« prev   random   next »

4
2

DeNiro leads crowd in singing God Bless America at Tony awards

By MisterLefty following x   2018 Jun 11, 3:16am 1,017 views   146 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Robert DeNiro yells 'f*** Trump' TWICE during a foul-mouthed tirade on stage at the Tony Awards and gets a standing ovation

Television audiences get bleeped version and wonder what they missed

DeNiro walked out and said 'I’m just going to say one thing, and that's f*** Trump'

The audience leapt to it's feet, and cheered the statement while the actor, 74, pumped his fists

THEN he said 'its no longer 'down with Trump', its 'f*** Trump' and the audience cheered again

Robert DeNiro yelled 'f*** Trump' during a foul-mouthed rant at the Tony Awards and got a standing ovation.

The audience went wild, some rising to their feet. DeNiro pumped his fists triumphantly.

The outburst was bleeped, so Broadway fans watching at home didn't hear the expletive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5828513/Robert-DeNiro-yells-F-Trump-stage-Tonys-TWICE-gets-standing-ovation.html

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 146     Next »     Last »

41   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 11, 1:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
xample answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.


But it wouldn't be a tax increase. We'd be cutting costs.

All independent studies show the same thing. US healthcare system produces worse outcomes for double the cost of most other countries. That is a fact.

It's amazing that these counties achieve better outcomes with all this supposed "rationing". How do you think that is possible?
42   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 11, 1:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Now who's being argumentative for the sake of the argument, harming the spirit of productive discussion?


I'm asking you who pays, and if it's different depending on who you are (e.g - $100,000 earners vs $30,000 earners). mell got what I was getting at immediately, for some reason you seemed to avoid the point entirely.

Wonder why.
43   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 11, 2:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
mell says
xample answers would be raising taxes, what kind and on whom. The assertion that other countries do it successfully is false they have similar problems and often worse care. State of The art care is often not reimbursed like in the US. Care for elderly is rationed etc.


But it wouldn't be a tax increase. We'd be cutting costs.

All independent studies show the same thing. US healthcare system produces worse outcomes for double the cost of most other countries. That is a fact.

It's amazing that these counties achieve better outcomes with all this supposed "rationing". How do you think that is possible?


That's not what the studies show, in fact it is commonly understood that the US has pretty much for any condition a monopoly on the best therapies out there. That is a fact. What you're referring to is relative outcome and this is influence by many factors. The reason the US system is expensive is mainly because it is the number one country for unnecessary surgeries (of course countries that ration their healthcare do less of those and in the best case may save on many while disadvantaging few), unnecessary medications and generally unhealthy lifestyles. These things have to be addressed but you don't want to end up in Canada, UK or any other country with inferior healthcare with a legitimate condition that would be easily addressed in the US and reimbursed by insurance. Also, there are some benefits in giving access to basic healthcare to everybody in preventing the worst outcomes for easily treatable conditions that a patient without healthcare in the US may not seek because they cannot afford it. Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions). None of that makes their systems better for the individual and most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?
44   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 11, 3:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
None of that makes their systems better for the individual and most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?



Bingo.
45   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 11, 3:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
mainly because it is the number one country for unnecessary surgeries
And the US spends tremendous amounts on end of life care and procedures that are not going to prolong life to any significant degree, but are required under guidelines of senior living centers. My neighbor was placed in one of the most expensive assisted living centers in town because her late second husband, who was 22 years her senior was well off and died 21 years before she did after a brief illness and had provided handsomely for her, after she was well past the ability to care for herself. After six months, she was under 100% care and had to be restrained at all times. Yet she lived another two years like that and when she'd have a medical emergency, she was rushed to ICU where the meter started running--she finally passed away after three such occasions. In a more sensible climate, she would probably have been allowed to die a normal death of whatever the emergency consisted.
46   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 11, 3:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
who is going to pay for this?


The same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !

7 at last count !

No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.

Bingo !
47   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 11, 4:42pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Feux Follets says
The same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !

7 at last count !

No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.

Bingo !


You mean the Democrats who started proxy wars in Syria, and Libya?
48   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 2:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Better outcomes for 1/2 the cost.


So you want the opposite of Obamacare just like trump. Glad we agree
49   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 2:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Feux Follets says
The same people who gleefully keep us in one war after another !

7 at last count !

No money for health care but we have money to kill and maim people. No money to take care of our wounded "heroes" either when they return from nation building misadventures.

Bingo !


You mean the Democrats who started proxy wars in Syria, and Libya?


Can only assume he means the D and R establishment who are equally guilty for wars and terrible healthcare.

It's interesting how we can all identify the same problem, yet some refuse to blame those responsible.

R's and D's are the same team.
50   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 2:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
You mean the Democrats who started proxy wars in Syria, and Libya?


I am talking about the taxpayers who despite all of their whining keep putting people back in office who gleefully embrace people who are not our allies, start wars they can not win or finish (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) yet scream bloody murder over healthcare funding.

Proxy wars are our specialty along with the other major players.

Dems, Repubs, - it's all the same. Bannon, Potus etc. - the plan for ending this bullshit ?
51   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 4:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?


A smallness of mind has a chokehold on American political power and awareness. Maybe what I mean is that it has control over the money.

“The money just isn’t there” — to provide universal healthcare, to create environmental sustainability . . . to ensure that everyone has clean drinking water. I could name dozens more “nice ideas” that are financial impossibilities, relegated to the trash bin of wishful thinking. We all could.

But “the money,” whatever that actually is, remains quietly, unquestionably present to maintain a suicidal status quo of expanding war, prisons, border “protection” and, of course, environmental exploitation.

Is it simply human stupidity that’s at the center of such irony?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49608.htm
52   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 4:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Is it simply human stupidity


53   Feux Follets   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 4:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

@MisterLefty - thanks for that incredible picto-graph of the average Trump supporter !
54   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 6:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
hat's not what the studies show, in fact it is commonly understood that the US has pretty much for any condition a monopoly on the best therapies out there. That is a fact


Whether or not that statement is true, it is clearly an opinion and not a fact.


mell says
hese things have to be addressed but you don't want to end up in Canada, UK or any other country with inferior healthcare with a legitimate condition that would be easily addressed in the US and reimbursed by insurance


Why not? The outcomes of such conditions is BETTER. If the goal is to keep living, studies show you'd be better off in either of those countries.

mell says
Also, there are some benefits in giving access to basic healthcare to everybody in preventing the worst outcomes for easily treatable conditions that a patient without healthcare in the US may not seek because they cannot afford it. Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions). None of that makes their systems better for the individual


If you're the individual that couldn't afford it, it sure makes the system a hell of a lot better for you. Don't you think?


mell says
most experience similar inflation and of course the questions remains: if you give the same excellent healthcare (better than most if not all other countries) that the US currently provides for those employed: who is going to pay for this?


It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?
55   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 7:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?
I believe objections are related to the belief that taxes will go up, and be disproportionately paid according to earnings. An examination of taxes related to socialized medicine in other countries might help the discussion along. However, it is true that the cost of drugs in such countries is are cheaper than in the USA. Hence importation from Canada.
56   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 8:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
I believe objections are related to the belief that taxes will go up, and be disproportionately paid according to earnings. An examination of taxes related to socialized medicine in other countries might help the discussion along. However, it is true that the cost of drugs in such countries is are cheaper than in the USA. Hence importation from Canada.


Does it really matter if you pay less total? Who cares if you pay it in taxes vs. deductions out of your paycheck? If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.
57   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?


How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".
58   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 9:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Why not? The outcomes of such conditions is BETTER. If the goal is to keep living, studies show you'd be better off in either of those countries.


Source, or you made this up.
59   Hassan_Rouhani   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 9:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
LeonDurham says
It's 50% cheaper!! We're already paying for it twice over. Why do people think we can't afford it?


How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".


I guess it's cheaper for those who expect to pay less into the system than they expect to extract from it.
60   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 9:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Easy wins in terms of statistics (child mortality or other acute conditions).


Child mortality is largely about lifestyle (drugs, violence, basic health decisions while pregnant) of the mother. Our child mortality in the US is overwhelmingly amongst populations of people w FREE healthcare.

Our less than 1st world child mortality rate is a function of less than 1st world decisions by low functioning segments of our population. It is NOT an indictment of the medical system.
61   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 9:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.


Then a largely free market system should be the goal.

I think we should socialize 1 yearly wellness visit (would cost maybe $100/person), and publicly supplement terminal/critical condition insurance for the poor. Everything else should be a free market.

We'd see prices drop to 1/10th of what they are today
62   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Does it really matter if you pay less total? Who cares if you pay it in taxes vs. deductions out of your paycheck? If the total amount paid is less, then it's a positive.
I think the debate is whether folks would be paying more overall. Let's say you are reasonably healthy, exercise, don't smoke, and eat well. And your employer covers a good chunk of your medical insurance, for example.
63   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Hassan_Rouhani says
I guess it's cheaper for those who expect to pay less into the system than they expect to extract from it.


Exactly, that's why I asked "cheaper for who", and I've only gotten crickets.
64   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 10:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".


Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!

This isn't hard. Come on.
65   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!

This isn't hard. Come on.


Yes, but if tax burden is increased, how can you prove that that burden is LESS for me than what I'd pay an insurance company? Can you prove it?
66   Hassan_Rouhani   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 10:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Goran_K says
How is it 50% "cheaper"? How can it be cheaper if like mell pointed out, the tax burden is increased? Nothing in the world comes for free, even making something "cheaper".


Because you'd be paying ZERO to your employer and your employer would be paying ZERO towards your healthcare. So, you'll get a raise too!

This isn't hard. Come on.


California's estimate for "universal healthcare" came at 15% of additional tax on top of existing SIT being necessary to pay for it. This is waaaaaaay more than I pay for my employer-provided health plan, co-pays, deductibles and all that jazz.
67   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 10:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Hassan_Rouhani says
California's estimate for "universal healthcare" came at 15% of additional tax on top of existing SIT being necessary to pay for it. This is waaaaaaay more than I pay for my employer-provided health plan, co-pays, deductibles and all that jazz.


Exactly, and California had universal healthcare as a bill, but it got shuttered in committee because of "costs".

Now why would the supposed 5th largest economy in the world shutter UHC if it's "cheaper"?
68   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 10:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Source, or you made this up.


Is this a joke? Just google health outcome by country.

Here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror
69   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 10:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Exactly, that's why I asked "cheaper for who", and I've only gotten crickets.


No, it's cheaper for EVERYONE because it's MUCH, MUCH more efficient.

The cost of all health care is reduced.

How is this not understood?
70   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
I think the debate is whether folks would be paying more overall. Let's say you are reasonably healthy, exercise, don't smoke, and eat well. And your employer covers a good chunk of your medical insurance, for example.


Study after study after study all agree that the US spends 1.5-2X what every other country does. So, it's pretty clear that costs can come down. How much do you pay for health coverage every year? No matter if you're healthy or not.

And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.
71   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 10:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Yes, but if tax burden is increased, how can you prove that that burden is LESS for me than what I'd pay an insurance company? Can you prove it?


Yes, of course. Study after study confirm it.
72   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 11:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.


In all socialized systems, the government takes your money for healthcare? Yes?

Also, with my current insurance plan, I can see a specialist the same day.

Can you do that in Canada or the UK?
73   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 11:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        



Hmm, it's cheaper, but it seems like it's suckier too....
74   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        



Gee, that sucks. Cheaper seems worse in terms of wait times.
76   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 11:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

OK--so let's not use Canada's model (although I don't trust those numbers). There are literally dozens of other systems to emulate instead.

But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.
77   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 11:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.


Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?
78   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 12, 11:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Not a good idea to try and troll a mod Tatupu. Keep it on topic and not personal, or you're going to enjoy this pleasant debate a lot less. :)
79   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 12, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?


Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that there are wait times no matter what system is in use and one way around it is to allow people the choice of shortening the wait time by paying extra.
80   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 12, 11:17am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
CBOEtrader says
Source, or you made this up.


Is this a joke? Just google health outcome by country.

Here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror


Your comment was about longevity. Arbitrary rankings aren't even data, much less facts. It's basically some pundits top 10 list.

Try using facts to make your case.

The fact is longevity and IMR are both functions of lifestyle choices. Drugs, terrible eating habits, and skipping free pre-natal doctors appointments result in a much higher IMR in our black communities, for example.

Ask yourself why New Hampshire has an equivalent IMR to europe whereas in Alabama the IMR is more than double Europe's.

Ask yourself why the white IMR in US is marginally higher than EU, where black IMR is 2.2 times the white IMR. Keep in mind ALL the poorest mothers have medicaid.

Access to prenatal care isn't a problem for the despondent in the US (though it may be a problem for the working middle class).

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 80 of 146     Next »     Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions