A literate person would write " . . if the evidence WERE allowed . . that he would . . " etc.

That pedantic shit and now this whining about grammar is all you got, old man? This BS you live by is getting pretty old and tired... just like your tiny little brain. If only you knew as much as you actually thought you did.
__________

* "Was" is used after a singular noun, and "were" is used after a plural noun.

* Evidence is an uncountable noun and is not used in the plural.

* Evidence is always followed by a singular verb:
The evidence is very clear.

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/evidence
___________

"If the evidence were allowed" is something a moron like you would probably say, but you'd be wrong, incorrect, ignorant, and you'd be showing your old age and your dotard tendencies.

So, what kind of person does that make you?

One who takes time to educate ignorant old men making a fool of themselves by posting pathetic incorrect grammar bullshit. :)

A literate person would write " . . if the evidence WERE allowed . . that he would . . " etc.

So, what kind of person does that make you?

True, but I was thinking about how the Republican base is going judge those that have to choose whether to impeach Trump or not once Mueller’s investigation is completed. Gowdy and others don’t want to have that stain on their record, so running away now is their best hope for avoiding the backlash.

I hear you. But Russ, I actually think Gowdy could get reelected in his district if he killed a baby on live TV and his Democratic opponent was Jesus, the son of God.

Gowdy has issues, but I believe if the evidence was allowed to be presented that he'd actually be one that would uphold his oath... so the backlash of his angry constituents for voting to impeach their Orange Worship would be severe. ;)

Again, totally agreed with everything you've said, but beside the (my) point (relative importance of food/shelter vs med. care) that got us going.

We don't really have any disagreement here, so let's call it good.

There was a woman who claimed me, but of course I only had her word on it.

Perhaps we are coming at this from such different points of view that we struggle to conduct a discussion. Can I suggest that parents quite often need access to health care on behalf of children before those children can become healthy young adults for whom it is not considered a priority?

Actually, I think I WAS born in a hospital, but my recollection of it is a little hazy, and I agree with all that stuff you say, but fail to see how it applies to the relative importance of food and shelter vs med. care to young people.

No, I'm obviously NOT arguing anything even remotely related to that. I thought it was obvious that I was arguing that food and shelter are more important than medical care for most young people, probably because most people are NOT born with handicaps.

Do you really disagree with that plain fact?

How true. Voted out of power under the light of faming torches. The retro ones, with real tar. Not those cheap Tiki knock offs like the Docker Nazis favor.

Many states allow your Medicare plan to inflate the cost of widely prescribed generic drugs by big multiples. The inflation factor is used to subsidize the salary of plan managers. It is cheaper to buy these drugs out of pocket, using discount coupons obtained on the internet. State laws actually prohibit your pharmacist from telling you about this - unless you, the consumer, ask the pharmacist if there is cheaper alternative. If you ask, they will be free to spill the beans, so to speak.

I only take one expensive medication, but using a coupon saves me about $1000 dollars a year. I don't have to produce a coupon each time I refill a script - the pharmacy keeps my info on file. Prices fluctuate a bit over the year, you may need to shift pharmacies now and again to get the lowest possible price. My internet coupon provider lets me track the lowest price close to home.

It's jungle out there - get a guide.

Gowdy won't likely slip through the cracks on this since he was on Trump's transition team... you know... the one for which Bobby Three Sticks obtained every single email. :)

True, but I was thinking about how the Republican base is going judge those that have to choose whether to impeach Trump or not once Mueller’s investigation is completed. Gowdy and others don’t want to have that stain on their record, so running away now is their best hope for avoiding the backlash.

I note you are arguing against the current role of insurance companies in US health care, and I agree with you there. The question is how health care can be organised more efficiently and how it can be paid for fairly, when the people who generally need it most (children, the handicapped and the very elderly) generally have the least personal resources to pay for it. But even people with healthy habits can develop cancer, for one example, just as accidents leading to extensive medical treatment can happen to anyone.

Another issue is how to ensure that healthcare does not become subject to political and ideological considerations, as well as those of financial self-interest.

WGAFFAWYT?

Offends me? *ROTFLMAO*

I see it as my (hopeless) calling to explain to old condescending pontificating hypocrites that repeating their age twice in the same comment box is a sign of CRS disease. We heard you the first time, dotard.

What's this "old people" shit? I wont be 83 for several months?

You've gotta get at least a little bit specific. Exactly which subsidies did I "pontificate" about that offends you? You talking about my support for single-payer health-care?

Anyway, who the hell is "old" around here? I wont be 83 for several months?

A lot of the older people who pontificate about "socialized medical care" are on socialized bloody medical care - they have decided that they deserve it, but nobody else does.

Bloody right, sir. You have advertently hit the nail right on the head. Perhaps Stucki would like to explain to the group why old people like him pontificate and take issue with government subsidies on one hand while holding out the other hand and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in subsidies for their farms.

We obviously understand hypocrisy, Stucki, but do tell us otherwise how you reconcile your pontificating BS with reality. :)

So glad to see Gowdy go! It’s funny, these guys are all trying to get out before the Trumpster implodes and takes down the GOP with him. That way, in ten years when Gowdy and others try to make a comeback, they hope no one will remember their role in this Trump-fiasco!

Gowdy won't likely slip through the cracks on this since he was on Trump's transition team... you know... the one for which Bobby Three Sticks obtained every single email. :)

A lot of the older people who pontificate about "socialized medical care" are on socialized bloody medical care - they have decided that they deserve it, but nobody else does.

Good points!

But, let's not shut the healthcare system down ... at least not until a great one is built!

The "prevention" part doesn't even have to a "big part" of the system.

1) Get off your butt and MOVE.
2) Quit eating sugar.
3) Don't use tobacco.

There, now half of the health-care system can shut down!

So glad to see Gowdy go! It’s funny, these guys are all trying to get out before the Trumpster implodes and takes down the GOP with him. That way, in ten years when Gowdy and others try to make a comeback, they hope no one will remember their role in this Trump-fiasco!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

I think you're on to something that could form the basis for the best healthcare system in the world.

A greater emphasis on preventing illness and disease should be a big part of any healthcare system, too. After all, it's not just about getting sick. It's also about staying well.

"Now, as for how, through national health insurance or other means and what's covered, what "basic" consists of, that's a far more detailed discussion.

But, I think that's precisely where the discussion needs to go."

I agree. I think it should be a national government funded health insurance program, medicare for all if you will, that covers everybody regardless of age. I think it should cover all medical care, including vision, like eyeglasses and cataract surgery, and dental, everything from filling cavities to providing dentures. The only things that would be exempt would be cosmetic or elective surgery, and stuff like private rooms or what have you. If you want luxury extras, you could still buy your own private insurance on top of it if you can afford it.

In an extraordinary public statement on Wednesday, the F.B.I. said the classified four-page memo authored by Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee had “material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

Also, many Democrats are wondering why, if the Republicans are so eager for "transparency" they won't authorize the release of a companion Democratic memo that Democrats say would help with overall accuracy.

In addition, Peter Strzok, who is one of the FBI agents whom some Republicans have accused of trying to undermine President Donald Trump when he worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian interference in the election, is also the very same agent who helped draft a letter that re-opened a probe into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails, thus dealing a blow to Clinton and possibly helping Trump get elected.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), chairmans of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. said he wouldn’t run again on Monday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday that he will not seek re-election this year. Gowdy's claim to fame was the he chaired the House Benghazi Committee from 2014 to 2016 that investigated Hillary Clinton's role in the affair.

"Based upon the relative importance of things that sustain life, food and shelter would normally come ahead of health care for most people.

There are at least two problems with this statement as I see it."

1) Most people actually can afford food and shelter. They can't afford healthcare. Or at least they can't afford it after taking care of the first two things.

2) Liberals at least do put an emphasis on food and shelter also. That's why we have the food stamp program and housing assistance. The problem comes when Conservatives keep trying to cut funding and restrict access to both, far below what is actually needed.

As one real world example. I have a friend who is disabled. He gets about 100 dollars worth of food stamps a month. That lasts him about a week. But because he is simply a single adult male, and not a woman with children, he can't get anymore. When in reality he needs about 4 times the amount he is getting. He also applied for housing assistance. He was told there was some ridiculously long waiting list, 3 years or more, and they weren't even accepting new applicants, because there simply wasn't enough government funding. Yet Republican politicians keep talk about the need to cut such programs.

Wash Post has a countdown page. Heh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/31/heres-a-countdown-to-trumps-next-tweetstorm-if-history-is-a-predictor/

On the health care issue, here's Daily Kos, pointing out that HC is a potent issue right now for Dems:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/30/1737429/-One-of-Trump-s-biggest-SOTU-applause-lines-will-be-the-GOP-s-biggest-stumbling-block-come-November

John M from Ct. [13] -

Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, it was a pretty forgettable night...

-CW

Actually, I think I probably DID know "where you were coming from on the health-care insurance thing". What you're really after is not health-care 'insurance' at all, but rather health-cale ASSURANCE, meaning universal coverage of health-care needs at public expense.

Actually, I'm after pretty much the same thing, because from where we now are, it's the only realistic option. However, I have to point out that insurance companies really shouldn't even have a role to play in health-care. They are simply middle-men adding greatly to the cost without contributing a single thing. They only find themselves involved as an accidental side effect of WWII, something that never should have been permitted to happen.

Based upon the relative importance of things that sustain life, food and shelter would normally come ahead of health care for most people. Seems like a highly arbitrary ranking to me. Most normal people will last for decades in the total absence of health care, but you only last days without food and water.

Of course, everybody likely has his own priority rankings. Personally, sex and fishing lures are well ahead of medical care on my list. There's much irrationality among you Dems/Libs.

But, I think that's precisely where the discussion needs to go.

The US is uniquely positioned to really make great progress on healthcare that could be the envy of the world.

And, if I may say so, the discussion we are having here on this issue is far ahead of where the president and congress are at on how to solve the healthcare issue.

You may be the only one here who doesn't know where I'm coming from on the healthcare insurance issue so, here's my take from back in March 2017:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/09/twenty-two-and-three-and-the-c-b-o/#comment-96367

OK, so we agree that healthcare is different from shelter. We are moving in the right direction.

Next question, do we want to have the markets play a role in healthcare, or is it like defense, something that should be handled by a single payer?

There are several different models, but let's pick three simple ones:

1. Single payer - e.g. France, U.K. - guaranteed birth-to-death coverage at a cost that is basically decided by the percentage of tax revenues the country can stomach.

2. Government controls on the market - e.g. Germany, Switzerland, U.S. - guaranteed ability to participate, market has some control over the costs

3. Pure market - I can't think of an example - maybe Afghanistan? - insurance company can aggregate costs for groups, but can control who is or is not in the group (e.g. no pre-existing conditions), otherwise patients pay providers directly.

In my opinion we have to choose between a flavor of #1 or #2. As CRS has pointed out, this isn't analogous to other markets, and has unique challenges.

I'm in favor of #1 because I spent a lot of time in the U.K. and got as good healthcare as I get in the U.S. at about 1/2 the total price. My family is wealthy and use private options to get preferential treatment if they choose to pay for it, and sometimes they do.

A good system can work for option #2 however, for example Switzerland.

We have the worst of all worlds, we pay almost twice as much as everybody else and get worse healthcare unless you are one of the few on a high quality PPO.

"I see it as my (hopeless) calling to explain to Dems/Libs how the real world actually functions, and the first order of that business is to dispel raging misconceptions.

Misconception du Jour, "Insurance against pre existing . . . (normally, "conditions"), but actually against anything!

Insurance is defined as a "hedge against risk". Ergo, no risk, no insurance! If your house is already on fire, there is no 'risk' involved - it's ALREADY ON FIRE, right? That's why nobody would EVER sell fire insurance on your house once it was burning.

Same thing exactly with "Health-care insurance for 'PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS". If you're already sick, there is no risk that you MIGHT get sick, because you're ALREADY sick!"

Not at all. I am a liberal and I have grasped that concept about healthcare for along time. It is the Conservatives and Republicans who keep having a hard time understanding it. That's why they keep saying if only we could get back to a free market solution to healthcare, that that would fix everything.

Healthcare is a free market failure. It can't and never will work that way in the free market for precisely the reasons you listed. No private, free market insurance company is ever going to voluntarily cover sick people or the elderly or the poor, BECAUSE they are a FOR PROFIT enterprise.

That's why requiring private insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions along with the individual mandate, was seen as a compromise position (either the best of both worlds, or the worst of both worlds, depending on your position) between a totally free market on the one hand, (which is what conservatives want) and national health insurance on the other. (which is what liberals want)

"If the insurance companies don't provide healthcare insurance, then who should provide and pay for it?

And, who should have healthcare insurance in the first place?"

Well, where I am starting out from is this:

1) Everyone should have basic health care, whether you are sick or healthy, and whether you can afford to pay for your own health care or not...

AND

2) Said healthcare should be provided by the government, paid for through taxes specifically dedicated to that purpose that are levied on everyone.

Now, as for how, through national health insurance or other means and what's covered, what "basic" consists of, that's a far more detailed discussion.

CRS is intelligent, we're all stupid reiteration #100.

Can you drop this nonsense - it taints everything that follows in your post.

I remember reading that the GOP had considered trying to introduce it during Bush’s last year, but his popularity was in the crappper so they decided to let the next Republican President get the credit for it. Overconfident? You bet’cha!

Misconception du Jour, "Insurance against pre existing . . . (normally, "conditions"), but actually against anything!

Insurance is defined as a "hedge against risk". Ergo, no risk, no insurance! If your house is already on fire, there is no 'risk' involved - it's ALREADY ON FIRE, right? That's why nobody would EVER sell fire insurance on your house once it was burning.

Same thing exactly with "Health-care insurance for 'PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS". If you're already sick, there is no risk that you MIGHT get sick, because you're ALREADY sick!

What the folks who inveigh against allowing insurance co's refusing to cover pre-existing conditions actually seek, is NOT insurance, but rather medical care at someone else's expense.

And believe it or not, I'm not even advocating against medical care at somebody else's expense, just not at the expense of the Ins. Co's, because that is not actuarially feasible. "Free" medical care can only be the burden of the taxpayers, otherwise we wind up with a phuqued-up (Mongolese again) system such as we now have, or no system at all, meaning sick people just gotta die.

And, who should have healthcare insurance in the first place?

These aren't trick questions - just a way to understand where everyone is coming from on this issue.

The overlaps include:
- An individual mandate;
- Creation of purchasing pools;
- Standardized benefits;
- Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
- A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

It didn't expand Medicaid however.

The way I recall the implementation of the "Mandate", it was introduced by the Obama administration after the Insurance Companies explained to him that if the people who don't need much medical care (the young and relatively healthy folks) are not forced to pay into the system, the premiums for the people who DO need lots of medical care (the older and the sicker folks) would become totally unaffordable.

Actuarially of course, it was an entirely valid concept, but I don't actually know who supported it (other than Obama) and who did not. Probably doesn't matter. The point is, it served to perpetuate the existing system, which was, and is, a disaster.

"The solution to the U.S. health-care problem is to get the gawdam insurance companies CLEAR OUT of the health-care system, not to make their outrageous role even larger, which is what Obama did with the mandate."

The ONLY reason Obama accepted the mandate, (It was NOT originally his idea. See my response #7 to Liz above.) was to get the support of Senators like Lierberman from Connecticut, who at the time thought a public option like medicare for all, was going too far.

Republicans were all for the individual mandate until Obama supported it, then they all turned against their own idea.

Otherwise I could not agree with you more. We need to take away private insurance companies' monopoly on health care entirely.

"We repealed the core of disastrous Obamacare — the individual mandate is now gone!"

Which is REALLY ironic in the extreme, since the individual mandate was a REPUBLICAN idea to begin with, conceived by the Heritage Foundation and pushed by Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as a way to make people PERSONALLY responsible for their health care, as opposed to making health care a straight out welfare program!

The solution to the U.S. health-care problem is to get the gawdam insurance companies CLEAR OUT of the health-care system, not to make their outrageous role even larger, which is what Obama did with the mandate.

I see some hope in the Buffet buddies plan, at least a major step in the right direction. Those guys obviously recognize the need to eliminate the middle-men (ins. co's) as I just mentioned.

This statement by the president and the Republican reaction to it last night was quite stunning.

Because it demonstrated that they don't understand how a successful healthcare insurance system works and, in any event, no replacement to Obamacare was offered.

Perhaps Amazon, Birkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan will save the day. Heh.

I give this latest PR Device a shelf life of about one week. The next early morning Twitter on the Shitter Session will blow its reasonability gasket to Hell and beyond and we'll be back on the Constitutional Crisis Trail.

He did mention Russia, though... referring to them as a "rival." Ouch... that's gotta sting. /sarcasm off

-CW