The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Forty Two]

Warren challenges Trump and he calls her Pocahontas yet again

Trump was asked about Warren’s claim that “people will die” due to the recently unveiled bill. He responded with some familiar ad hominem attacks.

He responded to the eminently reasonable and non-fallacious argument "people will die" and "blood money" arguments with an ad hominem fallacy? Shocking!

[pErvinalia]

If the deal was related only to covering the poor, then we'd just fucking raise the income level at which someone is entitled to Medicaid, or do a means-tested subsidy. But you will notice that they didn't do that.

Bullshit.

"Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act"

[The ACA] modifies how income is calculated for most Medicaid applicants, including those in the new eligibility group. Starting in 2014, states must use Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) for eligibility determination for most applicants. This is adjusted gross income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, modified by applying a 5 percent “disregard.” This method eliminates resource tests. The combined effect of requiring coverage up to 133 percent of poverty and then use of MAGI budgeting effectively raises the income level for most Medicaid applicants to 138 percent of poverty.

[Emphasis mine.]

You're missing the point. If the issue was to "cover the poor" then you don't have to do anything other than means test for Medicaid. If you want to cover the poor, and the poor aren't covered, then cover the poor. There is no need to upset the entire system and force people who aren't buy insurance at $x per month to buy insurance at quadruple $x per month.

The ACA should have been better in regard to making sure that poor and middle class people got affordable access to health care. In my opinion, it should have included a single payer option for everybody. On the other hand, the political calculation that a single payer option could have resulted in nothing being done at all might have been correct. Politicians, both Democratic and Republican, are all too willing to spit in the faces of their nominal constituencies if those politicians are beholden to a particular interests, and many of them are beholden to health insurance interests, who really don't want a single payer option.

Regardless, your assertion that 'they' didn't 'fucking raise the income level at which someone is entitled to Medicaid' is false.

No no you're wrong. 42 clearly stated that no one debunked anything of his. You need to stop this annoying habit you have. Why can't we just have a normal conversation where 42 gets to lie repeatedly and the rest of us say nothing at all about it?

[pErvinalia]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

[pErvinalia]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

I don't know why she did it. I know she falsely claimed to be Native American,...

Seriously.

[Forty Two]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

When did I say she "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path?"

[pErvinalia]

You are doing it again. You can't possibly know that she's not a Native American.

Look it's not me that's saying it. It's every genealogist that has looked into it and heads of Cherokee tribes.

Again with your historical revisionism. You said she's not Native American "because she cannot show a single person in her family that is or was native American". You've now moved the goalposts to someone else making a claim.

Stop it, dude. Just stop it. The goalposts have not been moved.

They demonstrably have. Your "reasoning" for why she is not Native American was that SHE couldn't show ancestry, as I just re-quoted you saying. Now you are saying that third parties are saying there isn't evidence to show ancestry. You moved the goalposts from HER claims to SOMEONE ELSE'S claims. This is basic stuff. You should be able to see this.

She's not native American because there is no evidence that she's native American. The same way it is known that she's not Mongolian or Chinese or Japanese. Her family lore doesn't mean shit. Got it?

I got it the first time you said. And the second. And the third. That doesn't change the flawed logic of your "argument". Your "argument" is still flawed.

But, I'll be sure to point out your standard of review here as to how we know what we know - I'll expect you to use this kind of epistemology on all issues, not just those involving claims by Elizabeth Warren that she's Native American.

Is this about the closest we are going to get to you admitting that your assertion was technically wrong? I spose I should thank God for small wonders..

You can't ever, for example, "know" that Trump is lying, right?

Of course you can. If someone says something, and then at a later date says they didn't say it, then that's a clear lie. And in the case of Trump, I'm fairly certain he's done just that (although, I can't bring it to mind).

You can't "know" that there is no significant voter fraud in the US, right? You can't "know" that Trump did not lose the popular vote because millions of illegals voted, right? You can't "know" that the investigation of Trump isn't a bogus political witch hunt, right? And you can't know that Trump didn't actually release his tax returns, right?

1 - of course not.
2 - I don't know about the illegals thing, as I don't know how your voting system works.
3 - Sure. Highly unlikely, though, given it's bi-partisan.
4 - Release them to who? The wind?

Like fuck you don't. If you didn't care you wouldn't keep asking us to comment on an utterly inconsequential thing.

You are not "us"

Fuck, man, you just can't stop yourself, can you? You conveniently excised the quotes out that show exactly how there is an "us". Here's what you wrote to Rainbow:

"What's weird is how hard some of you are trying to, just, simply, admit it."

Notice the bolded bit. That's a plural. I'm not going further back that this quote block, but that plural refers to Rainbow and myself. So there is demonstrably an "us". Now, I anticipate that you'll try and bullshit your way out of this like all your other empty claims, so here's you directly prompting rainbow to comment on Warren's ancestry:

"It really is that simple, but if you want to explain to me how Warren can reasonably say she's Native American....by all means, have the fuck at it."

-- I'm not asking you to comment on anything and given the lack of value of almost everything you post, I'd prefer you didn't.

Oh look, more lies. You directly ask me to comment here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1714126 and here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1714154

I know, of course, and you know, that you'd have no problem calling Trump out on this exact thing, if it was him. For some reason, with Warren, you can't bring yourself to say she's full of it, here.

How many times do I have to explain this?!? I don't know exactly what she is claiming and what exact evidence exists or is lacking. That's why I can't authoritatively comment on whether she is full of it or not. Jeezus, this is simple logic and reasoning. Can't you understand this?

Of course it's not important to you. You know, if you were the least bit honest, that you'd be having a field day with this if it was Sarah Palin, or Mit Romney, or some other Republican, who tried to claim native american ancestry because their grandmother said some ancestor was 1/4 Cherokee. You know it. I know it. Everyone else knows it. This is just an example of you showing your true colors.

So because I'm not "having a field day" with it I can't point out where you are bullshitting?

You haven't pointed out any bullshit. I'm reporting accurate facts.

So you claim, yes. But as pointed out to you, "Warren isn't a Native American" isn't necessarily a fact. It's an opinion. Whether it's true or not, you can't possibly know. Please don't make me keep explaining this to you.

You're falsely claiming that I'm bullshitting to try to deflect, because you don't view her dishonesty as important. When you don't view an issue as important, you try to piss all over the conversation, deflect and derail.

Wrong, as explained numerous times now. I don't know whether she is being dishonest. That's why I can't comment on the allegation. I'm addressing your failures in logic and reasoning. You might not like it... you might disingenuously continue to call it "pissing" and "derailing"... But it's nothing of the sort. Stop making illogical arguments and I'll stop commenting on your illogical arguments.

Sorry, chief, debate doesn't work like that. When you make arguments/assertions, we get to address them.

You're not we. You're you. Only you. Stop pretending you speak for a group. You don't.

Jeezus, man. Wake the fuck up. There's you, and then there's the rest of us who have to continually point out your dishonesty and bullshit claims. You can't seriously believe that anyone supports your arguments more than on the odd occasion. You can't seriously believe that people like myself, L'Emmy, Brian and Hermit aren't constantly pointing out your bullshit.

She's not Cherokee. She's not Native American. Nothing she says is any evidence of her being either of those. Can't you just say "yes, I agree, there is no evidence that she's native American" - feel free to add that you don't care one way or the other. But, whether you "care" is irrelevant.

I already answered this somewhere. I don't know what her exact claim is,

If you don't know what her exact claim is, how in the world are you even talking about this issue to say that it's not proven wrong?

Jesus Christ. I am addressing the logical coherency of your "arguments". It doesn't matter at all what the subject matter is. You could be trying to make an argument about the American Civil war, about which I know next to fuck all, and if the logic of your argument was fucked, it's fucked no matter what my knowledge of the subject matter is.

and I don't know what evidence there may or may not be.

There isn't any, and you have none. She's not Native American.

Non-sequitur. Your second sentence doesn't follow on from your first sentence.

The reason for this is that it's an inconsequential issue and consequently I haven't found the need to care enough to look up the exact claims. Therefore I can't answer your question as to whether there is evidence of a claim or not. Can you understand?

this is all fine - except it does not explain your usual behavior here of participating in a conversation and making substantive statements about it, when you say you don't care about it. And, you've said what I can and can't know, despite having just admitted that you know something between jack and squat about it.

You just want to be contrary,

Nup. As I explained, your "argument" falls over on logic and reasoning, not subject matter.

and pretend that it's not known that Warren is not Native American,

You're really grasping at straws, man. If I was a yank, perhaps you could make this argument at a stretch. Man, I'm an Australian. I have next to no interest in the personal gossip of a minor political figure in the US. And I certainly don't get news about gossip about her popping up in my news feeds or on the tele.

If you were honest, you'd say "I don't know one way or the other, and I don't care."

God you are a piece of work. That's exactly what I have said numerous times. Fucking Jesus!

But instead you tell me that I don't know one way or the other, and that you don't care. That's a different thing altogether.

Not "instead". In "addition".

The fact that it is this hard, on such a simple, straightforward issue, to get you and some others to just admit that if the same shit was trying to be sold by Scott Brown, or some GOP candidate, you'd not be making these same deflections and defenses. You'd be rightfully skewering them. Just admit it.

I've got no problem in admitting that I'd rubbish any politician in the right circumstances making a ridiculous claim to ancestry. But I'm not abreast of what exactly she has claimed, and I simply don't care enough to go and research it. If she has definitively claimed that she is Native American and the only evidence she had to support it was her "high cheekbones", then I would rubbish the shit out of that. Is that good enough for your ridiculous partisan nervous tic?

So then don't fucking sit there and tell me what I do or do not know.

How about, no? I'll continue to point out to you what is logically impossible for you to know. You might want to get some adult colouring-in books...

It's your partisan bullshit, pErvin, not mine.

Wow, that's some impressive deflection there. I haven't said a single partisan thing in this thread. And you just quoted me saying that I would rubbish any politician over it. And then you just go back to bullshitting..

But, instead of looking into it yourself, or instead of just not participating in the conversation, you went ahead to try to tell me that "I" didn't know that she wasn't Native American and "I" could not prove she wasn't Native American. Now you're just trying to weasel out of it. But, I'll let you -

I'm not weaselling out of anything. What are you on? You simply cannot know whether she is Native American or not. It's basic logic, dude. Seriously.

Here - we agree that since Warren has, in fact, put forward family lore and high cheekbones as her evidence for Native American status, and there is no evidence put forward whatsoever that a single family member of hers was Native American - then, she's full of shit. Sounds like we've finally reached agreement on that. No need for your nonsense beyond that.

Man, what are you on? We don't agree. How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not abreast of the full facts of her claims?? I know you'd like me to just accept your word for what the exact claim was and what the exact evidence is or isn't, but it's never going to happen. You've got a long history of frankly bizarre interpretations of facts and indeed simple English sentences. So no, we don't agree.

[pErvinalia]

I still haven't seen any evidence that Warren "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path."

Stop it. Just stop it. I can't let this unfair criticism of 42's eminently logical and evidentiary claims go unchallenged. This is heinously heinous.

When did I say she "falsely claimed to be a native American in order to help her Ivy League career path?"

I know, right? Where does L'Emmy get off? You and I are the new "us", bro.

[pErvinalia]

Warren challenges Trump and he calls her Pocahontas yet again

Trump was asked about Warren’s claim that “people will die” due to the recently unveiled bill. He responded with some familiar ad hominem attacks.

He responded to the eminently reasonable and non-fallacious argument "people will die"..

You don't think people will die from a reduction in health care access and standard?

[Tero]

Minority (Trumpeteers plus Congress) holding US hostage to president and healthcare they do not want:
Only 17% of Americans in a recent survey said they approve of the Senate health care bill.
The NPR/PBS/NewsHOur/Marist poll found that 55% of Americans disapprove of the Better Care Reconciliation Act, while a quarter said they have not heard enough to have an opinion.
The poll was conducted before a Congressional Budget Office report came out which found that the bill would leave 22 million more uninsured Americans by 2026 and cut the federal deficit by $321 billion.
A separate poll from USA TODAY/Suffolk University taken through Tuesday, when the report came out, showed just 12% support, while a Quinnipiac poll also taken through Tuesday showed only 16% approval.
Those numbers are even worse than the House health care bill, which was backed by 35% of voters and opposed by 49% in a poll conducted earlier this month.
The poll also found broad disapproval of the way Republicans in Congress are handling health care, with 65% saying they disapprove and only 21% saying they approve.

http://time.com/4836700/senate-health-c ... d=homepage

[Tero]

Duh. Obvious. But that would be "regulation".

One option to avoid pricey plans for the sick is to essentially create ratios for how much consumers in each group can be charged, according to Rounds. That means there would be a ratio limiting how much more people could be charged in the sicker pool compared to those in the healthier pool.

For example, he said, if the least expensive plan in the new group was $100 a month, the most expensive plan in the other group could be $250.

This concept is nothing new in the insurance industry, he said, and was discussed “very, very briefly” in the closed-door Senate GOP lunch Thursday. He added, “Some other people have got some really good ideas of how to address it as well.”

[Brian Peacock]

And he was wrong about FREEDOM as well

"What they're basically saying at the Congressional Budget Office is, if you're not going to force people to buy Obamacare, if you’re not going to force people to buy something they don’t want, then they won't buy it. So it's not that people are getting pushed off a plan. It's that people will choose not to buy something they don't like or want."

Ryan added that ending the expansion of Medicaid also played a role in the relative drop in the insured.

We went back to the CBO report to see if in fact, it "basically" said that people will choose not to buy insurance.

In terms of 22 million fewer insured, the CBO did not.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -would-be/

Ryan should read the CBO report. I have.

[Brian Peacock]

[Hermit]

You can't possibly know that she's not a Native American.

Exactly. In the same way you can't possibly know god does not exist. Warren, however, specifically claimed to be part-Cherokee, and neither family lore nor her grandfather's high cheek bones are sufficient evidence to back that claim up. So, yes, Warren made a claim she is yet to substantiate. A DNA test would do that if the claim is true.

That said, what has any of this got to do with single payer health care in the US?

[pErvinalia]

Yep.

[Scot Dutchy]

A typical 42 troll. No Trumpette wants to talk about health.