Jump to content

ExPDXer

Member
  • Content Count

    944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    M
  • Location
    FL

Recent Profile Visitors

1,912 profile views
  1. Happy Halloween! The guy pictured on the right is named Igor (really, that's his name!). Not this Igor... but he does bear an uncanny resemblance to Peter Lorre: And he hangs out with Bela Legosi himself .
  2. Now you want me to try on some Hobnail Jackboots? Sorry, they do not fit either. Besides they are ugly, and inappropriate for tropical climate. Falsifying a quote is a strong accusation, Mr Prosecutor. I will plead to a lessor charge of truncating a quote. Exhibit A:Let me try quoting your full post again, and see what happens...... There it is again... "Must include: shameful". Now, correct me if I am wrong. Google does not normally ask you this unless.... It thinks you wish to have the word 'shameful' included in the results And the only reason for that is to include this particular superlative as part of the search criteria. If the shoe fits, you must acquit. The Defense rests. I'm just looking for some basic footwear, in a size 12.25. They have to fit, be comfortable, and made of quality material. Got anything like that?
  3. Here is a search tip. When looking for objective results on the Internet..... It works. I tried it on several other candidates.
  4. You have opened my eyes to the utter futility of relativism. Ranking everyone on a scale of deplorability from 0 to 1,000,000,000 is just too much work. You're right. It's much easier to just have two absolute categories: Delectable & Deplorable Upon further research, I cannot with good conscious place Harris onto my delectable list. I have no choice but to place her into the shameful, deplorable category. Along side Trump, Barr, Alex Acosta, Erdogan, Kim Jung-un, Pol Pot , and Kim Kardashian. Now, who would be the best judge of whether the shoe fits my foot? You, or me? Even the most talented shoe salesman does not override the torturous pain of ill- fitting shoes. I choose not to purchase, or wear, what you are trying to force onto to my foot. My position of Kamala Harris has not changed. There was never a chance that I would vote for her. There are too many other good progressive candidates. I do not require researching more reasons to not vote for her, but I do apologize for my lack of adequate condemnation. I have seen the light. Perhaps now you can find a real Kamala Harris supporter to engage with. There are many out there. It ain't me you're looking for.
  5. Yes I did point out other prosecutors are worse. I do not support the actions you described, I am not familiar with all her past misdeeds. Did I apologize for her behavior? No. I think you are miss-interpreting my comparison of prosecutors relative evilness. I don't even support her as presidential candidate. and BTW, I also do not support giving Erdogan, or Kim Jung-un a free pass. Don't know where you got that idea from, and fail to see the purpose of that analogy.
  6. Correct. It's about skill-sets. Democrats really need her on Senate Investigation Committees, and drafting legislation. She is good in that role. Presidential leadership is more about administration, and setting forth an overall vision for the country as a whole. They don't directly investigate, or interrogate anyone. Governors have similar duties as presidents, but they rarely get elected to the highest office. Don't know why. Truthout would probably have the same complaints about most Prosecutors. Prosecutorial misconduct? ...., you don't know the meaning of misconduct. How about non prosecution agreements for billionaires? Compared to Alex Acosta (Fmr Southern District of Florida), Kamala Harris looks like a relatively typical, and presumably effective Prosecutor. Whether we need an effective former prosecutor, turned Senator as Commander in Chief is another question. I'm leaning towards an effective former professor, turned Senator.
  7. It's what's called a Primary Election. Every candidate wishes to take votes away from other candidates. All candidates are viable until they drop out. Steyer has been giving money to democratic nominees for years, one of their biggest donors, as a matter of fact. He spent $100 million in the 2018 midterms for Democratic candidates, and register voters.
  8. Here's a new one for you... Tom Steyer: 100.0 million Things are starting to get interesting.
  9. Trump: Let's give $1.5 Trillion so billionaires can buy more Gulfstream IV's ....Sound familiar?
  10. Or, add more institutions to these areas. It's all in the number of patients per hospital equation. Too many hospitals, with too few patients produce no wait time, but also negative profits. Too many patients, with too few hospitals, or medical services produces long wait times, and coincidentally produce higher profit margin. Kinda like the number of passengers per airplane equation. International airline hubs like NYC, LA, Miami feed smaller hubs like Denver, Chicago, and Dallas. These major hubs feed even smaller regional hubs that serve rural districts. Federal Air Traffic controllers impose very strict regulations on for-profit airlines, which affects how much profit they can squeeze out of compromising safety. Hospitals could build smaller, mini-hospitals that utilize technology to connect to medical resources available at larger medical centers across the nation. This is entirely possible. Whether it is profitable enough to entice private investment may be another question. Contrary to popular opinion, this is the kind of thing that where public funding has outperformed venture capitalism. Some things that are critical to the public, are not profitable to private enterprise. Development of new antibiotics is another example with a low profit motive, but the ‘public need’ may become apparent, soon. Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die as a result. Hospital acquired infections, and antibiotic resistance is now a major threat to public health. But there is no economic incentive for making new antibiotics. Large drug makers have abandoned their antibiotic development programs in recent years in favor of more lucrative drugs. Compared with medicines for chronic conditions, which patients may have to take for many years, antibiotics are used for a short period of time. This means that pharmaceutical companies don't get a significant return on their investment in new antibiotics. I understand that private enterprise exists only to serve shareholders. Some problems can't, (or shouldn't) be solved by corporations. But they are still problems that need to be solved, regardless of whether it is profitable.
  11. Fair enough. I'm with you. I agree fully. This is also true, but I would say the only way to build private healthcare anywhere (green or purple) is if there is a profit to be made. Public healthcare theoretically could build viable healthcare without the profit motive. Think of VA hospitals, for instance. Really? Only 25% make it to 65 in rural areas? That's sounds like a real health problem Or, 75% of the population retires to purple areas like Arizona, Florida, where, as you said 'we have the best healthcare'. Many of the 65+ er's in very purple areas relocated from the green areas for a variety of reasons, including healthcare. I can't explain the purple dot in South Jersey, however. I agree with this as well, but this is a population density problem. The same thing happened with Internet access, and telephone access before that, and Interstate access before that, and Post office access before that. I suspect most critical cases are flown by helicopter to the nearest purple dot on your map. The economics of placing a hospital every 50 sq miles, to serve a couple dozen people just does not add up. When your next door neighbor is 25 miles away, and the nearest town is 200 miles away, most services are hard to find.
  12. I rarely hear anything negative about Medicare. I can especially vouch for the quality of services they provide to elderly in-home hospice care, and help for the disabled / handicapped. This system includes many, many private companies that provide the actual services. Regulations are imposed on the cost, and quality of these services, but the private companies are still profitable, and employ a very large number of people where I live. There can be no doubt that some of these companies overcharge Medicare for their generous services, but even private insurance companies have built fraud into their cost model. Many critics of Medicare for All will indeed sign up for Medicare when they qualify… So they don’t really have a problem with the “Medicare” part. It seems they have a problem only with the “for All” part. Maybe “Medicare for Me, but not for you”??? Just like ACA, Democrats aren't doing a good job explaining the details, or emphasizing the benefits to consumers of their plans. Like no premiums, no cost sharing, no co-pays, etc It seems to me that the most efficient insurance systems for consumers would be to have the largest pool of people possible. Like near 100%. This admittedly monopolistic system can enforce cost, and quality, and at the same time spread the risk across the largest number of people. If you are young, and healthy, this may not be lowest cost solution, but the young and healthy do not seem to be the ones opposed to it. Monopoly's are efficient, but dangerous. Adding even a little profit motive to the equation dilutes it's efficiency, and would lead to windfall profits. It's better that the profits go into the Treasury, than private equity accounts, IMHO. I’m no expert, but my ‘plan’ would simply be to drop the Medicare requirement age down gradually over the next few decades. A choice would be given, (like it is now) to go public, or go private.
×
×
  • Create New...