become worse than competitors? Do people never lose their jobs while getting their insurance through a job? Do people never find a better job that gives insurance through a different company? If they do, then what should they do in your world if they have a preexisting condition? Should they refuse the better job because they can't lose their current insurance? Should they keep their company from going under and laying everyone off? Should they go bankrupt because they can't get insured because of preexisting condition?
Do you read my posts, or just posit what I'm supposed to be saying and reply to that presupposition? I spent a lot of time talking about legislation aimed to removing insurance from employer providers, government's possible inclusion for periods of joblessness (think of unemployment benefits), and switching plans with similar actuarial benefits. At least others recognize the other issues at the heart of insurance and medical care reform, you act like an automaton programmed to spout employer based insurance and preexisting conditions at regular intervals.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 04 2017 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:01 LegalLord wrote:
I don't really see a problem with people viewing Hillary as a figure of female empowerment, beyond the more idiotic forms of "women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton go to hell" identity politics appeals. In general she is a respectably important figure for showing that women can rise pretty far in politics.
But she's genuinely shitty in and of herself which is where the problem lies. Whereas being a woman shouldn't be a handicap, it also shouldn't be a reason to forgive being a genuinely disdainful individual with little to no sense for effective policy-making and almost zero vision. I think she has vision, but I also think she is overly pragmatic perhaps to the point of cynical. Also, forgive my shitpost: Whenever "Hilary Clinton" is posted on TL + Show Spoiler +
Sure, I'll take being Batman in stride.
From what I've seen, her vision is most strongly seen in doing what will get her the most power cred points. Mind you, Iraq was supposed to be her big hero moment for a future run for president. And the SoS role was to be something similar. Beyond that it's hard to say what she stands for since her policies almost always change with convenience. Most of the exceptions are with maintaining the status quo of the liberal order but that isn't exactly controversial among the establishment elite.
|
On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis.
As someone living in a nation lead by a popular leader, it bears repeating that popularity does not equal results.
I would still personally vote Bernie over Trump if given the choice. I wouldn't expect much from the result, but I would at least trust Bernie not to be a dumbass while sitting in the office.
|
On May 04 2017 03:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 00:48 Sadist wrote:On May 04 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On May 04 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On May 04 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:00 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
My wife does not qualify for either of those and has a PEC. Without the ACA, no insurance would cover her at an affordable rate. Are we just supposed to go bankruptcy because of bad luck?
Also my wife has no parents. What the fuck are people who don’t have families supposed to do in your system? What condition and why no insurance prior to it? None of your business and it doesn’t matter. Your argument is that she doesn’t deserve affordable insurance because we were unlucky. You also don’t think my autistic nephew should be covered because my sister can’t get Medicaid or Medicare because she is also firmly middle class. Ok, well people buy insurance before getting sick. That's it's purpose. We have entitlement programs for those who need help. The government can protect people with PECs in special circumstances, like if you are born w/ a condition, have no supporting parents, fired from job and have a gap, etc. She had insurance when she found out she had this condition. She still has insurance. What you are talking about is depriving her of the ability to move, change jobs or do anything beyond stay where she is forever or risk losing coverage. You seem to not understand the very basics of health insurance, PECs or why people want these protections. She is never going to get rid of this condition. Just like someone who had cancer and is in remission(also a PEC pre-ACA). The basics of health insurance make no sense, why is it tied to employer? Where is the free choice? That is what I'd like to see fixed, not these inefficient band aid systems in place that give blanket coverage and destroy the whole purpose of insurance. Because employers are the only ones that can afford the system by pooling all their employees together. It doesn’t make sense because it is a system that operates on a free market and doesn’t work like providing people with food or transportation. Once we decided we didn’t want people to die from preventable things just because they couldn’t afford the ER, it was just a question of how we are all going to pay for it. It's the entire design of the system. Employers are tax advantaged to provide it, negotiations are borked because they're so far removed from the consumer. One Forbes piece illustrating why, for those that want balance in their understanding. The artcile is correct in that the solution they would propose would be better than what we currently have. The issue would be the 3 to 5 year turmoil it causes before the healthcare cost and insurance cost even out. It still doesnt really address monopolies efficiently though although it claims to try. Medicare for all and a private insurance option would help. Cap payments for procedures like we do today with medicare but also negotiate drug prices as a country to enter the us market. Those are the only way you will effectively drive price down. Without cost transparency AND price controls we are pretty much fucked. Healthcare isnt a good item for free market to handle since you only have 1 life... And what was Obamacare if not a half decade of turmoil as premiums rose and middle class families got a shittier health plan for two or three times its previous cost? You want a sunsetting benefit, fine, but let's address the root causes and not take a perverted semi-market system and critique it in ways that fall apart if it was truly a market. We already have legislation against monopolies, the problem is the lack of competition helped along by the lack of a true market. And again, I hate to be pounding the market right now, but you solve gaps in coverage and opaque pricing and you need no price controls. You're already insured against the low chance of a high cost surgery/years of medical treatment by a company that can approximate that through its rolls of covered people. People should be free to make their own decisions for their own life. Once you get away from the market, other people are nannying you around saying what the best decision should be, what you should and shouldn't provide for, exchanging freedom for the safety of the state. You only have one life; spend it as a slave you masochist.
Healthcare costs and insurance premiums were already rising before Obamacare. The idea that some free market solution could stop this is ludicrous. Every other country has realized the problems with healthcare need government intervention and citizens need an advocate so they wont be gouged. How is it free market if you get in an accident and have to go to the only hospital in town or die? Would you pay 10 million dollars for life saving surgery if it was your only option? Of course you would. Youd give up a percentage of your pay for the rest of your life. Know why? If you dont you die! How is that free market?
Obamacares biggest triumph was making certain plans illegal because they were dishonest at best and predatory at worst. I know people are pissed about premiums but guess what? Insurance is only reflecting the cost of healthcare. Cap the costs like other countries (including our very own medicare for procedures) and watch insurance rates fall.
You probably called these plans better for freedom. Thats complete bullshit. There is a reason we have laws to protect consumers in all types of industries.
The market doesnt work for everything. We already realized this with roads, water, power, etc. Healthcare is just the next on the agenda.
|
On May 04 2017 03:30 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 02:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2017 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:On May 04 2017 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton launching PAC to act as 'quiet catalyst'
Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to launch a PAC to act as a "quiet catalyst" for organizations she feels strongly about.
Axios reported Wednesday the former Democratic presidential nominee's PAC will also assist 2018 congressional candidates.
A source told Axios the PAC will work with organizations that rose up after the election of President Trump. It will also work with existing groups that were reenergized by the presidential race.
Clinton has already met with some of the groups, the source told Axios.
She will also begin paid speaking, the news outlet reported. Source And here we go. The quest to remake the Clinton brand as some kind of revolutionary cause begins. It's up to her former supporters to have an intervention, but I imagine they won't admit she's desperately hoping for a 2020 run until a couple weeks after she announces. Only people I know who legit want Clinton for Clinton are my batshit crazy mega-feminist friends who wear shirts like "The future is female" and all that crap. Its not going to take much for a huge majority of people to prefer someone fresh over Clinton. I also remain confident that Ellison will be disruptive enough to make a huge stink if the party starts drifting towards another pre-determined Clinton run. I wonder how capable Ellison would be at dismantling super delegates. My intuition tells me even if the party planned to get rid of supers, they would only announce the change some time in 2019 for the better optics. My attorney is pretty cool and she doesn’t wear shirts like that. She doesn’t have the same relationship with Clinton that you do. Clinton was a role model to her in becoming an attorney and rising beyond just being a wife to her president husband. She isn’t irrational and doesn’t think Clinton is perfect, but she isn't some crazy militant feminist. Yeah, I totally get that she's been empowering to women etc etc, I was just commenting on people I know. From my perspective, she simply brings very little to the table at this point. I really don't care what she's done for women. I am happy about and respect what she has done for women. But that really doesn't matter with regards to who I want running. I want someone who will have the highest chance of winning. And no, GH, you don't need to post Bernie's favorables. They are high, we get it It is tough. I see the claims of sexism and some of those are legit. I also think over the years they became an excuse for Clinton to ignore the real image problems she had. The overwhelming effort by the Republicans in congress just added fuel to the already growing fire. The siege mentality seemed to take over the entire party, believing they just needed to weather the storm until people saw how wrong the Republicans were. You're including yourself in this right? On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is foe the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. lol. Bernie is nothing like Trump (Besides being more popular than Hillary/Democrats) and the lazy comparison is evidence of the shallow analysis. He's literally a populist with no actual policy and no clue how to implement any of what he wanted ,or if it was even possible to implement. I'm sorry but bernie is literally the left version of trump. And citation needed to show that either bernie or trump is more popular than Hillary.
lol. You know Bernie's been a legislator for decades right? His knowledge about how the legislative process works isn't comparable to Trumps rank ignorance, come on now.
As for the popularity, are you in a cave? She was polling worse than him before the election , and she's polling worse than him now
Do I really need to show you that Bernie is more popular than Trump too?
|
On May 04 2017 03:47 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:27 Danglars wrote:On May 04 2017 00:48 Sadist wrote:On May 04 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On May 04 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On May 04 2017 00:04 Plansix wrote:On May 04 2017 00:00 biology]major wrote:On May 03 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 23:48 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
What condition and why no insurance prior to it?
None of your business and it doesn’t matter. Your argument is that she doesn’t deserve affordable insurance because we were unlucky. You also don’t think my autistic nephew should be covered because my sister can’t get Medicaid or Medicare because she is also firmly middle class. Ok, well people buy insurance before getting sick. That's it's purpose. We have entitlement programs for those who need help. The government can protect people with PECs in special circumstances, like if you are born w/ a condition, have no supporting parents, fired from job and have a gap, etc. She had insurance when she found out she had this condition. She still has insurance. What you are talking about is depriving her of the ability to move, change jobs or do anything beyond stay where she is forever or risk losing coverage. You seem to not understand the very basics of health insurance, PECs or why people want these protections. She is never going to get rid of this condition. Just like someone who had cancer and is in remission(also a PEC pre-ACA). The basics of health insurance make no sense, why is it tied to employer? Where is the free choice? That is what I'd like to see fixed, not these inefficient band aid systems in place that give blanket coverage and destroy the whole purpose of insurance. Because employers are the only ones that can afford the system by pooling all their employees together. It doesn’t make sense because it is a system that operates on a free market and doesn’t work like providing people with food or transportation. Once we decided we didn’t want people to die from preventable things just because they couldn’t afford the ER, it was just a question of how we are all going to pay for it. It's the entire design of the system. Employers are tax advantaged to provide it, negotiations are borked because they're so far removed from the consumer. One Forbes piece illustrating why, for those that want balance in their understanding. The artcile is correct in that the solution they would propose would be better than what we currently have. The issue would be the 3 to 5 year turmoil it causes before the healthcare cost and insurance cost even out. It still doesnt really address monopolies efficiently though although it claims to try. Medicare for all and a private insurance option would help. Cap payments for procedures like we do today with medicare but also negotiate drug prices as a country to enter the us market. Those are the only way you will effectively drive price down. Without cost transparency AND price controls we are pretty much fucked. Healthcare isnt a good item for free market to handle since you only have 1 life... And what was Obamacare if not a half decade of turmoil as premiums rose and middle class families got a shittier health plan for two or three times its previous cost? You want a sunsetting benefit, fine, but let's address the root causes and not take a perverted semi-market system and critique it in ways that fall apart if it was truly a market. We already have legislation against monopolies, the problem is the lack of competition helped along by the lack of a true market. And again, I hate to be pounding the market right now, but you solve gaps in coverage and opaque pricing and you need no price controls. You're already insured against the low chance of a high cost surgery/years of medical treatment by a company that can approximate that through its rolls of covered people. People should be free to make their own decisions for their own life. Once you get away from the market, other people are nannying you around saying what the best decision should be, what you should and shouldn't provide for, exchanging freedom for the safety of the state. You only have one life; spend it as a slave you masochist. Healthcare costs and insurance premiums were already rising before Obamacare. The idea that some free market solution could stop this is ludicrous. Every other country has realized the problems with healthcare need government intervention and citizens need an advocate so they wont be gouged. How is it free market if you get in an accident and have to go to the only hospital in town or die? Would you pay 10 million dollars for life saving surgery if it was your only option? Of course you would. Youd give up a percentage of your pay for the rest of your life. Know why? If you dont you die! How is that free market? Obamacares biggest triumph was making certain plans illegal because they were dishonest at best and predatory at worst. I know people are pissed about premiums but guess what? Insurance is only reflecting the cost of healthcare. Cap the costs like other countries (including our very own medicare for procedures) and watch insurance rates fall. You probably called these plans better for freedom. Thats complete bullshit. There is a reason we have laws to protect consumers in all types of industries. The market doesnt work for everything. We already realized this with roads, water, power, etc. Healthcare is just the next on the agenda.
Nope. You could still pick catastrophic plans that were right for you and your family. The only way you lie about a slow, rising cost of premiums is neglecting the mandate that plans must offer services families routinely chose not to include. You're making good plans illegal and patting yourself on the back. I can think of no better snide authoritarian, Sadist.
I'm sure in your only hospital in town example was made by the government too. And I'm not sure where you're going with 10 million dollar surgeries here. I'm guessing you're trying to hone in on your absurd thought that one life = massive government-run program necessary. I value my life too by feeding it, but I don't mandate the government take over the production and distribution of food. Try again. We can each be as wildly hypothetical and hyperbolic as you wish.
And all your deceit about predatory and dishonest policies are better directed at the justice department and fraud. I'm guessing you're again in a little old tower of elitism choosing to deny ordinary Americans the health plans that were working out just fine for them because you know better than them. Trump 2020. We're a little sick of the bullshit. If we can't even have an honest debate about Obamacare without lying about how things were beforehand, what changed, and how things are after, I seriously doubt you actually care if the market can or cannot deliver products that manage risk. It's all a demagogue's package, wrapped in a bow, tied to the belief that only the Government is competent to manage 20% of our economy, since they did such a great job ruining the market in the first place.
|
On May 04 2017 02:38 biology]major wrote:
i feel like Hillary has a new purpose in life, not the uplifting of the Democratic Party, but finding a way to bring trump down. I have never seen her as authentic as when she was angry and bitter about her loss yesterday. While it was not a good look for her, in that she looked immature and whiny, she was the most real she has been in the last 2 years. Either way I could tell she's got a new mission.
since the electorate voted for immature and whiny, it makes sense to try using the same :D
|
Im sure all those bankruptcy stories of people who had shitty plans and thought they were awesome until they found out they capped hospital stays at $2,000/day are made up.
The ACA made those plans illegal for good reason. You dont seem to give a shit about those going through bankruptcy.
And for hypotheticals, you and i both know the government already keeps food prices artificially low with subsidies (hello corn) so dont pretend like its not already involved there.
|
A for-profit healthcare system is inevitably going to fail so long as sick people are more profitable than healthy people and you can stop covering people once they are sick.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Bernie certainly isn't perfect. He does have many years of experience but he has significant gaps in his knowledge in certain fields that he perhaps should know or care more about - the most egregious probably being his FP flubs. He's also not great about gathering consensus - the "we need a political revolution" strikes me as a sort of "I don't really know how to compromise so I just need to win" sort of point. There's a reason he was sidelined for many years.
But there's also a reason why he's picking up steam as of this election and its aftermath. He manages to inject optimism back into the system and inspire people. While the two party apparatuses mostly focus on each other he's focusing on issues of domestic policy that people care far more about than about proving that their enemy is evil. He isn't playing the dirty politics game of the DNC that has rightfully disgusted much of the voterbase - and instead decided to fight against it at the cost of his own popularity within the entrenched party apparatus. And despite having quite the movement, he was basically tossed aside because the DNC already made its choice before the votes were cast. Whether or not he would have won in a fair fight is not clear, but what is clear is that it wasn't really a fair battle; the choice was made before the first vote was cast.
All that put together makes it pretty clear why he's popular despite some of his flaws. The "he's just as bad as Trump" folk (x1 I think; oneofthem ain't around no more) are pretty laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ynEl8c5.png)
