Jump to content

US Politics: Ask Fox News


Recommended Posts

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

So, would a private charity work for my car insurance then?  'cuz I'm tired of paying it and being a safe driver and not having any wrecks carrying all those bad drivers.   sucks!    /eye*fukin*roll

Oh dear. I think, I'm quoted as saying something somebody else said. Or maybe I did say it, but smoked some crack while saying it, but don't just remember smoking any lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Oh dear. I think, I'm quoted as saying something somebody else said. Or maybe I did say it, but smoked some crack while saying it, but don't just remember smoking any lately.

Oppsie, fucked up the quote, ahh, sorry OGE, I meant to quote Commodore.  The heat of the moment and all that.   <looks down, runs toe through carpet>  No hard feeling 'k?  It was just a forum fart, you know.    :leaving:   Hate to have anybody think you'd say such a stupid thing, won't happen again, especially with Commodore 'cuz ya, I do know @OldGimletEye don't play that libertarian crap.   :dunno:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not "fixing the flaws in the ACA", that's re-reforming the healthcare system. An actual public health service didn't fly when Obama had majorities in both houses, even though that was on the wishlist of the progressive faction of the Democratic party. It's DoA (A = announcement in this case) with the Republicans in control of everything. Put up a proposal that at least has a non-zero chance of getting through.

There is none. Seriously, there is zero chance that any Democrat-sponsored or proposed bill has any chance of getting through right now. That is sort of the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Even accepting this premise, insurance (a hedge against uncertain events) is not the appropriate vehicle. And neither is the federal government. 

It should be at the state level, or through private charity. 

lot of people here seem to think adding "fucking" to every post adds weight, when it comes off more as compensating for something

Nah, I just enjoy using expletives to flavor things up a bit. Kind of a shit habit, but there it is. Hope I'm not fucking offending anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Fuck yes it is worth it to me, a woman who hasn't and will not have a baby.  However, I want my kin and their children to have maternity care, not just because they're kin, but it's ethical, humane and just right.  Plus, even for those who don't plan for children, they sometimes (many times really) have children anyway.

Jesus, this is just stupid.

Also, while it is perfectly fine for individuals to decide to never have children, it is simply not viable for society as a whole to stop having children. A sustainable inflow of children into a society is essential, a society's ongoing existence depends upon it. Therefore it is in society's interests to provide some minimum level of social support for maternity and child care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Nah, I just enjoy using expletives to flavor things up a bit. Kind of a shit habit, but there it is. Hope I'm not fucking offending anyone. 

Sure as shit not fucking offending me.    :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's far more expensive to deal with sick kids after they're born due to issues with bad maternity care than it is to deal with it early, and that's true for society as a whole. Now, you can then argue that society doesn't have to pay that EITHER and it should also be dealt with at a charity level, and that would be consistent - save at that point you're arguing that your society really shouldn't particularly be compelled to help children not die. 

And at that point, what precisely is the moral value of your society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commodore said:

And surprise, when you make that benefit mandatory (regardless of whether you personally need/want it), premiums go up. 

I think it's time to do a little libertarian intellectual trash pickup.

First this is only true, if you don't attempt to any other cost control measures. And the US should and can do cost control measures like every other country. There is plenty of reasons to think some major inefficiencies exist in US healthcare.

Second. This can cause adverse selection problems. The people that need more robust insurance can be priced out of insurance.

Thirdly. People who bought really low rent insurance may find they needed better insurance. This is because most people aren't medical professionals. And it is because of these informational asymmetries a role for regulation can be justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Oppsie, fucked up the quote, ahh, sorry OGE, I meant to quote Commodore.  The heat of the moment and all that.   <looks down, runs toe through carpet>  No hard feeling 'k?  It was just a forum fart, you know.    :leaving:   Hate to have anybody think you'd say such a stupid thing, won't happen again, especially with Commodore 'cuz ya, I do know @OldGimletEye don't play that libertarian crap.   :dunno:

 

LOL. I know what you meant to do. It's all good.

Well, that and, of course, I didn't want to be associated with what commodore said. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There is none. Seriously, there is zero chance that any Democrat-sponsored or proposed bill has any chance of getting through right now. That is sort of the point.

Well, there could now be an opportunity. It is true there isn't a shit show of a Democratic bill getting through, but It it not impossible for the House to get a Trump bill through with Democrat support and containing a lot of Democratic fingerprints on it. But Trump will not deal on a Medicare for all bill (even though during the campaign his "healthcare for all" promise could only be delivered by exactly that).

The only way Trumpcare gets passed with only Republican support is by making things worse for the average punter. If Democrats want to mitigate the damage that a 4 or 8 year Trump presidency can do to healthcare, they have only one option: give Trump and the necessary number of not-completely-batshit-crazy Republicans a solution that's a bit to the left of the current Trumpcare bill and assure them of the numbers, in the House at least. Or they go the Nuclear Trump option, which is to let Trumpcare collapse, and hang the collateral damage to vulnerable Americans, casualties of war and all that.

On Gorsuch: I see the Democrats probably aren't going to hand over the 8 votes needed to get to 60 for his confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. I know what you meant to do. It's all good.

Thanks!

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, that and, of course, I didn't want to be associated with what commodore said. LOL.

Me neither!   ~~shivers  ~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Thanks!

Me neither!   ~~shivers  ~~

LOL. Call me a low down, no good, dirty rotten scoundrel if you must. I can take that. Heck, that might even be true.

But, saying I said something like:

Quote

It should be at the state level, or through private charity. 

Well, that's where I have to draw a line. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, there could now be an opportunity. It is true there isn't a shit show of a Democratic bill getting through, but It it not impossible for the House to get a Trump bill through with Democrat support and containing a lot of Democratic fingerprints on it. But Trump will not deal on a Medicare for all bill (even though during the campaign his "healthcare for all" promise could only be delivered by exactly that).

I don't see how this is remotely possible. Certainly nothing to do with healthcare. Ryan would kill it right away. He wouldn't even allow it to be discussed on the floor.

I know this because this is what he did with two different bills that were sponsored by other Republicans. One was a moderate one  that basically didn't do much save remove the mandate and give states money, and the other was the Rand Paul one that obliterated all health care for everyone ever. Neither were even allowed on the floor. 

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The only way Trumpcare gets passed with only Republican support is by making things worse for the average punter. If Democrats want to mitigate the damage that a 4 or 8 year Trump presidency can do to healthcare, they have only one option: give Trump and the necessary number of not-completely-batshit-crazy Republicans a solution that's a bit to the left of the current Trumpcare bill and assure them of the numbers, in the House at least. Or they go the Nuclear Trump option, which is to let Trumpcare collapse, and hang the collateral damage to vulnerable Americans, casualties of war and all that.

And again, there is no chance of the Democrats proposing a middle of the road solution in any shape or form that even gets talked about on the House floor, not while Ryan is speaker. 

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On Gorsuch: I see the Democrats probably aren't going to hand over the 8 votes needed to get to 60 for his confirmation.

At least so far that appears to be correct. Which is again the right thing, because there is zero sign that the Republicans are willing to give the Democrats anything worth anything for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing health care in particular does to the IGMFY/conservative block is stress the divide between younger conservatives (why should I pay for others when I'm healthy and they aren't) and older conservatives (don't touch my Medicare). At least it seems to me it should, though I haven't x

5 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Priorities man! 

  (golf)

 

Trumpcare loses out to golf.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, Reaganomics/taxes are now front burner? Or are we going to see an expanded effort on the immigration/travel ban angle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Priorities man! 

  (golf)

 

Trumpcare loses out to golf.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does that even mean? Will Trump veto any healthcare bill other than this version of the AHCA that gets presented to him for signing? 

 

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

I know this because this is what he did with two different bills that were sponsored by other Republicans. One was a moderate one  that basically didn't do much save remove the mandate and give states money, and the other was the Rand Paul one that obliterated all health care for everyone ever. Neither were even allowed on the floor. 

 

Well, that was before his own personal AHCA bill got scuppered by his own party. He might be a little more willing to deal to the left of his bill now that dealing to the right seems to have been an abject failure.

 

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The threat to leave the table has always been a classic negotiating tactic. The midnight oil will burn in Washington tonight!

45 talked about it in his book. You have to be able to get up and leave the table at times.

That's been part of 1-day introduction to negotiating seminars since such seminars were first created. Interestingly, in the recommended reading list these seminars provide 'Art of the Deal' is not on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...