I imagine Trump loses at Monopoly a lot.Well, putting aside the media that says he lost, the polls and focus groups that say he lost, the huge impact media spin has on public perception and the reality of Trump's posture, lies and interruptions, Trump himself sure ain't acting like he won.
He's blaming the microphone. The moderator. He's saying he was "going easy" on Clinton. He's acting like a kid losing at Monopoly.
Quite the irony given the topic of Monopoly game play.
Also, Missus Turin would kick his butt at Monopoly.
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.
Lobbying companies like ALEC actually write many of the bills that are passed into law. It's quite conceivable that we actually have laws passed in this country that no one at either the Hill or the White House have ever fully read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have evidence of actual bribery?
Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?
I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.I would use the Clinton's political life pushing neoliberal policies that are against the interest of citizens, but directly benefits corporate and special interests that have given money, as proof.
Why has that been happening for decades? I don't think Hillary is incompetent, or fails to understand the consequences of her actions. I think she does things against the interest of the citizens for the direct benefit of those who pay her money. That fits my definition of bribery. Many people have a different definition
Anything fits any term as long as you're allowed to make up your own definition.
I define dogs as things that live on land that are capable of swimming. Using that definition, penguins are dogs. You might disagree with my definition, but that's how I use it.
See how that works?
So really, the answer to my question from before, is no, you don't actually have any evidence of bribery, because you aren't allowed to make up definitions of things to suit your argument.
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.Lobbying companies like ALEC actually write many of the bills that are passed into law. It's quite conceivable that we actually have laws passed in this country that no one at either the Hill or the White House have ever fully read.
By their own admissions, many have never fully read at least a few bills. ;)
"...when asked if members of Congress had read the bill before passing it, Rep. Jim Moran said, “Of course not. Are you kidding?”
Moran drew public scorn earlier this year for saying that members of Congress were underpaid and couldn’t live decently in Washington.
He went on to say that he would not read the bill because he trusted “the leadership.” When asked if leadership had read the bill, Moran replied, “I know their staff has.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer also indirectly admitted that the bill hadn’t been read before it was passed. Hoyer reasoned that because the bill had been through committee and conference and because he had an outline of what was in it, he didn’t need to read the entire bill. "
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's blaming the microphone. The moderator. He's saying he was "going easy" on Clinton. He's acting like a kid losing at Monopoly.
You forgot there was no sniffling either.
Who are you going to believe, me, or all the lying video recordings?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.Lobbying companies like ALEC actually write many of the bills that are passed into law. It's quite conceivable that we actually have laws passed in this country that no one at either the Hill or the White House have ever fully read.By their own admissions, many have never fully read at least a few bills. ;)
"...when asked if members of Congress had read the bill before passing it, Rep. Jim Moran said, “Of course not. Are you kidding?”
Moran drew public scorn earlier this year for saying that members of Congress were underpaid and couldn’t live decently in Washington.
He went on to say that he would not read the bill because he trusted “the leadership.” When asked if leadership had read the bill, Moran replied, “I know their staff has.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer also indirectly admitted that the bill hadn’t been read before it was passed. Hoyer reasoned that because the bill had been through committee and conference and because he had an outline of what was in it, he didn’t need to read the entire bill. "
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process".
They don't have enough hours in the day to also read the legislation.
|
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.
On the flip side, if they'd have to read what they are party to writing, maybe it would cut down on 'bill bloat'. :)
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.
That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.
On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.
|
|
That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.
I mean, theJeff already mentioned but almost all bills include text explaining every edit to as a transparency measure. And I would be very leery of suggesting that bills designed to apply to a nation as large & complex as this one are problematic simply for being long. Poorly worded or overly vague language can cause a ton of problems; if you're striving to stay below some arbitrary page count your odds of that sort of unworkable language increases.
Hold on, sir or ma'am. Your claim was pretty clear, that those not voting for Clinton, (or at least a large enough segment to warrant a statement about it), are doing so because she is a woman, and I'm calling B.S. on that. I, and to a degree an speaking for at least some others, just do not trust her, not because it's a "her", but rather because of what Ive seen her do, say, and otherwise act.
In the hopes of providing an alternative viewpoint, I believe CrusaderWolf was accusing Trump of sexism, not his supporters.
At least that's how I read his post.
So it wasn't a personal attack per se, just a comment on Trump's infamous sexism.
I could be wrong, but I did read his intentions towards you differently.
That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.I mean, thejeff already mentioned but almost all bills include text explaining every edit to as a transparency measure. And I would be very leery of suggesting that bills designed to apply to a nation as large & complex as this one are problematic simply for being long. Poorly worded or overly vague language can cause a ton of problems; if you're striving to stay below some arbitrary page count your odds of that sort of unworkable language increases.
Good point. Maybe when reporting on a bill's page count those doing the reporting should have the courtesy to report the substantive page count instead of the total? One hopes that the former is significantly smaller than the latter.
|
|
You mean in contrast to how much they get done now?
...yes? Partisanship is at an all-time high and Congress is relatively easy to lock up via procedural rules, especially in the Senate. That doesn't imply that we couldn't make it worse by trying to enforce a bizarre principle of reading everything you vote on.
Besides, Congresspersons aren't capable of being experts on all topics, making them read all bills does nothing to ensure they'll UNDERSTAND all bills. They might flounder through two hundred pages of bill pertaining to cyber-security, or mandating new regulatory practices for testing meat for strains of e-coli...only to have no clue what they just read and so they do what they would have done anyway and talk to someone who WOULD know whom they trust. It's okay to allow politicians to know their own limits.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, putting aside the media that says he lost, the polls and focus groups that say he lost, the huge impact media spin has on public perception and the reality of Trump's posture, lies and interruptions, Trump himself sure ain't acting like he won.
He's blaming the microphone. The moderator. He's saying he was "going easy" on Clinton. He's acting like a kid losing at Monopoly.
Agreed. The only thing more embarrassing and, quite honestly, absolutely disgraceful than the way Trump behaved *during* the debate is the way Trump has out and out lied (to a ridiculous and mind-numbing degree), complained, whined, deflected, and pointed blame in very conceivable direction *after* the debate.
This is the first time in my life I am actually terrified of the unmitigated disaster a candidate getting elected would be. The fact that he has gotten this far, frankly, depresses the hell out of me.
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.
On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.
Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.
Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.
On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.
Yep. Which is my point: no one read it, only one voted against it. It really should have been read by the entirety instead of taking the assurances from interns et al that it was a good thing. Now ... blecch.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, politicians are rational creatures, they respond to the incentives they are given. After 9/11 the pressure to be seen doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING was enormous. Most Congresspersons would have been drubbed out of office if they'd voted against the Patriot Act--voter emotions were running hot, and politicians generally want to keep their jobs. I hate the Patriot Act as much as the next person and would love to see it pared back, but it's an error to put all the blame on the officeholders and none on the citizens who collectively help create their incentives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. Which is my point: no one read it, only one voted against it. It really should have been read by the entirety instead of taking the assurances from interns et al that it was a good thing. Now ... blecch.Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.
On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.
It wouldn't have mattered. the political reality that no one was going to vote against somemthing called "The Patriot Act" given the political landscape of the moment.
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.
We spend the most health-care money on the first 6 and the last 6 months of a person's life. If you remove those from the analysis we are actually fairly competitive on a dollar/outcome perspective (Though, we suck at prevention, education, and drug prices).
This is important to note, and I'll give an example.
Do you know what we do in the US if a baby is born 3-4 months early? We put them in a neonatal ICU with round-the-clock professional medical care for 60-90 days.
Do you know what they do in the UK if a baby is born 3-4 months early? They write "still-born" on the patient chart.
So, just make sure when you tout the benefits of single-payer that you are actually comparing apples to apples.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.We spend the most health-care money on the first 6 and the last 6 months of a person's life. If you remove those from the analysis we are actually fairly competitive on a dollar/outcome perspective (Though, we suck at prevention, education, and drug prices).
This is important to note, and I'll give an example.
Do you know what we do in the US if a baby is born 3-4 months early? We put them in a neonatal ICU with round-the-clock professional medical care for 60-90 days.
Do you know what they do in the UK if a baby is born 3-4 months early? They write "still-born" on the patient chart.
So, just make sure when you tout the benefits of single-payer that you are actually comparing apples to apples.
Despite all that we rank below the UK, Malaysia, Portugal, and even CUBA, for newborn survival rates.
In a 20 year analysis of newborn death rates around the world, the study published in PLoS Medicine revealed the number of infants who die before they are 4 weeks old account for 41% of child deaths worldwide. Newborn deaths in the United States ranked 41 out of 45 among industrialized countries, on par with Qatar and Croatia.
America's low ranking among modern nations may come as surprise to many who regard the U.S. health care system as the best in the world. Researchers say preterm delivery (delivering before 37 weeks) plays a role in the United State's lower ranking.
The United States has seen a 26% reduction in newborn deaths since 1990, but that number is lower than the global average.
“We have seen the numbers come down in the U.S. but at a notably slower rate than other countries,” says Lawn. “We actually found 50 countries, including China, have dropped their newborn death rate by more than 50% in the last 20 years.”
We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.
He's blaming the microphone. The moderator. He's saying he was "going easy" on Clinton. He's acting like a kid losing at Monopoly.You forgot there was no sniffling either.
Who are you going to believe, me, or all the lying video recordings?
Dammit! I was going to make your joke earlier, but I couldn't find any pictures of an orange "Yellow Sign".
@Caineach I was aware that many types of single-payer (UK comes to mind) achieve their lower medical costs by inviting medical companies to compete for government contracts and I've advocated for this in the past, but I didn't know the US had laws explicitly preventing something similar. What a travesty.We spend the most health-care money on the first 6 and the last 6 months of a person's life. If you remove those from the analysis we are actually fairly competitive on a dollar/outcome perspective (Though, we suck at prevention, education, and drug prices).
This is important to note, and I'll give an example.
Do you know what we do in the US if a baby is born 3-4 months early? We put them in a neonatal ICU with round-the-clock professional medical care for 60-90 days.
Do you know what they do in the UK if a baby is born 3-4 months early? They write "still-born" on the patient chart.
So, just make sure when you tout the benefits of single-payer that you are actually comparing apples to apples.
Despite all that we rank below the UK, Malaysia, Portugal, and even CUBA, for newborn survival rates.
Yes, This is because of what we are willing to call a live-birth. If you classify a 90+ day premie as still-born regardless of vitals, then you don't account for that infants' death in your survival rates. There was nothing to survive, it was "still-born."
However, in the US, we would take the exact same child in the exact same medical condition and code it live-birth and put it into a neonatal ICU.
So naturally, these are highly-at-risk patients. Many don't make it. But we are willing to try. So our numbers aren't as good as health-systems which code that child still-born.
We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.
Indeed, because we are willing to code riskier and riskier cases as live-birth every year.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.Indeed, because we are willing to code riskier and riskier cases as live-birth every year.
No. If that were true, the maternal death rate wouldn't also be increasing, like it is in Texas.
From CNN:
(CNN)It's hard to comprehend how the United States, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, is now one of only eight countries -- including Afghanistan and South Sudan -- where the number of women dying as a result of pregnancy and childbirth is going up.
An increasing mortality rate for American mothers in 2015? How could that be?
First, the numbers: More than 25 years ago, in 1987, there were 7.2 deaths of mothers per 100,000 live births in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2011, that number more than doubled, jumping to 17.8 deaths per 100,000 births.
What's going on? A range of experts made clear to me that there isn't any one factor to explain the increase, but a number of issues, including obesity-related complications such as hypertension and diabetes, the dramatic increase in the number of cesarean section births, a lack of access to affordable, quality health care and more women giving birth at older ages.
Related: The world's most dangerous place to be pregnant
Record-keeping changes might also explain some of the upward trend, experts say. It's easier to identify pregnancy-related deaths because there's now a box for it on the standard U.S. death certificate used in most states, said Dr. Andreea Creanga, a researcher for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Reproductive Health.
No. If that were true, the maternal death rate wouldn't also be increasing, like it is in Texas.We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.Indeed, because we are willing to code riskier and riskier cases as live-birth every year.
(1) That's a moved goal post if ever there was one. We were talking about infant survival rates, not maternal survival rates.
(2) They are related in that doctors are attempting riskier actions to save fetuses than in the past.
(2a) It is unrelated that in Texas (I know, I live here) that legislators are far more interested in appropriating funds for infants who need health care than their mothers. Which is sort-of an interesting corollary in-and-of itself. Texas has a very high proportion (relative to other states) of new-mothers covered by medicaid - A singe-payer-like system.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(1) That's a moved goal post if ever there was one. We were talking about infant survival rates, not maternal survival rates.
Except that it's a suspicious correlation. You're trying to say that Fact A ("More infants are dying in the US than ever before") correlates and "causates" with Fact B ("We're trying harder to save babies in the US than ever before").
But Fact A also correlates with Fact C ("More mothers are dying in the US than ever before"). It's not a moved goalpost. It's evidence that suggests your explanation fails to encompass the full issue.
From CNN:
(CNN)It's hard to comprehend how the United States, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, is now one of only eight countries -- including Afghanistan and South Sudan -- where the number of women dying as a result of pregnancy and childbirth is going up.
An increasing mortality rate for American mothers in 2015? How could that be?
First, the numbers: More than 25 years ago, in 1987, there were 7.2 deaths of mothers per 100,000 live births in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2011, that number more than doubled, jumping to 17.8 deaths per 100,000 births.
What's going on? A range of experts made clear to me that there isn't any one factor to explain the increase, but a number of issues, including obesity-related complications such as hypertension and diabetes, the dramatic increase in the number of cesarean section births, a lack of access to affordable, quality health care and more women giving birth at older ages.
Related: The world's most dangerous place to be pregnant
Record-keeping changes might also explain some of the upward trend, experts say. It's easier to identify pregnancy-related deaths because there's now a box for it on the standard U.S. death certificate used in most states, said Dr. Andreea Creanga, a researcher for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Reproductive Health.
The most distressing part of this (that isn't in the blurb you quoted) is that virtually 100% of that rise is accounted for because of the meteoric rise in maternal mortality rates in women-of-color.
(1) That's a moved goal post if ever there was one. We were talking about infant survival rates, not maternal survival rates.Except that it's a suspicious correlation. You're trying to say that Fact A ("More infants are dying in the US than ever before") correlates and "causates" with Fact B ("We're trying harder to save babies in the US than ever before").
But Fact A also correlates with Fact C ("More mothers are dying in the US than ever before"). It's not a moved goalpost. It's evidence that suggests your explanation fails to encompass the full issue.
Indeed, which is why I also included points 2 and 2a in my response.
Edit: IE, Facts B and C in your example are also somewhat related. (There are definitely other factors involved.)
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.
If the Libertarian voters are taking cues from this year's ticket, they won't touch Trump. Johnson and Weld detest Trump from everything I've read.
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.Yeah and if he threw his support to Clinton, she'd win in a walk. Assuming his supporters actually do what he says, which they wouldn't. Not that it matters because he won't throw his support to either of them.
Libertarians historically find it easier to stomach Republican social conservatism than Democratic economic liberality.
Johnson has also said that he loves the idea of being a spoiler, but he hasn't said for who.
Right now Clinton seems to have a 4 point lead. Libertarians generally vote Republican. If Johnson throws support to Trump, that could decide the election with his 6 percent.If the Libertarian voters are taking cues from this year's ticket, they won't touch Trump. Johnson and Weld detest Trump from everything I've read.
Perhaps but the Libertarians in general detest Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular, a lot more.
Trump comes across to me as a schoolyard bully. He has no respect for other people and his jab about being smart for not paying taxes was not amusing.
OTOH I remember all the BS that Clinton pulled when her husband was in office and all the other stuff that has occurred since then.
It is not about her being a woman. I could care less about what sex you are or what your skin color is. I want someone competent. I do feel that Hillary did better than Donald during the debate. She seemed calmer and more collected while Trump tried to be a bully and talk over her. ~grimaces~ Oh well.
