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 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.
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.
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.
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong.
While I hope Democrats can get a more compelling message together in the future, I think strategically, going after Trumps administration is generally going to be a net positive for them. I think this is a bad thing for politics over all, but after Ben Ghazi and email gate proved how much energy an "investigation" can drum up, it seems negligent for Democrats not to swing back.
I don't know, people in this thread keep mentioning how much the Democrats messaging needs to evolve from "resist", but this seems to have been the Republican strategy to get themselves elected. The recent Healthcare battles really show that, they never had a plan and relied entirely on bashing the current system. It got them elected though so who can argue with the results?
The difference is that the ACA was roundly panned by the public, so running against an unpopular policy did score an electoral win. You're also absolutely right that the Republicans should've gone in with a plan and that's a critical failure (I basically dislike 90% of what Republicans are doing in Congress right now, and most of the career politicians from my party currently holding elected office). Now, seeing that the American people are majority against hammering home on Russia, it's not the same GOP vs ACA fight. The situation is different.
On July 19 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote: Getting those who aren't hit by the catastrophe to subsidize those who are is literally the whole mechanism of insurance. Dismissing it as "punishing the healthy for their sins" is absurd.
I don't think that's exactly true. The purpose of insurance is financial risk mitigation for the individual, and the insurance company charges a premium (above the expected claims costs) to take on that risk. Both sides benefit because the insurance company has a larger risk appetite than the individual. It's just a risk transfer. Individuals can choose whether they are willing to live without mitigating their health-related financial risk (in a free market).
That's not the same as "the healthy subsidize the unhealthy." That's only true when you force everyone to buy insurance, and then regulate the price of said insurance product (i.e. Obamacare).
On July 19 2017 06:31 Simberto wrote: But that is the whole idea of a healthcare system. The healthy subsidize the sick. If you were healthy, you are going to pay a bit more than before. If you are sick, you get to survive.
Perspective check.
The point of a health care system is to improve peoples' health.
We've run into a problem - namely, health care costs about seven times what it did a generation ago. It costs that much regardless of who pays for it.
This is also not strongly dependent on income - in fact, we already spend more money on health care for the bottom 20% than the top 20%.
On July 19 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote: Getting those who aren't hit by the catastrophe to subsidize those who are is literally the whole mechanism of insurance. Dismissing it as "punishing the healthy for their sins" is absurd.
It's not really insurance if you have a pre-existing condition though. Insurance implies that the risk is an event in the future.
Of course, what we really want anyways isn't insurance, but just affordable healthcare.
If we're talking about insuring against risk (which wasn't totally the case before, and is much less of the case today), losing your job shouldn't mean losing your insurance policy. The plan is yours.
If you get insurance through your employer, losing your job should affect whether or not you keep your policy. As it is now, you do get to keep it if you're willing to pay your employer's portion of the bill, albeit temporarily. Nobody really does though, because it's ridiculously expensive.
Employer based coverage isn't really a good example of how the insurance markets should work, as it's the employers subsidizing their employees. Let's be honest here, it's really just a way for employers to pay offer their workers a higher salary without being taxed for it.
On July 19 2017 06:31 Simberto wrote: But that is the whole idea of a healthcare system. The healthy subsidize the sick. If you were healthy, you are going to pay a bit more than before. If you are sick, you get to survive.
Perspective check.
The point of a health care system is to improve peoples' health.
We've run into a problem - namely, health care costs about seven times what it did a generation ago. It costs that much regardless of who pays for it.
This is also not strongly dependent on income - in fact, we already spend more money on health care for the bottom 20% than the top 20%.
But healthcare with worse effects costs more in the US than it does in other first world nations. Basically all of europe pays less public money for healthcare, A LOT less private money for healthcare, less GDP/capita for healthcare, AND they usually have way better results in most categories (Stuff like infant mortality, life expectancy, etc...)
Just take a look at some of the data 8url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective]here[/url]. You can take basically any chart in there, the US will either be very lonely at the bottom, or at best in the lower third. (Except Cancer, you seem to be ok at dealing with cancer.)
I agree that the point of a healthcare system is to improve peoples health. The US system is worse than others at improving peoples health, and costs more.
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems.
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.
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.
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.
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong.
Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post.
My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument.
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.
Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing.
I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you.
I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple.
As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election.
As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches.
On July 19 2017 06:31 Simberto wrote: But that is the whole idea of a healthcare system. The healthy subsidize the sick. If you were healthy, you are going to pay a bit more than before. If you are sick, you get to survive.
Perspective check.
The point of a health care system is to improve peoples' health.
We've run into a problem - namely, health care costs about seven times what it did a generation ago. It costs that much regardless of who pays for it.
This is also not strongly dependent on income - in fact, we already spend more money on health care for the bottom 20% than the top 20%.
But healthcare with worse effects costs more in the US than it does in other first world nations. Basically all of europe pays less public money for healthcare, A LOT less private money for healthcare, less GDP/capita for healthcare, AND they usually have way better results in most categories (Stuff like infant mortality, life expectancy, etc...)
Just take a look at some of the data here. You can take basically any chart in there, the US will either be very lonely at the bottom, or at best in the lower third. (Except Cancer, you seem to be ok at dealing with cancer.)
I agree that the point of a healthcare system is to improve peoples health. The US system is worse than others at improving peoples health, and costs more.
While I generally agree with your point that American healthcare is an inefficient mess of a system, it is worth noting that there's a lot of confounding factors that probably explain part of the gap. Even in the same system as say, Norway, I'd expect the US to have worse outcomes and higher costs than Norway for cultural, wealth/income distribution, diet, and other reasons.
On July 19 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote: Getting those who aren't hit by the catastrophe to subsidize those who are is literally the whole mechanism of insurance. Dismissing it as "punishing the healthy for their sins" is absurd.
Driving up their rates intentionally with harmful regs and defending it ala simultaneous subsidies is entirely new and purposefully damaging. You've turned insurance from defraying risk to a wealth transfer vehicle. Too bad that you don't qualify for subsidies, sucker, now take double deductibles and double premiums and clap for all the new enrollees. Thank god it's so transparent of a scheme, or the GOP would still be in the minority from 2010 to today. The victims of the ACA literally got a letter in the mail showing them the plans they liked don't exist anymore or would cost them much much more.
I note your swap from the premium/deductible talk to the defraying of catastrophe talk. Dishonest.
But that is the whole idea of a healthcare system. The healthy subsidize the sick. If you were healthy, you are going to pay a bit more than before. If you are sick, you get to survive.
Woah, back up. I'm talking about the health insurance system. The healthy pay for plans that make sense to avoid catastrophic loss. If they can budget, they go mostly catastrophic, and pay out of pocket for checkups or contraceptives or what have you. If they want to risk it and just pay out of pocket for everything, they take upon themselves the risk of thousand dollar bills from hospitalization where you can't just shop around for who has cheaper MRI's. What changed is mandating the purchase and forcing healthy people into it through penalty-taxes. Oh, and the sick can't get charged more than the healthy for not purchasing insurance before they got sick. Hey, if I can purchase insurance for the same rate once I get sick, why not wait until then? Upward pressures on insurers since young & healthy put it off, and the remainders are older and sicker. So we get this big mandate penalty to force the healthy to buy a product they don't want in order to make the sicker purchasers have cheaper policies. Originally, they'd pay for insurance plans that were light and made sense, but those are illegal now because of the same ACA ... great! So you force the healthy in to subsidize the sick, where originally both parties bought (including the healthy insuring against the chance of contracting illness) because they both saw a benefit.
There are a whole lot of problems with the ACA, but it is still shitloads better than what you had before, which was "Be lucky/be rich or die and/or be ruined".
Nope, most people were happy with their insurance plans beforehand. We're shitloads worse now. Look at any poll. See how many people are happy with their new insurance options. And this is with the poor market-deviant employer-based system, with no free market fixes in place.
US healthcare is expensive and shit.
Which is the root cause. Not who pays for it, why it's expensive in the first place. You don't see how much your doctor visit costs if you're (pre-ACA) in the 85% with employer-based insurance and co-pays. Insurance companies and hospitals and government negotiates, and you end up with it costing twice as much as flying out to India and doing the same operation/diagnostic procedure.
Somehow, people don't transfer their instinctive dislike for big corporations in this system. Hospitals love all these entangling regulations and burdensome reporting requirements. It keeps entrepreneurs from undercutting them on the MRI, from opening a clinic with lower doctor visit costs, from offering procedures for cheaper. They love things that drive up the price because it keeps the competition down. They love all these subsidies because it goes right into their coffers. They get their protected economies of scale. So they're up there wanting to protect their subsidies and dodge any taxes. Conflicts of interest driving up medical costs, which are the true issue behind "Who pays and how?" ... anyone?
I am still amazed by how hard a lot of people in the US fight to make their healthcare system even shittier.
You could just steal a healthcare system completely from basically any other first world nation and a) safe government money b) save private money c) have better healthcare for a large majority of the population d) stop ruining peoples lives. The US system is just that bad. But instead, you fight tooth and nail to go back to the even worse system that you had before. This is something that i simply can't understand at all.
I want a private system. It's not politically feasible due to the public and elected ignorance on the matter. It's all political cost, no political benefit for first year or two. Because this topic is all convoluted, you have to talk about medicare and medicaid reform too before seeing if single payer/socialized medicine actually saves money in the long run. I'll settle for some universal catastrophic insurance scheme with a robust private market on top of that ... individual focused and free from the provider/insurer/government land of misplaced incentives. We could go on literally forever with how to reform current systems just to make pre-ACA government programs more efficient and (frankly) more resembling the successes of certain European plans. But everything you've said and everything others have said in this thread I see as aiming towards making the situation worse than it already is and blaming the market afterwards. Getting the government more involved in citizen's healthcare is a key lever to force it to greater power in ordinary citizen's lives ... which has been an ultimate goal of the left for decades if not centuries now.
On July 19 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote: Getting those who aren't hit by the catastrophe to subsidize those who are is literally the whole mechanism of insurance. Dismissing it as "punishing the healthy for their sins" is absurd.
I don't think that's exactly true. The purpose of insurance is financial risk mitigation for the individual, and the insurance company charges a premium (above the expected claims costs) to take on that risk. Both sides benefit because the insurance company has a larger risk appetite than the individual. It's just a risk transfer. Individuals can choose whether they are willing to live without mitigating their health-related financial risk (in a free market).
That's not the same as "the healthy subsidize the unhealthy." That's only true when you force everyone to buy insurance, and then regulate the price of said insurance product (i.e. Obamacare).
Thank you for saying this in a more clear and compact way than I could. Understanding and arguing from this basic fact should be step one for comprehending what the ACA did before moving on to why it was good or bad.
On July 19 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote: Getting those who aren't hit by the catastrophe to subsidize those who are is literally the whole mechanism of insurance. Dismissing it as "punishing the healthy for their sins" is absurd.
It's not really insurance if you have a pre-existing condition though. Insurance implies that the risk is an event in the future.
Of course, what we really want anyways isn't insurance, but just affordable healthcare.
If we're talking about insuring against risk (which wasn't totally the case before, and is much less of the case today), losing your job shouldn't mean losing your insurance policy. The plan is yours.
If you get insurance through your employer, losing your job should affect whether or not you keep your policy. As it is now, you do get to keep it if you're willing to pay your employer's portion of the bill, albeit temporarily. Nobody really does though, because it's ridiculously expensive.
Employer based coverage isn't really a good example of how the insurance markets should work, as it's the employers subsidizing their employees. Let's be honest here, it's really just a way for employers to pay offer their workers a higher salary without being taxed for it.
So reduce taxes, drop the tax-advantaged employer programs that fucking kill the individual market, and let the insurers pay higher salaries that their employees can choose to drop into health plans or other investments. If we reduced the cost of care and let consumers shop around for their doctors/clinics/hospitals, they'd have more control over their options between jobs and save up their own money for a few insurance payments (now much lower) during the search.
On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems.
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.
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.
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.
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong.
Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post.
My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument.
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.
Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing.
I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you.
I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple.
As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election.
As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches.
ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy.
In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations.
On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems.
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.
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.
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.
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong.
Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post.
My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument.
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.
Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing.
I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you.
I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple.
As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election.
As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches.
ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy.
In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations.
The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism?
On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems.
On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote: [quote] 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.
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong.
Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post.
My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument.
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.
Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing.
I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you.
I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple.
As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election.
As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches.
ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy.
In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations.
The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism?
You may be unaware of this, but people suffer/die as a result of their impotence.
On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems.
On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:
On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote: [quote] 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.
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong.
Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post.
My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument.
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.
Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing.
I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you.
I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple.
As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election.
As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches.
ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy.
In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations.
The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism?
The Democrats aren't providing solutions per se. If they are even vague about being trying to get what the public wants done, then they score points. But letting this go on for however long works in their favor as well. I'd prefer they tease out some solutions so people can make their own conclusions. Then, in midterm elections, remind everyone that they were trying to get work done, but republicans didn't have anything.
Trump, Putin held a second, undisclosed meeting at G20 summit
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second, previously undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit earlier this month in Germany, a White House official said on Tuesday.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The White House official did not say how long the second meeting took place or what was discussed.
The second conversation between Trump and Putin took place during a dinner for the Group of 20 heads of state and their spouses in Hamburg, said Ian Bremmer, the president of political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, who was first to report the meeting in a note to clients.
Television coverage of the dinner showed that first lady Melania Trump was seated next to Putin.
Bremmer said Trump got up from his seat halfway through dinner and spent about an hour talking "privately and animatedly" with Putin, "joined only by Putin's own translator."
The lack of a U.S. translator raised eyebrows among other leaders at the dinner, said Bremmer, who called it a "breach of national security protocol."
Trump is under intense scrutiny by Congress and a special counsel investigating Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election, and probing whether Trump's campaign had ties to the activity. Trump has denied collusion between his campaign and Moscow.
On July 19 2017 06:08 KwarK wrote: Getting those who aren't hit by the catastrophe to subsidize those who are is literally the whole mechanism of insurance. Dismissing it as "punishing the healthy for their sins" is absurd.
I don't think that's exactly true. The purpose of insurance is financial risk mitigation for the individual, and the insurance company charges a premium (above the expected claims costs) to take on that risk. Both sides benefit because the insurance company has a larger risk appetite than the individual. It's just a risk transfer. Individuals can choose whether they are willing to live without mitigating their health-related financial risk (in a free market).
That's not the same as "the healthy subsidize the unhealthy." That's only true when you force everyone to buy insurance, and then regulate the price of said insurance product (i.e. Obamacare).
As long as emergency rooms don't tell the sick that they can pay or die you're better off giving people preventative care than waiting until they're dying to provide health care.
Trump, Putin held a second, undisclosed meeting at G20 summit
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second, previously undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit earlier this month in Germany, a White House official said on Tuesday.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The White House official did not say how long the second meeting took place or what was discussed.
Trump, Putin held a second, undisclosed meeting at G20 summit
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second, previously undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit earlier this month in Germany, a White House official said on Tuesday.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The White House official did not say how long the second meeting took place or what was discussed.
EPT
