[jogs]

 barmar, on 2017-May-05, 09:02, said:

Are you EVER going to answer my question about that that means? The point of Medicaid is that you DON'T pay. What does it mean to join and also pay?

Does it just mean that the rate you pay for services is what the government would pay if they were covering you on Medicaid? So basically you're saying that hospitals and doctors should just drop all their fees for uninsured patients to the Medicaid rates, since everyone would just choose this option if it were available. Or in other words, the government gets to set health care prices.

There nothing sacred about having all members on Medicaid getting free health services. The uninsured really has no access to medical care other then the ER.

In San Francisco there is healthy San Francisco. Members pay according to their means.

Hospitals and doctors who accept medicaid would accept the uninsured who are members of medicaid. Althou there should be tiered medicaid. Urban areas should be allowed to charge more. Then more hospitals and doctors would be willing to accept medicaid members.

I'm suggesting a new form of medicaid which currently does not exist.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 10:20, said:

What is truly weird to me is that so many Trump supporters - and they have posted here in the WC - brag about being one of the "deplorables" Hillary Clinton defined.

Do they even understand what Clinton said?

Maybe, they discerned how out of touch Hillary really is/was. Didn't Hillary say that half of Trump's supporters were "deplorable"? Think about what that means in terms of the overall population of our country. So she was indicting about a quarter of our country of being really bad people. That's either a terribly dark view or out of touch with reality.

The term "deplorable" also infers some sense of aloofness, snobbishness, elitism or special privilege. How can self-professed "champions of equality" spew that out and really be for equality? They can't. It just showed the extent of the hubris and lack of respect she and those who agreed with her had for others.

Quote

So, those who brag about being "one of the deplorables" are bragging about being either: sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamaphobic. Perhaps the deplorable among us like being "lifted up" from the rubbish pile of their lives?

Sorry, but sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic are labels progressives like to put on anyone who disagrees with them. Bragging about being "one of the deplorables" isn't accepting those over-the-top characterizations, it's standing up for people's rights as individuals and saying they won't be intimidated by anyone trying to foist off that type of guilt by association.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 11:32, said:

It is ludicrous - and disingenuous - to make this comparison.

I disagree. I found Clintons "deplorable" remarks quite analogous to Marie Antionette's "Let them eat cake!" remark.

I also think you underestimate the anger resident in the Trump supporter groups, particularly the fringe groups. Many of them seem quite prepared to launch a civil war. We will see if continued dismissal of their concerns on the basis of logic and rationality is a winning strategy.

Legend has it that Alexander solved the Gordian Knot, not by unraveling it though thought, logic, and rationality, but by cleaving it with his sword. He went on to conquer much of the known world at that time.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-May-05, 15:12, said:

Maybe, they discerned how out of touch Hillary really is/was. Didn't Hillary say that half of Trump's supporters were "deplorable"? Think about what that means in terms of the overall population of our country. So she was indicting about a quarter of our country of being really bad people. That's either a terribly dark view or out of touch with reality.

The term "deplorable" also infers some sense of aloofness, snobbishness, elitism or special privilege. How can self-professed "champions of equality" spew that out and really be for equality? They can't. It just showed the extent of the hubris and lack of respect she and those who agreed with her had for others.

Sorry, but sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic are labels progressives like to put on anyone who disagrees with them. Bragging about being "one of the deplorables" isn't accepting those over-the-top characterizations, it's standing up for people's rights as individuals and saying they won't be intimidated by anyone trying to foist off that type of guilt by association.

That is BS. You are placing a right wing spin on Clinton's words. Read what she said. She described who she meant as deplorable. Perhaps the problem you have is you cannot bring yourself to criticize the sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamaphobic among us. Maybe that is 25% of the country.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-05, 17:00, said:

I disagree. I found Clintons "deplorable" remarks quite analogous to Marie Antionette's "Let them eat cake!" remark.

I also think you underestimate the anger resident in the Trump supporter groups, particularly the fringe groups. Many of them seem quite prepared to launch a civil war. We will see if continued dismissal of their concerns on the basis of logic and rationality is a winning strategy.

Legend has it that Alexander solved the Gordian Knot, not by unraveling it though thought, logic, and rationality, but by cleaving it with his sword. He went on to conquer much of the known world at that time.

That's so much dog poop. Marie Antoinette never worked for women's rights or children's rights nor did the bourgeoisie of France pass an Affordable Care Act, Medicare Act, and on and on and on.

The real oddity in all this is that it is the right wing who works continually to destroy the poor and middle class yet they are held up as populist champions while the Democrats are called elitists. Dumb.

Someone named DeVega said it best:

Quote

Today’s version of American conservatism is also a celebration of selfishness — and a belief that true freedom and liberty are based on a perverse individualism with little sense of common decency or linked fate with someone’s fellow citizens. Today’s American conservatism also embraces an extreme form of neoliberalism whereby human worth and dignity are determined by profit-and-loss statements and capitalism and democracy are confused with one another. Ultimately, American conservatism is a value system that is antisocial, anti-democratic and anti-freedom.

There is a moral obligation to speak plainly and directly in a time of crisis. To wit: The Republican Party’s so-called health care reform is designed to kill, injure and bankrupt the poor, the sick and the weak, in order to line the pockets of the 1 percent. As Republicans have repeatedly shown, the supposed “party of life” is actually the “party of death.”

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 18:03, said:

That's so much dog poop. Marie Antoinette never worked for women's rights or children's rights nor did the bourgeoisie of France pass an Affordable Care Act, Medicare Act, and on and on and on.

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton was responsible for passing the Affordable Care Act, Medicare Act, and on and on? Since when?

Based on her statements about the "deplorables" I would allocate her works to a sense of "noblesse oblige". She obviously hand no empathy for the plight of the poor or working class if you were not black or latino. To me she obviously felt she was part of the privileged class and "deserved" to be president. Her refusal to give a concession speech on election night simply confirmed it. Even now she is blaming Comey for her loss without noting that if she hadn't set up an off-site mail server to begin with none of that would have happened.

Trump is professing that he is trying to give the country back to the common citizens and take it away from the elites (which includes himself). His actions to date appear to me to be in line with that position. Of course, the path he chooses to do that obviously does not meet with the approval of said elites.

So how many of your objections are real and how many can be attributed to his kicking over your rice bowl, challenging your preferences and beliefs in what is right and proper? Are you arguing for the benefit of the general populace for the long term, or you just focusing on the uncomfortable changes occurring to your cherished beliefs and positions? How are you any different than a rabid right wing supporter?

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-05, 19:32, said:

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton was responsible for passing the Affordable Care Act, Medicare Act, and on and on? Since when?

Based on her statements about the "deplorables" I would allocate her works to a sense of "noblesse oblige". She obviously hand no empathy for the plight of the poor or working class if you were not black or latino. To me she obviously felt she was part of the privileged class and "deserved" to be president. Her refusal to give a concession speech on election night simply confirmed it. Even now she is blaming Comey for her loss without noting that if she hadn't set up an off-site mail server to begin with none of that would have happened.

Trump is professing that he is trying to give the country back to the common citizens and take it away from the elites (which includes himself). His actions to date appear to me to be in line with that position. Of course, the path he chooses to do that obviously does not meet with the approval of said elites.

So how many of your objections are real and how many can be attributed to his kicking over your rice bowl, challenging your preferences and beliefs in what is right and proper? Are you arguing for the benefit of the general populace for the long term, or you just focusing on the uncomfortable changes occurring to your cherished beliefs and positions? How are you any different than a rabid right wing supporter?

All my objections are real.

You probably didn't notice, but my argument was not in favor of Clinton or her policies but instead was based totally on her words. I voted for Clinton because Trump was such an incredibly incompetent moron that placing him in that position was too dangerous for the country.

Are there elitist Democrats? Certainly. Trump is not an answer but more problem.

[Al_U_Card]

 rmnka447, on 2017-May-05, 10:14, said:

You might want to start having yearly physicals and establish a relationship with a primary care physician. The physicals will establish a baseline for your health. That can be very useful to your doctors if you do, in fact, get sick.

Our province has recently tried to "recruit" GPs to do family practice med. The goal is to ensure that everyone has a family physician. I will be putting my name on the list this year. Regular physicals will likely start in 2 years when I turn 65.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 19:54, said:

You probably didn't notice, but my argument was not in favor of Clinton or her policies but instead was based totally on her words.

You do seem to be dazzled by words. Probably why Trump is so confusing to you.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 17:59, said:

That is BS. You are placing a right wing spin on Clinton's words. Read what she said. She described who she meant as deplorable. Perhaps the problem you have is you cannot bring yourself to criticize the sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamaphobic among us. Maybe that is 25% of the country.

Nice try, but I'm not buying it. You are placing left wing spin on my comments. It seems like maybe you've been labeling people "deplorable" so long that you've started to believe your own propaganda. Sad.

Just understand that this last election was a significant change. Donald Trump was an iconoclast in a good way. He refused to play the game by your unfair rules. You know the ones where you put a label on someone who opposes you, then they have to cower and essentially go away. No, he stood up and fought back -- his own "I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore" moment.

It changed the game. No longer are you going to control the conversation by labeling and intimidation. No longer are you going to be able to use political correctness to stifle the free clash/exchange of ideas. And, in the end, the violence or threat of violence that the left has started to use to try to stifle debate and gain control again will fail also.

In the process, he tapped into a well of dissatisfaction by ordinary people who lived a real reality far different from the kum-by-yah, everything is rosy world progressives were trying to tout. It gave those people cause to have their own "I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore moment" and refute the progressive real BS.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-May-05, 22:07, said:

Nice try, but I'm not buying it. You are placing left wing spin on my comments. It seems like maybe you've been labeling people "deplorable" so long that you've started to believe your own propaganda. Sad.

Just understand that this last election was a significant change. Donald Trump was an iconoclast in a good way. He refused to play the game by your unfair rules. You know the ones where you put a label on someone who opposes you, then they have to cower and essentially go away. No, he stood up and fought back -- his own "I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore" moment.

It changed the game. No longer are you going to control the conversation by labeling and intimidation. No longer are you going to be able to use political correctness to stifle the free clash/exchange of ideas. And, in the end, the violence or threat of violence that the left has started to use to try to stifle debate and gain control again will fail also.

In the process, he tapped into a well of dissatisfaction by ordinary people who lived a real reality far different from the kum-by-yah, everything is rosy world progressives were trying to tout. It gave those people cause to have their own "I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore moment" and refute the progressive real BS.

I hope you have a great life after you exit your fantasies. Good luck.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-05, 21:01, said:

You do seem to be dazzled by words. Probably why Trump is so confusing to you.

Language is how we communicate. But you don't acknowledge that. You seem pleased to follow someone who has a complete inability to produce a coherent sentence, much less policy.

Your libertarian fantasy will not last long.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 22:51, said:

Language is how we communicate. But you don't acknowledge that. You seem pleased to follow someone who has a complete inability to produce a coherent sentence, much less policy.

Your libertarian fantasy will not last long.

Talk about living in fantasy! Indeed, language is how we communicate, assuming the parties involved desire to communicate. Some use language to persuade or confuse: their goal is not to communicate but to control. Some don't bother with language but simply take action, leaving the communication debate to the bystanders. Your attachment to language as only communication is naive. It appears to me that Trump uses language to persuade, disrupt, confuse his adversaries. To him, what he says is for effect, not communication as you define it.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 22:50, said:

I hope you have a great life after you exit your fantasies. Good luck.

Same to you, buddy.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-05, 17:59, said:

That is BS. You are placing a right wing spin on Clinton's words. Read what she said. She described who she meant as deplorable. Perhaps the problem you have is you cannot bring yourself to criticize the sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamaphobic among us. Maybe that is 25% of the country.

Hillary didn't take a survey to find out how many of Trump's supporters are like this, it was just an offhand remark.

What she was probably reacting to was that these types of people were the most vocal and/or visible of Trump's supporters. When Trump made racist and/or sexist remarks at his rallies, and there was thunderous applauding from the crowds, as well as victories in the primaries that followed, how could anyone not think that these ideas are representative of his supporters? And then the fact that they voted him into office further supports this.

There's also been a marked increase in hate crimes since Trump's campaign began. While correlation doesn't prove causation, there are some obvious ways that these seem to be related.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-06, 08:38, said:

Talk about living in fantasy! Indeed, language is how we communicate, assuming the parties involved desire to communicate. Some use language to persuade or confuse: their goal is not to communicate but to control. Some don't bother with language but simply take action, leaving the communication debate to the bystanders. Your attachment to language as only communication is naive. It appears to me that Trump uses language to persuade, disrupt, confuse his adversaries. To him, what he says is for effect, not communication as you define it.

Trump is an empty suit demanding constant ego gratification. He will disappointment his supporters because he only uses them to fill his incessant need for attention.

I find it hard to believe someone with your brains continues to allow himself to be duped by an empty suited con artist. Sad and funny at the same time. I assume you are reasonably young - under 60 - and therefore have room to learn that your arrogant beliefs are based on a fictionalized version of life and that you are not special, but that the lowliest life of the poorest child in Somalia is worth every bit as much as yours.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2017-May-06, 11:32, said:

Hillary didn't take a survey to find out how many of Trump's supporters are like this, it was just an offhand remark.

What she was probably reacting to was that these types of people were the most vocal and/or visible of Trump's supporters. When Trump made racist and/or sexist remarks at his rallies, and there was thunderous applauding from the crowds, as well as victories in the primaries that followed, how could anyone not think that these ideas are representative of his supporters? And then the fact that they voted him into office further supports this.

There's also been a marked increase in hate crimes since Trump's campaign began. While correlation doesn't prove causation, there are some obvious ways that these seem to be related.

It doesn't matter how she came to say what she did. The fact is she defined 1/2 of Trump’s supporters as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic" and said that group was a "basket of deplorables."

Now, it seems, everyone who voted for Trump - including many who have posted here in the WC - gloat that they are one of the "deplorables". The only way to take that is that they are bragging that they are at least one of the following: 1) racist, 2) sexist, 3) homophobic, 4) xenophobic, 5) Islamaphobic.

There is no other spin to put on it.

Trump said that Clinton's words "showed her true contempt for everyday Americans." That must mean that Trump believes that 1/2 of everyday Americans fit Hillary's definition of "deplorable".

My experience suggests both Clinton and Trump were probably right: at least 1/2 of Trump's supporters belong in that basket.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-06, 14:00, said:

Trump is an empty suit demanding constant ego gratification. He will disappointment his supporters because he only uses them to fill his incessant need for attention.

Keep chanting! Then you won't be able to hear the encroaching conservative hordes. Remember, while Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won 20/30 states and approx. 85% of the counties in the US. In the last decade the Democrats have lost something like 1100 political positions in the states. But keep chanting. It will make you feel better.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-May-06, 14:22, said:

Keep chanting! Then you won't be able to hear the encroaching conservative hordes. Remember, while Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won 20/30 states and approx. 85% of the counties in the US. In the last decade the Democrats have lost something like 1100 political positions in the states. But keep chanting. It will make you feel better.

We will certainly find out who is right when 2018 rolls around, won't we? And, for the record, I believe the Democratic Party has done a horrible job over the past 40 years and in so doing has lost their base. But I also believe that base to be recoverable with a genuine attempt at populist measures and better messaging.

The right can only hide for so long their true contempt for the common man and the middle class.

[cherdano]

One of the Trump things that will never cease to amaze me how often his supporters or aides compare him to a toddler - see ldrews below complimenting him for throwing a toddler tantrum, or his anonymous aides describing in media reports how they keep him in a positive mood by showing lots of positive media coverage, how they gently push him to make the right decisions by offering lots of positive encouragement, etc.

 ldrews, on 2017-May-05, 19:32, said:

So how many of your objections are real and how many can be attributed to his kicking over your rice bowl

Let's hope the adults in the White House have put the nuclear codes in a cupboard with better child safety locks than the ones we got from amazon. Given that they can't seem to find a safe place for his phone, I am worried.