America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,222 comments
- 1,750,275 views
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I've only seen Tucker a couple of times and he is belligerent and does talk over people. Does he also pretend like their feeds are cut when they start saying things he doesn't like? Haven't seen that myself. The difference could be that one is honest and upfront about their bias and the other is using technology as a crutch to support theirs while pretending to be unbiased?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
What's up with the republicans and the ACA mess? They're adopting elements of universal healthcare because they're concerned about the backlash of ending obamacare overnight? Uh... phase out? That's what the government does...
I'd have thought they'd have a replacement bill ready to go the moment they got in office. This is amateur hour.
I'd have thought they'd have a replacement bill ready to go the moment they got in office. This is amateur hour.
- 14,042
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
You'd think that after seven years of "autistic screeching" against Obamacare they'd have come up with a replacement.
Surprisingly for a party which worships the free market (unless Jesus doesn't like it, like with narcotics, porn or booze), they didn't even remove the restriction against getting your insurance from a different state!
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,305
- United States
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 6,064
- Simcoeace
This is the kind of post that reinforces the divide in US politics. There's no question that the CNN editorial position was pro-Clinton & anti-Trump in the election, but they constantly had (& have) pundits on criticizing Clinton or supporting Trump - Jeffrey Lord & Kayleigh McEnamy (among others) are permanent fixtures in the CNN line-up, so it's ridiculous to suggest that they would attempt to (very occasionally) cut off a commentator by deliberately cutting the feed. What would be the point?
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
Soros gave 246 million to the groups behind these protests:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/7/george-soros-gave-246-million-partners-womens-marc/
What is that expression? A fool and his money are soon parted?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/7/george-soros-gave-246-million-partners-womens-marc/
What is that expression? A fool and his money are soon parted?
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Yes they do. "The power" = controlling the White House and both houses of Congress.
That they now can't agree on a good plan to replace the ACA just illustrates my point; every time during the last eight years that they promised they could come up with something better than the ACA, that helped more people and yet magically cost less money, it was empty, unrealistic nonsense.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
I haven't been paying much attention lately, I'm tired of the media's lack of integrity in general. The last I heard, the bickering on the Right was mainly to do with the funding (of the Replacement to the ACA), not the new plan itself. Sounds to me like a budget issue, more or less. Rand and the Tea Party love pulling the string on this stuff. Grab the popcorn this should be fun.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
A plan is worthless without a way to pay for it.
If there's a problem with funding, then there's a problem with the plan.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
There is a problem with funding in general, we are 3 trillion in debt with no signs of slowing down with Trump in office. Sharp increases to Military spending coupled with a reignited Nuclear Arms race with Russia, plus a national infrastructure restoration proposal..... all in addition to funding a new Health Care bill, we're screwed.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I don't care what their excuses are.
They shouldn't have spent most of the last decade now telling us they had the solution ready to go, all that needed to happen was for us all to trust them and vote them in.
It's quite obvious now that reality has set in; fixing healthcare isn't as simple as campaign sound bites made it seem.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Joey D
Premium
- 47,431
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
They're replacing something that doesn't work with something that doesn't work.
Really all they need to do is allow health insurance to be bought across state lines and move Medicare/Medicaid to value based care instead of fee for service. Value based care has been shown to be a cheaper way to go and it encourages preventative medicine instead of expensive reactionary medicine. It wouldn't fix everything but it would be a good start.
We also need to dump Meaningful Use since it didn't do what it promised and it's just a bunch of data that doesn't really do anything. It's also super costly since it takes an entire team of IT analysts to stay on top of it. We also need to enact a nationwide, single MRN that allows your health information be be accessible electronically no matter which health system you go to. That way you could shop around and go to the health system that gives you the best price, the best care, or a combination of the two without worrying about missing something from your medical record.
The government should also deny any reimbursement for Medicare/Medicaid for any health system not on an EMR (since there's no way Medicare/Medicaid would ever get dropped). It's 2017 and paper charts aren't effective and have a significantly higher chance of errors and privacy violations. If you get rid of all the stupid reporting that's required, or at least get rid of most of it, EMR's would work so much better. In my past job I probably spent 75% of the time building stuff in the EMR I supported to met things like Meaningful Use instead of designing tools that made the doctor's life easier so they could spend more time with the patient or just see more patients in general instead of spending hours at the computer.
Oh and we can ditch CMS audits, they are stupidly expensive and most hospitals use a third-party accreditation to make sure their organizations are safe, secure, and look after patient's privacy.
- 6,064
- Simcoeace
You think this proves what? CNN is so "left wing" that it cuts off Bernie Sanders?! And then a long, respectful discussion between Carol Costello & the Muslim woman who is invited on to explain - at great length - her support for Trump? You have pretty much illustrated my point.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 6,064
- Simcoeace
I guess you're not familiar with the concept of irony. I've heard a whole assortment of people from the Trump camp on CNN accusing CNN of propagating "fake news". Why CNN would choose the leftie-in-chief for censure?
The Muslim woman had more than 5 minutes to put across a whole range of Trumpy talking points, which she was able to do without being unduly interrupted & certainly without being cut off. There was nothing particularly significant about the moment she was "cut off" - and she was on skype ... it happens.
There's nothing to see here ...
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Jon Huntsman to be ambassador to Russia:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...rump-offer-to-be-ambassador-to-russia/8339306
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...rump-offer-to-be-ambassador-to-russia/8339306
- 38,925
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
McLaren
Premium
- 45,499
- Texas
- 13,884
- Adelaide
- Neomone
To be fair, any moron can come up with the best health system in the world if cost is no issue.
Cost is always an issue. If they can't get their "better" system to work for the same money or less than the ACA, in what sense is it better?
To be fair, it's not like this has snuck up on the US. It's been high since the GFC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
If they're gonna replace the ACA then they have access to all the funding for that. Do they need more as well?
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
You're not understanding the genius of it Biggles.
Step 1 - invite people on who are going to say things you don't like, instead of, you know, not inviting them in the first place
Step 2 - wait until they've got through some (or a lot) of the things you don't want them to say, then cut them off
Step 3 - only do this a couple handfuls worth of times out of hundreds (thousands?) of hours of coverage.
You'd think it'd be far, far easier to just employ the traditional methods of biased coverage - like the honest, upfront good guys at Fox News do - but CNN knows what it takes to get ahead in the Fake News™ market!
Their only big mistake was pretending it was "technical difficulties" that cut people off, which as we know never happens by accident with TV feeds, and especially with Skype calls.
And really they should know better than to think they wouldn't get found out eventually - remember for instance that time someone here sussed that people were being paid to form "organic" protests, from just a video of a row of parked buses?
No, nothing gets past people with..........absurd levels of confirmation bias, it seems.
Last edited:
