Larry

Members
  • Content count

    12,203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

About Larry

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame
  • Birthday 12/04/1957

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Location
    Where the Constitution grants rights to pregnant pigs, and denies them to homosexual humans
  1. Well, now, I don;t have a problem with the Dem's position on the 2nd Amendment. Their real position. Not the one that the NRA likes to claim that they have. Just to pick one example, I've read that 80% of the public, and 70% of NRA members, favor closing the "gun show loophole".
  2. Oh, I certainly agree that "Man kills wife, kids, and all of her relatives, for leaving him", and similar stories, say a lot about our country. Including the fact that we all seem to just take for granted that "heck, this happens all the time". Hard to have a discussion about it in the usual Tailgate fashion, though. It's not like there's one political side that has a solution, and the other one is defending the practice. Although I suppose we could turn it into a gun control thread. I don't really see a solution for it.
  3. If I could pick one, big, thing, for The Right? Repudiate the racists. but I think that's more a case of "What I'd like to see", as opposed to "a political strategy that I think would work". Fact is, at least catering to racism and bigotry, works. There's a whole lot of people who have those feelings. (Heck, I have those feelings, to some extent.) And all the last 50 years has done, is make them cling to them even more desperately. Something that might be easier to do? Focus on the economy. And I mean the economy, not "big corporations and the investment class". What bugs me about the current GOP almost as much as openly catering to the bigots, is the way that it seems like a fundamental part of their belief system, is the belief that one of the biggest problems in America is that the bottom 50% of the income scale have it too good, and we need the government to actively work to make it worse. Some integrity would be nice, too. I'm talking about things like recognizing that facts actually do exist, and that if the facts don;t agree with your policies, then you should work to change the policy, not the facts.
  4. Granted, I probably have a tendency to look for big, grand, ideas where one magic thing fixes everything. Probably a carryover from too much Star Trek. If I could pick one thing, for the Dems? I think I't focus on traising the minimum wage, and make that my party's defining issue. At least in my opinion, that would likely do more than any one thing to help raise the standard of living of pretty much the entire bottom 50% of income in this country. (And, to me, that's a legitimate government interest.) And a tie-in to JFK's 100th, a space program would be nice, too. But I see that one as more of a desert than a major issue.
  5. I love it when people make posts which consist entirely of a URL, with no point at all to indicate why it's there. Even better when when its a link to something that has nothing to do with the thread. The link above is to a CNN story about a guy whose wife left him, and took the kids, who went and killed his wife, his kids, and the relatives who his wife was staying with. Not terrorism. Not even what I think of as a mass shooting. (To me, that term implies more random targeting).
  6. I agree that it's tough. Tolerance, for example, does mean that I have to allow the Nazis to march in my town. Does it mean that I can't boo, during their speech?
  7. When Trump took office, the DoD gave him a fake "red button". (Because they didn't trust him with the real one.) Guess what it does?
  8. And pizza. I'm sure it involved pizza.
  9. You figure he's aware that a big part of the GOPCare bill he just celebrated has, as one of it's biggest features, cuts to Medicaid funding?
  10. I have to confess that I have severe doubts as to some of the proposals being made in here, to reduce health care costs. Many of them seem too simplistic, if not outright impossible. "Just mandate that insurance companies must charge lower premiums, and pay a higher share of the costs, without reducing coverage." Now, I do have a feeling that there may be ways to reduce at least some costs. but I feel like some of them will require huge attitude shifts. on society as a whole. A decade or two ago, I head a report about a study somebody had dome. I'm going strictly by memory, and have no link to any such study whatsoever. So let's just call it a hypothetical, and pretend that I'm making it up. Just assume that what I remember, is true. The study looked at four expensive but common medical procedures. One of them was cardiac bypass surgery, I forget the other three. They took all of the patients who's doctor recommended cardiac bypass surgery, and divided them into two groups: Those who had the procedure, and those who chose not to have it. And they looked at their survival rates, which the study defined as "how many of the people, in each group, are still alive, five years later?" And in three of the four procedures they looked at, having the procedure did not increase the odds of the patient being alive, five years down the road. Their odds of dying were the same, whether they had the procedure or not. So, let's just assume that what I remember is actually true. Let's assume that cardiac bypass surgery does not actually improve the patient's odds of being alive, five years from now. Should we, as a society, at least consider the possibility that maybe we shouldn't have a system where other people pay for that procedure? I know, it's certainly easy to demonize a decision of "well, Uncle Joe needs cardiac bypass surgery, or else the odds are he may have another heart attack. but this big entity (government or an insurance company) isn't going to pay for it. And you can't. So, you're not going to get it." What about the patient who's been in a nursing home for the last two years? She can't speak a complete sentence. (Although does sometimes appear to understand sentences.) Can't stand. Can't feed herself. Has to be changed, every few hours. Does it really benefit society (or the individual, for that matter) to pay for her to live in a nursing home for five years, waiting for some medical condition to come along that will eventually end this? What is anybody actually getting, for that money? But what's the alternative? Kick her out and let her die in the street? 'Good morning, Mrs. Smith. you've been here nine months, today. The nurser will be in shortly with your ,mandatory euthanasia."? The current system, I feel like, isn't right. But I'm not at all sure that I see a path to a better one. How do you get to a better world? (Especially when I'm not at all sure that I can even say what that better world is.) Part of me really wishes that we, as a society, would decide that maybe we need to relax some of the phobias we have against things like hospice, and I think things like suicide, and even physician-assisted euthanasia. Apologies for the probably morbid view.
  11. I'm thinking that there's a large dose of American arrogance, to look at what's going on, and attribute to Germany and Europe whining that the US won't be telling them what to do any more. (Especially since what's going on, is the US literally telling them what to do: A specific command, with a specific dollar amount attached to it.)
  12. Yes, let's ignore the first untrue line of reasoning which you spent multiple posts trying to use, to justify your assertion that we cannot possibly look at how other places are doing things better than we are, and move to your second one. (And oh, by the way, let's ignore the fact that you are the only person in the thread proposing that we need to establish a national standard guaranteeing that the most inaccessible person in the nation can not be permitted to ever be more than X minutes from a hospital.) Let's make it simple, and pretend that the answer is "whatever it is, right now".
  13. Actually no, you didn't. What you did was assert (without any support whatsoever) that providing health care to more people, requites more costs. (An assertion which I completely agree with.) The only attempt to explain the relationship between number of people treated, and number of people hired, was the one line of yours that I quoted. And again, my point (which I note you chose not to address): If treating 2x more people costs more than 2x dollars, then every time company X buys another hospital (or expands one), the cost of health care per person goes up. (And, conversely, if you split Company X into Companies X1 and X2, costs for treating the same people who are already being treated, goes down.)