Steely_D wrote: 

 
kurtster wrote: 
Wait. If I'm coherent my med level must be low.

 

 kurtster wrote: 

Lack of credibility in a person is based on track record of honesty and consistency. Doesn't matter what one's politics are. 

Example: Bawling about NYT ignoring a story, and insisting when presented with evidence showing you wrong, that you "wouldn't wrap fish with" the newspaper. So basically you are complaining about lack of reporting in a publication, and when it is shown you don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss them as a legitimate news source (ad hominem, red herring, take your pick). This sort of behavior inspires skepticism regarding your credibility and sincerity. And it has nothing to do with your politics.

I'm starting to get used to the voucher system, supported broadly by HMOs.  We are already spending about 18% of the GDP on healthcare.  Take some % of GDP, maybe even 18%, and tie it to inflation and provide every citizen with $x to spend on the plan of their choosing...catastrophe, cadillac...all the gov is then doing is cutting a check.  Let the markets continue to create a performance based system...and ultimately the cheapest source of care...or for those who can afford it, the best care.  HMOs had a lot of negative press a couple decades ago, but are making strides.  The downside is still the inconvenience of going to a centralized facility, rather than up the street to my local doc. but it's the most cost effective model. 

Oh, and take the for profit insurance cos., PBMs, wholesalers, drug stores...out of the model.  They can continue to operate, but on a cooperative basis, where all profits are redistributed to members (their customers) and not stockholders...that should shave a few points off the % of GDP spending. 

 islander wrote: 
Trust me, there ain't no tears.  You're using the wrong filters.  You always do.

So with that, let me piss everyone off on purpose for a change and restate the obvious ...

1)  Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

2)  Obamacare / The ACA is what you get when you trust politicians and let the government take over something so important as Health Care.  Something our government was never intended nor designed to do.

3)  and most important ... you get the government you deserve ... 

Take two aspirin and call Obama in the morning ... you can now call him anything you like ... cuz he ain't POTUS no more.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
Yeah, we go three or 4 days with the TV off lately and turn it back on and it's the SOS when I turn it back on.  Just a few days later.

 Steely_D wrote: 
I can get behind your thoughts.  Might disagree with some of them, but I do understand them as you presented them.

 kurtster wrote:
Turn off the fucking TV. You're as addicted to it as your Supreme Leader. Read, for fuck's sake. Read widely.

And fuck off with the straw man arguments. You look silly.

 Steely_D wrote: 

Ivanka Trump sits in for Air Force One pilot on return flight home from G20

This all is getting far to convoluted for me to follow, so here is my take:

ACA is a compromise. Bill Clinton tried universal care and got shot down by his own party. Sure times change. I believe Obama thought he could get Republicans behind, or at least not fight a plan essentially developed by Romney. A plan that maintained a large amount of private design and competition that capitalists like. Apparently the Republicans hated him more.

Sure costs are going up under ACA - they were going up and coverage going down before that for private/employer plans. Obamacare at least provided a baseline level playing field that plans had to address. I'm surprised that costs didn't start much higher because the insurance companies were faced with a bow-wave of people who had deferred care since they had no prior insurance.

If Republicans want to blame Obama for the future failure of ACA, they should be doing everything in their power to make it work, not their current course to help it fail. Politics aside, they should be doing everything they can for its success or even to slow any eventual failure because that would be good for the people who need it. Heck, I'd take a couple of years of affordable health care over no years.

Obama may have communicated to congress during their years of votes to repeal but not replace but I fault him for not demanding an alternative (they clearly never had one) and going to the grass roots to show the Republican position was BS. He was pretty out of touch with the people in this instance.

I have no respect for people who have health care being ok with keeping others from affording it, like so many of your politicians and their supporters. I take little consolation that the Republicans couldn't come up with a plan because so many were ok with the proposal and worse so many opposed it because it wasn't brutal enough. There but for the grace of God and all that.

 kurtster wrote: 
I think there's a reason for that. And what frustrates folks (me, and I'm projecting) is that watching him - not watching someone's spin on him for good or bad - he's amazingly clumsy. His words, his actions. He started by declaring he wasn't a politician - and then took The Politician's Chair. He has failed at his promises (repeal/replace, big beautiful wall, ISIS gone in 30 days, tax reform, tired of winning), which makes sense.

In a real world, if someone came to me and said he wasn't an airplane pilot, it wouldn't be acceptable in any fashion to let him try to fly. He's incompetent. And yet somehow the media talked enough of the nation into putting an incompetent into the Oval.

He is indefensible. Anyone who supports him doesn't seem to be watching him; they seem to be listening to the spin. They can be smart or not; it's irrelevant. They're buying the luggage and not the contents.

I don't watch the spin - I watch him talk and behave and he does not disappoint me. He is exactly what I expected, which is why I voted for someone else. (Not Hillary)

 kurtster wrote: 
It's not about who you support, it's about how you support (or try to). Your arguments are often flawed, and when you are demonstrably proven wrong, you  do this little song and dance and try to backpeddle and say "no, not what I meant", then cry "oh woe is me, you all hate me because ....". I used to like you, but you've propagated this nonsense for so long it got old.  I don't care if you stay or go, but I won't stop calling you a dolt when you are being dolty. 

 steeler wrote: 
Oh, that well is far from dry. And be careful, the floor is wet with his tears.... again.

 steeler wrote: 
I brought it up as a case against Single Payer.  That was my only reason for doing so.  I thought it relevant to the argument that preceded it.  You won't believe that, but it's the truth.  But then you disagree with everything I mentioned before the Charlie Gard remarks anyway.  So in your case, no big deal.  SNAFU.  Seems that everyone disagrees for that matter because the only replies have been about the Charlie Gard part.  Talk about patterns ...

Respect is a two way street.  I try and be respectful in my replies.  Its rarely reciprocated because I support Trump.  Islander would be the exception, with him I'm just blunt cuz I don't care cuz he don't care. 

VV has said that I have lost all cred.  Well duh, I support Trump.  That all by itself strips me of any cred before I get started.  That is the premise I operate under.  Given the terrain, I think that is an honest assessment.  Let's face it, around here Trump is indefensible and anyone who tries puts a target on their back.  So I just anticipate the worst reaction to anything political I post.  Doesn't matter if I'm nice or blunt, have a valid point, the reactions are always the same.  Same as it ever was.  Not whining at all (you can trust me on that), Jus' sayin' ...

 kurtster wrote: 
Yeah, you are the only one who cares. You and Trump. it is shit like this from you that discredits all your posts. I would discount it if it were an isolated thought, but this fits one of your usual patterns. if you have such little respect for the posters here, why do you keep going to that same dry well?

 kurtster wrote: 
Define "meaningfully." My guess is that you consider the coverage meaningful when it matches your views.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:  Kinda hard to stomach CNN, when 90% of the on air coverage has been nothing but Trump and Russia, day in and day out.  How do they fit the other stuff in ? The NYT I wouldn't wrap fish in.  Wapo I do give some credibility to.  I don't rely on printed media though anyway.  Just plain cannot afford it.  I get my news from cable and radio more than anywhere else, and its not just Fox ... I do swallow hard and try MSNBC and my local stations.  But CNN is just plain impossible.  

Sorry I brought it up.  Evidently no one but me thought it worth mentioning here despite everyone knowing about it already and I guess I shoulda figured that out.  Just another sad story in a place far away not worth mentioning.

 kurtster wrote: 
Yes you've been following this VERY closely, I can tell. The entire foundation of the case is the fact that doctors have repeatedly said that this will cause undue suffering to the child. Unless, by "doing no harm," you mean "gonna die, anyway," in which case, Dr. Mengele, your cover is blown.

 kurtster wrote: 
WaPo stories go back at least to June 30, full articles.

Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
NYT as early as June 28, full articles. The June 28 is no longer on-line. I only have an on-line subscription.

Here.
Here.
Here.

CNN, from June 20.

Here
Here
Here
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.

 
Nitpick all you want. But turn on another channel. You'll be amazed!

You continually infer that many of us only read what agrees with our politics or world view. If you're only watching Fox News, you're equally guilty of that.