The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[pErvinalia]

Regarding the last warning, i didn't call him a retard there. Remember the precedent set by you guys about a year or so ago. It was torturously concluded that type of statement wasn't directed at the person.

[Brian Peacock]

Play nicer.

[pErvinalia]

Will do. Just keep in mind the precedent you guys set.

[Tero]

A good part of the rural electoral districts that voted Trump will lose their hospitals
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/30/health/ru ... index.html

[Tero]

Older Americans charged 5x the rate of young in Trumpcare
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/older-am ... -aarp.html

[Brian Peacock]

It's the perfect insurance scam. The sick subside the premiums of the well.

[pErvinalia]

A good part of the rural electoral districts that voted Trump will lose their hospitals
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/30/health/ru ... index.html

Hospitals never made Amerka great. Fuck em!

[Brian Peacock]

Healthy people are a drain on the State. FACT!!

[Tero]

It's all that healthy fucking and making babies. That the state has to take care of. Unless you give them guns as toddlers. Merika!

[Tero]

Obamacare must go (pounds fist on table)!
The Health 202: Trump is trying to blow up the Obamacare strategy he pushed for
Even Trump's appointees seem to understand you can't just repeal a law touching 5.8 percent of the economy with nothing to fill its place. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price responded with "no" when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether repeal-then-replace is the White House's new strategy.

"No, we don't think so," Price told host Chuck Todd. "We think Leader McConnell and his senators within the Senate are working to try to get this piece of legislation on track, so we look forward to hopefully coming back after this July 4 recess and getting the work done."

Trump has spoken out repeatedly about the shortcomings of Obamacare -- which he brands a “disaster" -- but he has made relatively little effort to detail for the public why the unpopular Republican replacement plans would improve on President Obama's signature initiative.
"Trump’s seeming ambivalence about selling the GOP plan may reflect that he has always been more animated about getting rid of Obamacare than he has been about what should replace it," John continues. "To the degree he has discussed what the American health-care system should look like, Trump has talked about 'insurance for everybody' and coverage that would be 'much less expensive and much better' — standards that the bills produced by the House and Senate don’t come close to achieving, according to analyses."

“It’s a mystery,” said Barry Bennett, a Republican operative who advised Trump’s campaign last year told John. “I don’t know what they’re doing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... ddcfd25c3e

[Tero]

Remove Obamacare because...because it has Obama's name on it. A black man!And it's a tax. And then....then...raise taxes!
This makes sense?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 ... firms.html

[Forty Two]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

I don't know why she did it. I know she falsely claimed to be Native American, and she did so as part of her professorship at Harvard where she was billed as a native American professor.

If you have access to evidence that conclusively shows that there are no Indians among her ancestors, then please present it.

That's not the test. She made an assertion and she can't back it up. That's the test. I can't prove "conclusively" that shows there are no Mongolians among my ancestors, but that doesn't justify me claiming to be Mongolian. I'm not Mongolian, moreover, even if there was an ancestor 5 generations ago who came from Mongolia.

Elizabeth Warren is not American Indian because she does not have a single ancestor for many generations that was Native American, and you can look far enough back that even if there was one, that would not make her Native American. Being 1/32 something doesn't mean you get to say you're that. If I am 1/32 Nigerian, I don't get to say I'm a "Black Professor" at Harvard.

Come on people.....

We know she's not an official member of any tribe,

We do? We "know" that? Just checking. You can't "conclusively" prove that, though, can you? Or, can you? How did you "conclusively" prove it?

but if you're going to categorically state that her claim is false, then the burden of proof is on you.

Not at all. I categorically state that the Christian claim to the deity of Christ is false, even though I don't have "conclusive" proof that the Christ is not a supernatural deity of magical powers who can alter the laws of nature. Islam is false, in that Mohammed did not receive a message from a divinity and transcribe it into Arabic, and he did not fly a winged horse to heaven. Mormonism is false, in that Joseph Smith did not read the Book of Mormon off of golden plates with seer stones and transcribe it into English.

I know this because those folks can't prove their claims - at all. Neither can Elizabeth Warren. Also, even the amount of information given by Elizabeth Warren - her high cheekbones and her family lore that one relative about 1/32 ancestry was a Cherokee -- even if that information is true, it doesn't make her Native American.

We have statements from people at Harvard who were involved in the effort to hire her as a professor that show that her heritage was not part of the process.

Who cares? I never made an allegation about what they considered in hiring her.

You haven't presented any evidence that contradicts that,

I never made any allegation about it, nor do I care. All I said is that she's not native American. She's not.

and if you had any you'd have presented it by now. But do keep flailing as you attempt to justify your slander--it's hilarious.

Saying she's not native American is "slander?" LOL. Amazing.

She hasn't set forth her motivation for doing so, and that's entirely subjective. So, unless there was some proof of her motive and purpose for lying in the offing, all we have is the lie. She did it, for whatever reason she may have had at the time. It could be, like a lot of celebrities do - Johnny Cash - Johnny Depp and some others - who are from former Confederate or southern states - claim a link to an Indian heritage to gain a kind of southern cred. It's not uncommon for people to baselessly claim to be 1/8 or 1/16 or 1/32 Cherokee when those folks are from Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.

You haven't shown that she is lying, so your musings on this topic are null and void.

She doesn't have a single identifiable ancestor that is Native American, and she bases her belief on unverifiable family lore that a 1/32 ancestor was Cherokee (even though there is not a shred of evidence that such is the case) -- and she is smart enough to be a Harvard law professor -- to believe she honestly believes she is native American would require us to believe that Harvard law professor thinks that a Caucasian person with no identifiable ancestors who are native American but whose family lore claims 1/32 Cherokee status, with not a shred of evidence, and high cheekbones (even though looking at her, she doesn't have high cheekbones), is enough to claim native American status. You think she thinks anyone who is 1/32 Cherokee is native American? She's that dumb?

[Forty Two]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

When did I say she "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path?"

In this post from which that is a direct quote:

She's the one who falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path. If a Republican claimed to be native American because of the high cheekbones that run in her family, and alleged family "lore," I am sure you'd have some laughs about it. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Are you seriously attempting to deny that you wrote that?

I was referring there to the fact that she put it in her bio at Harvard University, claiming to be a minority professor - a Native American professor. I assumed that she would do that to help herself in some way. I can't say, obviously, that she claimed to be native American to help her get hired or get promoted through affirmative action. But, inserting it herself in her biographical material at Harvard is done for the same reason everyone puts biographical information into their material -- students and others read it and draw conclusions from it.

But, I will clarify - I don't know what her motivation was for saying she was Native American when she just clearly isn't.

[Forty Two]

hasn't she as much as admitted that her "native american" status and ancestry were frauds?

She hasn't, as far as I'm aware. Her siblings have confirmed that they were told by her mother that they had Indian ancestors, and that has always been the basis of the claim.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/opinions/ ... index.html

But that isn't the only reason Warren should apologize. She has also reinforced racist Native American stereotypes.
Quoting an aunt of hers, Warren said one of her relatives supposedly "had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do."
I am an enrolled citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation, and I don't have high cheekbones. I have fat cheeks. Folks, cheekbones are not proof of one's indigenous lineage. (By the way, in what America is it OK to say "I have [name a stereotypical physical feature], so that means I am [name a marginalized ethnicity]")?

The New England Historic Genealogical Society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage-license application supposedly listing Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as part Cherokee. The author of the family newsletter said she didn’t have documentation of the marriage-license application and she doesn’t know who sent her the reference.

The New England genealogical society clarified in a statement that it has found no proof of Warren’s self-proclaimed Native American lineage. The group also told The Globe that the candidate’s family is not listed in an early-20th century census of major tribes, known as the Dawes Rolls.

Warren contributed recipes to a Native American cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow,” published in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Okla. She signed her entries “Elizabeth Warren -- Cherokee.”

Her cousins don't even support her assertion of any Native American ancestry, and any native American ancestry -- back to the great, great, great, great grandparent level -- is simply not sufficient to make her Cherokee or otherwise native American. Family lore about a marriage certificate that nobody has seen and nobody can verify, involving a grandparent's grandparent is no basis for signing a book "Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee."

The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.

Critics pounced on the news, suggesting Warren had feigned Native American ancestry to enhance her teaching prospects.

The Democratic candidate stumbled early on in reacting to this controversy. At one point, Warren cited remarks that her aunt Bea made about high cheekbones in the family as evidence of her indigenous ancestry. She said she listed herself as a minority in the professional listings merely to connect with “people like me,” noting that it was “not a particularly good use for the directory, because it never happened.”

The American Association of Law Schools directory doesn’t specify which professors are Native American, but instead clumps all the “minority law teachers” together in a distinct section. As such, it’s no surprise that Warren didn’t connect with American Indians through the listing — they wouldn’t have known she was one of them.

Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fa ... 2dbe36ef97

[pErvinalia]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

I don't know why she did it. I know she falsely claimed to be Native American, and she did so as part of her professorship at Harvard where she was billed as a native American professor.

If you have access to evidence that conclusively shows that there are no Indians among her ancestors, then please present it.

That's not the test. She made an assertion and she can't back it up. That's the test. I can't prove "conclusively" that shows there are no Mongolians among my ancestors, but that doesn't justify me claiming to be Mongolian. I'm not Mongolian, moreover, even if there was an ancestor 5 generations ago who came from Mongolia.

Still moving the goalposts I see. The issue L'emmy, and I, are talking about is your claim that it is false that she has Native American ancestry, not whether her own claim is justified or not.

Elizabeth Warren is not American Indian because she does not have a single ancestor for many generations that was Native American, and you can look far enough back that even if there was one, that would not make her Native American. Being 1/32 something doesn't mean you get to say you're that. If I am 1/32 Nigerian, I don't get to say I'm a "Black Professor" at Harvard.

You can say what you want. In fact if you did say that it would be more accurate than your claim that it'sfalse that Warren has Native American ancestry.

but if you're going to categorically state that her claim is false, then the burden of proof is on you.

Not at all. I categorically state that the Christian claim to the deity of Christ is false, even though I don't have "conclusive" proof that the Christ is not a supernatural deity of magical powers who can alter the laws of nature. Islam is false, in that Mohammed did not receive a message from a divinity and transcribe it into Arabic, and he did not fly a winged horse to heaven. Mormonism is false, in that Joseph Smith did not read the Book of Mormon off of golden plates with seer stones and transcribe it into English.

Falsehoods are truth claims. I.e. the province of logic.

I know this because those folks can't prove their claims - at all.

According to my personal epistemology I know that a meat version of you doesn't exist and that you are actually a bot. There's no evidence of your meaty existence, therefore my knowledge claim is justifiable... wibble wibble wibble...