2020 Presidential election

[Joe Bagadonuts]

If you read my original comment, it expressed regret at the low esteem in which our independent press is now held, since I believe a press that is free to adopt an adversarial position toward our political leadership is what has always made our free press the "watchdog" of democracy. And, in that video that you are referring to, the figure representing Trump is acting violent toward several members of the media, among other segments of society. My focus was on him shown doing violence to members of our free press, be in print, or broadcast journalism.

I don't believe Trump created the video, which I believe is what you were asking me. If, however, I consider that the president, on many, many occasions has referred to the free press I am myself referring to above, as "the enemy of the people", then, yes, certainly he has contributed, among his followers, his supporters, and his cult, to the anger and hatred of the press that most certainly comes through in that video. Just as he bears some responsibility for the words he has used to demonize many immigrants.

The president's words count. I take him seriously. When he tells American citizens who are not white to "go back to the country they came from", and when he labels our free press "the enemy of the people", then, yes, he bears some responsibility for the attitude his followers embrace on those two subjects.

He did not produce the video in question. Would it have been produced absent the attitudes expressed by Trump over the past 3 years? No, likely not. I don't see how it would have been produced without the maker taking his/her cue from the attitude and words of the president himself. Even were Trump to condemn the video( and did he, I forget?), he would still be responsible for his contribution to the demonization of the watchdog of our democracy, a free press, a press free to disagree and criticize the president without being labeled "the enemy of the people".

Anyway, that's where I was coming from, regardless of your opinion of me.

My opinion of you has always been very positive, FWIW, even though politically we disagree on most things. I wish there were more people like you on this site, regardless of ideology. You always seem to be willing to engage in an honest and respectful conversation.

With regard to your post above, I understand what you are saying to some extent. But it is my opinion that what you refer to as a free press has, for years, primarily been an extremely partisan press. For a very long time conservatives have behaved with caution in regard to interactions with the press, and to a large extent their goals and messages have been tempered by the presses reactions and power. The opposite has been the case with liberals. They can rely on the press to cheerlead and advance their agenda at nearly every turn. When liberal politicians face significant media criticism it is almost always for being too conservative. I rarely hear mainstream criticism of what, at least to me, are numerous disastrous left-wing programs.

Trump has taken a completely new attitude. He is a bull in a china shop and does not care if he runs amok with the press. In fact, he seems to relish the fight. For those on your side of the political divide I can see how his behavior would be upsetting. Previously the left has been able to control so much just by throwing a few insults around. For someone on my side a certain part of his approach is refreshing... though for me he goes too far and he is way too out of control on Twitter.

What I really long for is a more centrist press and more centrist politicians. I honestly doubt that I'm ever going to see either.

 

[Zombie]

I did.

Sorry, I missed your first response, I edited my last post to reflect this.

 

[JazzyFresh]

How about you answer my question first?

Oops, I missed your first post. So there's actually no correlation between how a healthcare system is paid for and what wait times are like. We have wait times worse than Canada in some parts of the country, while in the UK its actually easier to get in to see a doctor same day.

What you are doing is only describing one side of the equation. Right now a lot of uninsured people go to the ER for care, some because they know they can't afford to see a doctor and won't be turned away (you and I are currently picking up the tab for their bill), others because they are waiting until their condition is progressing to the point that could have been avoided if they had insurance or could otherwise afford to see a doctor.

So yeah, the bottom line here is that citizens of countries with universal Healthcare live longer healthier lives than we do, pay less for their care, and are happier with it.

You actually didn't answer MY question, will wait times go up or down adding 44+ million people? You even agree with me that wait times are bad enough but when adding 44+ million people how does it possibly go down? There will be more claims than before.

 

[One Brow]

Just providing evidence from multiple countries that you have no clue.

What was the part I didn't have a clue about?

And ps older people under Medicare see private doctors. Still waiting for you numbers on how we pay 52 trillion. You have no clue I take it.

We will be spending the $52 trillion from the pockets of consumers and taxpayers, with or without Warren's plan. It comes from the same place, with or without universal health care (although, it will be a little more without).

PS. Under Medicare for All, people would still see private doctors.

Yet waiting times vary dramatically across Sweden's 21 counties ...

Why do you think this collection of cherry-picked facts is meaningful to the US market? Does Sweden have better, or worse care overall compared to the US? Do they spend more, or less, overall?

 

[Zombie]

You actually didn't answer MY question, will wait times go up or down adding 44+ million people? You even agree with me that wait times are bad enough but when adding 44+ million people how does it possibly go down? There will be more claims than before.

I said I'm not sure, there are other factors that will reduce patients going to the ER as well, as I explained.

In any case, if more poeple see a doctor after passing M4A that means that their health needs are currently being underserved. So if the downside of M4A is that people who currently aren't getting healthcare will, that's a problem I'm willing to live with.

 

[One Brow]

Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care

Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

No one is discussion importing the British model. Why do you repeat lies so freely and so often?

 

[JazzyFresh]

No one is discussion importing the British model. Why do you repeat lies so freely and so often?

Piss off

 

[One Brow]

But it is my opinion that what you refer to as a free press has, for years, primarily been an extremely partisan press. For a very long time conservatives have behaved with caution in regard to interactions with the press, and to a large extent their goals and messages have been tempered by the presses reactions and power. The opposite has been the case with liberals. They can rely on the press to cheerlead and advance their agenda at nearly every turn. When liberal politicians face significant media criticism it is almost always for being too conservative. I rarely hear mainstream criticism of what, at least to me, are numerous disastrous left-wing programs.

As a long-time liberal, my opinions of the mainstream press have long been that they are far too accommodating of clearly false conservative talking points and too willing to advance the conservative narrative without in an attempt to seem unbiased, especially with regard to the intersections of politics and science or human rights. The press were cheerleaders for Bush's invasions, for the equating of capitalism and freedom, and many other ills.

By contrast, my impression of the conservative complaints regarding the press is that when conservatives are not allowed to dominate the conversation, they feel oppressed.

 

[One Brow]

Piss off

Does that mean you'll stop repeating lies?

 

[JazzyFresh]

I said I'm not sure, there are other factors that will reduce patients going to the ER as well, as I explained.

In any case, if more poeple see a doctor after passing M4A that means that their health needs are currently being underserved. So if the downside of M4A is that people who currently aren't getting healthcare will, that's a problem I'm willing to live with.

I guess? I just don't see any of this making sense. I mean not one of you can explain the cost and even as you state we have no clue if wait times will go up or down(I have no clue how they'd go down). Even a good amount of Democrats are pretty skeptical. Right now we're paying 3.2 trillion annually while Warren is talking 5+ trillion and from what I've read that doesn't include a lot of things.

There's also this I just barely read but I don't buy the actual numbers. She now admits people losing their jobs is part of her plan.

Warren was speaking during an interview at New Hampshire Public Radio.

"An economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told Kaiser Health News earlier this year that that could result in about 2 million jobs lost,” mostly within the healthcare industry, said NHPR reporter Casey McDermott.

“So I agree,” Warren replied. “I think this is part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan.”

 

[JazzyFresh]

Does that mean you'll stop repeating lies?

No it means I have lost any respect for you. Saying I'm ok with rape. That's just being a piece of **** human message board or not.

 

[JazzyFresh]

“”You’re asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American — how much you’re going to pay more in taxes, how much I’m going to pay,” Sanders told CNBC. “I don’t think I have to do that right now.”


So he has absolutely no clue how it's going to be paid for. That's pretty important, right?

 

[One Brow]

No it means I have lost any respect for you. Saying I'm ok with rape. That's just being a piece of **** human message board or not.

Since I didn't say that, even in the other thread where you claim I did, I'm not too worried about having your respect.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Since I didn't say that, even in the other thread where you claim I did, I'm not too worried about having your respect.

Don't care. Peace.

 

[silesian]

And I do want to say wait times are bad here but imagine how much worse they may be when everyone and anybody can go see a doctor over a paper cut or cough.

Which of course they can do in the USA.

 

[Zombie]

I guess? I just don't see any of this making sense. I mean not one of you can explain the cost and even as you state we have no clue if wait times will go up or down(I have no clue how they'd go down). Even a good amount of Democrats are pretty skeptical. Right now we're paying 3.2 trillion annually while Warren is talking 5+ trillion and from what I've read that doesn't include a lot of things.

There's also this I just barely read but I don't buy the actual numbers. She now admits people losing their jobs is part of her plan.

Warren was speaking during an interview at New Hampshire Public Radio.

"An economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told Kaiser Health News earlier this year that that could result in about 2 million jobs lost,” mostly within the healthcare industry, said NHPR reporter Casey McDermott.

“So I agree,” Warren replied. “I think this is part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan.”

What do you mean you guess? That's a pretty obvious conclusion. To be perfectly honest I don't really buy your shtick of expecting posters around here to know every detail of Warren's or Bernie's plans, cost down to the dollar, and it's every impact on the economy. We're so far away from such a bill being passed, which would include months of debate, revisions and amendments that it renders any conversation about these details fairly meaningless.

What we can do is look at other countries with Universal Healthcare and draw some broad conclusions regarding things like wait times and cost. And the evidence there doesn't lead to a conclusion that wait times or cost would explode.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Which of course they can do in the USA.

Yes but they are paying for it. If not then they are paying creditors. My point was that this would give free reign to go see the doctor whenever. I have no problem with that except I don't see how doctors are not going to get absolutely flooded more than they already are. That's just a small detail.

Now on top of that add 44+ million people seeing a doctor whenever and doctors. Again I'm not saying people don't deserve to see a doctor but I am saying this will add to an already understaffed physician workforce.

 

[Zombie]

Yes but they are paying for it. If not then they are paying creditors. My point was that this would give free reign to go see the doctor whenever. I have no problem with that except I don't see how doctors are not going to get absolutely flooded more than they already are. That's just a small detail.

Now on top of that add 44+ million people seeing a doctor whenever and doctors. Again I'm not saying people don't deserve to see a doctor but I am saying this will add to an already understaffed physician workforce.

That doesn't sound like an unsurmountable problem to me. If the issue here is that people are currently unable to see a doctor, then keeping in place a system that allows that to continue is unjust. The need for more doctors is a separate problem from how we choose to cover health expenses in America.

 

[Zombie]

I just love this new criticism of universal healthcare causing too many people to have access to healthcare. You can tell they are so close to getting it, and then take a left turn at the last second.

 

[JazzyFresh]

What do you mean you guess? That's a pretty obvious conclusion. To be perfectly honest I don't really buy your shtick of expecting posters around here to know every detail of Warren's or Bernie's plans, cost down to the dollar, and it's every impact on the economy. We're so far away from such a bill being passed, which would include months of debate, revisions and amendments that it renders any conversation about these details fairly meaningless.

What we can do is look at other countries with Universal Healthcare and draw some broad conclusions regarding things like wait times and cost. And the evidence there doesn't lead to a conclusion that wait times or cost would explode.

I posted them last page. Canada has a 19 week waiting period. They also have far less people.

And you don't buy my schtick but I stick by my opinion that you have absolutely no clue where 52 trillion dollars is going to come from. I don't think you understand basic economics. I would absolutely love for you to prove me wrong bit you simply can't. Right now Warren's plan is nothing more than a fairy tale to get naive people who won't even ask basic questions to vote for her. Its amazing that you think me asking something as simple as "how can America afford this" as schtick. I would expect a person that plans to complete overhaul something as astronomical as our healthcare system to have a plan in place. That's not "schtick" that common sense Zombie.