« prev   random   next »

2
1

Senate Medical Insurance Reform Bill

By curious2 follow curious2   2017 Jun 22, 1:46pm 14,416 views  55 comments           share      

Comments 1 - 40 of 55   Next »    Last »

1   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jun 22, 2:06pm  

Cliffs notes--

Take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Color me shocked.

2   curious2   2017 Jun 22, 9:04pm  

Scott Adams predicted yesterday the bill would fail due to "the Contrast Problem."

3   bob2356   2017 Jun 22, 9:20pm  

anonymous says

The network has spent at least $5.6 million on ads to boost the American Health Care Act, a bill that would undo much of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, possibly causing as many as 14 million Americans to lose their health insurance coverage next year.

A partial list of where the money is coming from, except many of the donors are just other equally opaque 501's. https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C90011230

4   curious2   2017 Jun 22, 9:32pm  

bob2356 says

donors are just....

one piece of the puzzle, along side special investment opportunities and the revolving door, among other things. Billy Tauzin's golden ticket to PhRMA for himself and his staff, the SEC "enforcement" guy who got a corner office and $4 million/year after saying some institutions and even individual persons are too big to prosecute, etc.

6   Goran_K   2017 Jun 26, 4:21pm  

bob2356 says

The network has spent at least $5.6 million on ads to boost the American Health Care Act, a bill that would undo much of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, possibly causing as many as 14 million Americans to lose their health insurance coverage next year.

Fake fucking news.

There are only 11 million enrolled in ObamaCare. How are 14 million going to be kicked off O-Care?

7   curious2   2017 Jun 26, 4:34pm  

Goran_K says

How are 14 million going to be kicked off O-Care?

The reported CBO estimates (22 million under the Senate bill) combine Medicaid and private insurance, and project forward.

Obamneycare drives a tsunami of advertising and PR fake news. The formerly respectable PBS NewsHour has become incredibly partisan since becoming sponsored by UnitedHealthGroup (which botched the website and then charged extra to make it serviceable, much as hospitals derive eye-popping revenue increases from surgical complications). Today, Judy Woodruff said 22 million would be "hurt" by losing insurance coverage even though many can't use it and studies show Medicaid doesn't even help, AND she said she's "glad we all have coverage". She did not acknowledge how many would be helped by repealing the mandate penalty. Even Brooks & Shields have become an echo chamber on this issue: Brooks called SCOTUS upholding the mandate penalty "responsible" and Shields said he had been literally praying for that result. Even Paul Solomonson pretends to present two sides of the issue while really presenting only one and then finding some stereotypical rednecks to disagree. Last I saw him, he went on and on about adverse selection without ever mentioning propitious selection nor even attempting to calculate the role of subsidies and taxes. It's a farce of misleading and ultimately fake news produced by emphasizing one side and omitting others. The "NewsHour" on PBS has become government BS and overlaps almost entirely with MSM corporate BS news, both intended to mislead and manufacture consent.

8   Goran_K   2017 Jun 27, 9:22am  

curious2 says

The reported CBO estimates (22 million under the Senate bill) combine Medicaid and private insurance, and project forward.

Obamneycare drives a tsunami of advertising and PR fake news. The formerly respectable PBS NewsHour has become incredibly partisan since becoming sponsored by UnitedHealthGroup (which botched the website and then charged extra to make it serviceable, much as hospitals derive eye-popping revenue increases from surgical complications). Today, Judy Woodruff said 22 million would be "hurt" by losing insurance coverage even though many can't use it and studies show Medicaid doesn't even help, AND she said she's "glad we all have coverage". She did not acknowledge how many would be helped by repealing the mandate penalty. Even Brooks & Shields have become an echo chamber on this issue: Brooks called SCOTUS upholding the mandate penalty "responsible" and Shields said he had been literally praying for that result. Even Paul Solomonson pretends to present two ...

Exactly.

CNN which is unraveling as a news org has consistently parroted FAKE numbers like "22 million will lose coverage" or "15 million will lose coverage" when the total Obamney Care registrations have yet to hit 11 million.

ObamaCare is imploding. ObamaCare doesn't work.

It's time to repeal, replace.

9   anonymous   2017 Jun 27, 9:42am  

It's time to repeal, replace.

-----------

Thats What you Republicans have been parroting for years. So what's the big hold up? Why weren't you better prepared?

10   zzyzzx   2017 Jun 27, 9:55am  

I don't care how many get kicked off their new welfare plan. They got a free ride for a few years and should feel lucky to have gotten that.

11   Goran_K   2017 Jun 27, 9:59am  

errc says

Thats What you Republicans have been parroting for years. So what's the big hold up? Why weren't you better prepared?

Not a Republican (have never voted for a GOP presidential candidate).

As for the GOP, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are senators who have already withdrawn support for AHCA, so I suspect the AHCA will be modified to gain the support it needs to pass the senate.

12   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jun 27, 11:43am  

The problem is that the Senate bill has lost support from both moderates and hard core conservatives. Not sure how you fix that.

Unless you give up on conservatives and work on the centrist Dems.

14   curious2   2017 Jun 28, 4:36pm  

Personally, I feel skeptical of the Senate bill. I suspect it would increase the deficit because the tax "cuts" are immediate and retroactive, while most of the spending cuts would only happen years in the future (if ever). Both major parties tend to collude towards larger deficits, with the result that the debt is now expanding exponentially: each of the two most recent presidents, ostensibly of opposite parties, doubled the national debt. In nominal terms, each borrowed more than all of his predecessors combined. No republic can continue on such a path, and yet I suspect the Senate bill would tend towards that effect.

joeyjojojunior says

Cliffs notes--

Take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Color me...

partisan. Democrats had power 2009-11, and enacted the current legislation that takes money from the poor and gives it to rich lobbyists and executives and shareholders at AHA and PhRMA, and overpaid specialists in AMA. So, in your partisan frame, Democrats took money from the working poor to pay the rich. By Cliff's Notes, which is a trademark for a study aid, you seem to mean instead Talking Points Memo, which is designed to mislead you. Each operates as designed, but neither can substitute for the other.

15   bob2356   2017 Jun 28, 7:08pm  

Goran_K says

There are only 11 million enrolled in ObamaCare. How are 14 million going to be kicked off O-Care?

O-care expanded medicaid and made employers add health care in addition to the exchanges. You somehow didn't know that? Try something called google sometime, it's a cool tool. For example you could type in who will lose health insurance and find out the answer so you could avoid looking foolish on the forum.

16   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jun 28, 7:56pm  

curious2 says

partisan. Democrats had power 2009-11, and enacted the current legislation that takes money from the poor and gives it to rich lobbyists and executives and shareholders at AHA and PhRMA, and overpaid specialists in AMA. So, in your partisan frame, Democrats took money from the working poor to pay the rich. By Cliff's Notes, which is a trademark for a study aid, you seem to mean instead Talking Points Memo, which is designed to mislead you. Each operates as designed, but neither can substitute for the other.

No, I mean Cliff's notes as in a quick summary. Whatever the Dems bill did in the past is not relevant to the discussion about THIS bill. The Republican bill, in its current form, is absolutely a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. The only partisan appears to be you. Why else are you bringing up what the Dems did? We're talking about the current bill.

17   curious2   2017 Jun 28, 8:00pm  

joeyjojojunior says

Why are you bringing up what the Dems did? We're talking about the current bill.

The current bill would amend (some say "replace") "what the Dems did." You can't understand one without the other. Of course, if all you want to do is blame "the other" side, then understanding doesn't really matter to you.

joeyjojojunior says

a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

After you finish explaining how the Democrats didn't have power 2009-11, perhaps you might explain these wealthy poor you speak of. You seem to live in an antimatter universe.

joeyjojojunior says

I mean Cliff's notes as in a quick summary.

Then you aren't very good at saying what you mean, nor at summarizing. You can see two quick summaries here and here.

18   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jun 29, 4:58am  

"You can't understand one without the other. Of course, if all you want to do is blame "the other" side, then understanding doesn't really matter to you."

I think you can, but regardless, this thread was about the current bill. Exactly how is it partisan to summarize how this bill affects people?

"perhaps you might explain these wealthy poor you speak of"

I know you think that's funny, but your logic is, again, very subpar. Poor doesn't equal zero wealth.

"Then you aren't very good at saying what you mean, nor at summarizing. You can see two quick summaries here and here."

Au contraire. I said exactly what I mean and did it well. I'm sorry the Cliff's notes reference may have gone over your head--quite possibly you're too young to get it--but it doesn't change the accuracy of my summary. I've noticed that nowhere in any of your posts do you post anything countering that the Senate bill will transfer wealth from lower income to upper incomes.

19   Tenpoundbass   2017 Jun 29, 8:19am  

errc says

Why weren't you better prepared?

You still haven't noticed Trump playing it coy and cool have you?

Paul Ryan grabs the ball takes a piss on it, then rubs in on his ball sack, then laughs on his way over to Trump's office.
Trump was reported saying "Great give it to me, I know exactly where to put it!"
Ryan then realized Trump bought the best paper shredder for just such an occasion then thought about his well prepared Healthcare Overal proposal that sitting in his drawer.
Ryan knew if Trump got his hands on the house bill then Trump is officially invited into the debate. The last thing he wanted was Trump shit canning the decoy bill and replacing it with something so wonderful that by time Trump Tweeted about it. All of America would be United in Storming on Washington with lynch poles and ropes if Congress fucked it up. They damned well KNOW IT.

SO then the Leadership in Congress said nothing before August.

But then a few weeks ago after the ballpark shooting in a fit of Patriotism, Mitch the Bitch McConnel gabbed and boasted how he was going to ram it through by July the 4th. Trump said "Great let's see it!"
SO then Tuesday Mitch said, "Well maybe not by July 4th perhaps never..." because he even knows Trump will fuck his shit up.
So when Mitch pulled out, Trump then Tweets "Yeah just as well, it was shitty plan anyway. "
So Yesterday, Mitch the Retard McConnel said "Well most deinfately by Friday"

I predict by time Trump is done with these Jokers and Clowns, not one son of a bitch up for reelection willl retain their seats.
And if the local parties are smart, they will run someone to oppose the incumbent regardless of affiliation. Because everyone is getting the Down vote in 2018.

20   Goran_K   2017 Jun 29, 8:26am  

bob2356 says

O-care expanded medicaid and made employers add health care in addition to the exchanges. You somehow didn't know that?

I didn't know that because it's not true that, "due to medicaid cuts", 14 million will lose coverage. That is a ridiculous lie.

According to the CBO report (which I read, and you obviously didn't), current Medicaid beneficiaries are GRANDFATHERED IN under the House GOP proposal. You somehow didn't know that? Try something called google sometime, it's a cool tool. For example you could type in "Congressional Budget Office AHCA Full Text" and find out what you just typed above was a blatant lie.

The only way you get to 14 million (or 23 million as the CBO concluded) is by including forward projections of people who aren't even registered with ACA. Duh, people who aren't forced by the individual mandate will not have to get ObamaCare. You and many in the MSM are trying to twist that into "14-23 million people will lose coverage" which is a big misrepresentation of facts.

Seriously, stop getting your news from CNN.

21   curious2   2017 Jun 29, 1:15pm  

joeyjojojunior says

nowhere in any of your posts do you post anything countering that the Senate bill will transfer wealth from lower income to upper incomes.

I expressed skepticism of the bill including specificallty for the reason that I suspect it might increase deficits, which has the effect of penalizing younger people, who tend to have lower incomes. As with the current legislation, the Senate bill seems calculated to manipulate CBO scoring, with potentially unpopular deficit reducing provisions postponed (by which time they might get changed). Current legislation taxes young workers, who tend to have less wealth, in order to enrich billionaire Bill McGuire and others. (Bill got more than $1 billion from UnitedHealthGroup, but had to give back around 10%, because of fraud. That's Obamneycare: if you commit fraud and get caught, but finance the right political patronage networks, you get to keep $1 billion.) Compared to the Democrats' legislation, the Senate bill might actually transfer less wealth from lower income to upper income, by repealing the employer and invidual mandate penalties and cutting back on subsidies to Bill McGuire. You have failed to consider the upward transfer of wealth in the current legislation, thus you misinterpret the effects of the Senate bill.

You seem really not to understand why Democrats lost. Perhaps you can't remember the 2008 elections, or perhaps your partisan Talking Points Memo didn't provide any explanation how Democrats won power in 2008, held it until after enacting Obamneycare in 2010, and have been voted out of power ever since. You have no theory to explain those facts.

22   Goran_K   2017 Jun 29, 1:22pm  

curious2 says

the Senate bill might actually transfer less wealth from lower income to upper income, by repealing the employer and invidual mandate penalties and cutting back on subsidies to Bill McGuire.

I'll go further, I KNOW that by eliminating the employer & individual mandate, and associated subsidies, the transfer of "wealth" from poor to wealthy will significantly go down.

23   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jun 29, 1:24pm  

"You have failed to consider the upward transfer of wealth in the current legislation"

Please don't pretend to know what I do or do not understand. The wealth transfer aspect of this current bill is real and accounts for the benefits to young people. Your statement about what "may" happen is just wrong.

"You seem really not to understand why Democrats lost"

You seem incapable of staying on topic. Addressing the faults of the current legislation has no relation to why Dems lost in 2008 or 2016. But you seem unbelievably conceited to pretend that you have the answers and that it is solely due to health care. I imagine you are a fun guy at a party. The know-it-all who can't stop talking about Obamacare, Muslims, and voting machines.

24   curious2   2017 Jun 29, 1:34pm  

joeyjojojunior says

The wealth transfer aspect of this current bill is real and accounts for the benefits to young people.

So, you're saying the Senate bill benefits young people by transferring less wealth to Bill McGuire. I'm glad you've changed your tune.

joeyjojojunior says

I imagine you are a fun guy at a party.

You can imagine, but you won't be invited. You seem to prefer partisan echo chambers, which sound very dull, like chanting the same nonsense over and over again. I did once get invited to a nam-myoho-renge-kyo session, and it was interesting for one visit, but I don't know how you persist in it every day.

joeyjojojunior says

The know-it-all who can't stop talking about Obamacare, Muslims, and voting machines.

This is a thread about the Senate bill to amend or replace Obamneycare. It's the topic of the thread. If you don't want to read about it, consider another thread. One thread has many pictures of cats, you might like that.

As for Muslims, you remind me of Rashomon. He complained about dress codes in France, but excused Muslim countries' dress codes. As Turtledove pointed out at the time, it was inconsistent: he wasn't really objecting to dress codes, only to codes imposed by non-Muslims. You don't object to legislation that transfers wealth upward, as long as it was enacted by Democrats. That's partisanship, not consistency.

As for NPVIC, perhaps that's Democrats' answer to getting voted out of power: eliminate those pesky voters and replace them with machines controlled by the Party. Alas for Democrats, the machines tend to be controlled by Republicans. Instead of trying to throw snark at me, you might rather spend your time persuading Democrats to adopt policies that can win at the ballot box. You'll have a hard time competing with billionaire Bill McGuire though, and others enriched by Obamneycare, who control the party.

25   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   2017 Jun 29, 1:57pm  

I almost want this thing to pass just to watch what happens. OTOH, I would guess that they will fail to pass it, and continue to use the bully pulpit to remove security from the markets and tank O-care. Then the two sides can campaign on blaming the other side. Who knows what will come out of the ashes.

26   curious2   2017 Jun 29, 2:43pm  

YesYNot says

I almost want this thing to pass just to watch what happens.

Ideally, I'd prefer to see it not pass, and then see Democrats regain the Senate next year, and get over their TDS, and work out a bipartisan deal that provides a basic floor for everyone. I doubt that would happen though, maybe a 2% chance.

Single payer would work best for true emergencies, on a fee-for-results rather than fee-for-"service" basis, and ideally include vaccines which are mostly a public good anyway. Market systems don't work where there isn't an opportunity to shop around and compare prices, nor for public goods where most of the benefit accrues to other people who are not involved in the purchase decision. Alas, both major parties are trying to maximize power including revenue for their patronage networks, so we're more likely to see revenue maximization models to monetize (rather than cure) chronic conditions. Instead of covering true emergencies, which can happen to anyone, we're more likely to see the opposite: infinite subsidies for entrenched industry, while leaving everyone exposed to highway robbery if they get hit by a car while crossing the street.

27   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jun 30, 5:34pm  

curious2 says

So, you're saying the Senate bill benefits young people by transferring less wealth to Bill McGuire. I'm glad you've changed your tune.

You have a very poor reading comprehension. What I actually said was that the effect of the bill on young people is included in my analysis that it will be a large transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

curious2 says

You seem to prefer partisan echo chambers, which sound very dull, like chanting the same nonsense over and over again. I did once get invited to a nam-myoho-renge-kyo session, and it was interesting for one visit, but I don't know how you persist in it every day.

Actually, I enjoy discussing and debating important topics with intelligent people. And there are several on pat.net. The one chanting the same nonsense over and over again is you. There could be a thread discussing 401K and you'll somehow find some way to turn it about Muslims.

curious2 says

This is a thread about the Senate bill to amend or replace Obamneycare. It's the topic of the thread. If you don't want to read about it, consider another thread. One thread has many pictures of cats, you might like that.

lol--I'm the one who would like to talk about the Senate bill which is actually the topic of the thread. You are the one who keeps trying to divert it to talk about Obamneycare.

curious2 says

As for Muslims, you remind me of Rashomon. He complained about dress codes in France, but excused Muslim countries' dress codes. As Turtledove pointed out at the time, it was inconsistent: he wasn't really objecting to dress codes, only to codes imposed by non-Muslims. You don't object to legislation that transfers wealth upward, as long as it was enacted by Democrats. That's partisanship, not consistency.

No, despite your best attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a hypocrite, you are incorrect. I have always been in favor of a single payer system. And I fail to see any evidence that the ACA resulted in wealth transfer from poor to rich. In fact, it does the opposite.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/04/why-the-super-rich-hate-obamacare-and-will-never-let-the-debate-die.html

curious2 says

Instead of trying to throw snark at me, you might rather spend your time persuading Democrats to adopt policies that can win at the ballot box

How about I do both? I'm good at multi-tasking. (btw--Dems won at the ballot box in 2016. 66MM votes to 63MM votes)

28   curious2   2017 Jun 30, 6:00pm  

joeyjojojunior says

Dems won at the ballot box in 2016.

Noted for posterity, along with your claim that "Democrats didn't really have power for two years...." You have yet to explain how Democrats didn't have power 2009-11, but Republicans do have power now. Also, please tell the uniformed people outside the big building with a dome on top that Democrats won and Republicans aren't really in charge. Seriously, insist there, as you do here. They'll give you the help you so obviously need.

joeyjojojunior says

There could be a thread discussing 401K and you'll somehow find some way to turn it about Muslims.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Muslims in this thread, and now you are simply lying.

You cited a blog that talks mainly about tax rates not insurance. To the extent it talks about insurance, it relies on a push poll from the Kaiser HMO empire, which has been pushing Obamneycare since before the legislation even got signed, and which colluded in an illegal campaign including violence against California Nurses. Obamneycare taxes labor and enriches the executives and shareholders and lobbyists of the lemon socialist businesses that wrote it. The Senate bill would reduce that corporate welfare. But go ahead, in your hallucination you won, Democrats never had power, and Republicans don't now. Bill McGuire and Mitch McConnell should have their assistants write you a thank you note, to congratulate you for all the winning.

29   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jul 2, 9:19am  

curious2 says

Noted for posterity

So you disagree that Dems won more votes than Republicans in 2016?

curious2 says

You cited a blog that talks mainly about tax rates not insurance

OK, feel free to cite anything that backs up your theory that ACA worsened inequality. Your nothing doesn't beat my something.

30   curious2   2017 Jul 2, 9:38am  

joeyjojojunior says

Dems won more votes than Republicans in 2016?

Democrats were "winning" like Charlie Sheen. They did well in major MSM markets, due to overwhelming MSM support, partly related to outspending Republicans 2:1. The Presidential nominee's entire popular vote margin was less than her margin in California alone. She got a similar share in NY, and more than 90% in DC. Outside CA, she lost the popular vote and the electoral college. Outside the major MSM markets, it was a landslide loss. And if you ever watch the evening "news", pay attention to who pays that piper: last I saw, an outright majority of ads were for drugs, and half of those were for drugs you aren't even allowed to buy without an Rx. IOW, the MSM worldview results primarily from the Gospel according to PhRMA. PhRMA endorsed Obamneycare, in exchange for hundreds of billions of extra $$$ in government subsidies, and the legislation has reinforced PhRMA power tremendously, especially among Democrats. You have no explanation for why Democrats won in 2008 but lost everything since enacting Obamneycare in 2010, because you don't really consider why Democrats lost.

joeyjojojunior says

ACA worsened inequality.

Since Obamneycare hit with full force, life expectancy has fallen. Meanwhile, "Disparity in Life Spans of the Rich and the Poor Is Growing." But, since you prefer your partisan narrative, please tell Billy Tauzin that his $12M/yr PhRMA reward for Obamneycare was merely equal to the average worker: he loves a funny joke, and he'll laugh all the way to the bank with what used to be your money. Also, kindly tell minimum wage workers that they're not required to pay billionaire Bill McGuire every month. Better yet, if you want to signal virtue instead of merely partisan loyalty, put your money where your mouth is: offer personally to reimburse them! If you spent as much time trying to persuade Democrats to enact policies that can win, as you spend defending policies that lose, they might have a better chance.

31   anonymous   2017 Jul 3, 5:55pm  

And I fail to see any evidence that the ACA resulted in wealth transfer from poor to rich. In fact, it does the opposite.

---------------

Are you being serious? People were allowed to Just Say No prior to HeritageFoundationCare. If you were smart enough to see what a disgusting racket private Health Insurance is, you could simply choose not to participate. HeritageFoundationCare made it so that you had to pay a hefty tax if you were smart enough to not buy health insurance. That made the poor that much poorer, while the rich just kept getting richer

32   FortWayne   2017 Jul 3, 7:46pm  

ACA is taxing middle class, not the rich. You people still don't get it

Must repeal

33   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jul 4, 7:05am  

errc says

Are you being serious? People were allowed to Just Say No prior to HeritageFoundationCare. If you were smart enough to see what a disgusting racket private Health Insurance is, you could simply choose not to participate. HeritageFoundationCare made it so that you had to pay a hefty tax if you were smart enough to not buy health insurance. That made the poor that much poorer, while the rich just kept getting richer

For certain, there were winners and losers from the bill. Young, healthy folks who didn't get health insurance from their employers were losers. As were the very rich who were forced to pay higher taxes. Again--I've yet to see anything that shows inequality growing. And the strongest evidence that ACA hurt the wealthy can be seen from the fact that the Koch Bros. and other 1%ers are all strongly in favor of repeal. They wouldn't be trying to repeal it if it wasn't hurting their bottom line.

34   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jul 4, 7:13am  

curious2 says

They did well in major MSM markets, due to overwhelming MSM support, partly related to outspending Republicans 2:1. The Presidential nominee's entire popular vote margin was less than her margin in California alone. She got a similar share in NY, and more than 90% in DC. Outside CA, she lost the popular vote and the electoral college. Outside the major MSM markets, it was a landslide loss. And if you ever watch the evening "news", pay attention to who pays that piper: last I saw, an outright majority of ads were for drugs, and half of those were for drugs you aren't even allowed to buy without an Rx. IOW, the MSM worldview results primarily from the Gospel according to PhRMA. PhRMA endorsed Obamneycare, in exchange for hundreds of billions of extra $$$ in government subsidies, and the legislation has reinforced PhRMA power tremendously, especially among Democrats. You have no explanation for why Democrats won in 2008 but lost everything since enacting Obamneycare in 2010, because you d...

lol--yes, Dems did better where people actually live. And Dems performed much better as education levels of voters increased. Do you believe that smarter and more educated people are more susceptible to propaganda?

There are lots of explanations for the results of the last few elections-I'd be happy to discuss each election cycle.

curious2 says

Also, kindly tell minimum wage workers that they're not required to pay billionaire Bill McGuire every month

Typical. Posting an article that has nothing to do with your statement and pretend it supports your theory.

35   curious2   2017 Jul 4, 11:20am  

joeyjojojunior says

I've yet to see anything that shows inequality growing.

None so blind as those who will not see.

joeyjojojunior says

more educated people are more susceptible to propaganda?

Evidently, yes: on the left, the most vulnerable to "fake news" echo chambers are college graduates. As Noam Chomsky observed, the most educated are the most indoctrinated. It takes a while to recover from SFSU, for example, where wearing dreadlocks is "cultural appropriation." I've met Berkeley grads who are similarly afflicted, and look at what happened at Evergreen. You write like an educated partisan, illustrating Chomsky's point.

Among all voters over 40yo, Democrats lost the popular vote, despite outspending Republicans 2:1. So, unless you imagine that people become stupid by 40, you might want to retract your assertion about "smarter" voters. Basically, voters who could remember Democrats' prior campaigns had seen this movie before.

joeyjojojunior says

I'd be happy to discuss each election cycle.

By all means, please post your theory as to why Democrats won both Houses of Congress and the White House in 2008, but lost everything after enacting Obamneycare. Try to include some reference to the President spinning 180 degrees and endorsing what he had previously denounced, when it was called "Hillary's Plan." Also address PolitiFact's 2013 "lie of the year," and why Democrats lost. Again, you have yet to explain your claim that Democrats didn't have power 2009-11, when Republicans do have power now. Evidently, in your mind, the extent of your "theory" is that everything is always the fault of "the other" side, which indicates the symmetry among partisans of "both" major factions.

36   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jul 4, 11:37am  

curious2 says

You write like an educated partisan, illustrating Chomsky's point.

Example please? Is it partisan to rightly remind you that more people voted for Dems than Reps in the last election? Or to point out that the super rich hate ACA and are the ones behind the repeal propaganda? According to you, they are trying to reduce their incomes then?

curious2 says

Among all voters over 40yo, Democrats lost the popular vote

bwahahaha. So, according to you, age is a better indication of "smart" than education level? Really? Ask scammers who they would rather target, a 70 yr. old woman or a 35 yr. old man. Then get back to me about who is more susceptible to propaganda.

curious2 says

By all means, please post your theory as to why Democrats won both Houses of Congress and the White House in 2008, but lost everything after enacting Obamneycare. Try to include some reference to the President spinning 180 degrees and endorsing what he had previously denounced, when it was called "Hillary's Plan." Also address "the lie of the year", and why Democrats lost.

Sure--ACA certainly had a lot to do with it. It gave the Reps a huge propaganda tool which the Koch Bros. used to their extreme advantage. It energized the Republican base and got them to the polls in 2010 while Dems stayed home. Then you can add in the gerrymandering of House seats, voter suppression laws in many states, et. al.

37   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jul 4, 11:38am  

curious2 says

None so blind as those who will not see.

If you post a relevant link attributing higher inequality to ACA, I'm all eyes and ears.

38   curious2   2017 Jul 4, 11:44am  

joeyjojojunior says

Example please?

See basically all of your comments. At the national level, you seem unable to fault Democrats for anything, and you fail even to acknowledge they had power 2009-11. Either you are paid by a DNC "consulting" firm, or blinded by partisanship. Of course, if you want to deny being educated, go ahead.

As for Obamneycare, notice how polls changed in 2009, when the President abandoned what he had campaigned on and "changed his mind" to endorse what he had campaigned against, when it was called "Hillary's Plan." Polls swung from support to opposition, and his net approval rating fell from +40 to zero. Obamneycare polled around -10 from 2009-2017, when House Republicans managed to propose something even worse. This thread is actually about the Senate bill, but you haven't really provided any insight about that either: for example, which companies would profit less, and which more.

As for age, check the linked exit survey of voters 40-64.

joeyjojojunior says

If you post a relevant link attributing higher inequality to [Obamneycare], I'm all eyes and ears.

I've posted several. You have yet to post anything saying HeritageFoundationCare reduced inequality, which has increased including both income and lifespans. You illustrate how Democrats have managed to lose repeatedly while raising more money than ever before.

In case you don't read the links to polls 2009-17, here is a picture for you, showing polls 2009-11. This chart is actually from HuffPo, which overrepresents push polls from PPP (aka Partisan Push Polling) and the Kaiser HMO empire (which oversampled Democrats to overstate support for the legislation):

39   joeyjojojunior   2017 Jul 4, 1:07pm  

curious2 says

At the national level, you seem unable to fault Democrats for anything

You seem to have a severe case of confirmation bias. I've faulted Dems for many things in my posts.

curious2 says

This thread is actually about the Senate bill, but you haven't really provided any insight about that either: for example, which companies would profit less, and which more.

I did provide insight actually, posting which classes would pay more and which classes would pay less. You seem to have ignored that.

curious2 says

I've posted several

You've posted several links. Unfortunately, none are relevant to the discussion. As is your usual modus operandi.

curious2 says

You have yet to post anything saying HeritageFoundationCare reduced inequality, which has increased including both income and lifespans

I did, but I guess you ignored it.

curious2 says

In case you don't read the links to polls 2009-17, here is a picture for you, showing polls 2009-11. This chart is actually from HuffPo, which overrepresents push polls from PPP (aka Partisan Push Polling) and the Kaiser HMO empire (which oversampled Democrats to overstate support for the legislation):

The power of propaganda.

40   curious2   2017 Jul 4, 1:12pm  

joeyjojojunior says

I've faulted Dems for many things in my posts.

I did see one comment where you blamed Illinois D&R for IL's current troubles. Can you cite examples of blaming Democrats for anything at the national level? Last I saw, you couldn't even acknowledge they had power 2009-11.

joeyjojojunior says

which classes

Your focus on "classes" appears to have caused you to miss the issue: companies.

joeyjojojunior says

propaganda

was invented long before 2009, and since then it's been mainly in the direction of advertising Obamneycare.

joeyjojojunior says

I did, but I guess you ignored it.

That's dishonest. I addressed your lone link above. The topic is the medical insurance bill, but you insist on veering off to other provisions.

Since you've now fallen from mere partisanship to outright lying, I am going to stop wasting time on you.

Comments 1 - 40 of 55   Next »    Last »

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   one year ago   suggestions