Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

Instead of being flip,  an actual discussion of the issue would be interesting - would National healthcare be worth some inconvenience?   I suspect those who can't afford insurance,  and those who can but are saddled with high deductibles and copay,  might want to weigh the pluses/minuses.   More content,  less redbaiting please.

Sorry you have been left in the dark while most of America has been discussing health care.
 

Was replying to Luee's red-bait post,  not requesting information or patronizing snark from you.   

[josh]

Instead of being flip,  an actual discussion of the issue would be interesting - would National healthcare be worth some inconvenience?   I suspect those who can't afford insurance,  and those who can but are saddled with high deductibles and copay,  might want to weigh the pluses/minuses.   More content,  less redbaiting please.

Sorry you have been left in the dark while most of America has been discussing health care.
 But to bring you up to some speed remember that a poll conducted by The Hill in October of 2018 found support at 70 per cent for some sort of Universal Health Care/Medicare For All/Single Payer.
This month the latest poll by The Hill revealed:

In a Hill-HarrisX survey, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

A small minority of 15 percent of voters said they wanted the government to completely remove itself from paying for health care, while another 14 percent said they want to Leave things as is.


Hope this helps you catch up somewhat.

That sure sounds like Americans want the government involved with their healthcare, Ward. 85% seems like a substantial majority.

69% want the government to run health insurance for everybody, even if not everybody enrolls while 15% want to leave things as they are.

In November, Gallup asked "Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?"

54% said it was. It's been over 50% for 5 years. It's averaged at 55% over the last 20 years. It took a concerted effort to drag it below 50%, Ward.

[LarryBnDC]

Instead of being flip,  an actual discussion of the issue would be interesting - would National healthcare be worth some inconvenience?   I suspect those who can't afford insurance,  and those who can but are saddled with high deductibles and copay,  might want to weigh the pluses/minuses.   More content,  less redbaiting please.

Sorry you have been left in the dark while most of America has been discussing health care.
 But to bring you up to some speed remember that a poll conducted by The Hill in October of 2018 found support at 70 per cent for some sort of Universal Health Care/Medicare For All/Single Payer.
This month the latest poll by The Hill revealed:

In a Hill-HarrisX survey, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

A small minority of 15 percent of voters said they wanted the government to completely remove itself from paying for health care, while another 14 percent said they want to Leave things as is.


Hope this helps you catch up somewhat.

That sure sounds like Americans want the government involved with their healthcare, Ward. 85% seems like a substantial majority.

69% want the government to run health insurance for everybody, even if not everybody enrolls while 15% want to leave things as they are.

In November, Gallup asked "Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?"

54% said it was. It's been over 50% for 5 years. It's averaged at 55% over the last 20 years. It took a concerted effort to drag it below 50%, Ward.

We had a great start toward universal healthcare and both moderate and progressive democrats fucked it up.

[Yankguy1]

So what?  Americans have no inclination to turn their Health Care over to the Government.

The irony of that is too rich for you to begin to understand.

But separate from that, as of this week, ACA has a 55% approval rating and a 37% disapproval.

Where is the irony?

Here’s some:

Much as I'd like that that to have been the case, he never actually tweeted that.

So?

So if he didn't say it, it's not an example of irony (or hypocrisy).

[REDSTATEWARD]

Instead of being flip,  an actual discussion of the issue would be interesting - would National healthcare be worth some inconvenience?   I suspect those who can't afford insurance,  and those who can but are saddled with high deductibles and copay,  might want to weigh the pluses/minuses.   More content,  less redbaiting please.

Sorry you have been left in the dark while most of America has been discussing health care.
 But to bring you up to some speed remember that a poll conducted by The Hill in October of 2018 found support at 70 per cent for some sort of Universal Health Care/Medicare For All/Single Payer.
This month the latest poll by The Hill revealed:

In a Hill-HarrisX survey, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

A small minority of 15 percent of voters said they wanted the government to completely remove itself from paying for health care, while another 14 percent said they want to Leave things as is.


Hope this helps you catch up somewhat.

That sure sounds like Americans want the government involved with their healthcare, Ward. 85% seems like a substantial majority.

69% want the government to run health insurance for everybody, even if not everybody enrolls while 15% want to leave things as they are.

In November, Gallup asked "Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?"

54% said it was. It's been over 50% for 5 years. It's averaged at 55% over the last 20 years. It took a concerted effort to drag it below 50%, Ward.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Instead of being flip,  an actual discussion of the issue would be interesting - would National healthcare be worth some inconvenience?   I suspect those who can't afford insurance,  and those who can but are saddled with high deductibles and copay,  might want to weigh the pluses/minuses.   More content,  less redbaiting please.

Sorry you have been left in the dark while most of America has been discussing health care.
 But to bring you up to some speed remember that a poll conducted by The Hill in October of 2018 found support at 70 per cent for some sort of Universal Health Care/Medicare For All/Single Payer.
This month the latest poll by The Hill revealed:

In a Hill-HarrisX survey, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer."

The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance.

Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

A small minority of 15 percent of voters said they wanted the government to completely remove itself from paying for health care, while another 14 percent said they want to Leave things as is.


Hope this helps you catch up somewhat.

That sure sounds like Americans want the government involved with their healthcare, Ward. 85% seems like a substantial majority.

69% want the government to run health insurance for everybody, even if not everybody enrolls while 15% want to leave things as they are.

In November, Gallup asked "Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?"

54% said it was. It's been over 50% for 5 years. It's averaged at 55% over the last 20 years. It took a concerted effort to drag it below 50%, Ward.

You can interpret the polls any you want.  But Barton argued we need a national discussion.
The debate over private health insurance and “ socialized “ medicine has been going on longer than   Barton has been alive.

[josh]

"I think that's a problem that's going to go away," Trump said during a trip to India, expressing confidence that the epidemic will not seriously harm the global economy.

I'm glad that he is concerned, in private, even if I suspect what he is concerned about is the wrong thing.

But leadership would be nice.

[facilitatorn]

Under all the proposed plans Medicine stays private. The proposals are to further socialize insurance. Everything in Medicine that would be constrained by government is now being constrained by for profit companies that do everything in their power to treat the people they actually cover as livestock to be bled rather than citizens to keep healthy.

I’d rather get my meds from the post office.

[LarryBnDC]

So what?  Americans have no inclination to turn their Health Care over to the Government.

The irony of that is too rich for you to begin to understand.

But separate from that, as of this week, ACA has a 55% approval rating and a 37% disapproval.

Where is the irony?

Here’s some:

Much as I'd like that that to have been the case, he never actually tweeted that.

So?

So if he didn't say it, it's not an example of irony (or hypocrisy).

Are you sure he didn’t tweet it?

Prove it like he proved Obama was not born in the USA.

We’ve posted links and written extended arguments in the forum to what avail? Now we have to source our jokes?

Look around.

While we’re standing ob decorum the other folks don’t give a shit.

[FlyingVProd]

I think that we should have Medi-care for everyone, everyone should be covered with healthcare. To deny people the ability to see a doctor or to get needed medications based on a person's wealth is shameful.

In Orange County we have healthcare for everyone, with programs like Cal Optima.

https://caloptima.org/

To deny poor people the ability to see a doctor is wrong, and in Orange County everyone can see a doctor.

The rest of the USA simply needs to copy what Orange County is doing already.

And a new Wellness Center is about ready to open in Orange, a homeless mentally ill Veteran will be able to just walk in and get help with everything they need all in one spot. Housing, healthcare, counseling, medication, etc, everything they need will be available all in one spot.

https://bewelloc.org/

And at the same time, we need to have a good economy and jobs for people, so I support new fair trade deals and business loans for our people and redevelopment money for poor neighborhoods, etc. I support us being wealthy, and Orange County is very wealthy. We also need high speed trains for our tourists, including a high speed train between Las Vegas and Anaheim.

Orange County is great, and the rest of the world can learn a lot from Orange County.

Salute,

Tony V.

[FlyingVProd]

In Orange County we have healthcare for the homeless people, everyone in Orange County has healthcare.

http://www.ochealthinfo.com/about/medical/msn/

Salute,

Tony V.

[Yankguy1]

So what?  Americans have no inclination to turn their Health Care over to the Government.

The irony of that is too rich for you to begin to understand.

But separate from that, as of this week, ACA has a 55% approval rating and a 37% disapproval.

Where is the irony?

Here’s some:

Much as I'd like that that to have been the case, he never actually tweeted that.

So?

So if he didn't say it, it's not an example of irony (or hypocrisy).

Are you sure he didn’t tweet it?

Prove it like he proved Obama was not born in the USA.

We’ve posted links and written extended arguments in the forum to what avail? Now we have to source our jokes?

Look around.

While we’re standing ob decorum the other folks don’t give a shit.

So was it a "joke" or not?

[bambu.]

Meanwhile...in the land of the kangaroo...

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/arabella-del-busso-allegedly-boasted-to-friend-about-reynolds-lie/news-story/756b877edfb96e69e00348331c21fe1e

The ex-girlfriend of Wests Tigers star Josh Reynolds allegedly told her friend that it’s “not a crime to fake a pregnancy”, after she pretended to have a miscarriage.
A close friend of Josh Reynolds’s ex-lover claims Arabella Del Busso told her “they can’t get me, it’s not a crime to fake a pregnancy” after feigning three miscarriages and cancer while dating the NRL star.

Disgusted friend Belinda Janes broke her silence to tell The Daily Telegraph Del Busso — real name Donna Preuska — told her she was only with the Wests Tigers star for the luxury lifestyle his money afforded them and she said when he bought her a cavoodle named Meatball to ease the “pain” of their second miscarriage, her reaction was “oh f**k, I’m now stuck”.

Ex-model Del Busso, 30, is said to be lying low in Melbourne amid claims she conned Reynolds out of thousands of dollars and tricked him into thinking she miscarried their unborn twins and lost two more pregnancies.

She has accused Reynolds of hitting her.

#####

Accused him of grabbing her arm.
He's been charged with assault.
He wore the white ribbon against domestic violence...and maintains he has never ever hit a woman.
His trial is in 2 months.
He's on trial for his 'life' and career.
Convicted, he's likely off to prison.

Baaah!

Other men have come forward with similar stories. One took her to court in Qld state and got all his money back.

[bambu.]

He made up a special bedroom for the twin boys, everything nice.
His mind is a mess, reportedly...he still cannot enter the "twin boys'" room.

[barton]

You can interpret the polls any you want.  But Barton argued we need a national discussion.

Nope.   I posted to Luee,  that Luee should post actual analysis rather than just flippant nonsense (Bernie equals Castro,  e. g.) so that we (Elba Forum) could have a real discussion.   As I said, red-baiting does not constitute a real analysis or argument.   Plenty of members have posted actual reasoning and evidence for some degree of socialized medicine,  with informative citations,  and then been trolled or just ignored.   Adios,  troll.