| 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. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
They still have not started their internal soul searching,all eyes on trump. That wont be enough to pull any election I think but will see. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-democratic-message-telling-american-public-see-161011016.html Maybe this lady can change the tide,it does look promising but where is sanders. | ||
KwarK
United States42656 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:12 pmh wrote: Since all the bad ratings for trump get so much attention not only in the press but also on this forum,lets see how the other side has been doing. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/poll-shows-hillary-clintons-approval-154617464.html No interest off course,people are so biased and subjective. You think the reason people discuss the President of the United States and what he's doing more than they discuss the ex- Secretary of State of a previous administration is because they're biased? Are you parodying Fox News right now? Is this some kind of performance art? Hillary isn't discussed because Hillary isn't President. It's not bias to talk about the President while ignoring the ex-Secretary of State of a previous administration. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:17 pmh wrote: The democrats,they are gonna loose again in 2020 unless trumps messes up majorly. They still have not started their internal soul searching,all eyes on trump. That wont be enough to pull any election I think but will see. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-democratic-message-telling-american-public-see-161011016.html Maybe this lady can change the tide,it does look promising but where is sanders. it sounds like you're trying ot argue something not supported by evidence; and are extrapolating unjustifiably. especially sinc trump has already messed up majorly. and your claims of soul searching sounds like the usual tripe from people who hate dems, trying to justify their own positions. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
@above:i don't have any position in all of this and consider myself to be neutral. Just trying to voice some other perspective as this thread has become extremely biased and one sided. It is also a bit of a warning for the democrats,to not think that they have the next election in the bag because "everyone" hates trump. Hillary not only lost because trump was such an amazing candidate (which he obviously was not) she also lost because she and her message where not that appealing. All the democrats in this thread,which there are many of,are focusing on trump and not on what is potentially broken inside their own party. They still got a few years though. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:12 pmh wrote: Since all the bad ratings for trump get so much attention not only in the press but also on this forum,lets see how the other side has been doing. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/poll-shows-hillary-clintons-approval-154617464.html No interest off course,people are so biased and subjective. Why is Clinton's approval rating relevant to anything? How's Trump doing compared to Bush, Reagan and Carter right now? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
what people mean when they answer a poll question is likely to be somewhat different for a sitting president, and someone who's not in office. and of course, polls have little bearing on actual fitness or anything anyways. they don't measure reality, just perception and ohw people feel. you can claim to be neutral adn think you are, but it doesn't mean you are. the thread has the same centerleft bias it always has; with a fair distribution around that . I don't see an extreme bias. but I haven't read for a few days. it also depends which kind of bias you're taling about, as there are several different kinds. maybe it's just your own bias making it seem like there's an extreme bias, that's a common occurrence. I also wonder how different ways of phrasing the question would work; I mean, a straightforward approve/disapprove might get higher nubmers; if you just ask them about it directly, it seems like a lot of Reps really don't approve much of trump, they only approve of him relative to hillary; but they don't actually approve of what he's doing on the whole and feel he's doin ga fairly poor job. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 19 2017 04:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: Even if we ignore the fact that the 2015 vote was purely ceremonial, it wasn't really a repeal bill. It was a "delayed repeal in two years at which point something will have to be done or else Medicare will collapse" bill. Plus the primary voting public now knows what repeal actually means. They didn't before because the GOP lied to them about what the ACA was. I think they began to realize this in 2016, thanks to Trump's own promises to replace/augment rather than fully repeal. It's necessary to give insurers time to draft new plans people will actually want to buy, that doesn't include expensive regs and mandatory addons. Maybe we can argue nine months, a year, two years, but it's repeal. Secondly, you're signally repeal with repeal votes, you're just dodging repairing the employer-focused aspects and lapse of insurance aspects. It's still dancing to your base that you want repeal, making this reversal just as much of a reversal. Finally, this was their campaign promise. On July 19 2017 03:37 Slaughter wrote: I don't see it as a good move for Trump to be out there saying "let Obamacare fail" since we all have known the problems with it for years and we could have just passed changes to make it work much better and not fail. Instead by saying these things Trump looks like a stubborn child who is jealous of Obama and is actively killing something with his name on it just for spite. Nah, I've seen too many defenses of some of the worst aspects that screwed up the individual market for the forseeable future. Everybody does not know the problems; most of it I'd say is for political gains from ignoring most problems or some problems. On July 19 2017 03:42 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: good luck in general if your platform is we're going to bring back the donut hole for coverage. devils in the details. Republicans have kind of worked themselves into an impossible situation. also I have yet to see a single health expert say that Obamacare is failing or collapsing. also a lot of problems are due to the current administration. not saying it doesn't have a million problems that need to be addressed but despite all attempts to weaken it and the uncertainty of the market it's still collapsing or failing in the usually sense of the word for insurance. It's impossible to create a more free market, force people who don't want to purchase insurance to still purchase it, drop the price, make it financially responsible, drop the cost of health care and medications, and give greater freedom to states to craft laws that fit for their citizens. Trump obviously had a total package of health insurance reform that was impossible. States that have had all but one insurer drop out is proof of failure. The same KFF cited earlier estimated 664 counties would only have a single insurer on the exchanges this year. Virginia's also an easy example. If you make slightly above the heavily subsidized levels, you could be looking at a $3,000 deductible for the low-deductible plans ... what used to be a high-deductible plan under the previous system. On bronze plans, the lowest premium popped up 96% in 2016. With a high deductible. Just from a quick survey this year, Oregon shows 7/8 carriers wanting double digit premium increases. Virginia, seven are looking for ~10% to 50% and Maryland has five seeking 18-59%. Buckyman's been in here reminding people about core problems, like mandating insurance for things people won't use(pay stupidity tax, America, for things you're too dumb to buy for yourself when you need it) and penalizing real insurance that protects against catastrophe. His summary. But, you know, dismiss the arguments, ask for experts, dismiss the experts too (saying experts disagree is too hard or something). It's nice and quaint to pretend the current administration is screwing it up; but it's all baked into the legislation no matter which partisan way you want to slice it. Repealing it is a very good first step to making insurance affordable for the people that want it. Then you can work tax treatment for employer-provided insurance, cost transparency, plan transferability and focus on both why health care providers charge more than the rest of the world and what the government's role is in a sustainable plan that covers the chronically sick and destitute. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42656 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:17 pmh wrote: The democrats,they are gonna loose again in 2020 unless trumps messes up majorly. They still have not started their internal soul searching,all eyes on trump. That wont be enough to pull any election I think but will see. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-democratic-message-telling-american-public-see-161011016.html Maybe this lady can change the tide,it does look promising but where is sanders. Somebody's gotta turn it back to Democrat solutions that don't revolve around Trump, Trump+Russia, or Trump+corruption. It doesn't look like Perez, Schumer, or Pelosi has the leadership ability to make that happen. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. It's viewed as inappropriate, sure, but not warranting 24/7 coverage and high focus ... an area that the beltway is out of sync with the rest of America. If the current leadership keeps the same focus, and stays in as the "current leadership" after losing so many seats, the Dems deserve 2018 and 2020 losses. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:30 KwarK wrote: Danglars, damn near every word of that was utter nonsense. Kwark, you know by now I typically conclude the same thing about your perspectives and arguments  Aka almost totally worthless, profoundly deceptive, and counterfactual. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/krvfXKR.jpg) Thought this was funny. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
oh pmh, I see you added yet more text to your last remark, after people had already responded (thoug hat least ont quote responded) That doens't really follow as a conslusion, it's just one poll; you're trying to reach the conclusion you want to reach and editorialize on, rather than the other way around. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42656 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:35 Danglars wrote: Kwark, you know by now I typically conclude the same thing about your perspectives and arguments Aka almost totally worthless, profoundly deceptive, and counterfactual.I hope at the very least I'd do better than to present facts in the format "increased their premiums in the range 10%-50%". That's so incredibly wide that I'd not even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that at least one of the four was 50%, after all, 12% is in the range 10-50. | ||
|
Slydie
1915 Posts
On July 19 2017 04:51 NewSunshine wrote: I find your interpretation of that article highly misleading. Most of the money needed to fund the system is money that is already being used in the private healthcare market, which a single-payer plan would obliterate, meaning over $300b of the $400b required is already given. Not to mention that, according to the article, costs could potentially be lower than the $400b number, as the state could have leeway to renegotiate medical costs. Add onto that the fact that, as opposed to the 7%(3 million) uninsured right now, you would have 0% uninsured, because every person living in the state would be covered. Also worth mentioning the arguable quality of life improvement that comes from not having to agonize over navigating the private healthcare network, which for many is a gigantic pain in the ass. Yes, but even though the private healthcare and insurance industry is a gigantic waste of money, it still provides an important service, so oblitterating it is not really an option. Also, a considerable number of people would indeed get worse service for their money, and could not care less about the population as a whole. Nationalizing private businesses is not exactly the spirit of America. Buying hospitals at market price, and running them with federal- or state- money, independent of any insurers could work, but Americans are brainwashed to believe health insurance is necessary, and it will be very hard to change that. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Lol it seems to me like his leg would be below the position of her hand right there. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote: Somebody's gotta turn it back to Democrat solutions that don't revolve around Trump, Trump+Russia, or Trump+corruption. It doesn't look like Perez, Schumer, or Pelosi has the leadership ability to make that happen. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. It's viewed as inappropriate, sure, but not warranting 24/7 coverage and high focus ... an area that the beltway is out of sync with the rest of America. If the current leadership keeps the same focus, and stays in as the "current leadership" after losing so many seats, the Dems deserve 2018 and 2020 losses. Congress is led by the Republicans, so they certainly can focus on what they want, but it appears they suck at leading. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21668 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote: Somebody's gotta turn it back to Democrat solutions that don't revolve around Trump, Trump+Russia, or Trump+corruption. It doesn't look like Perez, Schumer, or Pelosi has the leadership ability to make that happen. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. It's viewed as inappropriate, sure, but not warranting 24/7 coverage and high focus ... an area that the beltway is out of sync with the rest of America. If the current leadership keeps the same focus, and stays in as the "current leadership" after losing so many seats, the Dems deserve 2018 and 2020 losses. Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want, The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all. That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote: I hope at the very least I'd do better than to present facts in the format "increased their premiums in the range 10%-59%". That's so incredibly wide that I'd not even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that at least one of the four was 59%, after all, 12% is in the range 10-59. It's enough to point out the lie that the ACA has made things more affordable and put interested parties onto the more problematic areas to find out precisely how bad it is. It doesn't take much effort to garner the usual one-liners, and most of the replies will be non-substantive or argue at tangents. You fuck over people that aren't heavily subsidized, and punish the healthy for their sins, all while not addressing the root causes of the cost of care. That's if we were having an honest exchange from the start ... that it's worth it to harm this group to help this other group in similar numbers. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote: Somebody's gotta turn it back to Democrat solutions that don't revolve around Trump, Trump+Russia, or Trump+corruption. It doesn't look like Perez, Schumer, or Pelosi has the leadership ability to make that happen. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. It's viewed as inappropriate, sure, but not warranting 24/7 coverage and high focus ... an area that the beltway is out of sync with the rest of America. If the current leadership keeps the same focus, and stays in as the "current leadership" after losing so many seats, the Dems deserve 2018 and 2020 losses. People in here have been saying that (GH and myself) for a long time now. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
