ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Eric the Green]

(01-26-2017, 05:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue:  your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.

I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

It's both.

Your side has an incorrect philosophy that nevertheless has strong appeal. The slogans of freedom and less government have the effect of clouding out the truth. After all, who likes "the government"?

And your side is adept at ignoring the facts about which philosophy actually works, and endlessly trying to spin them in your direction. Your alternative-facts universe is enough to convince poorly-educated voters, and that's what the bosses that you support depend on.

It's not as much about less government or the elimination of government, it's about lessening governments power of influence and control. I believe in a constitutionally limited government. Who wants their government to have power and influence over themselves? Who wants their government to have the power to make their decisions and in determining their beliefs for them and power to control them with money, threats, intimidation and so on? I'd say, no one other than clueless people. Have you ever had a foreign money merchant call you on the phone disguising themselves as IRS agents? I have. They remind me of you. I don't believe in the governments you'd prefer and seem to favor.

Yes indeed; "less government's power of influence and control" is an appealing slogan. But I am more concerned about big business' power of influence and control, and our government is the only potential check on what they do to workers, consumers, the environment and the economy. The government is needed to "control them" and keep us safe from them. That is the kind of "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." As long as small business and regular folks contribute a decent and fair share and follow fair laws, they have no reason to be against "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." I'm all in favor of fewer regulations on small business and family farmers if they are not needed to protect workers, consumers, the environment and the economy.

The Party you support, for example, wants to give favor to big business on the internet, so that users like us are stuck with an internet that's slower and has less of a voice. I support what Obama's FCC did to rein in these big companies and keep the internet neutral. That's the kind of "government I'd prefer and seem to favor."

[Classic-Xer]

(01-26-2017, 04:19 PM)flbones too Wrote: Single payer system would actually be cheaper than the current system. Right now it's all about profits. Health care should be a right, we're all entitled to be healthy. It shouldn't be about making the most money. The current system keeps people chained down. People default over health insurance.

Right now, it's all about cost and addressing/breaking apart healthcare monopolies that exist. You are entitled to being healthy now. You can work out, have a cheap physical (BTW, the price of a physical doubled since 2008) each year, you can eat healthy and control what you do and get yourself into activity wise. We are all entitled to be healthy today. It's a simple matter of choice whether you want to live a healthy life or not.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-26-2017, 07:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 04:19 PM)flbones too Wrote: Single payer system would actually be cheaper than the current system. Right now it's all about profits. Health care should be a right, we're all entitled to be healthy. It shouldn't be about making the most money. The current system keeps people chained down. People default over health insurance.

Right now, it's all about cost and addressing/breaking apart healthcare monopolies that exist. You are entitled to being healthy now. You can work out, have a cheap physical (BTW, the price of a physical doubled since 2008) each year, you can eat healthy and control what you do and get yourself into activity wise. We are all entitled to be healthy today. Whether you want live healthy or not is a matter of choice?

How about hard luck situations?  My youngest sister and I have bipolar disorder and I would think most of society would like us both to take our meds. Then there little details like accidents, other genetic FUBARS like muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, ataxia, crime victim, PTSD, etc.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-26-2017, 07:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 07:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 04:19 PM)flbones too Wrote: Single payer system would actually be cheaper than the current system. Right now it's all about profits. Health care should be a right, we're all entitled to be healthy. It shouldn't be about making the most money. The current system keeps people chained down. People default over health insurance.

Right now, it's all about cost and addressing/breaking apart healthcare monopolies that exist. You are entitled to being healthy now. You can work out, have a cheap physical (BTW, the price of a physical doubled since 2008) each year, you can eat healthy and control what you do and get yourself into activity wise. We are all entitled to be healthy today. Whether you want live healthy or not is a matter of choice?

How about hard luck situations?  My youngest sister and I have bipolar disorder and I would think most of society would like us both to take our meds. Then there little details like accidents, other genetic FUBARS like muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, ataxia, crime victim, PTSD, etc.

That's a different subject. Right now, we are all entitled to healthcare today as well.  It's a matter of whether people can afford it or not, or whether people think they need it or not, or whether people place more value on their smart phone/services than their healthcare? How many Americans are born with serious physical or mental disorders of some sort? 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1000, 1 out of 10,000. I'll guess that the number that aren't born with them substantially out number them. I'd be ok with an extension of medicare or a special state to cover them.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-26-2017, 09:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 07:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 07:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 04:19 PM)flbones too Wrote: Single payer system would actually be cheaper than the current system. Right now it's all about profits. Health care should be a right, we're all entitled to be healthy. It shouldn't be about making the most money. The current system keeps people chained down. People default over health insurance.

Right now, it's all about cost and addressing/breaking apart healthcare monopolies that exist. You are entitled to being healthy now. You can work out, have a cheap physical (BTW, the price of a physical doubled since 2008) each year, you can eat healthy and control what you do and get yourself into activity wise. We are all entitled to be healthy today. Whether you want live healthy or not is a matter of choice?

How about hard luck situations?  My youngest sister and I have bipolar disorder and I would think most of society would like us both to take our meds. Then there little details like accidents, other genetic FUBARS like muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, ataxia, crime victim, PTSD, etc.

That's a different subject. Right now, we are all entitled to healthcare today as well.  It's a matter of whether people can afford it or not, or whether people think they need it or not, or whether people place more value on their smart phone/services than their healthcare? How many Americans are born with serious physical or mental disorders of some sort? 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, 1 out of 1000, 1 out of 10,000. I'll guess that the number that aren't born with them substantially out number them. I'd be ok with an extension of medicare or a special state to cover them.

1. [url="http://web4health.info/en/answers/bipolar-frequency.htm|] Bipolar is about 1 out of 100 of the adult population. [/url]  I don't have any figures handy for other disability rates.

2. I completely agree with you about needless luxuries like Ishits. I have a $25.00/month phone plan and a $50.00/month internet bill. I would guess the AARP phone plan is reasonable since one needs a phone for confirming Dr. appointments and  emergency uses. The internet plan is cheap as well. I use it to keep the grocery bill down by getting stuff from Amazon. I live in a small town.

[Warren Dew]

(01-26-2017, 07:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 07:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 04:19 PM)flbones too Wrote: Single payer system would actually be cheaper than the current system. Right now it's all about profits. Health care should be a right, we're all entitled to be healthy. It shouldn't be about making the most money. The current system keeps people chained down. People default over health insurance.

Right now, it's all about cost and addressing/breaking apart healthcare monopolies that exist. You are entitled to being healthy now. You can work out, have a cheap physical (BTW, the price of a physical doubled since 2008) each year, you can eat healthy and control what you do and get yourself into activity wise. We are all entitled to be healthy today. Whether you want live healthy or not is a matter of choice?

How about hard luck situations?  My youngest sister and I have bipolar disorder and I would think most of society would like us both to take our meds. Then there little details like accidents, other genetic FUBARS like muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, ataxia, crime victim, PTSD, etc.

The most effective, proven medication for bipolar is lithium, which is less than $20 a month.

[David Horn]

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products.  There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation.  There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.

The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.

It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.

At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue:  your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.

I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

No, you also dispute demonstrable facts, which makes a common discussion plane impossible.

[SomeGuy]

(01-26-2017, 10:32 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote: The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.

It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.

At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue:  your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.

I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

No, you also dispute demonstrable facts, which makes a common discussion plane impossible.

I don't think you understand the difference between a "fact" and an assertion.  Much of your discourse in this thread, and others, tends to be heavier on the latter than the former.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-26-2017, 10:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The most effective, proven medication for bipolar is lithium, which is less than $20 a month.

Yeah, but my shrink prefers valproate instead which is about the same price. There are of course other meds and the Dr. visits which add to the costs. And... not to mention the fact bipolar really fucked up my career.

[Eric the Green]

(01-26-2017, 09:57 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 2. I completely agree with you about needless luxuries like Ishits. I have a $25.00/month phone plan and a $50.00/month internet bill. I would guess the AARP phone plan is reasonable since one needs a phone for confirming Dr. appointments and  emergency uses. The internet plan is cheap as well. I use it to keep the grocery bill down by getting stuff from Amazon. I live in a small town.

I might have to break down and finally get an ishit. My land line phone won't let me alone. Lots of fake ghosts calls and solicitations every day. I don't answer them, but I can't even stand the phone ringing anymore. Assuming I can avoid that fate with an ishit.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-26-2017, 05:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

It's both.

Your side has an incorrect philosophy that nevertheless has strong appeal. The slogans of freedom and less government have the effect of clouding out the truth. After all, who likes "the government"?

And your side is adept at ignoring the facts about which philosophy actually works, and endlessly trying to spin them in your direction. Your alternative-facts universe is enough to convince poorly-educated voters, and that's what the bosses that you support depend on.

It's not as much about less government or the elimination of government, it's about lessening governments power of influence and control. I believe in a constitutionally limited government. Who wants their government to have power and influence over themselves? Who wants their government to have the power to make their decisions and in determining their beliefs for them and power to control them with money, threats, intimidation and so on? I'd say, no one other than clueless people. Have you ever had a foreign money merchant call you on the phone disguising themselves as IRS agents? I have. They remind me of you. I don't believe in the governments you'd prefer and seem to favor.

Yes indeed; "less government's power of influence and control" is an appealing slogan. But I am more concerned about big business' power of influence and control, and our government is the only potential check on what they do to workers, consumers, the environment and the economy. The government is needed to "control them" and keep us safe from them. That is the kind of "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." As long as small business and regular folks contribute a decent and fair share and follow fair laws, they have no reason to be against "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." I'm all in favor of fewer regulations on small business and family farmers if they are not needed to protect workers, consumers, the environment and the economy.

The Party you support, for example, wants to give favor to big business on the internet, so that users like us are stuck with an internet that's slower and has less of a voice. I support what Obama's FCC did to rein in these big companies and keep the internet neutral. That's the kind of "government I'd prefer and seem to favor

The internet doesn't have anything to do with the speed of your internet provider or the speed of your computer hard drive. The progressives wanted the government (Obama/ the FCC) to take control over the internet in order to censor information and severely weaken and eliminate their political competition on the internet.

[Warren Dew]

(01-26-2017, 10:59 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The most effective, proven medication for bipolar is lithium, which is less than $20 a month.

Yeah, but my shrink prefers valproate instead which is about the same price. There are of course other meds and the Dr. visits which add to the costs. And... not to mention the fact bipolar really fucked up my career.

With respect to the bipolar, though, it isn't an argument for any form of third party payer, either employer or government.  People can afford $20 a month out of pocket.  And once a mental condition has been identified and a working solution found, one doesn't really need frequent doctor's visits just to renew the prescription; once every three months should be more than enough.

Bipolar is, if anything, an argument against third party payer.  I have a long time friend who is bipolar; she's also now a successful patent attorney with a PhD and a law degree.  When she first went to a psychiatrist, she was diagnosed with depression and put on Prozac, which was then on patent and moderately expensive (several hundred dollars a month).  It took years for her to be switched to lithium, which worked much better for her. Why?  Because there's big pharma advertising money behind patent medicines and the associated diagnoses, so doctors know about them and tend to prescribe them, and there's no pushback from the patients on cost.  This despite the fact that her father was bipolar and had been on lithium most of his life, so the doctor should have known to look into it.

If patients bore more of the costs, they would push back more on expensive medicines, and doctors would mention the cheaper - and more effective - medicines earlier in the process.

I do agree that our present medical system is terrible at identifying and helping people who aren't neurotypical.  What's needed is removal of the stigma for mental conditions - a stigma I really don't understand in the first place - and maybe a culture where annual mental checkups are considered as normal as annual physical checkups.  Then maybe these conditions could be caught earlier in the process and people could more easily adjust.

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2017, 02:46 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 05:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

It's both.

Your side has an incorrect philosophy that nevertheless has strong appeal. The slogans of freedom and less government have the effect of clouding out the truth. After all, who likes "the government"?

And your side is adept at ignoring the facts about which philosophy actually works, and endlessly trying to spin them in your direction. Your alternative-facts universe is enough to convince poorly-educated voters, and that's what the bosses that you support depend on.

It's not as much about less government or the elimination of government, it's about lessening governments power of influence and control. I believe in a constitutionally limited government. Who wants their government to have power and influence over themselves? Who wants their government to have the power to make their decisions and in determining their beliefs for them and power to control them with money, threats, intimidation and so on? I'd say, no one other than clueless people. Have you ever had a foreign money merchant call you on the phone disguising themselves as IRS agents? I have. They remind me of you. I don't believe in the governments you'd prefer and seem to favor.

Yes indeed; "less government's power of influence and control" is an appealing slogan. But I am more concerned about big business' power of influence and control, and our government is the only potential check on what they do to workers, consumers, the environment and the economy. The government is needed to "control them" and keep us safe from them. That is the kind of "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." As long as small business and regular folks contribute a decent and fair share and follow fair laws, they have no reason to be against "governments I'd prefer and seem to favor." I'm all in favor of fewer regulations on small business and family farmers if they are not needed to protect workers, consumers, the environment and the economy.

The Party you support, for example, wants to give favor to big business on the internet, so that users like us are stuck with an internet that's slower and has less of a voice. I support what Obama's FCC did to rein in these big companies and keep the internet neutral. That's the kind of "government I'd prefer and seem to favor

The internet doesn't have anything to do with the speed of your internet provider or the speed of your computer hard drive. The progressives wanted the government (Obama/ the FCC) to take control over the internet in order  to censor information and severely weaken and eliminate their political competition on the internet.

I don't know what you mean, except that Bush set up the NSA spying system and Obama did not dismantle it. The Bush FCC also enforced censorship on broadcast media after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl.

No, internet neutrality decided upon by the Obama FCC keeps the big billionaire corporations from taking it over by making it slower for everyone else and giving big users priority. Trump and Republicans support the corporations' and the billionaires' internet priority; Democrats support our rights to use the internet on the same level as the billionaires and corporations.

Remember, when you support Republicans, you always and only support the rich and powerful against your own interests.

[David Horn]

(01-26-2017, 10:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:32 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue:  your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.

I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

No, you also dispute demonstrable facts, which makes a common discussion plane impossible.

I don't think you understand the difference between a "fact" and an assertion.  Much of your discourse in this thread, and others, tends to be heavier on the latter than the former.

I try to avoid calling things 'facts' unless they are; I'm also not perfect.  You also make your fair share of assertions.  We're discussing subjects not fully defined, so is this surprising?

But the basis of this argument was Tim Taylor's difficulty discussing issues involving healthcare and treatment with Warren.  Do you want to discuss that?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-26-2017, 10:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:32 PM)David Horn Wrote: No, you also dispute demonstrable facts, which makes a common discussion plane impossible.

I don't think you understand the difference between a "fact" and an assertion.  Much of your discourse in this thread, and others, tends to be heavier on the latter than the former.

In any given conversation between extreme partisans, each side will believe it has facts, while perceiving the other as making partisan assertions.  This dichotomy is the basis of much of the lack of communication and comprehension.  As long as everyone is dead certain that they are right and the other has no basis, the conversation goes in circles.

[Ragnarök_62]

Warren Dew Wrote:With respect to the bipolar, though, it isn't an argument for any form of third party payer, either employer or government.  People can afford $20 a month out of pocket.  And once a mental condition has been identified and a working solution found, one doesn't really need frequent doctor's visits just to renew the prescription; once every three months should be more than enough.

1. To get back to the gist of the original post, I wasn't confining the discussion to just bipolar. The total cost of my meds for that disease is about $70.00/month for several meds. That isn't really a problem because that's covered by say my forgoing pay TV. 

2. The meds cost that price due to health insurance which probably keeps the price down. That's where the problem is. If the system were left to its own devices I'd have some problems.
a. I'd be locked out of health insurance entirely because of the pre-existing condition proviso.
b. Even if I could get health insurance without the Obamacare subsidy, I could not afford it.
c. That is where I have a supply/demand mismatch that "free enterprise" and the current oligopoly supporting regulations impose. Notice, I'm stating a pox of both houses. Perhaps the med price would work out if I could import the meds from Canada/Mexico. I know for a fact that Big Pharma's whores in Congress just sucked some more dicks recently... I mean hell, both my Senators were in the whore crowd, I remember that vote, and I'm gonna vote for whoever is up against them next time. As for Dr. visits, I have to actually see the shrink every 3 months and get stuff like followups/blood work, etc. I'm not sure how the person you know's condition runs, but it's different. There isn't a blood test to determine how things are going, like say an A1c test for diabetes. Anyhow, at both of our ages, there's other preventative stuff like colonoscophies which I had in 2016, vaccinations, etc.
d. I also fail to see how no 3rd party handles catastrophic stuff like an auto wreck, getting cancer, etc.

Warren Dew Wrote:Bipolar is, if anything, an argument against third party payer.  I have a long time friend who is bipolar; she's also now a successful patent attorney with a PhD and a law degree.  When she first went to a psychiatrist, she was diagnosed with depression and put on Prozac, which was then on patent and moderately expensive (several hundred dollars a month).  It took years for her to be switched to lithium, which worked much better for her.  Why?  Because there's big pharma advertising money behind patent medicines and the associated diagnoses, so doctors know about them and tend to prescribe them, and there's no pushback from the patients on cost.

I see another way. There are already copays and a formulary with my insurance plan. I don't see why a formulary list can't fix the desire for overpriced crap. That's why I choose generics Warren. I also tell my docs that I'm income limited. My guess is that Big Pharma also bribes docs to "sell" their stuff. So... I think Medicare for all, cojoined with sufficient copays would work. I'm glad your friend made out better than I did. I got messed up bad during an outsourcing hack job at my last employer in 2008. The Great Recession along with most likely age discrimination kept me out of IT for a couple of years and then as usual one becomes worthless with a huge hole in the resume which sinks you in IT. Would getting reskilled work? I doubt it since I took the safest route by getting back to Oklahoma where I could at least stay housed and fed working some minimum wage job. There's also the lack of IT jobs here and I rather doubt as this age I'd get any sort of payback for tuition/online learning, etc.

Quote:This despite the fact that her father was bipolar and had been on lithium most of his life, so the doctor should have known to look into it.

One of my nephews got lucky because his doc asked the question about relatives with bipolar. He got the right diagnosis straight away.

Quote:If patients bore more of the costs, they would push back more on expensive medicines, and doctors would mention the cheaper - and more effective - medicines earlier in the process.

1.  Copay structure should fix the first and I don't have no idea on doctors' skills.

Quote:I do agree that our present medical system is terrible at identifying and helping people who aren't neurotypical.  What's needed is removal of the stigma for mental conditions - a stigma I really don't understand in the first place - and maybe a culture where annual mental checkups are considered as normal as annual physical checkups.  Then maybe these conditions could be caught earlier in the process and people could more easily adjust.

Mental checkups. Yes, that is a good idea. It would do wonders in Oklahoma since what we have now results in a higher prison population from self medication and the such like.

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 11:55 PM):Ragnarök_62 Wrote: My guess is that Big Pharma also bribes docs to "sell" their stuff.

Yes.  Free lunches, junkets, disease "awareness" grants to increase (mis)diagnoses, lap dances, multimillion dollar speaking fees ... it's a racket:

http://theinfluence.org/you-wont-believe...ill-drugs/

People work for who they get paid by.  Doctors get paid by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, employers, the government - almost everyone except the patient.  That's the problem with third party payer.

[Galen]

(01-28-2017, 12:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:55 PM):Ragnarök_62 Wrote: My guess is that Big Pharma also bribes docs to "sell" their stuff.

Yes.  Free lunches, junkets, disease "awareness" grants to increase (mis)diagnoses, lap dances, multimillion dollar speaking fees ... it's a racket:

http://theinfluence.org/you-wont-believe...ill-drugs/

People work for who they get paid by.  Doctors get paid by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, employers, the government - almost everyone except the patient.  That's the problem with third party payer.

Exactly right.  Getting the economic illiterates on the left to understand that is virtually impossible.  Here is an example of what happens when patients pay for their own medical care.





At this point a logical person would be asking: What is government doing to screw up incentives so much?  Logic and reason is in short supply these days, particularly on the left.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-27-2017, 12:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 09:57 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 2. I completely agree with you about needless luxuries like Ishits. I have a $25.00/month phone plan and a $50.00/month internet bill. I would guess the AARP phone plan is reasonable since one needs a phone for confirming Dr. appointments and  emergency uses. The internet plan is cheap as well. I use it to keep the grocery bill down by getting stuff from Amazon. I live in a small town.

I might have to break down and finally get an ishit. My land line phone won't let me alone. Lots of fake ghosts calls and solicitations every day. I don't answer them, but I can't even stand the phone ringing anymore. Assuming I can avoid that fate with an ishit.

There are services that can knock down the vast bulk of the junk calls.  I recently activated Nomorobo.  It works reasonably well.  I'm still getting in the habit of not answering phone calls on the first ring though.  It takes Nomrobo a few seconds to identify bogus calls.  If the caller is on their block list, there is no second ring.  Still, it does pretty good.  

The AARP has a page up that identifies various blockers that work on different types of phones.

[SomeGuy]

(01-27-2017, 10:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:32 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: I think Tim's point is simple enough.  It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.

It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.

No, you also dispute demonstrable facts, which makes a common discussion plane impossible.

I don't think you understand the difference between a "fact" and an assertion.  Much of your discourse in this thread, and others, tends to be heavier on the latter than the former.

I try to avoid calling things 'facts' unless they are; I'm also not perfect.  You also make your fair share of assertions.  We're discussing subjects not fully defined, so is this surprising?

But the basis of this argument was Tim Taylor's difficulty discussing issues involving healthcare and treatment with Warren.  Do you want to discuss that?

Then why posture about Warren denying "demonstrable facts", which I don't see him having done, rather than agree with the statement that it is at the root of it a dispute about political philosophy?  Seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, here, rather like the "fake news" subject.

Quote:In any given conversation between extreme partisans, each side will believe it has facts, while perceiving the other as making partisan assertions.  This dichotomy is the basis of much of the lack of communication and comprehension.  As long as everyone is dead certain that they are right and the other has no basis, the conversation goes in circles.

All the more reason to understand the difference between the two.  If they are actual facts, then they can be demonstrated empirically, you can establish a common basis for discussion, and where your political philosophies diverge on the conclusions to be drawn you will know where and why.  This continued willingness to blur the lines between fact and opinion is not conducive to having an actual discussion, and leads to the sort of group-think, distrust, narrow partisanship, and other ills that you and your ilk regularly wring their hands over.  If you're going to continue doing it, you might as well admit that what you really dislike is people who have the temerity to disagree with you.