The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[pErvinalia]

Where has anyone stated that Warren's claim to Native American heritage was reasonable? You really have absolutely no idea how to prosecute an argument, do you? It's all just empty rhetoric revolving around your inherent biases, isn't it? You are just simply totally incapable of separating your biases from a debate.

Where have I claimed that anyone stated that?

You wrote: "So, obviously, someone seems to believe that she did not "falsely claim" to be a native American" and "Certain folks are applying a much easier and lighter standard of proof and level of criticism against her". If you didn't mean to suggest that people are treating Warren's claims as reasonable, then what in the fuck is your point? Stop bullshitting, ffs.

Here it's said that I was parroting something that was long debunked. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... w#p1714028 Maybe that's not saying that the claim to native american heritage is reasonable, but I tend to think that if my statement that her claim to native American status was false has been "debunked" then that means her claim to native American status must at least be reasonable. How could the statement "she's the one who falsely claimed to be native American" have been debunked, but yet her claim would still not be reasonable?

So which is it? Are sticking with your previous paragraph where you rhetorically suggested that you didn't claim anyone stated that, or with this paragraph where you are claiming that some one stated it??

And your dishonesty knows no fucking bounds, does it? As usual, your own fucking links sink you. L'emmy was responding to the specific claim that Warren used her alleged Amerindian heritage to advance her career at Harvard. Not the general claim that Warren alleges Amerindian heritage.

[pErvinalia]

I'm fucking over this. It's late and I've got Netflix to watch while I'm slumming it at my ex-wife's place.

How do you know that you're really fucking over this? You can't conclusively prove it.

Man, I feel sorry for you. You actually think you have a valid point there or something. I know that I'm over this because I am me.

[Hermit]

Here it's said that I was parroting something that was long debunked. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... w#p1714028 Maybe that's not saying that the claim to native american heritage is reasonable...

Don't be so disingenuous. The "long debunked" part of that post was addressing your "in order to help her Ivy League career path" bit of yours.

ETA: what pErvin said a few minutes ago. Sorry, pErv, I should have read on before replying.

[Hermit]

And what's Any of this got to do with healthcare?

Good question. Time to split the thread?

[Forty Two]

pErvin - I can't keep going on and on about this, and I have to stop dealing with you when you constantly trot out the personal attacks. The moderators are not doing anything about your behavior, so my choices are only to start responding in kind, which is what you want and what will get me the attention of the moderators swiftly. Or, I can just stop dealing with you because of the way you are. I'll be choosing the latter. Have fun speaking to whomever actually finds you pleasant to interact with.

Split the thread, or don't. I'm done with it. I've gone around and around, and these attempts by pErvin to troll me and paint me as "dishonest" and "disingenuous" and to snipe and smirk and snark at anyone who disagrees with him has become too tiresome and a waste of time.

[Forty Two]

I'm fucking over this. It's late and I've got Netflix to watch while I'm slumming it at my ex-wife's place.

How do you know that you're really fucking over this? You can't conclusively prove it.

Man, I feel sorry for you. You actually think you have a valid point there or something. I know that I'm over this because I am me.

LOL - yet, you've kept on posting about it, even though you're "really fucking over this." Could you "conclusively prove it" by fucking off, finally?

And, that's my last post responding to pErvin. Bye bye and have fun with your ex-wife and her boyfriend while sleeping on their couch.

[pErvinalia]

Here it's said that I was parroting something that was long debunked. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... w#p1714028 Maybe that's not saying that the claim to native american heritage is reasonable...

Don't be so disingenuous. The "long debunked" part of that post was addressing your "in order to help her Ivy League career path" bit of yours.

ETA: what pErvin said a few minutes ago. Sorry, pErv, I should have read on before replying.

Not at all. I know it's a forlorn hope, but hopefully the more who point out his disingenuous-ness the less likely he will be to do it in the future.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Stop it please.The situation is as if Galaxian came along claiming he lives on Mars, someone saying there is no evidence he lives on Mars, and then a bunch of people asking the objector what evidence he has that Galaxian does not live on Mars.

I think the basic idea of the analogy is good. However, you've missed a turning (denoted in red below).

1. Galaxian claims he lives on Mars.

2. Another member claims that Galaxian is lying about living on Mars.

3. Yet another member requests evidence in support of the claim that Galaxian is lying.

My initial claim was that she FALSELY claimed to be native American. I've already clarified the difference between a falsehood and a lie, and I clarified that she might be stupid enough or deluded enough to really, honestly, truly believe she's native American. However, that idiotic or deluded belief doesn't make it less false.

Yes, that was your initial claim. You didn't stick with it, though.

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.

... Warren is an ineffective senator who rose partly by lying and pretending she's native American and should be a subject of laughter and ridicule.

In regards to Warren, her claim is so absurdly stupid, that a law school graduate, and someone smart enough to succeed on the faculty of both UPenn and Harvard Law, must know that she cannot claim to be a Native American based on some family lore and high cheekbones. She is also very "Progressive" and she must know how insulting such a claim is to Native Americans, who to her are supposed to be a marginalized group whose identity should not be coopted by White Anglo Saxons who have no real evidence that they are in fact any part of that group.

I see you expressing your opinion here, but not bringing any evidence that Warren was lying or perpetrating a falsehood.

In regards to Warren, she has evidence that Indians were among her ancestors.

If you consider family lore that has never been verified or corroborated "proof" and the racist claim that high cheekbones make her Native American, well, then that's your standard of evidence.

Uh yeah, I don't think I've ever claimed that Warren had proof, corroborated or otherwise. She does have evidence, however, and your accusation that she's lying or perpetrating a falsehood lacks any support.

I acknowledge that the evidence is rather weak,

Is "rather weak" a euphemism for "bullshit?"

No, it isn't. Her evidence consists of family lore that she has Indian ancestors, one Delaware and one Cherokee. That's not strong evidence, but it's not bullshit either.

but that doesn't negate its existence.

The proof of the claim is that she claims that someone who had no personal knowledge of a fact was told by someone else that some ancestor was native American.

Her mother told her this. Given that the stories speak of people more than one generation removed from her mother, you are correct about the absence of personal knowledge. That doesn't make the stories a fabrication.

Oh, and you know how "they" all have high cheekbones, well so do we in our family. That's the proof whose existence is not negated. Generational hearsay within hearsay, reported by people without personal knowledge of the alleged facts, and claim to debunked racial morphology theory. I have a big dick, so I must have some African DNA.

Her 'high cheekbones' comment is irrelevant to the question of the validity of the family lore.

Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.

It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.

Yes it can. However, if that judgement has no evidentiary basis, it carries no weight.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Cruz wants to sell the kind of healthcare that treats diabetics for everything else except diabetes. Maybe. Unless the heart disease was due to diabetes.

It's nothing but pie in the sky, based on the implicit lie that he and his fellow Republicans would be willing to vote to fund the ever-increasing subsidies that his idea would require. He's an incorrigible slimeball.

[O]utside experts argued that the costs to the federal government could be unsustainable. As the Obamacare markets turned into high-risk pools, premiums would increase, driving the cost of the tax subsidies higher and higher.

“Keeping the ACA tax credits would, in theory, protect subsidized consumers,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “But the cost of those tax credits would quickly skyrocket, because healthy people would flock to non-complaint plans, which could cherry pick them with inexpensive premiums.”

Cruz acknowledged that his plan would depend on taxpayer subsidization of people with high medical costs. But, he argued, it was better for the federal government to pick up the tab than requiring health plans to charge sick people and healthy people the same premiums, increasing costs for the latter.

“It’s not fair to a working-class person who’s struggling to put food on the table, for the federal government to double their premiums trying to work an indirect subsidy for others who are ill. Far better to have it through direct tax revenue,” Cruz told me.

So it becomes a question of the federal government’s willingness to pay that bill, indefinitely into the future. Otherwise, people with high medical costs could be stuck with a market that doesn’t function and isn’t adequately subsidized. The whole idea is dependent on an effectively unlimited federal commitment to pay the bills.

“The marketplaces would turn into de facto high-risk pools,” Levitt said. “How long would Congress allow the ACA tax credits to stand as the costs increase rapidly?”

The other problem is that the Obamacare subsidies cut off at 400 percent of the federal poverty level, about $48,200 for a single person. The Senate plan would lower that threshold to 350 percent.

Americans with higher incomes who wanted to buy an Obamacare-compliant plan, people likely to have high medical costs themselves, would have no protection from skyrocketing premiums.

“If they're healthy, they could buy inexpensive non-compliant plans. But if they have pre-existing conditions, they'd be stuck in plans with escalating premiums,” Levitt said.

[source]

[Brian Peacock]

Everyone has a pre-existing condition when they get sick and want to make a claim: "I'm sorry Sir, your policy only covers you while you're well."

[L'Emmerdeur]

A lot of the yelping about how under the ACA people "lost insurance plans that they liked" comes from this. They liked their junk insurance because it was cheap and they'd never tried to use it.

[Animavore]

Is there anyone, even one, person in the Republican party who isn't a complete scumbag?

[Svartalf]

they are politicians, being a scumbag is part of the job description.

[Animavore]

They're not supposed to be overt about it. They don't even pretend to care about the people they govern.

[Svartalf]

the people have proven to be morons who don't care, so why go the extra length?