The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post Reply
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 61294
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by JimC » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm

The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 27578
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Tero » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:50 pm

POLITICO
Without Obamacare, many seniors would likely spend around $2,000 or more in out-of-pocket drug costs each year, said Juliette Cubanski, associate director of Medicare policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s because the ACA required drugmakers to provide big discounts to seniors in the coverage gap phase of their Medicare Part D benefit. In 2016, more than 5 million Medicare recipients reached the coverage gap, with drugmakers providing $5.7 billion in discounts to offset the costs of their medicines, Cubanski said.

Some Medicare drug plans have a coverage gap. This means that after you and your drug plan have spent a certain amount of money for covered drugs, you may have to pay more for your prescription drugs up to a certain limit. In 2018, once you and your plan have spent $3,750 on covered drugs, you're in the coverage gap.
Over 7500 a year you end up 95% covered as the Catastrophic plan.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 4282
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The Cleanest Climate in the World
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Seabass » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:26 pm

JimC wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm
The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Alas, this is not possible without turning into Venezuela. :sigh:
"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." ―H.L. Mencken

"Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad." —Thomas Frank

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." —Einstein
"I’m a nationalist." —Trump

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 49503
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:14 pm

Benethuela. :prof:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 4282
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The Cleanest Climate in the World
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Seabass » Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:48 am

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:32 pm
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:54 pm
Seabass wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:50 am
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:53 pm
Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"
Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...
Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.
If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.
Obviously, not. That's ridiculous. By that logic, if you don't agree with some positions or statements of a candidate you voted for, then you must subscribe to their wrong view. I am responsible for my own views, which I have expressed here. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 - were people that voted for him "marriage deniers?" Of course not.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.
Not accurate. First, I've supported Democrats and Republicans. I'm not one of those idiots who think one side are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys. There are a wide array of views on climate change in the GOP, which is from Trump to Schwarzenegger to Bob Ingliss and many different takes on it in between.

And, Democrats are not uniform on it, either.

Further, really, the dispute is not as much about whether climate change is occurring - it's about (a) the kind of policies proposed to combat it, and (b) who proposes the policies. Here's a New York Times piece illustrating that for BOTH -- BOTH - democrats and republicans - if a policy is proposed by their side, they tend to support it, and if the other side proposes it, they are either neutral on it or tend to oppose it. That's politics, my friend. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opin ... hange.html
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.
I don't believe that everyone who "believes" (lol) in a "scientific consensus" on climate change are climate alarmists. However, there are, in the world, some people who are climate alarmists. People who go beyond the scientific consensus, and into the realm of hysterics and chicken-little positions which are not actually part of the climate consensus.

The consensus is, as I understand it, that the climate is warming, and that the recent warming is most likely in some part or in large part due to human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) has stated it succinctly in its fourth assessment report (I think that's from 2013) and states the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

I accept that as the scientific consensus. I'm not idiotic enough to "believe" in it, though, other than as a synonym for understand it and accept it as the best science we have today.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.
Well, I'm not afraid of either, so, that's on you. If you're "afraid" of SJW's or climate change, then go see a psychologist. I am amused and bemused by SJWs, and I have an understanding a concern about climate change. The former is entertainment mostly (except where the first amendment is concerned, then I take them seriously where they have power), and the latter is a scientific issue.

Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm


If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.
I am neither afraid of caravans, nor climate change, and if you are then go see a psychologist or psychiatrist. Caravans are political, legal, and cultural issue, and they are as important as many other issues of the day - current events, politics, economics, public policy, etc. -- they aren't irrelevant. Climate change is also important. One need not be a one-trick pony, and focus on one issue.

If one is afraid of pro-Lifers more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of capitalists more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of the Russians posting facebook ads and otherwise trying to "sow discord" in our 2016 election, more than climate change, how do you judge them? Are those folks able to comment and post about those issues without being climate deniers? They'd best get their act together, right? Focus on climate change, because that's the only issue that matters.

And, don't go to the movies or out for drinks on Friday and Saturday night, right? If you really thought climate change was going to destroy our society and country and the world, then you'd be out there every day, campaigning against all unnecessary activities. Bars and movie theaters - concerts - race tracks - sports stadiums and events - county fairs -- state fairs - festivals -- restaurants - all unnecessary travel - private jets - all air travel except where absolutely necessary -- Christmas trees - the entire christmas and halloween decoration industries -- the like - if you're not boycotting them and urging others to refrain from all such unnecessary greenhouse gas activities, you are a climate denier!

Don't you believe we have to take "urgent action" immediately? And, doesn't every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions help? You should be against all meat eating, right? No omnivorousness for humans, because that impacts climate change. The entire jewelry industry must go, too, because that's unnecessary and has negative impact on the environment. And, the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry and the marijuana industry - all must go.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier.
Ummm. I think that if one agrees with the IPCC statement of the consensus on climate change - that it's happening and that mankind has a significant contribution to it -- one is not a climate denier. You think I can accept the consensus, but be a denier anyway? :funny:
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.
That depends on your definition, I guess, but under the common English usage today, whether in the UK or in the US, I am not conservative on most issues.
You likely aren't particularly educated, from the sound of it, and from the emotion-driven arguments you make, laden with judgment and scorn, you're rather immature as a person. You like to finger point, rather than talk. You moralize, rather than understand and discuss.
The only way I'm conservative is if conservatives by and large hold the following issues:

Pro-Choice on abortion;
Against the death penalty in all circumstances;
Against military intervention in foreign countries unless the US is attacked, or there is other justification under international law for doing so.
Against free trade where working conditions and wages in particular foreign countries are such that it will harm US workers and allow companies to work laborers in foreign countries in a manner that would be considered abusive in the US.
I have been pro-legalization of same sex marriage for at least 30 years (back then it was thought a very weird stance to have, at least 25 years before Obama and Hillary supported it)
I am in favor of same sex parenting and adoption, and liberal adoption rules in general
I support laws prohibiting invidious discrimination in the workplace and in places of public accommodations.
I support many reasonable gun laws, background checks, magazine limits, safety regulations, and restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. - some European gun laws are acceptable to me - Norway has an interesting system.
I support marijuana and other illicit drug legalization and regulation (decriminalization and diversion of criminal law efforts to psychological and other support efforts for drug abusers and users).
I am against mandatory military service.
I am in favor of police wearing body cameras
I am in favor of the right to record police by video and audio at all times
I am in favor of most convicted criminals having the right to vote
I am against solitary confinement of prisoners
I am in favor of a wholesale re-structuring of our criminal justice system to eliminate jail and incarceration for most if not all non-violent offenses.
I am in favor the government spending money on "science and the useful arts." That would include embryonic stem cell research.
I am all for vaccines and vaccination
I am in favor of a properly structured Universal Basic Income.
I am against most of the Patriot Act and would support its repeal (although there are pieces that I would support, so it's not completely black and white).
I am against "three strikes you're out laws"
I am against "mandatory minimum sentencing" laws
I am in favor of the separation of church and state
I support legalized physician assisted suicide.
I am an atheist
I oppose funding of religious institutions by the government
I oppose governmental entities discriminating against or in favor of atheists,agnostics or religious organizations.
I support a strong right to privacy, and restrictions on police and government surveillance, search and seizure, and other such things.

When I take the political compass test - and I've done so several times over the last few years - I always wind up either right about on the vertical center line, and about half way from the center to the bottom of the chart.

Image So,, I would best be described as moderate libertarian and opposing all forms of authoritarianism. If you consider that "conservative" then you don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word.
Is that right, Coito? Maybe, maybe not, but at least I didn't vote for a bigoted, conspiracy nut, conman, and at least I've never made apologetics for state sanctioned kidnapping.
"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." ―H.L. Mencken

"Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad." —Thomas Frank

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." —Einstein
"I’m a nationalist." —Trump

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:32 pm

Seabass wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:48 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:32 pm
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:54 pm
Seabass wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:50 am


Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...
Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.
If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.
Obviously, not. That's ridiculous. By that logic, if you don't agree with some positions or statements of a candidate you voted for, then you must subscribe to their wrong view. I am responsible for my own views, which I have expressed here. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 - were people that voted for him "marriage deniers?" Of course not.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.
Not accurate. First, I've supported Democrats and Republicans. I'm not one of those idiots who think one side are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys. There are a wide array of views on climate change in the GOP, which is from Trump to Schwarzenegger to Bob Ingliss and many different takes on it in between.

And, Democrats are not uniform on it, either.

Further, really, the dispute is not as much about whether climate change is occurring - it's about (a) the kind of policies proposed to combat it, and (b) who proposes the policies. Here's a New York Times piece illustrating that for BOTH -- BOTH - democrats and republicans - if a policy is proposed by their side, they tend to support it, and if the other side proposes it, they are either neutral on it or tend to oppose it. That's politics, my friend. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opin ... hange.html
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.
I don't believe that everyone who "believes" (lol) in a "scientific consensus" on climate change are climate alarmists. However, there are, in the world, some people who are climate alarmists. People who go beyond the scientific consensus, and into the realm of hysterics and chicken-little positions which are not actually part of the climate consensus.

The consensus is, as I understand it, that the climate is warming, and that the recent warming is most likely in some part or in large part due to human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) has stated it succinctly in its fourth assessment report (I think that's from 2013) and states the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

I accept that as the scientific consensus. I'm not idiotic enough to "believe" in it, though, other than as a synonym for understand it and accept it as the best science we have today.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.
Well, I'm not afraid of either, so, that's on you. If you're "afraid" of SJW's or climate change, then go see a psychologist. I am amused and bemused by SJWs, and I have an understanding a concern about climate change. The former is entertainment mostly (except where the first amendment is concerned, then I take them seriously where they have power), and the latter is a scientific issue.

Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm


If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.
I am neither afraid of caravans, nor climate change, and if you are then go see a psychologist or psychiatrist. Caravans are political, legal, and cultural issue, and they are as important as many other issues of the day - current events, politics, economics, public policy, etc. -- they aren't irrelevant. Climate change is also important. One need not be a one-trick pony, and focus on one issue.

If one is afraid of pro-Lifers more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of capitalists more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of the Russians posting facebook ads and otherwise trying to "sow discord" in our 2016 election, more than climate change, how do you judge them? Are those folks able to comment and post about those issues without being climate deniers? They'd best get their act together, right? Focus on climate change, because that's the only issue that matters.

And, don't go to the movies or out for drinks on Friday and Saturday night, right? If you really thought climate change was going to destroy our society and country and the world, then you'd be out there every day, campaigning against all unnecessary activities. Bars and movie theaters - concerts - race tracks - sports stadiums and events - county fairs -- state fairs - festivals -- restaurants - all unnecessary travel - private jets - all air travel except where absolutely necessary -- Christmas trees - the entire christmas and halloween decoration industries -- the like - if you're not boycotting them and urging others to refrain from all such unnecessary greenhouse gas activities, you are a climate denier!

Don't you believe we have to take "urgent action" immediately? And, doesn't every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions help? You should be against all meat eating, right? No omnivorousness for humans, because that impacts climate change. The entire jewelry industry must go, too, because that's unnecessary and has negative impact on the environment. And, the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry and the marijuana industry - all must go.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier.
Ummm. I think that if one agrees with the IPCC statement of the consensus on climate change - that it's happening and that mankind has a significant contribution to it -- one is not a climate denier. You think I can accept the consensus, but be a denier anyway? :funny:
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.
That depends on your definition, I guess, but under the common English usage today, whether in the UK or in the US, I am not conservative on most issues.
You likely aren't particularly educated, from the sound of it, and from the emotion-driven arguments you make, laden with judgment and scorn, you're rather immature as a person. You like to finger point, rather than talk. You moralize, rather than understand and discuss.
The only way I'm conservative is if conservatives by and large hold the following issues:

Pro-Choice on abortion;
Against the death penalty in all circumstances;
Against military intervention in foreign countries unless the US is attacked, or there is other justification under international law for doing so.
Against free trade where working conditions and wages in particular foreign countries are such that it will harm US workers and allow companies to work laborers in foreign countries in a manner that would be considered abusive in the US.
I have been pro-legalization of same sex marriage for at least 30 years (back then it was thought a very weird stance to have, at least 25 years before Obama and Hillary supported it)
I am in favor of same sex parenting and adoption, and liberal adoption rules in general
I support laws prohibiting invidious discrimination in the workplace and in places of public accommodations.
I support many reasonable gun laws, background checks, magazine limits, safety regulations, and restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. - some European gun laws are acceptable to me - Norway has an interesting system.
I support marijuana and other illicit drug legalization and regulation (decriminalization and diversion of criminal law efforts to psychological and other support efforts for drug abusers and users).
I am against mandatory military service.
I am in favor of police wearing body cameras
I am in favor of the right to record police by video and audio at all times
I am in favor of most convicted criminals having the right to vote
I am against solitary confinement of prisoners
I am in favor of a wholesale re-structuring of our criminal justice system to eliminate jail and incarceration for most if not all non-violent offenses.
I am in favor the government spending money on "science and the useful arts." That would include embryonic stem cell research.
I am all for vaccines and vaccination
I am in favor of a properly structured Universal Basic Income.
I am against most of the Patriot Act and would support its repeal (although there are pieces that I would support, so it's not completely black and white).
I am against "three strikes you're out laws"
I am against "mandatory minimum sentencing" laws
I am in favor of the separation of church and state
I support legalized physician assisted suicide.
I am an atheist
I oppose funding of religious institutions by the government
I oppose governmental entities discriminating against or in favor of atheists,agnostics or religious organizations.
I support a strong right to privacy, and restrictions on police and government surveillance, search and seizure, and other such things.

When I take the political compass test - and I've done so several times over the last few years - I always wind up either right about on the vertical center line, and about half way from the center to the bottom of the chart.

Image So,, I would best be described as moderate libertarian and opposing all forms of authoritarianism. If you consider that "conservative" then you don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word.
Is that right, Coito? Maybe, maybe not, but at least I didn't vote for a bigoted, conspiracy nut, conman, and at least I've never made apologetics for state sanctioned kidnapping.
I made no such apologetics, and I disagree that he's bigoted, a conspiracy nut or a conman.

You voted for a scofflaw, racist, candidate who lied to Congress, and who cheated in the primary elections.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:34 pm

JimC wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm
The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Which country is the model for that?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38238
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Animavore » Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:36 pm

Seabass wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:48 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:32 pm
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:54 pm
Seabass wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:50 am


Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...
Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.
If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.
Obviously, not. That's ridiculous. By that logic, if you don't agree with some positions or statements of a candidate you voted for, then you must subscribe to their wrong view. I am responsible for my own views, which I have expressed here. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 - were people that voted for him "marriage deniers?" Of course not.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.
Not accurate. First, I've supported Democrats and Republicans. I'm not one of those idiots who think one side are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys. There are a wide array of views on climate change in the GOP, which is from Trump to Schwarzenegger to Bob Ingliss and many different takes on it in between.

And, Democrats are not uniform on it, either.

Further, really, the dispute is not as much about whether climate change is occurring - it's about (a) the kind of policies proposed to combat it, and (b) who proposes the policies. Here's a New York Times piece illustrating that for BOTH -- BOTH - democrats and republicans - if a policy is proposed by their side, they tend to support it, and if the other side proposes it, they are either neutral on it or tend to oppose it. That's politics, my friend. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opin ... hange.html
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.
I don't believe that everyone who "believes" (lol) in a "scientific consensus" on climate change are climate alarmists. However, there are, in the world, some people who are climate alarmists. People who go beyond the scientific consensus, and into the realm of hysterics and chicken-little positions which are not actually part of the climate consensus.

The consensus is, as I understand it, that the climate is warming, and that the recent warming is most likely in some part or in large part due to human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) has stated it succinctly in its fourth assessment report (I think that's from 2013) and states the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

I accept that as the scientific consensus. I'm not idiotic enough to "believe" in it, though, other than as a synonym for understand it and accept it as the best science we have today.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.
Well, I'm not afraid of either, so, that's on you. If you're "afraid" of SJW's or climate change, then go see a psychologist. I am amused and bemused by SJWs, and I have an understanding a concern about climate change. The former is entertainment mostly (except where the first amendment is concerned, then I take them seriously where they have power), and the latter is a scientific issue.

Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm


If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.
I am neither afraid of caravans, nor climate change, and if you are then go see a psychologist or psychiatrist. Caravans are political, legal, and cultural issue, and they are as important as many other issues of the day - current events, politics, economics, public policy, etc. -- they aren't irrelevant. Climate change is also important. One need not be a one-trick pony, and focus on one issue.

If one is afraid of pro-Lifers more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of capitalists more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of the Russians posting facebook ads and otherwise trying to "sow discord" in our 2016 election, more than climate change, how do you judge them? Are those folks able to comment and post about those issues without being climate deniers? They'd best get their act together, right? Focus on climate change, because that's the only issue that matters.

And, don't go to the movies or out for drinks on Friday and Saturday night, right? If you really thought climate change was going to destroy our society and country and the world, then you'd be out there every day, campaigning against all unnecessary activities. Bars and movie theaters - concerts - race tracks - sports stadiums and events - county fairs -- state fairs - festivals -- restaurants - all unnecessary travel - private jets - all air travel except where absolutely necessary -- Christmas trees - the entire christmas and halloween decoration industries -- the like - if you're not boycotting them and urging others to refrain from all such unnecessary greenhouse gas activities, you are a climate denier!

Don't you believe we have to take "urgent action" immediately? And, doesn't every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions help? You should be against all meat eating, right? No omnivorousness for humans, because that impacts climate change. The entire jewelry industry must go, too, because that's unnecessary and has negative impact on the environment. And, the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry and the marijuana industry - all must go.
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier.
Ummm. I think that if one agrees with the IPCC statement of the consensus on climate change - that it's happening and that mankind has a significant contribution to it -- one is not a climate denier. You think I can accept the consensus, but be a denier anyway? :funny:
Seabass wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:49 pm

You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.
That depends on your definition, I guess, but under the common English usage today, whether in the UK or in the US, I am not conservative on most issues.
You likely aren't particularly educated, from the sound of it, and from the emotion-driven arguments you make, laden with judgment and scorn, you're rather immature as a person. You like to finger point, rather than talk. You moralize, rather than understand and discuss.
The only way I'm conservative is if conservatives by and large hold the following issues:

Pro-Choice on abortion;
Against the death penalty in all circumstances;
Against military intervention in foreign countries unless the US is attacked, or there is other justification under international law for doing so.
Against free trade where working conditions and wages in particular foreign countries are such that it will harm US workers and allow companies to work laborers in foreign countries in a manner that would be considered abusive in the US.
I have been pro-legalization of same sex marriage for at least 30 years (back then it was thought a very weird stance to have, at least 25 years before Obama and Hillary supported it)
I am in favor of same sex parenting and adoption, and liberal adoption rules in general
I support laws prohibiting invidious discrimination in the workplace and in places of public accommodations.
I support many reasonable gun laws, background checks, magazine limits, safety regulations, and restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. - some European gun laws are acceptable to me - Norway has an interesting system.
I support marijuana and other illicit drug legalization and regulation (decriminalization and diversion of criminal law efforts to psychological and other support efforts for drug abusers and users).
I am against mandatory military service.
I am in favor of police wearing body cameras
I am in favor of the right to record police by video and audio at all times
I am in favor of most convicted criminals having the right to vote
I am against solitary confinement of prisoners
I am in favor of a wholesale re-structuring of our criminal justice system to eliminate jail and incarceration for most if not all non-violent offenses.
I am in favor the government spending money on "science and the useful arts." That would include embryonic stem cell research.
I am all for vaccines and vaccination
I am in favor of a properly structured Universal Basic Income.
I am against most of the Patriot Act and would support its repeal (although there are pieces that I would support, so it's not completely black and white).
I am against "three strikes you're out laws"
I am against "mandatory minimum sentencing" laws
I am in favor of the separation of church and state
I support legalized physician assisted suicide.
I am an atheist
I oppose funding of religious institutions by the government
I oppose governmental entities discriminating against or in favor of atheists,agnostics or religious organizations.
I support a strong right to privacy, and restrictions on police and government surveillance, search and seizure, and other such things.

When I take the political compass test - and I've done so several times over the last few years - I always wind up either right about on the vertical center line, and about half way from the center to the bottom of the chart.

Image So,, I would best be described as moderate libertarian and opposing all forms of authoritarianism. If you consider that "conservative" then you don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word.
Is that right, Coito? Maybe, maybe not, but at least I didn't vote for a bigoted, conspiracy nut, conman, and at least I've never made apologetics for state sanctioned kidnapping.
Don't hold back. You forgot rapist, thief and traitor.
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:34 pm

Hillary is not a rapist, as far as we know. Thief and traitor, though....
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 49503
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:03 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:34 pm
JimC wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm
The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Which country is the model for that?
Australia does it pretty well.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 61294
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by JimC » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:36 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:03 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:34 pm
JimC wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm
The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Which country is the model for that?
Australia does it pretty well.
At least in comparison to the US. Healthcare is free to those on low incomes or pensions (via bulk billing or a healthcare card), and for most others is subsidised. Public hospital treatment is free. You can also take out health insurance and go private if you wish, so we haven't gone all Marxist on freedom of choice, either... :tea:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:55 pm

JimC wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:36 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:03 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:34 pm
JimC wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm
The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Which country is the model for that?
Australia does it pretty well.
At least in comparison to the US. Healthcare is free to those on low incomes or pensions (via bulk billing or a healthcare card), and for most others is subsidised. Public hospital treatment is free. You can also take out health insurance and go private if you wish, so we haven't gone all Marxist on freedom of choice, either... :tea:
Doesn't sound like free universal healthcare for all, though. I thought that's what Joe said was needed.

Here in the US healthcare is free for children, and those on low incomes and pensioners (retirees).

Now, for most it's subsidized too. However, before Obamacare tripled the premiums, even though it wasn't subsidized, individual coverage was relatively inexpensive.

Not sure why you'd need private health insurance, if health care is free for all at the point of service and hospital treatment is free.... sounds like a lot of stuff isn't covered under the "free" part.

When describing the US health insurance, it's described as people dying in the streets because they can't get care, because health care insurance wasn't mandatory, and only low income and the elderly received medicare and medicaid, and children got SCHIP. However, sounds like most of your population has to pay for insurance there, and there must be significant services not covered, or else there would be no reason to have a private insurance market on top of the "free" universal health care.

We were doing pretty well here, too, until about 2013, when Obamacare kicked in. Then the shit hit the fan, and now I pay as much for health insurance as for my mortgage. It's madness. Prior to Obamacare, I bought health insurance for the whole family for less than 1/4 of the price. If you told me 4 years ago that I would be paying what I'm paying now, I would have thought you mad. Not possible. What I'm paying now for a bronze level policy is more than the most expensive policy offered four years ago.

So, I get it, things are fucked up here in the US, and the blame lies squarely on Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and the rest of the fuckwits in the Democrat party. Fucking scumbags.
Last edited by Forty Two on Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:55 pm

dupe
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 49503
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:55 pm
JimC wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:36 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:03 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:34 pm
JimC wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:21 pm
The civilised answer, of course, is free, universal health care for all. Taking care of other human beings should be a no-brainer...
Which country is the model for that?
Australia does it pretty well.
At least in comparison to the US. Healthcare is free to those on low incomes or pensions (via bulk billing or a healthcare card), and for most others is subsidised. Public hospital treatment is free. You can also take out health insurance and go private if you wish, so we haven't gone all Marxist on freedom of choice, either... :tea:
Doesn't sound like free universal healthcare for all, though. I thought that's what Joe said was needed.

Here in the US healthcare is free for children, and those on low incomes and pensioners (retirees).

Now, for most it's subsidized too. However, before Obamacare tripled the premiums, even though it wasn't subsidized, individual coverage was relatively inexpensive.

Not sure why you'd need private health insurance, if health care is free for all at the point of service and hospital treatment is free.... sounds like a lot of stuff isn't covered under the "free" part.
Elective surgery isn't a priority, so you can wait years for some treatments. With private you can of course get the treatment more or less straight away.
When describing the US health insurance, it's described as people dying in the streets because they can't get care, because health care insurance wasn't mandatory, and only low income and the elderly received medicare and medicaid, and children got SCHIP. However, sounds like most of your population has to pay for insurance there, and there must be significant services not covered, or else there would be no reason to have a private insurance market on top of the "free" universal health care.
There was a push years ago by the Howard government to move people onto private care, for the obvious reason of reducing government expense. If you earn over a certain amount (something like $70k?) you have to pay another 1% tax if you don't have private insurance. This encouraged a lot of people to take out private healthcare, but over time more and more people are realising that the quality of private care isn't any better than public care, and that you still are considerably out of pocket with private care. With public care you pay zero at point of service.
We were doing pretty well here, too, until about 2013, when Obamacare kicked in. Then the shit hit the fan, and now I pay as much for health insurance as for my mortgage. It's madness. Prior to Obamacare, I bought health insurance for the whole family for less than 1/4 of the price. If you told me 4 years ago that I would be paying what I'm paying now, I would have thought you mad. Not possible. What I'm paying now for a bronze level policy is more than the most expensive policy offered four years ago.
As has been pointed out to you a number of times, premiums and deductibles went down for the lower strata of society. Those able to afford it, like you, are required to pay more. This is the reality if you want a progressive style taxation/insurance system. I agree Obamacare is a fucking terrible system, more of a gift to the insurance industry than a healthcare system, but it did make healthcare more accessible for the lower class.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The US Healthcare Mass Debate

Post by Forty Two » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:50 pm

What do you mean by "elective" surgery? Planned in advance? Or optional (like cosmetic surgery)?

LOL 1% tax on $70k as an incentive to get insurance -- that would mean a man making $100,000 would get hit for an extra Grover ($1,000 bill)? That's less than 2/3 of my post-Obamashit MONTHLY private health insurance bill.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times, you are believing the wrong people when you think premiums went down for the lower strata of society. The lower strata were already getting free $0 healthcare through Medicaid. Most of those getting subsidies are STILL paying more now than they would have before. The only difference is they were forced to buy it. The unsubsidized portion for most people is HIGHER than what was available to them previously. That's a fact. No matter how many times you - in Australia -- without any real info except your faith in bullshit sources - "point it out" it doesn't change reality. I'm pointing it out to you - again - that it ain't fucking true - and I've given sources for this before that have gone unrebutted.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Joe and 8 guests