EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7932
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On June 24 2017 06:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This man should be fired for that terrible pun (?). That said, I'd bet it is slightly more substantive without reporters thinking they can make the evening news by peppering Spicer with silly Russia questions. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Trump is a terrible president by practically every measure, but I'm curious what supporters of Hillary think her first ~150 days would have looked like. Would she have accomplished anything? If so, what? Presumably she would have done a better job at filling departments with cronies, but besides that, would she have been any more effective at passing her agenda than Trump? What parts? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 24 2017 07:54 Dromar wrote: If I understand correctly, all that legalese says is that renters etc. don't have to provide space for abortion services if they don't want to. It says nothing to the effect of "they can kick you out or refuse to rent to you if you've ever had an abortion." It just says they can refuse to allow abortions to occur (except to save the mother) on their property. edit: and part (4) just says that employers and health care providers don't have to provide services that aren't required by state law (presumably, ...already? I don't get why there would be a law saying they don't have to do anything there isn't a law saying they have to do). Anyway part 4 doesn't mention abortion specifically, but reading between the lines says that it allows health insurance providers the right to deny coverage for abortions (or anything else they aren't legally required to cover). (3) is rather confusing, but I suppose it will depend on what "for, to, or with a person for the purpose of performing or inducing an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother" actually means in context of "for the purposes". But, yeah, I think (2) is probably the more relevant line here: (2) has the purpose or effect of requiring a person to directly or indirectly participate in abortion if such participation is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions; Because "indirectly participate" does not seem very well defined. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if it only peripherally counters parts of the Saint Louis ordiance, it will make the Saint Louis ordinance against state law (or at least I can't help but think it will considering that's why they had the session). The other parts of the ordinance will fall by the wayside. If the state reps thought the ordinance symbolic they wouldn't be calling special sessions to overturn it, I don't think. Unless they just want to symbolic things up themselves They are anti-abortionists after all. Symbolicking all the way back stimulates their base right after being dealt a judicial setback on abortion provider restrictions. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I know Trump is a terrible president by practically every measure, but I'm curious what supporters of Hillary think her first ~150 days would have looked like. Would she have accomplished anything? If so, what? Presumably she would have done a better job at filling departments with cronies, but besides that, would she have been any more effective at passing her agenda than Trump? What parts? Are you referring to a Clinton Presidency with a Democrat majority in House and Senate? Or a Presidency with the same House and Senate? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:09 Doodsmack wrote: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/878366918243233792 Someone needs to take away her Twitter before she ruins everything for everyone as usual. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I'm loving this new era of civility. Let's tiptoe right to the edge of calling the GOP murderers right after one almost got assassinated by a Berniebro. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:20 WolfintheSheep wrote: Are you referring to a Clinton Presidency with a Democrat majority in House and Senate? Or a Presidency with the same House and Senate? The one she would have had (and we all knew was coming all election), so the latter. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/878353849093824514 https://twitter.com/senwarren/status/877995366049828866 I'm loving this new era of civility. Let's tiptoe right to the edge of calling the GOP murderers right after one almost got assassinated by a Berniebro. Are you denying people will die as a result of the Republican "healthcare" bill? Because that would seem like a counterfactual claim. Also "Berniebro" roflmao. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Are you denying people will die as a result of the Republican "healthcare" bill? Because that would seem like a counterfactual claim. Also "Berniebro" roflmao. Darn those Republicans for not supporting healthcare that will let people live forever. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Bernie could be overstating it with his thousands of people because you can't really get an exact number but hat's a different argument. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/08/raul-labrador/raul-labradors-claim-no-one-dies-lack-health-care-/ We found at least seven academic papers that detected a link between securing health insurance and a decline in mortality. In general, these papers present a stronger consensus that having insurance saves lives. • In 2002, a panel of more than a dozen medical specialists convened by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 Americans had died in 2000 because they were uninsured. In January 2008, Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, published a paper that sought to update the IOM study with newer data. Replicating the study’s methodology, Dorn concluded that the figure should be increased to 22,000. • A 2009 American Journal of Public Health study concluded that a lack of health insurance "is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease." • Three studies looked at state-level expansions of Medicaid and in each case found "significant" improvements in mortality after such expansions of coverage. These include a 2012 New England Journal of Medicine study of New York, Maine, and Arizona by Harvard researchers, and a 2014 study of Massachusetts by researchers from Harvard and the Urban Institute. • A 2014 study published by the health policy publication Health Affairs looked at states that, at the time, had declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It estimated that the 25 states studied would have collectively avoided between 7,000 and 17,000 deaths. • A 2014 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found improved survival rates for young adults with cancer after securing insurance under the Affordable Care Act. • A 2017 study in the journal Medical Care looked at a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows young adults to be covered under a parent’s policy. The study found a decline in mortality among this population from diseases amenable to preventive treatment. (Mortality from trauma, such as car accidents, saw no decrease, as would be expected.) they even talked to two people who wrote articles that it could seemed could be used and they disagreed. "Rep. Labrador is misinformed," Kronick said. "Common sense, as well as the accumulated weight of evidence is sufficient to convince any reasonable analyst that lack of health insurance results in excess morbidity (that is, sickness) and mortality." Baicker, too, said she sees "strong evidence" that Labrador’s statement "is false. I agree that the exact number is up for debate, but the fact that it is more than zero seems clear to me." Every other health policy analyst who responded to us for this article agreed that Labrador was wrong. Some saw common sense as equally persuasive as the peer-reviewed research. "I was just at a physicians’ meeting where people described patients they had treated who had died because of a lack of coverage," said Harold Pollack, an urban public health researcher at the University of Chicago. "Everyone who does this for a living has personally experienced it in one way or another." you want to talk about tone or specifics go ahead but again it's pretty clearly established that lack of health care= people dying. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote: This man should be fired for that terrible pun (?). That said, I'd bet it is slightly more substantive without reporters thinking they can make the evening news by peppering Spicer with silly Russia questions. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Trump is a terrible president by practically every measure, but I'm curious what supporters of Hillary think her first ~150 days would have looked like. Would she have accomplished anything? If so, what? Presumably she would have done a better job at filling departments with cronies, but besides that, would she have been any more effective at passing her agenda than Trump? What parts? Assuming congress otherwise had the composition it does now; filling departments with competent people would be the main thing. the claim of them being filled with cronies is unfounded hate, not surprising coming from you though. I'd assume no major legislative accomplishments, as lacking control of congress it's hard to get such through. I don't think it's enough time for her to do the kind of backroom wrangling she's better at it to get something done legislatively. I'd assume the republicans put forth a bunch fo dumb symbolic bills that she then vetoes. Alot of her agenda would be continuing what Obama was doing, which is rather easier to do than changing laws. most of the benefits wouldn't be highly apparent for some time; competent administration is good for a country, but the benefits are generally slow to accumulate and not very visible; much like decent preventative measures. of course mostly the good part would not be not being the shitshow that is trump  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:29 LuckyFool wrote: Darn those Republicans for not supporting healthcare that will let people live forever. I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or just a piss-poor rejoinder. On June 24 2017 08:31 zlefin wrote: Assuming congress otherwise had the composition it does now; filling departments with competent people would be the main thing. the claim of them being filled with cronies is unfounded hate, not surprising coming from you though. I'd assume no major legislative accomplishments, as lacking control of congress it's hard to get such through. I don't think it's enough time for her to do the kind of backroom wrangling she's better at it to get something done legislatively. I'd assume the republicans put forth a bunch fo dumb symbolic bills that she then vetoes. Alot of her agenda would be continuing what Obama was doing, which is rather easier to do than changing laws. most of the benefits wouldn't be highly apparent for some time; competent administration is good for a country, but the benefits are generally slow to accumulate and not very visible; much like decent preventative measures. of course mostly the good part would not be not being the shitshow that is trump Are you being intentionally dense? You know what the word crony means right? Or you think she would be filling positions with strangers of which she knew nothing of their loyalty? This isn't even a crack on her, it's what every president has always done. But the answer seems to be nothing. Considering Democrats are struggling despite having Trump and the walking shit-show the Republicans are in power I think it's fair to say that Democrats would be in even worse shape going into 18 and even less likely to change the house so essentially she wouldn't pass anything for 4 years (like I said during the primary). Democrats strategy of running on damage mitigation is a loser and will continue to be a loser until they realize it's a loser and change strategies. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Are you denying people will die as a result of the Republican "healthcare" bill? Because that would seem like a counterfactual claim. Also "Berniebro" roflmao. It might enrage another deranged killer you're right. Otherwise, you're trying to prove a tenuous connection between health insurance and mortality risk which has been disproven (Kronick 2009). But back to the point, it seems that everybody's looking to imitate Trump's stupid tweets (Clinton, Sanders, Warren) as some form of flattery. Trump 2020 campaign is in full swing. He should really be paying these guys, seriously. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
"Rep. Labrador is misinformed," Kronick said. "Common sense, as well as the accumulated weight of evidence is sufficient to convince any reasonable analyst that lack of health insurance results in excess morbidity (that is, sickness) and mortality." | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say. The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:29 LuckyFool wrote: Darn those Republicans for not supporting healthcare that will let people live forever. Medicaid covers the costs of 50% of the babies born in this county and allows the hospitals that do it to exist. The cuts the GOP are slamming through congress won't result in fewer births, just fewer hospitals. This bill will fuck over our poorest states just to provide tax cuts to millionaires. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On June 24 2017 08:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/878387584199606272 Nice to see this officially confirmed. | ||
| ||
