|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
People who keep track of medical records and track invoices should also be paid. Standard insurance companies require just as much paper work and bullshit.
|
On June 23 2017 06:25 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 06:11 LegalLord wrote: Yes, the traitors sunk the public option. I wonder if, with that deficiency, if Obamacare should have just been mothballed for a time. It survives despite being unviable only because Republicans can't make anything better. Some of them have proposed something better - a full repeal. But they're too spineless to follow through with it. They know they'll be crucified for 'losing 20 million health insurances' and maybe 'killing poor people' even though the endpoint of Obamacare is "only the rich have decent health care but everyone pays" anyway, via blowing up the entire market. And possibly the labor market as collateral. Now if only spineless Republicans could articulate what's wrong with Obamacare to the millions whose premiums and deductibles skyrocketed under the ACA. Wait, speaking truth to a demagogue's paradise takes a spine.
On June 23 2017 07:01 Buckyman wrote: The core problem with the ACA environment is that it relies on health insurance acting like a market while tying its hands so that it can't act like a market. A secondary problem is that the ACA papers over the resulting market failure with subsides as the carrot and the individual and corporate mandates as the stick.
Total cost of providing health care? Only directly addressed by stuff like the medical device tax.
Total cost of providing insurance? "Keep shoveling subsidies at it until the price stops going up."
When will the price stop going up? When some other demand drop compensates for the inflating subsidies. This is necessarily people like me - people who don't get subsidies for various reasons and can't afford the insurance.
Net result - slightly better total health care, the subsidized gain some, the unsubsidized lose slightly less, but at what cost? It crippled the market in a way that would blame the market system (or big insurance companies) to pave the path to single payer. Pretty ingenious considering the Congressional makeup when it was crafted.
|
Private provider networks spawn their own burdensome payment systems all the same and are forced to hire many people to that end. The notion that Medicare somehow brings "more" of this kind of thing into the mix doesn't really pan out. Medicaid, on the other hand, given its varied implementation state-by-state, is definitely more burdensome than it needs to be. Many states cut off themselves off at the Medicaid budget knee on an annual basis.
|
On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate.
Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens.
Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still).
|
On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote: [quote] You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still).
and then you remember that Congress has a 19% approval rating and the same people get elected again anyway. I don't think your plan is going to work the way you think it will.
|
On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote: [quote] You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate.
Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality.
|
The discrepancy between congressional approval and approval of their own congressperson is interesting. I wonder what the source is. How would they approve of other individual congresspeople? Is it simply a result of familiarity or of your own fighting for you? Is it the result of group social effects at congress? The result of congressional rules? the most interesting in particular is if the problem truly isn't the result of any individual congressperson, but the dynamics that occur when they're brought together. There's a shortage of effective ways to fix that, and certainly no good voting mechanism does.
to clarify: suppose you have two people, A and B. both are decent enough people and good at their job. But they hate each other, have conflicting styles, and bicker constantly and unproductively. They're in general decent, but they simply do not work well together. each gets elected to the same position (let's say something congress-like but much smaller so they will have to work together) because they're the best choice in their district, but putting them in the same workgroup simply yields poor results. Neither district wants to select a worse candidate to fix the impasse, but both putting in their best candidate yields poor results.
|
On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality.
This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process.
|
On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. a republican proposal isn't likely to pass actually, this new one still has similar issues to the prior one; though they'll probably stealth defund aca to some degree to damgae it, then claim it failed on its own rather than because of their sabotage; but there's a pretty good chance aca keeps going for awhile.
oh for responsible leadership.
|
On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. Welcome to the reality of politics with the benefit of hindsight. You don't always win and sometimes there are huge set backs. Obama ran on healthcare reform and then the democrats put their nose to the grind stone to make a bill that could pass. The democrats are a dysfunctional mess of a party that is losing left and right. But they are also the only ones that have passed substantive legislation in the last 8-10 years. The far left things they could have done more, but for my entire life they have been voting for third parties and yelling at the democrats for not being good enough.
|
On June 23 2017 11:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering.
Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further.
They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. Welcome to the reality of politics. You don't always win and sometimes there are huge set backs. Obama ran on healthcare reform and then the democrats put their nose to the grind stone to make a bill that could pass. The democrats are a dysfunctional mess of a party that is losing left and right. But they are also the only ones that have passed substantive legislation in the last 8-10 years. The far left things they could have done more, but for my entire life they have been voting for third parties and yelling at the democrats for not being good enough.
See the problem with your condescension is that you assume that because other people have larger plans than you, they must think it's going to be easy to accomplish them. Nobody thinks it's easy. Some of us just think it's worth it. And in the case of getting a single payer health care system, I think we're pretty clearly right.
The "far left" (lolz) might be yelling, but they're yelling for legitimate reasons. You haven't been very honest with them as a party.
|
gotta love when euros show up and act like they understand the legislative dynamics and intricacies of healthcare in america better than people who live here despite signs to the contrary
|
On June 23 2017 11:35 ticklishmusic wrote: gotta love when euros show up and act like they understand the legislative dynamics and intricacies of healthcare in america better than people who live here despite signs to the contrary
I'm not acting like that. I clearly don't.
Can't say I'm surprised that would be your reaction though.
|
On June 23 2017 11:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:21 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree).
Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. Welcome to the reality of politics. You don't always win and sometimes there are huge set backs. Obama ran on healthcare reform and then the democrats put their nose to the grind stone to make a bill that could pass. The democrats are a dysfunctional mess of a party that is losing left and right. But they are also the only ones that have passed substantive legislation in the last 8-10 years. The far left things they could have done more, but for my entire life they have been voting for third parties and yelling at the democrats for not being good enough. See the problem with your condescension is that you assume that because other people have larger plans than you, they must think it's going to be easy to accomplish them. Nobody thinks it's easy. Some of us just think it's worth it. And in the case of getting a single payer health care system, I think we're pretty clearly right. The "far left" (lolz) might be yelling, but they're yelling for legitimate reasons. You haven't been very honest with them as a party. I'm not a Democrat. I only donated to Obama twice and I'm not a member of their party. I'm registered as unaffiliated. The only reason I got involved was because I was tired of Bush and liked Obama. I had no time for a party that lost to George Bush twice. I will fully admit that Obama might be the only highlight in this dying husk of a party.
But lets not kid ourselves, the "far left' in the US has done nothing in the last 20 years. The Democrats suck. Sure. Are they stupid and resistant to change. Yep. But endlessly voting for third parties in presidential elections in some misguided hope to "send a message" will go down as one of the stupidest plans in history. Especially when it consistently fucked over what the left wanted. And then comes the smug self satisfaction as things go badly under the GOP and we all get to hear the "I told you so, you should have done what we wanted." I'm fully convinced that if the DNC cleaned house, put Bernie in charge tomorrow and gave people everything they wanted they would still heckle and say it wasn't enough. Or to little to late. They wouldn't know what to with victory once they got it. Or would be to scared to run with ball because they might fail.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/819598653778182145
All the while stuff like this is happening.
|
On June 23 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 22:09 ChristianS wrote:On June 22 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:On June 22 2017 05:17 Plansix wrote: Not to call out Introvert, who seems to be acutely aware of this issue, but we should all be aware of how coded our language is when talking about politics. All of this is feed by news media’s attempts to make politics more exciting to watch. Left vs right, winning vs losing. Red vs blue. We all get lumped into binary silos and are then told that the other side is coming for us and that if they are elected, we are losing. We mock these binary options in other media as being simplistic(Paragon or Renegade anyone?), but it is the language of politics we accept. Trump opponent or Trump apologist is one of the more sickening dichotomies in this forum. I'm daily sickened by his behavior, and he ran in the lower half of acceptable Republican candidates for president, but I felt forced to vote for him because his policies more closely aligned with mine than his opponent in the general. Some posters here go overboard with comparing qualified defenses of his acts (at a maybe 1:10 ratio of things I agree with and things I disagree with) to an inability to see straight on his issues. If you refuse to see nuance on the right-of-center, you're teaching people to be callous to your appeals to reason ... since you do not approach with reason. I think Igne meant this as a criticism, but I don't: it seems like you mostly only decide to post when you're defending Trump in some regard. That's fine, you can post of not post whenever you want, you don't owe us anything - but it does make it hard for me to tell what your actual objections to Trump are. It seems like they're usually exact opposite of most of us - mad he hasn't repealed Obamacare yet, mad the wall seems like it won't happen anytime soon, mad tax reform isn't anywhere close to happening. If you don't mind my asking, how much of the stuff liberals are outraged at is stuff you'd defend? The travel ban? The AHCA (both its policies, and the process they're using to try to pass it)? The large number of vacancies in the executive branch? The anti-NATO and anti-NAFTA talk? The renewed war on drugs? Seems to me we hardly ever have actual policy discussions in here, as evidenced by the fact I've read a ton of your posts but can only guess how you feel about most of those. You're just caught in your internal biases towards novelty. My posts criticizing Trump just get lost in the host attacking him, and agree with your internal predilections that everybody should disagree with it. Secondly, this thread has been bonkers in attacks to such a ludicrous degree that inaccurate and stupid posts (not to mention shitposts) proliferate and are practically omnipresent. Even the small trickle of responses looks outsized because you missed the quantity/frequency of those prompting it. The search function is open to you. I've attacked Trump on trade many many many times, sometimes offering my own contrasting views, and that's just a sampling + Show Spoiler + I've posted on Trump's insanity not making advocating entitlement reform ( ex). I've attacked Trump on wanting to make Mexico pay for the wall. I've attacked him for the pace of filling political appointments in the bureaucracy. I've never taken him seriously when he said he wanted to drain the swamp (though disruption and political warfare will get part of the way unintentionally), so I'm not surprised when he did not do it/both wrong for not putting effort into doing it and for never having the plan or inclination to accomplish it. He's a policy nincompoop and cannot explain why policies would work if he even makes it to policy. He's stupid for trying to make the AHCA work, barely hiding his actual goal of passing anything he could call 'Trumpcare' and boasting about how he achieved the "deal." He has zero experience in how to get bills passed or building support for initiatives. I think I've done a dozen posts in the past two months attacking him for his tweets on both undermining policies and shooting himself in the foot outright. Poor leadership, poor dealmaking, very little strategy and policy analysis, no focus in his attacks, etc. In short, I disagree with a good three quarters of his entire platform, but in this rotten political age, the remaining one quarter or less is enough to make him the best candidate in the general ( and my common theme is attacking the need for a policy ignoramus as a result of a craven political class ie Trump is awful and its only bribed RINOs obsessed with staying in office that make him electable). Oh well. I won't spend much time at all re-collecting my anti-Trump opinions, since their regular presence in my posts were missed (skimmed past?) the first time around. Thanks for the links. I suppose this is symptomatic of me misunderstanding you that several of them still read to me like you setting out to defend Trump - with maybe an expression of an even more extreme policy position you wish he would take, partly used to throw water on liberals decrying how extreme his positions are. The rest are broad philosophical arguments from before I even started following the thread, which do give me a clearer idea of what sort of Republican you are but don't give me much of a sense of how muvh you disagree with Trump.
I'll try to ask for more clarification on your opinions in the future instead of assuming yours is whatever the pro-Trump position is; for instance it sounds like you wouldn't want Republicans to pass the AHCA in its current form, which is not what I would have guessed.
|
On June 23 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 06:46 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 06:25 Buckyman wrote:On June 23 2017 06:11 LegalLord wrote: Yes, the traitors sunk the public option. I wonder if, with that deficiency, if Obamacare should have just been mothballed for a time. It survives despite being unviable only because Republicans can't make anything better. Some of them have proposed something better - a full repeal. But they're too spineless to follow through with it. They know they'll be crucified for 'losing 20 million health insurances' and maybe 'killing poor people' even though the endpoint of Obamacare is "only the rich have decent health care but everyone pays" anyway, via blowing up the entire market. And possibly the labor market as collateral. that's not the endpoint of obamacare at all. I do'nt see where you're getting that from. obamacare also doesn't really blow up the entire market, though it does cause some substantial irregularities. it sounds like you're projecting too much of your own personal experience onto the actual overall effects of it. a full repeal is fine if you're ok with a bunch of losing their healthcare, and suffering injury/death as a result. fundamentally, at some point you have to deny people healthcare because it's not affordable, there's only so much money to go around. Buckyman has adopted a forum-poster archetype that we've all seen before. Take a somewhat dull, matter of fact approach to explaining Libertarian'esque philosophies as simple matter of fact logic. Use the appearance of logic and elegance as a form of argumentative support while minimizing the appearance of underlying assumptions. Perhaps it only speaks to the fact that I spend too much time on forums (19 years of regular forum posting, jesus), but this is just another of the same type of person who likes to take on this kind of appearance and find comfort in the self-consistent axioms of Libertarian'esque thought patterns. Even in this thread alone, we've already had a couple over the past 8 or so years. It's not a new technique in baiting and he won't be the last we see wander in here.
well if we know that libertarian axioms are consistent, and they have access to a language capable of enumerating all possible arguments, what does that tell us about what libertarianism can prove?
|
On June 23 2017 11:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:26 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 11:21 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse.
Not sure why folks have a problem with that.
Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. Welcome to the reality of politics. You don't always win and sometimes there are huge set backs. Obama ran on healthcare reform and then the democrats put their nose to the grind stone to make a bill that could pass. The democrats are a dysfunctional mess of a party that is losing left and right. But they are also the only ones that have passed substantive legislation in the last 8-10 years. The far left things they could have done more, but for my entire life they have been voting for third parties and yelling at the democrats for not being good enough. See the problem with your condescension is that you assume that because other people have larger plans than you, they must think it's going to be easy to accomplish them. Nobody thinks it's easy. Some of us just think it's worth it. And in the case of getting a single payer health care system, I think we're pretty clearly right. The "far left" (lolz) might be yelling, but they're yelling for legitimate reasons. You haven't been very honest with them as a party. I'm not a Democrat. I only donated to Obama twice and I'm not a member of their party. I'm registered as unaffiliated. The only reason I got involved was because I was tired of Bush and liked Obama. I had no time for a party that lost to George Bush twice. I will fully admit that Obama might be the only highlight in this dying husk of a party. But lets not kid ourselves, the "far left' in the US has done nothing in the last 20 years. The Democrats suck. Sure. Are they stupid and resistant to change. Yep. But endlessly voting for third parties in presidential elections in some misguided hope to "send a message" will go down as one of the stupidest plans in history. Especially when it consistently fucked over what the left wanted. And then comes the smug self satisfaction as things go badly under the GOP and we all get to hear the "I told you so, you should have done what we wanted." I'm fully convinced that if the DNC cleaned house, put Bernie in charge tomorrow and gave people everything they wanted they would still heckle and say it wasn't enough. Or to little to late. They wouldn't know what to with victory once they got it. Or would be to scared to run with ball because they might fail. https://twitter.com/i/moments/819598653778182145All the while stuff like this is happening.
It's not very surprising that when one side is given no power, they don't accomplish anything. See the communists haven't done a whole lot in my country, either.
The communists in my country aren't given power because they don't represent enough people to be given power (except in Renens but whatever ). The progressives in your country aren't given power because the system is not built in to accept it. You poll all of the progressive ideas and you get over 50% support in America. When you're trying to get elected in the primary, suddenly Hillary is super duper progressive and you have kwiz saying on the forum that there's almost no difference between her and Sanders. Trump parrots some leftwing talking points in his bullshit potion to get elected.
By all accounts, if the democratic party was a coalition, the dominant force in it would be the progressives today. They have the most popular politician in the country, while the direction by the liberals has made it so that the party polls lower than Trump. Clearly there's something that doesn't work strategically, and a coalition would be able to figure that out. Some people within it are, Schumer attempted to do so for example. But as a body, the democrats aren't going to change, and whenever they can they're going to get the Perez instead of the Ellison. So to sum up, you have this part of your party that is a) responsible every time things go to shit and b) won't be given a chance to lead even when it would appear to make sense. And you sit there wondering why they might have a problem with liberals. I don't, I can see why.
|
On June 23 2017 12:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 11:42 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 11:26 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 11:21 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 11:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 10:43 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 10:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 23 2017 08:34 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Because I dont get what your saying...
Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help.
Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement.
You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand. So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate. Yeah, probably. They should have used the fact that single payer health care is popular in America (and already was at the time). That's a great electoral argument too. Hey people from this district / state, you see your representative, republican or democrat? He's the reason why you don't get this popular policy that you want. And then you watch what happens. Instead you get this lame thing, and the opposition gets to attack you with it in the elections, and you lose a zillion seats everywhere (yeah I know, that wasn't the only reason, but still). What part of Joe Lieberman confuses you? He would kill the bill through the filibuster and nothing would happen. He was an independent and would beat any (and did) democrat tried challenge him. Congrats, no healthcare reform and there is no one to punish for it. Single payer was politically dead, there was no path to getting it. Approval polls do not directly translate to 60 votes in the senate. Edit: and the fact that people hate congress, except for their congress members. Polls do not instantly translate into political reality. This criticism would convince me much more if your plan had actually worked. Instead all the moderate progress that you have made is likely to get reversed anyway (unless it isn't? I'm just assuming the republicans are getting what they want, maybe I'm wrong), and we lost a bunch of ground in the process. Welcome to the reality of politics. You don't always win and sometimes there are huge set backs. Obama ran on healthcare reform and then the democrats put their nose to the grind stone to make a bill that could pass. The democrats are a dysfunctional mess of a party that is losing left and right. But they are also the only ones that have passed substantive legislation in the last 8-10 years. The far left things they could have done more, but for my entire life they have been voting for third parties and yelling at the democrats for not being good enough. See the problem with your condescension is that you assume that because other people have larger plans than you, they must think it's going to be easy to accomplish them. Nobody thinks it's easy. Some of us just think it's worth it. And in the case of getting a single payer health care system, I think we're pretty clearly right. The "far left" (lolz) might be yelling, but they're yelling for legitimate reasons. You haven't been very honest with them as a party. I'm not a Democrat. I only donated to Obama twice and I'm not a member of their party. I'm registered as unaffiliated. The only reason I got involved was because I was tired of Bush and liked Obama. I had no time for a party that lost to George Bush twice. I will fully admit that Obama might be the only highlight in this dying husk of a party. But lets not kid ourselves, the "far left' in the US has done nothing in the last 20 years. The Democrats suck. Sure. Are they stupid and resistant to change. Yep. But endlessly voting for third parties in presidential elections in some misguided hope to "send a message" will go down as one of the stupidest plans in history. Especially when it consistently fucked over what the left wanted. And then comes the smug self satisfaction as things go badly under the GOP and we all get to hear the "I told you so, you should have done what we wanted." I'm fully convinced that if the DNC cleaned house, put Bernie in charge tomorrow and gave people everything they wanted they would still heckle and say it wasn't enough. Or to little to late. They wouldn't know what to with victory once they got it. Or would be to scared to run with ball because they might fail. https://twitter.com/i/moments/819598653778182145All the while stuff like this is happening. It's not very surprising that when one side is given no power, they don't accomplish anything. See the communists haven't done a whole lot in my country, either. The communists in my country aren't given power because they don't represent enough people to be given power (except in Renens but whatever ). The progressives in your country aren't given power because the system is not built in to accept it. You poll all of the progressive ideas and you get over 50% support in America. When you're trying to get elected in the primary, suddenly Hillary is super duper progressive and you have kwiz saying on the forum that there's almost no difference between her and Sanders. Trump parrots some leftwing talking points in his bullshit potion to get elected. By all accounts, if the democratic party was a coalition, the dominant force in it would be the progressives today. They have the most popular politician in the country, while the direction by the liberals has made it so that the party polls lower than Trump. Clearly there's something that doesn't work strategically, and a coalition would be able to figure that out. Some people within it are, Schumer attempted to do so for example. But as a body, the democrats aren't going to change, and whenever they can they're going to get the Perez instead of the Ellison. So to sum up, you have this part of your party that is a) responsible every time things go to shit and b) won't be given a chance to lead even when it would appear to make sense. And you sit there wondering why they might have a problem with liberals. I don't, I can see why. They have no plan to gain power. The greatest thing Bernie Sanders ever did for them was run as as a Democrat and show them that they could change the party by simply joining. I think they might have skipped the part that being during the national convention wasn't the way to use the power effectively. The part about the liberals/progressives isn't their policies. I think they have good ideas and could really bring in a lot of people. My problem is that they are so fucking terrible at obtaining those goals. There is this delusion that they can get rid of all centrist democrats or force them into such a minority that they can be ignored. And that will never happen. Even if all the dreams came trough, Bernie won it all, it would still be a knock down, drag out fight in congress. Progress is a slow, painful grind.
|
nebu -> there's a number of issues with what you're saying; but since you're arguing with plansix, I'm inclined to not get involved and view some of it as simply responding to plansix issues. unless you want me to elaborate (and assuming you don't already know the issues with what you're saying). note that I'd have to respond tomorrow as I'm sleeping soon.
|
On June 23 2017 12:21 zlefin wrote: nebu -> there's a number of issues with what you're saying; but since you're arguing with plansix, I'm inclined to not get involved, unless you want me to elaborate (and assuming you don't already know the issues with what you're saying).
I don't have much to add to my last answer to Plansix. Feel free to go ahead.
|
|
|
|