LawTalkers
Page 34 of 126 « First 243233 34 35364484 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=880)

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 03:36 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509078)
The Republican Party mainly exists right now as reaction against majoritarian liberalism to force policy - wherever it is - towards conservatism ends and to protect its members against challenges from the right. It's a party that very well understands that what its most important partisan constituents want is not at all what the public wants.
I agree except the bit about "what the public wants." A lot of the public does not want liberalism.

A third this country doesn't believe in Evolution. You think they want liberalism? Sure, a percentage of conservatives are "hands off my medicare" moochers who want all the bennies they desire, but only for themselves and people who look and think like they do. But this "unwittingly liberal" or "entitlement class" of conservatives is not the majority of those voters. Not by a long shot.

Then you also have the tens of millions of people who fit into the socially liberal/economically conservative crowd. That's a big chunk of the upper middle and high income classes. If 19 million people make between $150-300k (I read that today in a WaPo story about taxes), that means probably another 10 million or so earn in excess of $300k. That's almost 30 million people, a huge percentage of which vote their pocketbooks.

Put together the social conservatives and the tax voters and you get a big number of people who do not want liberalism in full. You can assert a majority of the public (as you did at the front of your post) may want liberalism of both a social and economic variety. But you can't say, as you do at the end of the post, that this is what the public wants. In general, taken in total, the entire "public" is very split on this. A huge portion of the country either wants no liberalism or exclusively social liberalism.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 03:44 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 509080)
My point is there is a lot of progressive hyperbole out there about how many millions of people will die if Obamacare is repealed, and intellectual dishonesty about how much of that is really people opting out of purchasing ACA-compliant policies.

I think the process sucks, but I don't think it's any worse than "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." I find the skinny repeal procedurally pointless, but it was clear that nothing was going to pass when the president doesn't even know or care about any of the details of the plan, or even a basic understanding of what is being proposed. That being said, Republicans suck at getting anything done, but excel at dramatically and spectacularly failing to do anything they promise to get elected. It's quite breathtaking to watch.

If you're not the Chamber of Commerce, they want your vote, not your input.
Why don't they just do a limited fix for each of the states where it's collapsing?

Create some sort of "bad insurer," like the "bad banks" proposed in 2008, to offer bespoke fixes unique to the states where it is not working.

It seems asinine to scrap something in its entirety where, in certain states, it's working just fine.

Maybe I'm simplifying. I gave up paying attention to this fucking trainwreck weeks ago.

Or maybe a little simplification's what's needed.

Adder 07-28-2017 03:46 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509092)
I agree except the bit about "what the public wants."
He said that the GOP's most important constituency, which I took to mean the super-rich, wants what the public does not want. They want tax cuts for themselves. The public does not (or doesn't particularly care).

You could probably add religious conservatives in if you're looking for another important constituency that wants things the public does not.

Quote:
A third this country doesn't believe in Evolution.
Why are you defining "the public" as a minority?

SEC_Chick 07-28-2017 03:47 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 509091)
Again, the CBO says those people would remain insured under current law, so yeah, the proposed change in the law would lead to those people being uninsured thus it takes away their insurance.

I'll grant you that they may want to have their insurance taken away, but that's really the crux of this whole thing. In order to get insurance to work the way pretty much everyone wants - covers preexisting conditions, doesn't have lifetime or annual caps, covers the stuff you actually need covered - (nearly) everyone needs to carry insurance even if they'd personally prefer not to.

Which is really the GOP's problem. The numbers "work" for insurance either if you allow it not cover stuff as pre-O-care or if you make everyone pay in. There's no third way other than publicly financed, which they obviously don't want.
You are very good at only responding to the parts of an argument that you want to, and skipping completely over the parts that are not convenient to the point you are making.

In many ways, it makes interaction with you kind of pointless.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 03:51 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 509072)
Bill Kristol repeatedly calls Trump a jackass on CNN:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-...ut-speech/amp/

I was never a Bill Kristol fan, as he was always a little too neocon for my tastes, but I cannot disagree with him here.
I want to laugh at him because he is funny and astute regarding Trump.

Then I recall the sophistry and Machiavellian twaddle of him, his magazine, and his deeply perverted father provided the underpinning for the Iraq invasion.

There's a toasty ring in hell for that smirking shitball. Right next to Paul Wolfowitz and that degenerate imbecile, Richard Perle. It's an eternity of prostate play for all three, administered by women in burqas... with seven inch, jagged fingernails.

Adder 07-28-2017 03:53 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 509095)
You are very good at only responding to the parts of an argument that you want to, and skipping completely over the parts that are not convenient to the point you are making.

In many ways, it makes interaction with you kind of pointless.
How terrible of me to respond only to the points that are in contention.

In messaging what's happening certain politicians have been less than clear about the the operative actors resulting in people being uninsured. Shocking.

I agree with you that I do not know the basis for anyone project a number of people who would die as a result of any of the GOP bills, but I do know that the number is not zero.

Meanwhile, certain other people have asserted that an offhand comment from Pelosi about how people will learn that they like what's in the bill after it's enacted is just like releasing the bill mere hours before holding a vote on it.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 03:59 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 509094)
He said that the GOP's most important constituency, which I took to mean the super-rich, wants what the public does not want. They want tax cuts for themselves. The public does not (or doesn't particularly care).

You could probably add religious conservatives in if you're looking for another important constituency that wants things the public does not.



Why are you defining "the public" as a minority?
Um, the public includes the super rich. The public also includes religious conservatives, and the socially-liberal-economically-conservative crowd.

My, uh, kind of point here was, only a part of the public wants social and economic liberalism, and one cannot say the public wants it, as the word public, sans a limiting qualifier, states the entire public wants something.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2017 04:01 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509092)
I agree except the bit about "what the public wants." A lot of the public does not want liberalism.

A third this country doesn't believe in Evolution. You think they want liberalism? Sure, a percentage of conservatives are "hands off my medicare" moochers who want all the bennies they desire, but only for themselves and people who look and think like they do. But this "unwittingly liberal" or "entitlement class" of conservatives is not the majority of those voters. Not by a long shot.

Then you also have the tens of millions of people who fit into the socially liberal/economically conservative crowd. That's a big chunk of the upper middle and high income classes. If 19 million people make between $150-300k (I read that today in a WaPo story about taxes), that means probably another 10 million or so earn in excess of $300k. That's almost 30 million people, a huge percentage of which vote their pocketbooks.

Put together the social conservatives and the tax voters and you get a big number of people who do not want liberalism in full. You can assert a majority of the public (as you did at the front of your post) may want liberalism of both a social and economic variety. But you can't say, as you do at the end of the post, that this is what the public wants. In general, taken in total, the entire "public" is very split on this. A huge portion of the country either wants no liberalism or exclusively social liberalism.
I don't know what you mean by liberalism, but I basically mean the New Deal/Great Society agenda. Most of the country wants the welfare state and a government that protects civil rights. They want the government to spend money on public goods like education and public schools. They like banking regulation and environmental and consumer protections. On the margin, obviously people have different views about how much of this stuff the government should be doing, but most people are philosophically on board with Democrats that government should be doing these things.

Conservatives are not. The Republican Party's most committed partisans want to roll back the welfare state, and would prefer a government that doesn't do these things. They very well understand that the public does not support them, which is why they try procedural shenanigans like government shutdowns and the like.

Now, any voter is going to like the idea that they will get government benefits but won't have to pay for other people. So if you're saying that the Republicans can win votes not by promising to get rid of the welfare state but by cutting your taxes by cutting other people's government services, no argument here. And if you're saying that Republicans can use cultural resentments over issues like evolution to divert attention from the fact that they want to eliminate government programs that most people like, no argument here. But neither go to what I was getting at.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2017 04:02 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 509094)
He said that the GOP's most important constituency, which I took to mean the super-rich, wants what the public does not want. They want tax cuts for themselves. The public does not (or doesn't particularly care).
I was referring to the conservatives who are likeliest to vote in GOP primaries. Agree that the anti-New Deal program is pushed most practically by the super-rich, who want to pay less in taxes

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 04:05 PM
Re: douchebags über alles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 509086)
Uh...yes. There are plenty of these douchebags in New York. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, these are the guys the term "douchebag" was invented to describe. We've been referring to them this way for 30 years, easily. The description in this article is completely on point.

What it didn't describe is that people constantly laugh at these assholes behind their backs. Even if they knew, they wouldn't care because they value themselves based on the money they make, the cars they drive, and the quality of the bodies of the air-headed women they date. They populate douchey steak houses, strip clubs, bottle service clubs, Vegas and Miami. And they're the guys who use the word, "cunt," when a woman isn't interested. They talk real big, but only fight when there are at least half a dozen of them against two or fewer opponents. They're always the loudest people wherever they are. They keep the wide pin-stripe suit industry in the black. And their watch faces are always bigger than their forearm. They're the fucking worst.

TM
Ah, but the Panerai makes a fantastic doorstop. Wedged under a common storm door, it'll repel the pressure of a black bear up to 300 lbs.

1 in 296483 owners of a Rolex Submariner has actually dived into anything. 1 in 3736 has been on a boat.

Adder 07-28-2017 04:11 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509098)
Um, the public includes the super rich. The public also includes religious conservatives, and the socially-liberal-economically-conservative crowd.
I see. When he said "the public" you thought he meant "every single American."

That would be a particularly strange usage given that he was contrasting "the public" with the GOP's "most important constituency," so I guess I see why you called him out. That makes no sense at all.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 509080)
My point is there is a lot of progressive hyperbole out there about how many millions of people will die if Obamacare is repealed, and intellectual dishonesty about how much of that is really people opting out of purchasing ACA-compliant policies.

I think the process sucks, but I don't think it's any worse than "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." I find the skinny repeal procedurally pointless, but it was clear that nothing was going to pass when the president doesn't even know or care about any of the details of the plan, or even a basic understanding of what is being proposed. That being said, Republicans suck at getting anything done, but excel at dramatically and spectacularly failing to do anything they promise to get elected. It's quite breathtaking to watch.

If you're not the Chamber of Commerce, they want your vote, not your input.
Predicting deaths is dicey business. There's been little useful research since Blue Oyster Cult's determination of 40,000 a day in aggregate.

ETA: And the NEJM found the band left out Indonesia. It's not a Reinart/Rogoff level gaffe, but still...

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 04:18 PM
Re: douchebags über alles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509101)
Ah, but the Panerai makes a fantastic doorstop. Wedged under a common storm door, it'll repel the pressure of a black bear up to 300 lbs.

1 in 296483 owners of a Rolex Submariner has actually dived into anything. 1 in 3736 has been on a boat.
Every single man in that subgroup have been on boats. Power boats, not sail boats, but they love it.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 04:19 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509099)
I don't know what you mean by liberalism, but I basically mean the New Deal/Great Society agenda. Most of the country wants the welfare state and a government that protects civil rights. They want the government to spend money on public goods like education and public schools. They like banking regulation and environmental and consumer protections. On the margin, obviously people have different views about how much of this stuff the government should be doing, but most people are philosophically on board with Democrats that government should be doing these things.

Conservatives are not. The Republican Party's most committed partisans want to roll back the welfare state, and would prefer a government that doesn't do these things. They very well understand that the public does not support them, which is why they try procedural shenanigans like government shutdowns and the like.

Now, any voter is going to like the idea that they will get government benefits but won't have to pay for other people. So if you're saying that the Republicans can win votes not by promising to get rid of the welfare state but by cutting your taxes by cutting other people's government services, no argument here. And if you're saying that Republicans can use cultural resentments over issues like evolution to divert attention from the fact that they want to eliminate government programs that most people like, no argument here. But neither go to what I was getting at.
There are a lot of conservatives in this country. They are a big portion of the public, and they like themselves very much. So much so they get together and win a lot of elections.

I was not wading into cultural resentments. I only used the Evolution thing to demonstrate that there are a lot of conservatives.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 04:28 PM
Re: douchebags über alles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509104)
Every single man in that subgroup have been on boats. Power boats, not sail boats, but they love it.
Dissent. Most are short ponces with Shkreli hair and Patrick Bateman tans.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2017 04:29 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509105)
There are a lot of conservatives in this country. They are a big portion of the public, and they like themselves very much. So much so they get together and win a lot of elections.

I was not wading into cultural resentments. I only used the Evolution thing to demonstrate that there are a lot of conservatives.
They are a big portion of the public, but on the issues I was addressing, they are a minority and the smarter of them (including most politicians, who are likelier to be astute about what voters want) know it. As you say, they win elections, for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless the conservative policy agenda is not what the public wants.

If neither you nor I are wading into cultural resentments, it's a mystery that evolution showed up in this conversation.

Adder 07-28-2017 04:36 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509107)
As you say, they win elections, for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless the conservative policy agenda is not what the public wants.
On this point, I'd note the most recent GOP nominee for president. It's not even what the largest segment of GOP primary voters want.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 05:32 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509107)
They are a big portion of the public, but on the issues I was addressing, they are a minority and the smarter of them (including most politicians, who are likelier to be astute about what voters want) know it. As you say, they win elections, for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless the conservative policy agenda is not what the public wants.

If neither you nor I are wading into cultural resentments, it's a mystery that evolution showed up in this conversation.
I was strictly using the high # of dipshits who doubt Evolution to demonstrate there must be a lot of conservatives. I could've used "tough on crime" voters, or climate change deniers. Just a stat datapoint to prove an argument.

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 05:35 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509109)
I was strictly using the high # of dipshits who doubt Evolution to demonstrate there must be a lot of conservatives. I could've used "tough on crime" voters, or climate change deniers. Just a stat datapoint to prove an argument.
I'm fairly sure the Dems get equal votes from the "we didn't come from monkeys" crowd. The idea that all Dem voters are well-educated is the silliest.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-28-2017 05:43 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509110)
I'm fairly sure the Dems get equal votes from the "we didn't come from monkeys" crowd. The idea that all Dem voters are well-educated is the silliest.
I'm not sure we're quite equal among this group of voters, but we do have our following.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 05:56 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509110)
I'm fairly sure the Dems get equal votes from the "we didn't come from monkeys" crowd. The idea that all Dem voters are well-educated is the silliest.
The Dems probably have more dumb voters than the GOP. But the GOP has 90% of the doubting science crowd.

That's the fun of picking a party here. You get to pick which flavor of stupid suits you best!

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-28-2017 05:57 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509112)
The Dems probably have more dumb voters than the GOP. But the GOP has 90% of the doubting science crowd.

That's the fun of picking a party here. You get to pick which flavor of stupid suits you best!
And let's not forget the dumb independents. Likely the stupidest of them all.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2017 06:05 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509110)
I'm fairly sure the Dems get equal votes from the "we didn't come from monkeys" crowd. The idea that all Dem voters are well-educated is the silliest.
Since we're not talking about it, I'm not even sure why we're talking about.

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 06:10 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509112)
The Dems probably have more dumb voters than the GOP. But the GOP has 90% of the doubting science crowd.
The true believers in anti-evolution (and maybe climate change) are by definition uneducated, and mostly poor. That rich Rs say they also don't believe to get votes, or that rich Ds say they do believe, doesn't change how the uneducated poor believe. Trump did not get all the uneducated poor votes.

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 06:11 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509114)
Since we're not talking about it, I'm not even sure why we're talking about.
to quote, well you, it's what i wanted to talk about.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2017 06:34 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509116)
to quote, well you, it's what i wanted to talk about.
Fair enough!

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 06:38 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509115)
The true believers in anti-evolution (and maybe climate change) are by definition uneducated, and mostly poor. That rich Rs say they also don't believe to get votes, or that rich Ds say they do believe, doesn't change how the uneducated poor believe. Trump did not get all the uneducated poor votes.
Anti-evolution and anti-climate change thinkers are generally rural and Bible Belt folks. Trump got most of them.

Oh, and Ty -- we're only talking about evolution in substance because of you.

But I'm happy to talk about it. Why not, eh? But what's there to say? "Hey, some whacked fucks don't believe in it"? It's kind of a limited conversation when you're talking about irrefutable facts and people who reject them.

I guess it is kind of cathartic if you dislike people as much as I do. Still, I'm kind of bored.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2017 06:42 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 509113)
And let's not forget the dumb independents. Likely the stupidest of them all.
I'm a registered SteamWhig.

Fuck, this beard is itchy.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2017 06:49 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509118)
Oh, and Ty -- we're only talking about evolution in substance because of you.
You are illustrating my point, which is that most people want the modern welfare state, and that cultural issues like evolution are used to divert attention from the fact that what conservatives want to do is quite unpopular.

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 07:28 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509118)
Anti-evolution and anti-climate change thinkers are generally rural and Bible Belt folks. Trump got most of them.
Let's you and me talk a walk around Detroit or Philly and ask about evolution. Detroit (read black) votes 90% for dems. When we banned gay marriage by a 60% to 40% vote detroit voted to ban it 60%. The dems got their bible thumbing poor too. Evolution is not consistent with Genesis.

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 07:33 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
I know balance requires the one who is no worse than hillary would ask for advice before tweeting, but doesn't having a chief of staff who actually understands the military (and I have heard good thing about him) lessen the chance of a wild hair bombing/war? Again, assuming sebby's bastard prez bothers to ask.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-28-2017 07:54 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509122)
I know balance requires the one who is no worse than hillary would ask for advice before tweeting, but doesn't having a chief of staff who actually understands the military (and I have heard good thing about him) lessen the chance of a wild hair bombing/war? Again, assuming sebby's bastard prez bothers to ask.
I think that depends entirely on who the military person actually is.


http://screenprism.com/assets/img/up...vebombride.jpg

Hank Chinaski 07-28-2017 08:10 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 509123)
I think that depends entirely on who the military person actually is.


http://screenprism.com/assets/img/up...vebombride.jpg
he was following orders.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-29-2017 01:11 AM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 509122)
I know balance requires the one who is no worse than hillary would ask for advice before tweeting, but doesn't having a chief of staff who actually understands the military (and I have heard good thing about him) lessen the chance of a wild hair bombing/war? Again, assuming sebby's bastard prez bothers to ask.
I think it would if Trump used his chief of staff the way other President did, but it sounds like that job doesn't manage access to him, so I'm not sure how much difference it will make. McMaster's competence is reassuring in the way you suggested.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-29-2017 02:02 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509125)
I think it would if Trump used his chief of staff the way other President did, but it sounds like that job doesn't manage access to him, so I'm not sure how much difference it will make. McMaster's competence is reassuring in the way you suggested.
Isn't the best predictor of how Kelly will do as CoS the job he did at DHS? What do people think of his tenure there? I know it's only 6 months, but won't he be lucky to get 6 months in this job?

ThurgreedMarshall 07-31-2017 11:18 AM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 509090)
On Thanksgiving, 2013 I was told that I had a stage 4 lymphoma wrapped around my spine that had already crushed most of two vertabrae and that I had one chance in 8 of making it through the six month treatment program I was going to be put on. During those months, I was resuscitated twice as a result of heart failure and also survived a near brush because of kidney failure. After I completed the initial treatment, I then got a two year course of immunotherapy. I am now told I have about one change in 8 (they seem to like the 1/8 odds for me) of have a recurrence within 10 years.

The total bills for this were substantial. If insurance is only available to me with a lifetime cap, that insurance will likely be useless. If insurance companies are allowed to exclude coverage for a preexisting condition, and can define that to include a recurrence of a prior cancer (it's almost certainly still in my body today), the coverage will be useless for my biggest worry. If essential health benefits can exclude some major expenses associated with cancer care, including new secondary and tertiary treatments coming down the pike, or the immunotherapy course I had after the initial cancer (which is not standard protocol but dropped the likelihood of recurrence from north of 50% to 12%), I could have big problems.

The healthcare debate is not a bunch of statistics for me. I'm one of the stats. I look hard at how each bill will affect me. I'm always going to be able to afford insurance, and will always buy the best I can find, but there are provisions that have been advocated in one bill or another that could result in insurance becoming less than fully useful for me. If I were on the policy I was on before Romneycare in Massachusetts, I would have a big problem, and that was a biglaw level insurance policy.

When we hit budget debates, I'll be back to stats, the personal impact on me of what the Rs propose will probably be positive, and I'll be worried about how it affects all of us more broadly and it will be more academic. But the healthcare debate is deeply, deeply personal. Republican proposals have had elements that could, in many very foreseeable circumstances, have some pretty dire consequences for me and my family.

Let me know if you ever want to follow cancer twitter. It has been a very happy place today.
What is amazing to me is that after hearing that story, Republicans would look you dead in the face and mouth, "So?" while voting for a bill that would complete fuck you and many other people over.

I hope you're that 1 in 8, but even if you are, I hope you continue kicking ass on behalf of the many people who need actual healthcare coverage. You are a fantastic advocate.

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 07-31-2017 12:13 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 509112)
The Dems probably have more dumb voters than the GOP.
This is absolutely hilarious.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-31-2017 12:53 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 509127)
What is amazing to me is that after hearing that story, Republicans would look you dead in the face and mouth, "So?" while voting for a bill that would complete fuck you and many other people over.

I hope you're that 1 in 8, but even if you are, I hope you continue kicking ass on behalf of the many people who need actual healthcare coverage. You are a fantastic advocate.

TM
Thanks. I really think the fact that these bills have such minimal support comes from so many people realizing the reality of these issues, and the way in which all the Republicans proposals are totally divorced from that reality. I have found that every conversation with supporters of Republican proposals trails off into their own personal ideology, while the same conversations with almost everyone else, right, left or center, comes back to real people with real issues.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-31-2017 01:28 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Super interesting about what voters want.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-31-2017 01:43 PM
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 509130)
Super interesting about what voters want.
The question people keep raising about that kind of analysis is how it applies in swing districts. If you don't look at the whole national picture, but instead focus on the 30 seats most likely to swing the house, you can get a very different picture. If you look at the analysis that's been done by Third Way you'll see how they pick it apart.

And note its possible both approaches are right - one may be more likely to win us the Senate (Third Way's analysis has been almost entirely house-focused) or the Presidency and the other the House. And somewhere you have to focus in on candidates. For example, Jon Tester is our candidate for Senate in Montana. No analysis should change that, he knows what he is doing, and he don't need no berniesplaining about how to do it. Nor is there any point in trying to argue Dems should run a moderate candidate in Vermont because that's what works best in swing districts.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:49 AM.
Page 34 of 126 « First 243233 34 35364484 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com