Our allies are foes, our adversaries are strong and their word is to be taken over our own civil servants. #MAGA
Printable View
Our allies are foes, our adversaries are strong and their word is to be taken over our own civil servants. #MAGA
"The president says he knows what he's doing, so he must know what he's doing despite all evidence to the contrary."Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Nice demagoguery, did Poop teach you that?
1. Goofy trade war with entire world.
2. Fake treaty with NK.
3. Separating kids from parents at border.
4. Sucking on Putin's balls at presser.
Four complete fuckups in last month or so. Looking forward to those Nov. midterms and record turnout of D voters, and the tweets about 'rigged' elections to follow.
Honestly, the idea of a blue wave happening are kinda scary. Not because that isn't how I'll vote, but because how upsetting to the status quo that will be. So far Trump has been the teflon don. All his blunders are hand waved away-- he hasn't really suffered any concrete setbacks due to his actions. Losing congress, or losing in 2020 would be just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How does he react to being rejected by the electorate? I suppose you're probably right-- blaming it on illegal immigrants illegally voting by the millions or something, but that's just talk. Would he actually do anything? Is there anything he could do? How does his base react? They're dispersed and predominantly rural/suburban, so large scale demonstrations are less likely, but maybe this would be the exception?
Interesting times..
It's the same way people make themselves believe in a religion or pick any conspiracy theory... flat earth, young earth, bigfoot... you start with a presupposition and then you reject everything that doesn't fit and make everything fit that supports it. I think it's a popular meme because the world is confusing and scary, and simple answers to complex problems are comforting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It looks like he got scolded by the majority of his base for the Putin meeting. So much so that for the first time I can remember I saw Trump walk back on something he said. Not that I think the would/won't thing convinced anyone. It was certainly completely immaterial to his idiot voter base. This was just to thwart an immediate move to impeachment by the looks of it. Tensions are definitely high. I would imagine that even people close to him would think it's pretty likely that Putin has kompromat on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Wasn't one of the first things he did when he took office to lift russia sanctions, but then congress pulled the handbreaks... nothing he does makes much sense if you look at it from an economic standpoint - not even if you apply maximum wufanomics. It makes a hell of a lot more sense as seen from russia.
I know everyone has seen it but it's worth noticing how spot on Clinton was in 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaVWRetR4jg
They're only handwaved away by the 33% who think he's infallible and people who are afraid to alienate his base (i.e., Republicans who aren't quitting or retiring). Pretty much everyone else recognizes his boobery for what it is. I don't know what "concrete" setbacks he could suffer short of impeachment, but he's hardly crushing the public opinion afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
In the "watching a plane crash into a dump full of toxic waste" kind of way it's interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Some have argued, including that guy Johnston who wrote his autobiography, that Trump would react just like one would suspect he'd react - deny any personal responsibility and put on the tinfoil hat. The extent to which his base is willing to drink the Kool Aid for him is an interesting question and open to debate, but I think there's little doubt about how he'd react himself.
I really do hope he doesn't try to foment some popular revolution or some shit.
It's interesting though if you watch Fox's coverage you'd think he'd done a good job overall at that meeting and the MSM is waaay overreacting. My favourite is where they try to argue it actually is a good idea to let Russia help with the investigation into Russian meddling.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuTde16PaI8
And now Germany is the puppet lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I watched the Fox news youtube clips right after the meeting. I'd like to claim that I do it to diversify my news sources, but really I'm just there for the comedy - same reason I primarily watch cspan. The coverage was mostly critical of Trump. I'm not super informed about Fox's program, but I think you have the Hannity/Fox&friends/ and whoever the lady in the purple dress is, who are basically doing GOP propaganda, and then you have a couple slightly more critical shows. Of course they got a vicious beating by their fans. The top voted comment on one of the videos was that Fox calling the press conference a "bad performance" was the proof that Fox has been compromised by the deep state.
So, I'm not as much worried about congress, I think even some of the more vocal Trumpians in congress will turn on Trump once the already obvious comes to light... but what I am worried about is post-Trump america outside of congress. You have people who believe Hannity, who has gone full Alex Jones - talking about the deep state. If Trump is either impeached or loses in 2020, idk how these people will react. When the infallible fails, it obviously cannot be fault of the infallible.
OMG this is too good. Remember during the repub primaries when they had candidates sign some sort of pledge promising not to wig-out if they lost. They did that FOR Trump. They were afraid he'd sue, or run as an independent, or some other such nonsense. And even though he signed, there was much consternation about what he would actually do if/when he lost. Granted, Trump did plenty to fan that fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
BUT THEN HE STILL WON
Oh, and then remember in the fall of 2016 when everyone was losing their mind wondering what kind of outrageous stunt Trump would pull when he lost to Hillary?
BUT THEN HE STILL WON
This is getting old now folks. Trying to defame Trump because of an IMAGINED potential tantrum isn't working. Try something else.
It's like you don't even remember election night......Quote:
How does his base react? They're dispersed and predominantly rural/suburban, so large scale demonstrations are less likely, but maybe this would be the exception?
How did Hillary's base react? Did they all stand honorably in defeat? Were they all examples of decorum?
You hopelessly misunderstand the Trump voter.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This is the EXACT thinking and attitude that got Trump elected in the first place, and will result in a Dem loss in November.
Keep it up.
Well I didn't watch everything from Fox, but the one bit I did see and posted above was predictably tame with the criticism. I think there are one or two guys like Shep Smith who are pretty critical and like you say, get all kinds of death threats from people whose fingers are too fat to change the channel on the remote when he comes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This is my fear as well - that instead of realizing what a conman he is and how much better off they are with him out of office, they'll instead go along with whatever fantasy conspiracy explanation he and his propaganda team at Fox come up with to explain his downfall. And if even a tiny minority of them go Unabomber on the "deep state" things could potentially get ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Interesting comment from that vid
I would never have expected that like to dislike ratioQuote:
This is why he gets trashed on so much. You know this was a bad look. It's not even debatable. Now if you think people are going too far in their outrage, that's another story. But to try to use the "fake news" angle again in this situation is dumb. Trump and people who support him need to be willing to admit when he does something wrong. If every time he does something that isn't good, you deflect on libs, obama, hilary, or news stations people will never want to agree with you on anything. i can guarantee that no one responding to this will listen to a word i just said. instead they are going to post about one of the things i just mentioned instead of solutions to what just happened today. If you refuse to acknowledge a problem exists, a solution can never be found.
Also from that vid
:facepalm:Quote:
You want to call out someone? Try Obama, or Bill and Hillary. Or the FBI.
A lot of curious liberals watching that video is my guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I don't understand. Is your position that he can't lose? Or that theorizing on what a blue wave would look like in regards to reactions of Trump and his base is for some reason off limits?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
We have seen him take small loses, and he and his base blame the media, Obama, Clinton, the deep state, etc, and/or spin it into an intended outcome that really is a victory. It's an interesting trait to extrapolate to a bigger loss.
It's my confident prediction that he won't lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
As to theorizing on his potential reaction to a loss.....what's the point? Is it *REALLY* a source of worry? Or are folks just tossing this idea around as a way to make him looking foolish, childish, and unstable? Seems to me that they really *want* to make those accusations about Trump, but can't point anything he's actually done to support those claims. So now we're "theorizing".....what the hell for?
If the "theorizing" is solely a propaganda tactic to diminish Trump, then it's lame. It's also completely played out and tired.
Or if you're truly worried about nationwide chaos, you should take off the foil hat and calm down. It wont' be nearly as bad as it was when Hillary lost.
So remember a few weeks ago when Dems were running around with their hair on fire demanding that candidates endorse a policy for the abolition of I.C.E.
Remember that?
I almost forgot about it. Today I learned why. Apparently the republicans in congress decided to propose a legislative resolution in support of the agency. In other words, it was just a formal congressional act saying "We like I.C.E."
The basically dared democrats to go on record denouncing a completely functional, lawful agency that's just doing its job.
Guess how many dems seized this opportunity to show their constituents how strongly committed they are to the plight of illegal immigrants by voting "no" on the resolution?
And guess how many said "naaaah, I'll sit this out".
LOL
Ha, that's a pretty shrewd move.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH DEMS IN 2018 BABY!!!
THEY'VE GOT ALL THE ENERGY, AND THE YOUTH VOTE BEHIND THEM
AMERICA IS OUTRAGED
AMERICA IS OFFENDED
AMERICA WON'T STAND FOR THIS.
TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED
I CALL OUT TO THE YOUNG, ANGRY, DISAFFECTED PEOPLE OF THIS NATION WHO WANT CHANGE!
COME, GATHER, SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR MOVEMENT!!
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/0...ew-people-show
Fucking 11 people showed up!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You gotta do better than that dems. November is just over 3 months away!
Nice to see things are back to normal.
Starting at 4.00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRlxLvYQh4
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There is a very real chance that President Trump will be a failure if he doesn't put the criminals of the previous administration in prison.
Who would that be and how does he do it without getting cucked by the activist courts?
The guy has 88% approval among republicans. He could retire today and no one would call him a failure except the people who are already calling him much worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Obama for starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
No ex-POTUS is going to prison. Gimme a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I agree. It's why I question whether Trump's presidency will be a failure since he probably will not be able put in prison the person who maybe should be in prison the mostQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not sure I follow. How does Obama make Trump fail as a president?
Are you asking in good faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It is too expensive they said
There's no money for it they said
I really want to know how they will spin this, or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin. Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyC4grL-Uag
lol noQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
why would that be a requirement
Yeah... but it still worked. Nothing matters except image to Trumps core base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...r_30_trillion/
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...aaay_too_much/
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/3...icare-all-plan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...tudy-says.html
https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rillion-study/
I especially like this from the Fox Insider articleSo even if it's cheaper, it is bad because people might get more out of it than they pay into it. In other words: insurance is immoral.Quote:
Charlie Hurt said none of those Democrats have looked at the real "moral issue" at hand, which is "the idea that people are perfectly OK with taking things from people who work and giving them to people who don't work."
They were rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Right againQuote:
There's no money for it they said
LOL, it's already soaking with "spin"Quote:
I really want to know how they will spin this,
Why should it be remembered?Quote:
or how quickly in which it will go into the forgotten studies bin
Only if you care about qualityQuote:
Because anything with a hint of socialism is bad, amirite
This videos just steaming with resentment. Just jealous ranting about "executive compensation packages". It's the laziest, glibbest, most demagogue-esque argument you can make.
this is the kind of thinking that destroyed the soviet union. "oh look, that guy has money. He must be bad. Let's make him jobless and poor like us". Before long, everybody lives it total abject suffering. Like in Finland.
So the study says we'll save 2 trillion over 10 years. How many trillions will we save if we dropped all the bullshit regulations that came about over the last 10 years?
you talk about spin!! Jeeeezus man. The government ran rampant over the healthcare system, put MASSIVE costs on providers and companies. They added 10's of trillions of dollars in consumer costs. Now they say "oh, hey, if you give us a do-over, it will cost slightly less"
Serious question: How much does the study say that we will save if we slashed the government regulations preventing national exchanges, or allowed insurance companies to compete.
Find me that number. If it's less than the figures cited in Bernie's bitching above....then I'll be convinced this is a good idea.
lol....spin.
Insolvency is bad mmmmkayQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Dude, I'm starting to believe that your mind is about as dense as a neutron star. It's actually impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That's the point. They found a number. A relevant one. One based in reality. And it was found by the rightest-wing of all right wing organizations. Oh the irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Anyway, that number is -2,000,000,000,000 over a period of 10 years.
You as a country SAVE 2,000,000,000,000 over that period. If you just continue with your course as is, you will save 0 over that period.
I see you've never heard about lobbyists. The government just did all that shit on its own, according to you. This is probably beneath your high IQ.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not 10's of billions. 2000 billions to be exact. Which is what proponents of healthcare reform in the US have been saying all along. Universal healthcare will save money. Now the rightest wing of all right wing organizations did a study to prove them all wrong, yet came to the exact same conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's not the government that said this, High IQ Banana. It's the Koch Bros' Mercatus Institute that did.
Donald Trump: "Single-payer will bankrupt our country, because it's more than we take in, for just health care."
In a speech – Wednesday, July 19, 2017
I wonder how you can go bankrupt with 2000 extra billion dollars lying around?
Are those the only two options? Stay the course as is, or have a massive government takeover of a private industry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
No other alternatives?
Demagogue
The government did all that by deceiving the people. Said it's not a tax. Then beat court challenges by citing it's ability to levy taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Was that all the lobbyists idea?
I meant to say trillions. OP editedQuote:
Not 10's of billions. 2000 billions to be exact.
For whom? At what cost? Where's that money going now?Quote:
Which is what proponents of healthcare reform in the US have been saying all along. Universal healthcare will save money
It came to *a* conclusion, that doesn't really prove anything other than you and Bern are ruled by confirmation bias.Quote:
Now the rightest wing of all right wing organizations did a study to prove them all wrong, yet came to the exact same conclusion.
Not denying that. What's your point?Quote:
It's not the government that said this, High IQ Banana. It's the Koch Bros' Mercatus Institute that did.
What if you needed to save 10,000 billion in order to avoid going bankrupt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Or 20,000 billion?
Or 5,000 billion?
What exactly is that data point? Was that in the study?
In 2008, Healthcare cost $X
Now, it costs $X + something.
How much is that something? Quick search found this: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...tantially_2017
Only goes through 2016, but in the most recent 10 years shown, healthcare cost per capita went up roughly 40%.
So Healthcare now costs $X +.4X
This would be a good time to point out that all that stuff the government did over the last decade was supposed to reduce healthcare costs. Instead they're up 40%. Why would we give the government another shot at this? Serious question Jack. Bernie's not saying anything that folks weren't saying in 2008. There were "studies" back in those days too. People put their faith in socialized healthcare back then, and they got slapped in the cock with a 40% rate hike. Serious question....why would anyone believe it would be better a second time?
Anyway, before I embrace Medicare for all, you need to prove to me that
$2 Trillion over 10 years > .4X
https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-do...all-1533163559
Here's something from the today's WSJ that says X = 32 Trillion over 10 years. This is consistent with teh previous link that puts total healthcare spending at approx 3.2 Trillion per year. It's also consistent with other sources that cite $10K per capita annual spending (population 320 million). So there really shouldnt be any dispute here regarding the value of X. Do you disagree Jack? Do you have a different value of X that you'd like to use?
Let's convert everyhting to annual numbers in billions. Medicare for all claims to save $200B per year, according to the Koch brothers. Current annual costs (1.4x) are $3200B. So X = 2,285B
So, now let's plug those figures into the formula and see if the math checks out
On one side of the equation we have $200B
On the other side we have the 40% rate hike the government rammed up our corn holes. $3200B which is equal to 1.4X. So x = 2,285 and 40% of that would be $915B
$200B vs $915B
Which way should the alligator open its mouth?? > <
By the way...
How many of the top 50 hospitals in the world are outside of the U.S.? How many world-class medical facilities has socialism produced?
oh...
And what's the 5-year cancer survival rate in those socialist shitholes hmm?
I won't argue, socialized medicine is AWESOME for simple acute ailments like a broken bone, or appendectomy. But if you're more seriously ill, then you're gonna need help from the private sector. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. The data on this is irrefutable.
"For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden."Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...326-3/abstract
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#140fe9ac4b67
Wait a minute...you mean the extra money we spend doesn't go to greedy insurance companies? They actually spend it on more equipment. they spend it on increasing the availability of drugs. They screen more, and treat more aggressively.Quote:
So with all of that said, yes, America has among the best cancer survival statistics because of an incredible abundance of high technology equipment and drugs, more extensive screening, and more aggressive treatment.
You mean they spend that money on the patients???
So what happens when we cut $2 trillion out of the pie over the next 10 years????????????
The number seems to be 22. Depends on your criteria but I'd say most of those countries qualify as socialist if you're looking at their public healthcare systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/en/world
Well, you spend $10.348 per person, the world on average spends $5.169 per person, Finland seems to spend $4.415 per person. For that kind of money it'd better be good. Funnily enough it's only marginally better, not twice as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
*Cue wuf coming here to talk about efficiency*
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...lth-u-s-spends
I lay this entirely at the feet of the American Psychological AssociationQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
So what's the honest truth about Finland.
Are the teachers paid like doctors? Or are the doctors paid like teachers?
The alternative is 2 trillion, TRILLION, dollars saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your mental density prevents you from seeing this quite clear point.
+2T is not going to hurt in any case now, would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The bankruptcy thing is the Trump quote you seemed to miss
He said, quite clearly, healthcare would bankrupt the place. Check out the quote for yourself.
Now, if you save 2 TRILLION DOLLARS and still go bankrupt, then you deserve to go bankrupt. Move over and let China take over the wheel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here is the world's tiniest violin for your attempts at math
Now that really matters now, doesn't itQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Mental density??? Quite clear point???Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Here's something that should be quite clear. Dems made these promises 10 years ago too. They broke those promises and jacked up prices by almost half. If you believe that it will be different this time, then you're mentally dense.
Here's something that should be quite clear. Even if it's true that Medicare-for-all (heretofore "MFA") would save $2T, why is that good? What if we could do something else that could save $5T? Only someone mentally dense wouldn't explore other options.
Heres's something that should be quite clear. The government regulations increased the cost of healthcare by $915B per year over the last 10 years. If we undid that, we'd save NINE TRILLION over ten years. You'd have to be mentally dense to think that Two trillion is better than 9 trillion. Even if governtment regulation is only *half* the problem...that's still FOUR FUCKING TRILLION. A person freed from mental density can see that four, is more than two. Is that not quite clear to anyone?
Here's something that should be quite clear. Socialized medicine reduces the quality of care. Is that worth $2 trillion? I'm wondering what kind of mental density disorder a person might have to have in order to believe that there is a way to just *get* two trillion dollars without any kind of tradeoff, sacrifice, or consequence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You do realize that it's a private study that had that conclusion right? The conclusion proponents have been claiming all along? Or maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your government seems to be aligned with your facts-be-damned, my-ideology-above-reality way of thinking, which, SHOCKER, is in the minority
Even on FOX & MFING FRIENDS of all places
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FydNe9bu2c
Once your mental density allows you to understand that the whole point is that it's not just the dems making promises right now, we can continue this fruitless discussionQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It most definitely will hurt if A) it reduces the quality of care, and B) prevents us from pursuing deregulation and free-market solutions that would generate many times more savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Are you dense?
I didn't miss it. I don't see how it's relevant. Are you arguing that MFA Is good, or that it's simply not totally catastrophic financially?Quote:
The bankruptcy thing is the Trump quote you seemed to miss
Hey..Dr. Dense....NO ONE FUCKING CARES! Trump doesn't speak for me.Quote:
He said, quite clearly, healthcare would bankrupt the place. Check out the quote for yourself.
This should be a Bernie 2020 bumper-sticker slogan.Quote:
Now, if you save 2 TRILLION DOLLARS and still go bankrupt, then you deserve to go bankrupt. Move over and let China take over the wheel.
what facts am I damning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I haven't disputed anything you've said. Are you dense?
I've challenged to to prove that MFA is the BEST solution. Obviously your mind is too dense to produce an answer. It's jammed in there, stuck within the densely packed liberal vitriol that you continuously suck out of Cenk Uygur's urethra.
If you have a problem with my math, say so. Your vague chortles only prove that the math checks out. You can't assail the FACTS, so you're relying on your demagogue rhetoric of "If the Koch brothers say it, how can you deny it?" Even though NO ONE IS DENYING THE STUDY. But maybe you're too dense to realize that. In fact, I'm sure that's the case because you just doubled down with "FOX poll says people like MFA"
Polls can suck my balls. Most people like the idea of free college too, and Universal Basic Income. That doesn't mean they're good ideas.
Do you have a source for your information?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Links were already provided dense-headQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It was in TODAY's WSJ Jack.
Today.
Headline: Even if we double taxes...can't pay for MFA
It's quite clear. Unless you're fucking dense.
Are you dense?
It kinda does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
See, I suspect that teaching isn't really the high-status job that the Scandanavian balllickers like to suggest. I think they just pay their doctors shit. Which means that they get the shittiest doctors. And the best doctors go to countries that actually pay them for their skills.
Because only someone with dangerous levels of mental density would think that teaching, which at this point is little more than glorified karaoke, is on par with treating disease.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Still waiting to see why the math was wrong?
During the Obama ERA we added $10 Trillion in health care costs. MFA promises to reduce that by $2 Trillion.
But only if we completely surrender control of healthcare to the government. And only if we accept the real likelihood that quality of care will suffer. And only if we accept the risk that the democrats could be just as wrong as they were the first time when they promised cost reductions and instead jacked up the price by $10 Trillion.
I'm saying, that if a free market solution is more than 20% effective at undoing those changes, then it's more +EV than MFA.
Does that math not check out?
MFA explained:
Let's say you took your car to a garage for routine maintenance. Instead, they caused $10K worth of damage, and forced you to pay for it.
Now that same garage owner comes along and says if you GIVE him your car, he'll give you 20% of those repair costs back, and pinky-swear to drive you around whenever you need it. You're still out $8K and you now have to trust that he'll provide reliable service.
Great deal
Medicare is socialized, gov't healthcare, and Americans love it.
Calling out socialized, gov't healthcare as unambiguously bad seems to ignore this fact.
Expanding one of the most loved gov't programs to cover more people seems like good governance. At least, I can see why it sounds like a good suggestion, prima facie.
Huge expenses in healthcare come from the inaccessibility of preventative medicine and of early treatments to financially challenged people.
It's not uncommon for a person to get sick, but to think that it's not that bad, and they don't need to see a doctor unless they're really sick. They can't afford a $100+ doctor's bill unless it's truly a life-threatening illness. They just don't find out it's life-threatening until the cost of treatment has skyrocketted from catching it in the early stages. They couldn't afford a $100 bill and now they're inpatient at a hospital that costs over $1000 per day.
The cost of treatment at that late stage is astronomical compared to if it could have been caught early on. People whom can't afford those early visits are costing all of us $1000's more in tax dollars for treatment costs than if we'd just put up the initial capitol to make preventative check-ups a human right. Yes, it'll cost us a lot of tax dollars to make these services available to all, but it's already costing us much more in tax dollars to deal with.
Two thirds of medicare spending goes to treat illnesses that end up killing the patient anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
FIN
My grandfather was one of those people who lived on a diet of red meat, coffee, and beer for more than half century. Guess what....docs told him his ticker was fucked. They said "We can give you seven bypasses and maybe buy you 10 more years". Medicare paid.
That was in 1991. He's still alive. I'd say he got his money's worth and then some.
Since then he's done absolutely zilch to improve his quality of life. Still eats shit. Exercises less and less. Spends more and more time sitting on his ass. So in 2014, when his heart started to shit the bed again, I personally think Medicare should have told him to fuck off. "here's some morphine, go watch The Price is Right until you croak".
Instead they dropped six figures to patch up a guy who has already had one bite at the apple.
Don't tell me Medicare is working great.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
This is truly garbage posting. You should be banned for this.
You're ignoring known patterns of human behavior. People don't take care of themselves. You have to force them. People aren't skipping checkups because they can't afford it. They're skipping checkups because they don't think they need one. Even people with insurance, whose physical exams are 100% free, don't get physical exams.
Costs become a problem when you try to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Insolvency happens when you create a system where people can pay nothing until they're really sick, and then go buy insurance. I don't see how accessibility to checkups is going to change that.
In fact, if insurance companies were allowed to deny you coverage when you show up at their door demanding coverage for your pre-existing condition....you'd probably be more motivated to get your fucking checkup.
An opinion piece in the WSJ?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Is that your source?
Are you high, mr. neutron star?
Just because statistics are used in a subjective analysis, doesn't meant that the statistics themselves are subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Let's cut through the bullshit Dr. Dense.
Are you denying that healthcare in America currently costs $10K per capita, or $3.2 Trillion per year, or $32 Trillion over ten years?
There are MULTIPLE sources in this thread already that all cite that same figure. Including posts made by not-me.
Why don't you just stop being a dodgy dick-head and tell us what Healthcare in America actually costs then. Since you know so damn much.
What you're describing is in addition to my point, not in exception to my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yes, some people whom have insurance don't go schedule or attend regular check-ups. That is a cost that will not change.
Yes, some people whom are sick choose not to go see a doctor out of their own hubris that they know what's better for their own and public health than the trained professionals they've established relationships with. That cost will also not change.
There are people whom want to seek treatment at early stages of an illness, but whom can't afford to do so. When those people become grievously ill, the cost of treatment is much more expensive than if they'd received treatment earlier. The fact that you're asking me for a source on this is absurd. You wouldn't trust any source I posted, and it's simply common sense that if I wait until after I've infected other people to seek treatment, then those people now also need treatment. What's to even disagree with there?
the implied premise of your post was that these costs were significant drivers of the rising cost of healthcare in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But really what you're describing is a financial nuisance, at best.
So I'm wondering what your point actually is
You're describing the insured working class here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You're describing people with insurance, but who can't afford the exorbitant deductibles brought about by socializing healthcare during the Obama administration.
Poor people don't have this problem. Their shit is subsidized.
This wasn't a problem for insured people before the government started fucking around with healthcare and trying to give it away to poor people who don't pay for it.
So at the very most, MMM, you're just observing that the cost of missing preemptive treatments has been transferred from one class of people, to another.
I'm not seeing how that's a net gain to healthcare costs though.
I'm pretty sure no one cares what you can see, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm pretty sure I can't see a reason why you keep flapping that prolapsed ass-hole you call a mouth.
Economics academia has set the stage for it to be commonplace for incorrect ideas about economics to flourish.
I'll stay above it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
For the entire set of resource distribution (i.e. economics), it is not possible for there to be a gain except by an efficiency gain.
So insightful!
Can we get back to how it's Obama's fault that Trump is failing?
Doesn't matter because Obama will be in jail as soon as Mueller wraps things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm not really as much disappointed, as I am blinded with rage.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/u...diversify.html
This is the most infuriating thing I've read this year.
So immigrants can't immigrate to a place unless there is cheap housing available for rent. Any community where buildings are not densely packed with low property values, is racist.
It doesn't matter if food is already plentiful. The community needs to provide the *right* kind of food, from the *right* kind of stores, so immigrants can eat the things they like, and buy it from non-whites, rather than integrate with what's already there.
And speaking of integration, a place can be unwelcome to immigrants if it doesn't also adopt the immigrants' language. Also, it should have no expectation for the immigrant to learn the local language.
This one was kind of a surprise to me: black people need their own hair salons? When did segregation make a comeback?
Oh and the immigrants have no intention of paying for any of these changes. It's really on you to prove you aren't racist by building more slums, opening more ethno-specific retail stores, and printing bi-lingual street signs.
cuz diversity is great or something.
Now zoom out from a single state, to the whole country........is it not abundantly clear why we need The Wall?
Oh no! Not my favorite kenyan muslim!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wuf has the full inside story on this, but I think the gist of it is as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Apparently, Mueller' so-called Russia investigation with all the indictments and trials and Trump screaming nonstop about a Witch Hunt like someone being dragged to the electric chair is little more than a well-coordinated sham to misdirect attention so that Obama and Hillary let their guards down. Then, just when they think it's safe to go windsurfing or walking in the forest or w/e the fuck they do now they're no longer in politics, "BAM!" the 5D chess piece will come and scoop them both up and take THEM to the chair. It's going to be the biggest legal surprise in reality TV president history. They'll make a movie about it and the movie will win 15 Oscars. Just wait.
Also, I know you think like most people that Trump is an idiot. Well, Trump deliberately has been putting on this incredibly dumb and incoherent guy act so all the other world leaders will underestimate him and think he's a moronic buffoon (and obviously it's working, that's how good an actor he is). But in reality, it's only another one of his 3D deception techniques, and he's going to use it to get Mexico to pay not just for the Wall but also to kidnap and detain illegal immigrant children, to get China to stop exporting cheap products to American consumers, and most of all, to make coal what it was back in it's heyday in the 1800s.
Then, while Macron and Trudeau are watching Trump screw their sexy French wives, NATO will start spending huge amounts of money on defense because Trump told them to. This will stabilize Europe like all escalating arms races do. It will be like the Guns of August, only in reverse.
And while that's going on, KJU will turn into America's closest ally and Trump's BFF. He's really a great guy, like most dictators are. They'll play golf together and both of them will get a hole in one on every hole. It'll be incredible, the two best rounds of golf ever played in history on the same day. And the Nobel committee will award Trump the next eight Peace Prizes in advance plus a couple more just in case he gets that annoying two-term limit thing annulled and meanwhile all the democrat snowflakes will be getting triggered in their jail cells which they will have to share with those criminal immigrant kids.
It's going to be amazing. Believe me.
That meeting really is the only thing the media has left to hang on to.
And it's hilarious
They want you to believe it's really bad that kid-Trump listened to a Russian offer for opposition research. And at the same time they want you to believe that it's totally fine that Hillary *actually bought* opposition research from the Russians.
The "widespread influence of the Russians on the Trump election" is a stupidly glorified way of saying "some Russians made fake Facebook accounts and posted some BS."
The more I dig into this, the more stupid it is. There is no even remote hint of an accusation of any vote tampering at all. The extent of the Russian influence is no more than creating false Facebook identities and posting election-relevant stuff that was not true. Note, the latter part of that is not a crime. People post all kinds of inane stuff when it comes to politics.
Anyone got any credible link to actual accusations which are deeper than this? Not by media prognosticators, but by someone whom is actually doing investigating.
What I've read indicates that no investigators are looking at vote-fraud, and at least one has openly said there is no indication that any vote tampering happened.
Furthermore... It was pointed out to me that there is at least one major political lobbying (funding, campaign advertising) agency (AIPAC) which is perfectly legal and whose purpose is the promotion of everything Israel. So the notion that it's illegal or unprecedented for foreign interests have direct influence on American campaigns is also stupid.
:wall:
Every time I try to understand all the hubbub, it always turns out to be 95% pure, steaming crap.
The hacking of the DNC for one thing. And yes, creating thousands of social media accounts across multiple platforms to help one candidate and discredit the other, amounts to fraud. At the very least you have to concede that it's basically free ad money. Foreign funding of political campaigns isn't legal. Don't know how serious that would be. The reason the trump tower meme is hilarious is because: they first denied they ever met with russians, then pictures of Don Jr and some campaign officials and some russian agents entering an elevator at Trump tower surfaced, then the story changed to: yeah there was a meeting, but they wanted to talk about adoption (Manitzky act.)
They typed up a statement that Trump said he knew nothing about, then they said he gave some input, and now we know he dictated it.
Why deny it at every point until proven otherwise? That's the incriminating part. If nothing shady happened why would the denial be so vocal?
And if it's nothing to worry about, why would he still insist that he knew nothing about it?
And obviously, as we now know, dozens of people in the trump campaign up to his campaign manager had contact with russians during the campaign. Something that was also denied vehemently.
Google "steele dossier"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Christopher Steele is an ex british intelligence agent with extensive russian contacts. Through his contacts he amassed a compilation of reports on Trump/Russia relations. This compilation was dubbed "The Dossier" and it contained, I think, about two dozen reports of Trump/Russia stuff. For example, one of his russian contacts alleged that the russian government has pee-porn starring Trump that it could use as blackmail material.
One of the accusations in the dossier is that Paul Manafort and Carter Page were in a room with Putin's proxy and made the deal asking the Russians to hack John Podesta's and the DNC's email in exchange for favorable treatment by the Trump Administration.
It's conceivable they also discussed making fake facebook ads.
None of this has been explicitly disproven, which is some fucked up new standard of proof we now demand. However, the FBI used this information to put surveillance on Carter Page for a full year. He's still a free man. He's not charged with anything. And he's not the target of any publicly known investigation. He's categorically denied this story in its entirety publicly many times. He's also pointed out that Steele's accusation also claims that Page would be given stock in a Russian energy company that would make his net worth more than double Trump's.
also if this accusation were true, it would mean that Paul Manafort has a get out of jail free card. Instead of playing that card, he's chosen to plead "not guilty" and gamble with 305 years in a federal prison. Does that make a bit of sense?
If something shady happened, why wouldn't Manafort just say so? He could be free and rich tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Take the next step now monkey....
If it's all steaming crap....why are the democrats so crazy about it?
Why might they not think it's steaming crap?
or if they know it's steaming crap...why might they try and spin it as nefarious treason?
What exactly do they hate about Trump?
What is their agenda?
What is their goal?
Who are they?
We're talking about the Trump tower meeting, and your response is literally "But Hilary!" how am I supposed to respond to that? Yeah, Hilary bad, but Osama Bin Laden really bad! There ya go. That's my response. Bin Laden very bad, so every bad, less bad now.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the question why Trump denied it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It goes directly to your assertion that contracting with a foreign government to receive opposition research is bad. Fine, let's agree that it's bad. One candidate just thought about doing that. The other actually did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
now you have to pick ONE to be president. We dont' have the option of throwing them both out for this transgression and starting over with someone who is free of sin. That's not a luxury we have in politics.
What exactly is your point? Trump didn't run a perfect campaign? Is that it? Would it have been better if he didn't take that meeting? Sure. I'll agree to that. But he did. Now what? did anything awful happen? Is it enough to disqualify him as president? If so, who should be president then?
And so what if he lied about it? Do you think it's even possible to run a presidential campaign without telling a fib? The meeting was legal, innocuous, and fruitless. The media is salivating for anything Russian-flavored. Why would you say "Yeah we took this meeting, but nothing came of it". That would be a MONUMENTAL tactical error. Do you not see that? If you were Trump's campaign manager, would you advise him to say that?
So a politician did something not-great and tried to cover it up with a fib. Name one elected official that hasn't done that? (*ahem*...Benghazi...*cough* Muslim video...*choke* *hack* Susan Rice....). And if it wasn't for some grainy elevator cam footage we would never even know about this.
And in the end, what exactly is your problem with that meeting? What exactly happened that you object to? Do you think it should be investigated? Ok, maybe I agree. But guess what....it already WAS investigated. They took one of the guys who was in the room, and put 305 years in federal prison over his head to see if he would talk. He's got nothing to say about that meeting. Investigation over.
What do you think should happen now with regards to that meeting Oskar?
Why wouldn't he deny it?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What exactly do you think his denial means?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...24292396273664Quote:
Think of California with plenty of Water - Nice!
My best guess is that he's angry at rivers.