Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. Probably healthcare deserves its own thread.  It is a complex and important topic.

    We should admit to a few right up front if we truly want to have an honest debate about our current system.

    First, the absurd notion that the US has "poorer" outcomes than other developed countries.  This is patently false.  Every time someone quotes this it is based on the WHO study from 2000 or so.  The rankings were based on a variety of statistics with the greatest weight put on 1) Life Expectancy 2) Infant Mortality and 3) Total Medical Spend.

    For life expectancy, if you remove murder and suicide and car wrecks from the totals for every country- the US ranks first in the world.  Murder, suicide and car wrecks are obviously issues in our society but they have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of our medical care.

    Total spend, if you remove elective surgeries/procedures and research dollars our spend per person is about equal with other developed countries.  When Betty gets a boob job (bless her) it lowers our "ranking" in the WHO study, which is crazy.  The US spends more on medical research than the rest of the world combined and, as a result, gets ranked lower by the WHO standard.

    Infant mortality, even the WHO in the actual report admitted that the only country that provided realistic data was the US.  Further, the biggest issue with infant mortality is preemies.  Most countries do not even include births that do not reach maturity in the stats.  These countries include many that we are currently compared with including Canada, UK, Sweden, France, Germany etc.  In fact, there are reports from the National Center for Health Statistics and European Perinatal Health Report that use much stricter definitions and, amazingly, the US ranks 1st by their methodology.  Does anyone really think that normal babies born in America have a better chance of dying than other countries?  It is absurd.  It is also a perfect example of the whole WHO report.  A preemie is born in the US with a heart problem.  We will deliver the baby, operate on the heart, monitor the baby in a state of art NICU for months and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Often the baby does die after all of that and, as a result, the "ranking" of the American medical system goes down because we spent a lot of money and our infant mortality rates went down.  If we would just tell the parents the baby can not make it we would improve our WHO ranking.

    Sorry for the long rant, but it is really hard to have a rational debate when we do not use the truth.

    I think we should assume that the US has the very best medical system in the world.  Meaning, if you need medical care for whatever reason- accident, illness, rehab etc.- the US is the very best place to get it.

    There are, certainly, ways our system can be improved. I am open to ideas where we have more of a national system.  However, only if there are adequate deductibles to keep usage under control and only if funded by a national sales tax.  

    Also, the debates between the efficiency of govt versus private are really silly.  There is no question that the private sector is more efficient than the govt.  The private sector has to compete.  

    Brisket used the term "commodity" up thread and in some ways he is right.  But if we admit something is a commodity, then no one should/could argue that tremendous competition for profit among the deliverers of said commodity is the absolute best way to keep costs down.  

     

     

     

    • Like 6
  2. 18 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

    Fuck that attention whore.

    But it’s going to be very fun watching the crowd of a certain type of guys who usually holler about “innocent until proven guilty because women lie about this stuff all the time”. The type of men who always look for ways to discredit female accusers no matter the evidence. Watching them do an about face and automatically believe everything Avenatti gets accused of because he’s Trump’s nemesis will be like watching hogs play Twister.

    I wont argue your main point but if he really said "she hit me first" and he is in custody then I think we can make some assumptions and that this deal is not at all like the cases people were arguing about before.

  3. 2 hours ago, Bookman said:

    What's the logic behind term limits? That after a certain amount of time one just becomes too corrupt?

    No.  We have created a system that puts our elected officials in contrast with human nature.  In theory, members of congress are to do what is best for their constituents and the country but we constantly put them in position that forces them to decide whether something is better for the country or better for them personally to get reelected.  Human nature says self preservation is going to win out.  Ask any honest former congress person what their #1 goal was and the answer is getting reelected.

    The pervasiveness of money in politics has its roots in funding reelection campaigns which have become increasingly expensive.  Example (this is just an example and I do not really care one or the other on the issue), Vegas (who everyone loves) has spent literally $100sM on trying to keep online gambling illegal.  It is obviously in their interest to do that.  But why does virtually every republican continue to support the current law?  In theory, if online gambling were legal and taxable locally, then lots of other states would get revenue.  They keep the status quo only because they want a chunk of those $$$ for their own reelection campaigns.  It is the same thing with unions, NRA, energy etc.  They have influence over pols that have nothing to do with their actual issues but they can influence them through money.  If no one in congress was running for reelection ever, then the power that those groups have would be drastically diminished.  Pols would vote on things based on merit and not on how it affects them personally.  And i fully realize that they should be doing that already which is why I talk about human nature.  

  4. 2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    I hear what you're saying and understand your perspective, but I  respectfully disagree about the wisdom of putting so much power (knowledge being that power) in the hands of folks who have a vested financial interest in influencing legislation for special interest groups - especially if those folks are also former legislators.

    I still do not follow.  My first point was that making it "illegal" for former congress people to be lobbyists is just silly because they can still provide the same influence even if they are not registered lobbyists.  Unless you make some law (that would no doubt be unconstitutional and unenforceable) that former congress people can have literally no contact with sitting members, then they are going to have access and people are going to pay them for that access.  If I am a former pol and you make a law that says I cant lobby, then I will just set up a consulting company and hire a hot shot attorney to do the actual lobbying.  You simply can not prevent it.

    So if you can not prevent then you need to control it or, at least, minimize the impact.  You can only do this by taking reelection/campaign money off the table.

    And virtually everyone that goes to congress for something is getting paid to do it.  It is best if it is transparent.  

     

  5. 2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    The point is that if we have strict limits (five years in your suggestion; two years in others) on the amount of time a representative can serve, they have less time to become an expert in a field and/or understand the legislative process (how to get a bill passed, build a coalition, etc.).

    If they have less time to become that "expert", they are bound to be more reliant on others - in many cases lobbyists. If a former representative is a lobbyist for an industry/issue/whatever, they have gained both the expertise in the process and the issue (and they make money from that experience/knowledge). This leaves the sitting representative at a terrible disadvantage in asserting their own will (or the will of their constituents) in making an independent decision.

    How so?  It seems you are arguing that a pol getting advice or knowledge on an issue from an expert is a bad deal?  You also act as if there are issues where the lobbying only occurs for one side of the issue.  How it is supposed to work is that proponents from both sides of an issue come and make their case for the piece of legislation or whatever it is.   A smart person listens to both cases, asks questions and then makes a decision based on the information provided.  Shockingly, they might even make a few phone calls to people in their district potentially impacted.  

    Understanding the "legislative process" takes about 2 days for any smart person to understand.  And if you have genuinely capable people in office then they know full well how to build coalitions and get things done.  The problem which you unintentionally exposed is that we are electing people that do not have those basic management/life skills.  People in congress are not splitting atoms.  It is not technically difficult.  

  6. 3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Did you "speak" those two carriage returns also?

    You are always good for a chuckle. I have to admit that I had no idea what a carriage return was until I googled it. 

     But when I speak into my phone it lets me say period and comma but not paragraph.  I wish it would because it is annoying. But as you obviously saw, there wasn’t a paragraph after the sentence that I made the mistake in. Super catch buy you though. 

  7. 3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

    I like your short retorts.  stick to those !

     

    Here's a similar (not identical but related) action/reaction, in response to being notified by the Feds last week.  Military grade Russian propaganda is still piping in on multiple platforms of course, but now it's accountability time for those stateside who won't deign to comply.

     

     

    Is “military grade” propaganda better than civil grade propaganda?  Are there other grades?

     And I do see your point. It is obvious that  Facebook disabling some accounts  means that Fox News stopped tweeting because they’re about to get ensnared by Mueller. 

  8. 2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

    i do find it interesting that we have more discussion on this texas board about this new york freshman senator than we do of the 9 freshmen reps we are sending from our own state.

     Well if any of the freshman from Texas had been on every major news program in the country multiple times and were  labeled the future of the party by the head of the DNC, then I’d bet we would be talking about them. 

    No one is scared of her and she really won’t make any difference at all.  Seems like most people critical of her are just laughing at some of the stupid stuff she says.   

     But I have no problem with her being elected by the people of her district. She took the risk to run and she one. Good for her. 

    • Like 2
  9. 2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

    Let's say your "too big to know all the hell your big company is up to" company gets notified of illegal activity.  It might create a little space for deniability if you immediately shut down said illegal activity when it is brought to your attention by the Feds.  Let's suppose in this case illegal activity is a coordinated multi-platform media messaging propaganda operation with creative design based in hostile places where it is suggested that such activity, if it ever happened, would be military in nature and not prosecutable.  In that case, you might shunt the propaganda funnel into the dirt and show a different face, kind of like Fox News website did over the last few days.

     If the moon was made of cheese, would you eat it? It’s a simple question. 

    • Like 1
  10. 4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that something happened to poor Dr. Ford. The argument is whether the perpetrator was Judge Kavanaugh. Despite the fact that he consistently lied about everything to the committee, and that Dr. Ford insisted on being as truthful in every detail as she could, I have to conclude that it is a Dem conspiracy to smear poor Judge Kavanaugh.

    ok...?    

  11. 16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Can we also get a lifetime ban on lobbying for former reps and senators upon leaving office?

    What will that do?  The same person will just facilitate a meeting and leave the room when they start talking shop.  The do not have to register as a lobbyist and the same thing happens.

    There is nothing wrong with lobbying.  It is greatly needed.  Pols can not possibly have an exhaustive understanding of every issue they face.  Lobbyist are there to argue the merits of what they want.  The actual issue/problem is lobbyists donating/directing money to campaigns.  If the pol is not running for reelection then the lobbyist has little or no power over him except for the merit of his case.  And, more importantly, he can not influence other pols that his legislation does not effect.

  12. 24 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    All things you are a huge fan of, I know.

    You just can not help your demented self can you.  Considering I openly supported and voted for Beto, your comments seem retarded.

    What the court found in CU, was exactly what I have been saying on here.  No matter what tactic/law/regulation we try to put on campaign finance, the money folks will find a way around it.  Dark money has existed in politics forever.  CU tried to bring that money to light.  I may not like dark money in politics but I realize that it will always be there as did Scalia.  Overturning CU (which just is not going to happen) will not actually change anything.  At least with the current law, we can track the money.

  13. 6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Lmao, so the Russian government is hiding behind the justification that their actions were acts of war, but we still have trump claiming that nothing happened?

    Rather incongruous ideas. 

    You kind of have to read what they said.  They did not, in any way, admit to any hacking.  They are trying a legal argument that the court has no jurisdiction because what they are accusing Russia of doing is protected.  It is an interesting legal strategy but they did not admit to anything.

    I do not know anyone that believes that Russia did not meddle in the elections.  The argument is whether they coordinated with Trump et al (I do not think they did) and, to a lesser degree, how much their actions actually influenced anything (i do not think enough to make an appreciable difference).

    • Like 2
  14. Good thread.  Some great ideas.  Too many reactionary ideas to the current situation with potus and too many suggestions that have virtually no chance of ever getting done but good thread.

    The biggest thing we could do that would eliminate almost all of the gripes is to implement 2 things and both have to be implemented for it to work.

    1) Strict term limits on congress.  8 years for Senate, 5 years for House.  No ability to run for reelection at all.  None.  No sitting member of congress would ever run for reelection.

    2) Triple the salary for members of congress.

    Virtually everyone agrees/thinks that money has too much of an influence in politics and I agree.  But the reality is that there is no set of laws that could be enacted that would effectively restrain it.  So rather than try and control something that is uncontrollable, we should limit the effect it actually has.  Every politician will admit that getting reelected is their primary concern and that virtually every single decision they make is affected by how it will impact their reelection chances.  If you eliminate that you eliminate the effect of money in politics dramatically.

    Most everyone will admit that a large % of state politicians are unqualified.  The reason is that no qualified person wants the job.  The pay is terrible, the time requirements are pretty high, the mud slinging is despicable and no single person can really have that much of an affect.  It is similar on a national level.  We need our best and brightest to run for office.  

    On the EC, getting rid of it is not a good solution imo.  making arguments that the popular vote was different is simply a stupid argument.  It is an Aggy argument.  There was not a contest held to see who could get the most votes, it was to get the most electoral votes.  As a result, candidates campaign based on that set of rules.  

    What would make sense, imo, is to do away with winner take all in the EC.  Allocate state EC votes in accordance with the % of people that voted for the candidate.  We would probably have to change some laws on required %'s to win but we could just adopt the person who gets the most is the winner even if it is not a majority.  

     

  15. 3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

    You still pretending the dossier isn't a reliable document?  Maybe you'll give up when the pee tape finally leaks.

    If a pee tape leaks (pun intended) I will buy drinks for every one of you at the bar of your choice for an entire night.

  16. 11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    Lulz.  Considering that the mansion was not actually bought above market considering that a mansion in the same community sold for a HIGHER price per foot than the one Trump owned earlier that year, your take is all fucked up.  Further, the estate has since been subdivided and the owner has sold 2 empty lots for over $70M and he still owns the main house and acreage.  You could actually argue Trump did not get enough for it.

    By the way, all of this is public record.  It is the reason that no reputable journalist mentions it anymore because the whole thing was explained and debunked.

  17. 6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

    ^^^  quid pro quo - lifting Russia sanctions/Rosneft stock sale. 

    Potential third unreported meeting between Sessions and Kisylak: Sessions attended the VIP party at the Mayflower Hotel Trump foreign policy speech where all the main players in the Rosneft stock sale/money shuffle were present in person.  nothing shocking.

    I am very curious where you think these discussions happened?  Was it at the meeting in Sessions senate office with his staff and 2 defense dept members?  Was it at a reception in a room with 100 people?  Was it at a cocktail party?   Those seem like just perfect places to plan wide scale espionage and conspiracy.  

    Rosneft?  You bring this up all of the time and you know it is ridiculous.  The rosneft partial sale was to Glencore and the Qatari govt.  It had been in the works for over a year before Trump even became a nominee.  By the time the supposed payoff to (I am not even sure who you think was paid)... supposedly happened, the deal was deep in the final stages of due diligence.  It is absolutely impossible that the attorneys and bankers for Glencore and the Qatari govt would let a sale that big go through if there was some state espionage connected to it, especially if the connection involved the US.  Glencore and Qatar are in the business of making money.  Yet, you want us to believe that they put billions of dollars on the line in a deal where russia was "bribing" the potus.  And if they got caught, the resulting sanctions against russia and then rosneft would devalue their investment to nearly nothing.  

    I have never heard even one single legitimate source even speculate about the rosneft deal.  It was mentioned in the dossier.

    You are a total and complete loon.

    • Fuck You 1
  18. 19 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    Hey dipsheeeit:

     

    hey drunk.   From the same article:

    Quote

    “Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, in a statement. She reasserted that Sessions did not discuss interference in the election.

    Quote

    Russian and other foreign diplomats in Washington and elsewhere have been known, at times, to report false or misleading information to bolster their standing with their superiors or to confuse U.S. intelligence agencies.

     

  19. Agreed, I am friends with one of the actors and got to go to an advanced screening which was fun but maybe the pre-movie excitement was too much to really get into the film.  Second watching I liked it even more.

    Curiously, Chastain is pretty mesmerizing as an actress and i really like her but I can not decide if I think she is hot or not.  She is certainly attractive but, for me, not that arousing.  

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...