The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    All first graders

    By Flavius on Thu, 08/23/2018 - 12:29am |

    should read at first grade level at the end of the year.

    And bridges shouldn't fall down.

    That wouldn't eliminate inequality or improve Israeli-Arab relations but it would ensure that all second graders would be ready for the second grade -and make it safe to cross the Missouri. That would be a start,

    Reading  D-blog  clearly there is a palpable sense of despair at the injustices that desperately need to be remedied and the inadequacies of the "leaders" who  should do that . Guess what , that was always the case.

    There has never been a time since we crawled out of the Red Sea or where-ever ,when things haven't been not as good as they ought to be. And there never will be. But they could be ....better.

    In Bernstein's "Candide" ,as I recall , the hero says'/sings something like : 'We won't live nobly because we aren't noble. And we won't live in perfect harmony because there's no such thing, Nor  should there be'

    I liked that "nor should there be" (if that's what the lyrics actually said). Anyway Candide get's on with actually doing something- proposing to Cunegonda..Finally.

    Measuring where we are compared with where we "should" be is - to put it politely - not terribly useful . In fact not useful at all. Blacks are shot over and over by the police... but Ferguson just elected one as DA. And Obama almost got us out of Kabul. Rightly so.There are some problems that best be given the Mike Mansfield treatment : declare victory and leave.

    Nor can we improve the behavior of the -at best incompetent at worst bestial- dictators from Afghanistan to  Zaire .Including here, Certainly not by facilitating the emigration of their best citizens. But the fact that all  problems can't be fixed -now- is absolutely no reason not to improve the ones that can be improved. 

    What could be done?

    Double the pay of every first grade teacher.;take redistricting away from the States and do it nationally;fix the A train and every other method of transportation. And the bridges. Forget about going back to the Moon or-for God Sakes-to Mars.Or trying to eliminate inequality; what reason have we to think that would make thing better or even tolerable? Would you have a smart phone if Steve Jobs knew that whatever  he achieved his living standard would be exactly the same as that of every other individual? 

    And stop bleating that Life is Unfair. It is ,always has been , always will be. Fix what can be fixed . 

    And get on with re-electing Nancy Pelosi Majority Leader after the election. What possible reason have we to

    think that inexperience is an asset?

     

     

      

     

     

    Comments

    Where the boundary lies between what can be changed or not is a puzzle that goes back at least as far as the Ecclesiastes writer saying that we are the grass and G-d is the lawnmower. Appealing to common sense as to what is possible in this regard may not be the shortest path to your clear interest in talking turkey about strategy and platform for the Democratic Party as the life raft drifts ever closer to the next election cycles.

    The issue of equal protection under the law should not be conflated with the goal of living in a more equitable society. The two things are obviously related to each other but conflating them leads to false answers. The problem of having unarmed people getting shot regularly by cops is a serious problem. That it happens to one group of people more than others is important but doesn't mean the practice has to wait for a new society to stop doing that. It is a matter of changing rules of engagement and expanding the concept of training. If first graders can be taught to read, cops can be taught to not shoot people simply because they are frightened or whatever.

    If we are going to double the pay of teachers, then they will have to be valued. Markets declare how much something is worth. It has been a theme of the right wing for many decades that the efforts to develop a more diverse society turned public schools into feeding pens for stupid people. I don't see any short cuts in this particular culture war. Generation after generation of smart people will probably have to beat this down with a stick before the fire is out.

    Nobody wants a life of brutal suffering and I get the narrative that we all compare our conditions with each other to decide if we have been screwed or not. The desire for equality is neither pure self interest or some kind of abnegation of it. But what are the alternatives? Even the smug elites who founded this union had no choice but to use that logic to get what they wanted. That has all worked out perfectly so far and I sure the future is equally,,,,,,.........

    Signal loss.


    by moat on Thu, 08/23/2018 - 6:21pm

    Yeah, disarming the cops is a necessity; attempting to achieve a more equal world  a  diversion- hopefully a relatively harmless one- from trying to incrementally improve the prospects  of today's first graders. In the unequal world in which they will surely live. Happily if they have been  properly prepared. 

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 08/23/2018 - 11:21pm

    Glass half full story. Back during the first Obama admin., with all those torturous arguments and sturm and drang over Obamacare here at Dag and everywhere else, who would have thought they would see a headline like this within eight years?

    Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll

    The Reuters–Ipsos survey found 85 percent of Democrats said they support the policy along with 52 percent of Republicans.

    not to mention this

    The new Reuters poll also showed that a majority of Americans supports free college tuition. Forty-one percent of Republicans said they supported the policy, pollsters found, compared with 79 percent of Democrats.

    It was a large sample, so low margin of error.

    The Reuters poll consulted American adults throughout June and July this year. Reuters asked 2,989 respondents about Medicare for all, 5,339 about free college tuition, and 7,737 about abolishing ICE. The results have margins of error of 2 percentage points for the Medicare for all and free college tuition questions.

    and note it was not registered voters but "Americans". So the mid-term GOTV is more important than ever. Otherwise WYSWYG is not likely to happen.

    Also should be noted that they also asked about the abolishing ICE thingie and that was NOT at all as popular a meme.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 4:05am

    Except many of us disagreed with "Medicare for all" not on principle, but on experts pointing out problems with the approach in the US. 2 years later, the term is even less precise, and is simply a placeholder for "quit jacking around with people's healthcare - install something that works". Of course by screwing with finely tuned provisions of Obamacare in Sherman-through-Georgia style, the 2-year-old caveats about go-it-slow/don't break the existing system in the process don't necessarily apply in our newfound crisis mode. Does this mean Susan Sarandon was right, we needed the Trump crisis to trash it all & start over? perhaps I throw up in my mouth. a bit...


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 4:37am

    oh I just think it means the majority understands the nature of universal care a whole lot better and why we need it. Whereas before too many before might have been blissfully stupid with a temporarily unproblematic employer plan, they see the benefit now of everyone being in the same risk pool, having the same assurances and safety net that all of our seniors do. Not to mention they get that a big yuge provider could do something about money-driven medicine and temper the ridiculous heights of it like with the drug companies' games (even Trump made hay about the latter during his campaign, just bullshit but he knew it resounded.). I still think they don't understand the downsides of Medicare itself as it is, they don't really know what it means, how it feeds money-driven medicine, but they'll get there!


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 5:51am

    P.S. I don't think Trump and GOP Congress making a mess of Obamacare caused this, I think Obamacare itself did. It forced a lot more people to understand how the whole health care system was "working" (with strings and mirrors) by basically forcing a lot of people to wade into understanding it when they didn't before. It revealed what was really going on, and this included with employer provided plans, because the insurance cos. had a whole new paradigm situation, those too were changed and negotiated.. And then by word of mouth to family and friends.

    It's like this: at my chiropractor today, the two women after me were discussing "you always go to the lowest co-pay, right? maybe that's not always the wisest choice?" In general, I think more middle aged people already think like seniors about it all, they've gotten serious about understanding the system, when before they just assumed that if something happened, the employer insurance would pay for just anything without any trouble.

    On the other hand, I do think the reason the topic of "health care" has been rating highest on polls on the issues for the mid-term elections is because the GOP Congress messed with Obamacare and that's been real scary for people.. I think the problem of covering pre-existing conditions is especially understood, how a big pool has to be there for that to happen, and it scares people that they've messed with that, anyone with a chronic condition. Because in most cases, the "retail asking price" for out-of-pocket care for a simple common chronic condition like, say, high blood pressure is now ridiculously high


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 6:06am

    I think it's been pressure in both ways - success in adoption & disaster in GOP screwing with it, plus oddly enough Bernie made Medicare & healthcare an issue millennials suddenly paid attention to, when it used to be an old folks concern.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 6:09am

    Field of Dreams.

    Which no doubt Gingrich expected. He would have been fairly well versed in medical matters  visiting his hospitalized wife to tell her he was divorcing her.  


    by Flavius on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 9:19am

    Back then marriage was a pre-existing condition.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 11:32am

    There are 8.8 million people signed up for Obamacare, a small fraction of the insured population. Why would the majority of people who don't depend on Obamacare worry about something that has nothing to do with their healthcare except for the fact that it is a growing trillion dollar black hole. There is a lot of confusion about healthcare with some people who have free or heavily subsidised insurace from their employers believing they will get a better deal with socialized healthcare. Co-pays are used to reduce excessive use of healthcare benefits and they work to make people think about paying for something they may not need, as your example shows.

    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 10:31am

    People who don't get their health care through their job need some health care system that's affordable. They have mothers and fathers and grandparents and friends who care about them. My sister's husband got early onset alzheimer's and she had to quit her job to take care of him. She went on Obamacare. When he died she went back to work and got her health care from the job. She talked about her experience with her friends and family. If people care about her they care about Obamacare.

    I also don't get health care through my job. If not for Obamacare I'd have died last year. I'm introverted and don't have as many friends as my sister but my family cares whether I live or die. So they care about Obamacare. Many people know someone who doesn't get good health care from their job. Not only do they care about those people they worry what might happen to them if they lose their job. They care because they want there to be something there if that happens.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 1:13pm

    I understand why people on Obamacare would worry about losing the dole, many people think it's okay to have other people's taxes pay a large part of their health care costs. People who get Obamacare are not poor, the poor get Medicaid. You're being overdramatic claiming you would have died without Obamacare, hospitals are required, by law, to treat anyone in an emergency no matter if they lack insurance. There are also sources for aid to help cover costs of emergency treatments. I agree that affordable healthcare is needed but Obamacare doesn't address the source of the high costs we now have. Doctor's, hospital's, medical equipment and drug prices are what drives ever increasing insurance costs and that core of our system will be very difficult to control.

    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 10:59pm

    You know, I really don't give a fuck whether you believe me or not. I don't give a fuck about you. There's between 20 to 28 million people who have no health insurance or Obamacare. It depends mostly now on the fluctuations in enrollment in the ACA. If each person knows 10 people that's about 250 million people. The voting population of America. You asked " Why would the majority of people who don't depend on Obamacare worry about something that has nothing to do with their healthcare?" People may not care about the general welfare of the population as a whole but they care about their friends and family. They care about systems they might have to depend on some time in the future. 

    You seem to be a person who doesn't give a shit about anyone but yourself so I can see how this might be hard for you to understand.

    eta: I generally don't like to spend too much time debating with you but I have to correct your error. A large part of Obamacare was the Medicaid expansion. It was extremely controversial with many Republican states opting out of that part of the law. That was one big reason Obamacare didn't meet it's targets to decrease the numbers of uninsured Americans


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 1:52am

    oh on the opt out on Medicaid expansion states, I'm waiting on the stories inevitably coming where all the upper middle class folks who worked hard and amassed some stuff, expecting to get some of dad & mom's hard earned estate when instead see it all go to the nursing home, including the house. And find out: everything, everything will be eaten up by the nursing home. They will undoubtedly jack up the rates for the self paying to pay for those who have run out of assets.

    It's actually the same stupid thinking as him saying to you that you wouldn't have died without Obamacare as an emergency room wouldn't have turned you away! Who the hell does he think was paying for those unpaid emergency room care bills? Everyone with employer paid insurance!


    by artappraiser on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 2:28am

    Oh yes, I'm thinking about that. My parents are 90 and each of us 3 kids should get a modest but meaningful inheritance. Unless they linger on in a nursing home instead of dying at home. 


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 2:35am

    Not to mention the fact that care for people in life threatening situations might begin in the emergency room, but it never ends there.  Nor does it end with hospitalization.  The purpose of the ER, and thus hospital admittance if necessary (and only if and when an admitting physician signs on), is to get the patient to the point of being released into the care of their personal doctor who is supposed to handle it from there.  "It" being follow-up, specialist referrals, etc.  Wonder who Clippity-Clop thinks pays for that?


    by barefooted on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 12:03am

    I challenged OK for his BS histrionics about certain death without Obamacare. He may have had certain debt without Obamacare or had to pay with his own money for treatment, treating Drama Queens can be expensive.

    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 9:14am

    When "drama queens" care was deemed excessive :

    After the bombing of Hamburg in July 1943, occupants of old age homes were killed. In the post-war trial of Dr. Hilda Wernicke, Berlin, August, 1946, testimony was given that "500 old, broken women" who had survived the bombing of Stettin in June 1944 were euthanized at the Meseritz-Oberwalde Asylum.

    Aly, Gotz; Chroust, Peter (1994). Cleansing the Fatherland [Contributions to National Socialist Health and Social Policy]. page 88, Trans. Journal: Beiträge zur Nationalsozialistischen Gesundheits- und Sozial- politik. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-4775-2.


    by NCD on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 11:09am

    Are you inferring that OK is an 'old broken woman' who should be in an asylum? Your link does show how socialist health policy can lead to euthanizing old and unproductive people.

    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 12:40pm

    Let us face the truth. Time after time on every subject you comment on you are shown to be ignorant of the subject. In this case you posted, " People who get Obamacare are not poor, the poor get Medicaid." That is completely false and a complete misunderstanding of what the ACA is and does. There is no system of Obamacare you can sign up for. It's not like the VA or Medicare. You can sign up through an Obamacare website but you're not signing up for Obamacare. You're buying private insurance or signing up for medicaid. Obamacare is simply changes in the regulation of the private insurance market and Medicaid with subsidies to those who can't afford insurance to help them get private insurance or sign up for Medicaid. 

    You seem to expect us to take your ignorant ramblings seriously rather than treat them as the fatuous nonsense they are. You seem to expect us to take you seriously rather than treat you as the dumb ass you are.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 3:52pm

    Well I would give him that with Obamacare plans there is major government subsidization of the premiums people pay according to income level. It is in effect a subsidization of the private health insurance cos. that chose to be in the exchanges.  So that they can get a big enough pool and enough premiums to make it work, including from many that couldn't afford the actual premiums without government subsidy.

    Actually one of the dirty little secrets about any current lack of sign up through the Obamacare exchanges: a recent tax return is a requirement to buy there, in order to figure whether the insurer you chose should get a government subsidy for your premiums and so if you are low income level, you don't pay full freight of the actual premium. The full actual premium is not even quoted to you on the exchange for lower income level people, what is quoted to you is the subsidized price.

    So that if you haven't filed a tax return recently, for whatever reason, your choice is to buy from a broker or go without. I'm pretty sure this is why there are still so many uninsured: they haven't filed with the IRS recently.

    Same thing for Medicaid, actually. Social workers are the ones that basically force a lot of people on to Medicaid coverage after a disaster strikes. Especially if they don't have young kids.

     But then living free or dying "off the grid" doesn't work well with insurance of any kind. I'm trying to get at that he's speaking the whole hog libertarian spiel while probably hypocritically living in society. If he indeed does take care of his own, including nursing his own dying in the privacy of his home, or plans to pay $500 a day to have an institution do it, then he's being consistent.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 6:05pm

    I'm trying to get at that he's speaking the whole hog libertarian spiel while probably hypocritically living in society. If he indeed does take care of his own, including nursing his own dying in the privacy of his home, or plans to pay $500 a day to have an institution do it, then he's being consistent.

    Let him speak for himself.  And take his account thusly.


    by barefooted on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 6:30pm

     An anecdote of the smallest possible sampling number. And, not on topic but related. On a recent stay in Central Mexico in a small city I had a nice visit over breakfast with a [relatively] young woman from the States who was visiting with an uncle and his wife.  All the following is according to what I was told. The uncle had retired and moved to the city with his wife and mother.  The mother needed assisted care. He put her in a for-profit care facility in the city. The mother is now in her nineties and still pretty good mentally. She is happy where she lives and has been from the beginning. I asked my acquaintance if she knew the cost. She said she didn't, she hadn't asked directly, but she had heard her uncle say that his mother's Social Security covered it. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 7:38pm

    You are wrong again. A Harvard analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine supports death rates increasing without Obamacare. 

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1706645?query=featured_home


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 11:15am

    That argument is unlikely to fly with him, he doesn't care about saving more people that he has nothing to do with, what he cares about is being charged for those other people's health care. See how he is using it already to redirect the conversation away from the real problem.

    What he is in denial about is that it costs him more to just have a law where people without health insurance can go to the emergency room in a life or death situation.

    That all the people with insurance end up paying for that emergency visit in higher rates. And if the person lives, while they are still in the ICU what happens is that the hospital social worker comes and gets info. and tries to sign the person up for Medicaid or get them to sign forms to insure payment. They even advise them how to spend down any assets so they qualify for Medicaid. And if they die after that, the providers all dun the estate for a few months for all the care and if they get nothing they just eat it in higher rates for the insured. They don't ruthlessly pursue dead non payers because of the legal fees and the possibilty of counter suits about causing death.

    I know with 100% surety because I've seen it all happen in person.

    To balance the books for all the unpaid bills, instead they start doing stuff like billing the insured $90 for an aspirin.

    To have health care access like he'd like it, making it a personal responsibility for individuals to get insurance and have it run truly free market, that really would require having to turn people away at the emergency room and have them die on the street. Those that feel like he does have to be made to realize that, if you believe it should be strictly capitalist, for that to work for the insured paying their own way, you have to have some people dying on the street and lots of really sick people wandering the streets begging, not to mention violently mentally ill people causing trouble. That's what it would require for the capitalist way to work "fairly," you have to be prepared to really be cruel, to have things like they were during the Depression with the elderly before Medicare and Social Security.  Anything else is hypocrisy and strings and mirrors covering up that everyone is still being covered for disaster somehow, just very badly and at extremely high cost to the insured.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 3:11pm

    P.S. Republicans in Congress involved with health care policy know all of this, it's not like it's a secret.They are either being intentionally hypocritical because they have some lobby donating to them that benefits from things staying as they are, so they don't care about reforming things, or they are the ultra libertarian conservative types who believe that being ruthlessly cruel would eventually work out for society after many deaths, the survival of the fittest thing. The rest who don't understand it just go with the flow and no doubt have a lot of Peter type constituents who can't see the forest for the trees.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 3:06pm

    What of those who don't have their own money?  I'm sure you're aware that private pay (out-of-pocket) costs are exorbitantly larger compared to an insured person with co-pays and deductibles, since you're clearly knowledgeable about all things healthcare related.  And are you disputing that death can occur from lack of care after hospitalization? 

    Clippity-Clop.


    by barefooted on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 4:24pm

    psst, letting you in on a secret: you pay for other people's car accidents every time you pay your auto insurance premium


    by artappraiser on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 12:30am

    and you've become a small minority who is losing the argument with waaay waaay more people than oceankat. Again the poll stats, this time with nice graphics tweeted by Frank Luntz: 70% of Americans in favor of "Medicare for all", including 52% of Republicans, and furthermore, 60% in favor of free state college tuition. Big sample, by Reuters/Ipsos, not a minor poll, with smaller than usual margins of error. I doubt every single one knows what "Medicare for all" really means, but surely they know it means more universal coverage than Obamacare, not less. A significant majority now wants to spread the cost across a big pool of "all Americans". We've come a long way since Reagan convinced the AMA that they needed to fight "socialized medicine."


    by artappraiser on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 1:22am

    Peter include  my name  among that of the many who think  its OK to have other people's taxes pay a large part of my health care costs. Just as I would be happy to pay yours btw. And if you tripped and fell down in the street I'd rush to pick you up and vice versa.

    It would be great if we could solve the problem of high medical costs along  with many other problems or, if not find a way to pay them by taking the money from people who have the money to take.


    by Flavius on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 1:52am

    Peter, does it also upset you that everyone is required to have car insurance to drive and included in that insurance is a payment for "uninsured motorist" coverage in case you get in an accident with one of the few people who are driving illegally uncovered?

    What don't you get about spreading risk?


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 3:22pm

    You can't be so clueless not to understand that all insurance, public or private, is based on spreading risk. It is actually pooling resources to protect everyone involved while depending on most people not needing much healthcare to pay for those who do. Obamacare transfered much of the cost of its private insurance, for people who are not the poor, to other taxpayers and was used to block the push for a single payer public option which I supported. The medicaid expansion added about 14 million people to the welfare rolls and they pay little if anything into the shared risk pool. If the poll you linked is accurate it just shows that too many people believe in socialist magic and they don't compreheng that they will be trading access to full coverage insurance, for free or discounted through their employer, for much less than full coverage through Medicare and they will see huge increases in their payroll taxes to pay for it. The savings claimed by Medicare For All proponents may be a fantasy because it would shut down a whole industry and drive hundreds of thousands of their employees into the unemployment lines meaning huge tax revenues lost from both the industry and its employees.

    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 6:38pm

    ah I see you are finally learnin' that you can't get away with the usual lowest common denominator agitprop here and have to make actual reasonable policy arguments. Thank you for giving up the trolling for once. I think you'll find that all views are welcome here if they don't treat the other members like idiots who don't know a thing or two about the news and policy. Try dropping the personal insult thing totally, i.e. You can't be so clueless and you might be surprised at the intellectual work out you can get, not to mention actually learning to argue persuasively.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 6:54pm

    p.s. Oceankat responded to you with hyperbole about dying without Obamacare because you came into the discussion firing b.s. agitprop. This is the classic trolling scenario where a worthless bunch of comments and personal and group insults are slinged at each other. Why not spend your time honestly discussing something instead of getting your rocks off causing flamefests?

    As CVille Dem just pointed out elsewhere on this thread, it may be too late with this small group as you have lost a lot of credibility with your former behavior. But you might keep lessons learned in mind for your next stop. Or even better, register for an account here under another name and an intent to honestly participate without the insults and agitprop and intent to troll. Life is too short to spend it trolling.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 8:33pm

    I don't think I responded with hyperbole. I do think I would have died without Obamacare. Twice in the month before I went to the doctor I thought I was going to die. As I choked and was struggling to get air I thought, "This is it. I'm going to die now." Believe it or not. I don't care.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 9:28pm

    I believe you.  And I'm very glad that you got through it.


    by barefooted on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 9:36pm

    I believe you, apologies for the suggestion. I hope you get the drift of why I made the assumption. I did have a close friend keel over and die unexpectedly 5 yrs. ago @ 58 from an asthma attack, and he was otherwise a pretty healthy big strapping guy who jogged daily for decades, he didn't even make it to the EMT arrival, so mho you are right to take any attack like that seriously.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 9:44pm

    I was part of the ACA Medicaid expansion. I tried to get Medicaid before Obamacare and was denied. At that time as a single man without children I didn't qualify even though I am dirt poor. Now my medical conditions are being treated and I'm fine but I had a myriad of problems I was dealing with with no treatment. I'm on 7 prescriptions that cost nearly twice my monthly pay. And my monthly pay is totally used for living expenses. No  pot, no beer, no movies, no eating out. The only non living expense I pay is for internet and Netflix. So yes, it's welfare. The question is what do we do with people who are too poor to pay for medical care or health insurance. The choice is the tax payers pay or we let them die. As you pointed out in an earlier post true capitalism in health care requires a level of cruelty most people find abhorrent. If conservatives want to make the argument that we should just let the poor die when they get sick, fine. I just wish they were honest about that choice and the results of the position they're taking.

    ps: I've been told I can come off cold and a little mean without intending to. I don't really understand human relations enough to understand that. I didn't mean to be so abrupt. What I meant was that sometimes people don't understand what it means to be dirt poor and have a medical condition that's not too difficult to treat but without the money for even one simple doctors visit. That condition can slowly spin downward until every system in the body is breaking down. Eventually it can just kill you. You can die from some collateral system failure that if there was a doctors visit and a bit of medication at that start would never have occurred. It's not just about an emergency. Sometimes it's about regular on going care. I really didn't want to get into all the details of my personal medical history to convince anyone. I'm not looking for sympathy. So I matter of factly said, You can believe me or not. I didn't mean to offend.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 08/28/2018 - 12:53am

    about your expressed concerns here and recently elsewhere about the way you come off socially online, I'm like: huh? I've always thought of you as one of the finest online forum communicators I've hung around with going back to TPM Cafe. Just thought you should know.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 08/28/2018 - 2:26am

    I feel like I'm being scolded by a Mother Superior and to make it worse she then strokes the ego of her pet DQ, my nemesis.

    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 08/29/2018 - 9:44am

    Education should be funded by the government.  One reason is that it is the only way to provide it to all.  Another reason is that the entire populace benefits from a population that is literate, can comprehend concepts that are integral to society; and can, in many cases, rise above the standards that are considered to be a baseline of knowledge, and even add to the knowledge of the time. This is not limited to science, but is one example.

    if not, even the wealthiest would have to read signs and prices to people they must do business with to simply supply their homes. What a rough time they would have.

     Healthcare should be made affordable by the government, and should be subsidized as necessary so that we have a healthy populace.  Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Hepatitis (A&B for prevention, C for treatment, and therefore preventing further infection) are infectious diseases that the government must help prevent.  Healthy infants are also better for the bottom line (I KNOW you like that one, Peter, but in fact everyone wants healthy children.

    Otherwise, it would be dangerous for the wealthy to mingle even slightly, as in going to restaurants that are staffed by “ordinary people,” and then EVEN THEY might catch something!

    So the response to your comment about! “Why should anyone care...” as long as you’ve got yours.  Well, just look around the world and see all the countries that provide my two (of many I didn't mention) examples of what a system of government must provide to have a thriving society.

    I know I’m wasting my breath (or fingers) but I wanted this entered into the discussion.

    PS:  Just curios....have you ever read or watched one of those post-apocalyptic books/movies about when people are just so damn selfish they finish off their race or world?  If you haven’t, you should.

    PPS:  You picked on OceanKat, who just doesn’t lie.  You have no credibility here. Boo.


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 7:12pm

    yes


    by barefooted on Mon, 08/27/2018 - 7:30pm

    Proof that Senate GOP know from polls: they done bad, this is trouble, trying to do damage control with strings and mirrors:

    "This would make protections for people with pre-existing conditions a bit of a mirage," says @larry_levitt https://t.co/4k1L5Ni6In by @sahilkapur

    — Anna Edney (@annaedney) August 24, 2018

    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 2:37pm