Chat Forum
It is currently Thu May 28, 2020 9:35 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5837 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 146  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
Bernie’s SOTU response:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RAmMIeZawC4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Bowens wrote:

Is it basically capitalism bad, socialism good?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
It breaks down the lies Trump’s speech-writers told. With liberal usage of air quotes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Elizabeth Warren :lol:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27672
Deadtigers wrote:

You claimed she would say one thing but do another. I said look at her history of action on civil and social justice. It is more than lip service. Put it appears she was not serious or dismissed the concerns of SJW because she didn't take up every thing. You claim somehow Bernie didn't pander because you agree with his point. It is never pandering when it is to something you support. That is not directed at you, that is just a general thing with people and politics.


I've said nothing about Bernie here. This isn't about him and I've already stated about your thirst for what-about-ism here. Just like the point of if I knew HRC personally wasn't relevant given the well reported nature of what I was claiming. Neither does it mean just because she doesn't take up every cause she isn't false in her public beliefs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 2519
saffer13 wrote:

It's ridiculous because she looks like more of a kraut than Angela Merkel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
These polls feel like the polls that come out and show the public hate negative ads but then they are successful.

I mean wasn't part of the attack on HRC was she was too centrist and Bernie was really about moving the party left and about change. Now according to this poll, centrist are wanted, I mean come on!


Hilary was very centralist on economics and was a war hawk, but equally she was happy to pander to SJW style politics believing it was an easy sell. To be fair it was, lots of MPs in Britain did and many in the past year have made statements that are in direct contradiction to their SJW style statements only 2 years ago.


She actually had to. Obama embodied social justice, so he never had to mention it. She had to mention it, which divided her vote. It wasn't an easy sell. But you know whatever, no nuance with you.


Err you realise the post of mine you are replying to is one that expands nuance on Hilary's political position after it was simplified to centralist? You're getting obsessed with trying to get one on me.

As for Hilary's position, she didn't have to pander to SJW type trends. The who issue of modern Social Justice Warriors is they inherently don't want social fairness or equality and they aren't in sync with most of the population. That's why they are so criticised and described as the oppressed olympics. [b][b][b]Take Bernie's social positions and he didn't pander to small hateful SJW groups, he just proposed good social policy that would attempt to make society fairer and more balanced. [/b][/b][/b]Hilary seem to not only pander to small vocal hate SJW groups because they were loud on twitter but she had no belief in their causes her public and private position was telling.


Yup, nothing said about Bernie. Just that he didn't pander while Hillary did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27672
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
These polls feel like the polls that come out and show the public hate negative ads but then they are successful.

I mean wasn't part of the attack on HRC was she was too centrist and Bernie was really about moving the party left and about change. Now according to this poll, centrist are wanted, I mean come on!


Hilary was very centralist on economics and was a war hawk, but equally she was happy to pander to SJW style politics believing it was an easy sell. To be fair it was, lots of MPs in Britain did and many in the past year have made statements that are in direct contradiction to their SJW style statements only 2 years ago.


She actually had to. Obama embodied social justice, so he never had to mention it. She had to mention it, which divided her vote. It wasn't an easy sell. But you know whatever, no nuance with you.


Err you realise the post of mine you are replying to is one that expands nuance on Hilary's political position after it was simplified to centralist? You're getting obsessed with trying to get one on me.

As for Hilary's position, she didn't have to pander to SJW type trends. The who issue of modern Social Justice Warriors is they inherently don't want social fairness or equality and they aren't in sync with most of the population. That's why they are so criticised and described as the oppressed olympics. [b][b][b]Take Bernie's social positions and he didn't pander to small hateful SJW groups, he just proposed good social policy that would attempt to make society fairer and more balanced. [/b][/b][/b]Hilary seem to not only pander to small vocal hate SJW groups because they were loud on twitter but she had no belief in their causes her public and private position was telling.


Yup, nothing said about Bernie. Just that he didn't pander while Hillary did.




:lol: I'm sorry. But that wasn't the post I was quoting FFS! :lol: I'm talking about the one with Hilary's own words and her friends damning her FFS!

Wait, are there a host of policies Bernie adopted but clearly didn't believe in? This is news to everybody because as far as I know nobody has seriously claimed to have evidence Bernie has done this. This was the guy who openly criticised the issue of trans-politics when it was a lefty darling policy? He spoke out saying there are more important things to focus on. That's pandering now is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
Quote:
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who led the charge for years on 9/11 legislation and worked with Gillibrand to win passage in the Senate, doesn’t think the junior senator from her state can take back the White House for Democrats in 2020, she told the Daily News.

"I'm not supporting her because I feel, at this point, I feel that we have to win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin," Maloney said. "And if we win Ohio, we win the presidency, in my belief. So I am very interested in candidates that I believe can win Ohio."

Maloney, who said she considers herself to be very liberal, doesn't think someone like herself or Gillibrand, who has embraced left-leaning policies since becoming a senator, will play well in the Midwestern states that Trump won in 2016.

She likes O'Rourke "because he appeals to these people" in Texas and the Midwest that Maloney thinks are key to the White House.

"I'm focused on who can win Ohio. I want to win," Maloney said. "I don't want to lose. I want to win."

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi ... ssion=true

“These people.” :lol:

This woman backed Clinton in 2016 against Sanders who won Michigan and Wisconsin primaries.

There’s a 0% chance Beto would win Ohio. Zero. Percent.

The Democratic establishment have learned nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11785
Location: Austin, TX
Whatever they do, do not go for some celebrity. They will lose if they do that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Quote:
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who led the charge for years on 9/11 legislation and worked with Gillibrand to win passage in the Senate, doesn’t think the junior senator from her state can take back the White House for Democrats in 2020, she told the Daily News.

"I'm not supporting her because I feel, at this point, I feel that we have to win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin," Maloney said. "And if we win Ohio, we win the presidency, in my belief. So I am very interested in candidates that I believe can win Ohio."

Maloney, who said she considers herself to be very liberal, doesn't think someone like herself or Gillibrand, who has embraced left-leaning policies since becoming a senator, will play well in the Midwestern states that Trump won in 2016.

She likes O'Rourke "because he appeals to these people" in Texas and the Midwest that Maloney thinks are key to the White House.

"I'm focused on who can win Ohio. I want to win," Maloney said. "I don't want to lose. I want to win."

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi ... ssion=true

“These people.” :lol:

This woman backed Clinton in 2016 against Sanders who won Michigan and Wisconsin primaries.

There’s a 0% chance Beto would win Ohio. Zero. Percent.

The Democratic establishment have learned nothing.


You mean actual dem who had bleed for the party over a liar and fraud? Yes I got something to constantly say about Bernie because I feel his flaws are always brushed off.

As for Maloney she is an establishment Dem but she had to fight off a strong challenge from her left flank to win a 13th term.

I don't know if Gillebrand can win the Midwest, her platform is not bad so it may have a chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
I’m not saying she’s wrong about Gillibrand (or Brown for that matter). It’s the Beto thing. He would get chewed up and spit out up there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
I’m not saying she’s wrong about Gillibrand (or Brown for that matter). It’s the Beto thing. He would get chewed up and spit out up there.


Yeah there is a lot of hate for him. He may be able to bring out the tri city minority votes but not sure it is enough. I really think Biden and Sherrod Brown would be the best candidates. Then some young person like a Harris, Booker or Beto to seal the deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11848
Location: Europe
klobuchar's trouble to launch the campaign
Quote:
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar looks to be officially getting in the 2020 Democratic race for president this weekend, but despite being long tipped as a candidate to take on Trump, the three-term senator has reportedly had trouble securing someone to manage her campaign. HuffPost reports that at least three potential candidates to lead her campaign have withdrawn citing, in part, Klobuchar’s history of staff mistreatment. The reports of demeaning and cruel treatment of her staff outlined by former staffers to HuffPost clash with Klobuchar’s public persona, extreme popularity in her home state, and her growing profile in the Democratic Party on the back of her clear-headed questioning during recent high-profile Senate hearings.

“It is common for staff to wake up to multiple emails from Klobuchar characterizing one’s work as ‘the worst’ briefing or press release she’d seen in her decades of public service, according to two former aides and emails seen by HuffPost,” the site reports. “Adding to the humiliation, Klobuchar often cc’d large groups of staffers who weren’t working on the topic at hand, giving the emails the effect of a public flogging.” The experience of staffers in Klobuchar’s office is not universal by any stretch and her press office pointed to staffers current and former who had positive experiences working for an admittedly demanding boss, and wondered aloud if the criticism of Klobuchar’s management style wasn’t sexist.

Klobuchar, however, has had trouble retaining staff, compiling the highest rate of staff turnover in the Senate over a decade. The reputation for a bruising work environment has made staffing a challenge in the past for the former prosecutor, including, at one point, filling the role of chief of staff. “A staffer in another Hill office recounted losing interest in a job opening with Klobuchar when a current staffer, the one conducting the interview, conveyed that avoiding Klobuchar’s anger was a significant part of the job,” according to HuffPost. “One morning several years ago, when most of the office staff was running late—the ex-staffer couldn’t remember the reason—Klobuchar wrote out tardy slips and placed them on each missing aide’s desk. The staffer recalls incredulous bursts of laughter as her co-workers arrived one by one to find the notes, but Klobuchar was deadly serious. An aide whom she called into her office walked back out in tears.”

she sounds like mini trump tbf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Elizabeth Warren's Presidential run may be DOA.
A Texas bar registration card (that's the legal one, you don't need to register to get a drink) has been dug up that has her identifying as an American Indian... which is a bit of a far cry from the "my family always told me there was rumoured to be a native american in the family several generations ago" explanation she'd tended to use much more recently.

OK, it's not quite a "grab 'em by the pussy" moment, but she's always been about policy, not campaigning or speaking dynamically to the crowd. Climbing out of this hole she has dug for herself might be a big ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27672
Turbogoat wrote:
Elizabeth Warren's Presidential run may be DOA.
A Texas bar registration card (that's the legal one, you don't need to register to get a drink) has been dug up that has her identifying as an American Indian... which is a bit of a far cry from the "my family always told me there was rumoured to be a native american in the family several generations ago" explanation she'd tended to use much more recently.

OK, it's not quite a "grab 'em by the pussy" moment, but she's always been about policy, not campaigning or speaking dynamically to the crowd. Climbing out of this hole she has dug for herself might be a big ask.


Agreed. Though I think people will wonder "why". Both "Why" she wanted to be identified as a minority in the first place. Also why the years of denial and inventing angles when she knows she did try to be identified as Native American. It all seems bonkers and only re-enforces that kinda out there liberal stereotype obsessed with such things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
eldanielfire wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Elizabeth Warren's Presidential run may be DOA.
A Texas bar registration card (that's the legal one, you don't need to register to get a drink) has been dug up that has her identifying as an American Indian... which is a bit of a far cry from the "my family always told me there was rumoured to be a native american in the family several generations ago" explanation she'd tended to use much more recently.

OK, it's not quite a "grab 'em by the pussy" moment, but she's always been about policy, not campaigning or speaking dynamically to the crowd. Climbing out of this hole she has dug for herself might be a big ask.


Agreed. Though I think people will wonder "why". Both "Why" she wanted to be identified as a minority in the first place. Also why the years of denial and inventing angles when she knows she did try to be identified as Native American. It all seems bonkers and only re-enforces that kinda out there liberal stereotype obsessed with such things.


Letting Trump and his racially based taunts get to her so that she gave a serious response to it all was just never going to play well with the public.

Can't wait for the day that race and politics are completely separate issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27672
Turbogoat wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Elizabeth Warren's Presidential run may be DOA.
A Texas bar registration card (that's the legal one, you don't need to register to get a drink) has been dug up that has her identifying as an American Indian... which is a bit of a far cry from the "my family always told me there was rumoured to be a native american in the family several generations ago" explanation she'd tended to use much more recently.

OK, it's not quite a "grab 'em by the pussy" moment, but she's always been about policy, not campaigning or speaking dynamically to the crowd. Climbing out of this hole she has dug for herself might be a big ask.


Agreed. Though I think people will wonder "why". Both "Why" she wanted to be identified as a minority in the first place. Also why the years of denial and inventing angles when she knows she did try to be identified as Native American. It all seems bonkers and only re-enforces that kinda out there liberal stereotype obsessed with such things.


Letting Trump and his racially based taunts get to her so that she gave a serious response to it all was just never going to play well with the public.

Can't wait for the day that race and politics are completely separate issues.


To be honest the Native American claims and denials pre-date Trump's investment in it. The fact is she spent a long time claiming she was naive american based on nothing (even with vague ancestry she is clearly overwhelmingly white, brought up white and has no cultural association would always haunt her. Why an obviously white women was claiming to be a minority is obviously an eyebrow raiser.

But yeah I agree with your last comment. It's why I hate identity politics on both sides and hate even more the weird acceptance of versions of it on left circles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Identity politics is here to stay unfortuantely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27672
saffer13 wrote:
Identity politics is here to stay unfortuantely.


We'll see. From what I can see we are past peak ID politics as an uncriticised sort of favaourable media profile. From what I can see ID is getting ever more unfavourable coverage and seen as causing controversy. The sorts of media outlets that promoted it are cutting back on those types of journalists (Buzzfeed and the Huff Post cut over 1000 jobs) and the clickbaity opinion article is getting, slowly, less common as going woke is often an unpopular business decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
White males, evangelicals, WWC, etc are also identity politics. So let's not act like it's new. When it is not about the aforementioned, it is identity politics but when it is, I guess it is the way things should be right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
Good article today... “Bernie Sanders Is Ready to Rumble”

Quote:
The senator from Vermont has been huddling with staff in meetings and brainstorming on phone calls over the past few weeks, chewing over plans. Barring a surprise, last-minute change of heart, he will jump into the 2020 race, convinced he can win, according to people familiar with his plans.


https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/582328/

Bernie/Tulsi 2020 :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Bowens wrote:
Good article today... “Bernie Sanders Is Ready to Rumble”

Quote:
The senator from Vermont has been huddling with staff in meetings and brainstorming on phone calls over the past few weeks, chewing over plans. Barring a surprise, last-minute change of heart, he will jump into the 2020 race, convinced he can win, according to people familiar with his plans.


https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/582328/

Bernie/Tulsi 2020 :thumbup:

Are you a Bernie fan, Bones?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
I would have voted for him last time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Bowens wrote:
I would have voted for him last time.

You socialist, you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
:lol:

I'm assuming you don't mind sending me some of your hard earned cash. In the spirit of equal distribution and all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
If you had a medical emergency and needed money I would help you out. Universal healthcare is my #1 issue. The number of people who go bankrupt due to illness is shameful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
If you had a medical emergency and needed money I would help you out. Universal healthcare is my #1 issue. The number of people who go bankrupt due to illness is shameful.


I just think it is ridiculous people have to decide between kemo and eating. The thing I don't get bro is why do people always think of the Canadian model when the German model which incorporates insurance companies wouldn't be a better fit for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Obamacare has don't it's fair share in the rising insurance cost department. Why not create a free market for insurance companies to comete, driving costs down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
Because they don’t want to lower costs, especially for drugs. This is something Trump ran on and has failed to deliver.

Quote:
Yet soon after he became president, Trump changed his tune on direct negotiations. After meeting with pharmaceutical executives, adopting the industry’s rhetoric, he called it “price fixing.” Instead Trump has pushed two years of increased costs and reduced coverage, crowned by hollow rhetoric.

Today, there is nothing stopping drug companies from continuing to raise prices and no place Americans can go for relief when they do. Americans overwhelmingly want the government to use its buying power to reverse increases and control the cost of drugs. And they want an administration that will make that a priority.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 777673002/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 3308
Location: Boston
Deadtigers wrote:
Bowens wrote:
If you had a medical emergency and needed money I would help you out. Universal healthcare is my #1 issue. The number of people who go bankrupt due to illness is shameful.


I just think it is ridiculous people have to decide between kemo and eating. The thing I don't get bro is why do people always think of the Canadian model when the German model which incorporates insurance companies wouldn't be a better fit for us.


Indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
saffer13 wrote:
Obamacare has don't it's fair share in the rising insurance cost department. Why not create a free market for insurance companies to comete, driving costs down.


We had that before Obamacare and that is when people with pre-existing conditions were told to go duck themselves. You live in a fantasy world. Your theory works if you believe in insurance companies acting altruistically and not finding ways to duck over the old and sick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10207
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Because they don’t want to lower costs, especially for drugs. This is something Trump ran on and has failed to deliver.

Quote:
Yet soon after he became president, Trump changed his tune on direct negotiations. After meet
ing with pharmaceutical executives, adopting the industry’s rhetoric, he called it “price fixing.” Instead Trump has pushed two years of increased costs and reduced coverage, crowned by hollow rhetoric.

Today, there is nothing stopping drug companies from continuing to raise prices and no place Americans can go for relief when they do. Americans overwhelmingly want the government to use its buying power to reverse increases and control the cost of drugs. And they want an administration that will make that a priority.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 777673002/


Agreed on this. No need for people to ration medicine like insulin. I kind of wrap this up with affordable Healthcare as all in one. And not a separate from treatment and physicians visits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27672
Deadtigers wrote:
White males, evangelicals, WWC, etc are also identity politics. So let's not act like it's new. When it is not about the aforementioned, it is identity politics but when it is, I guess it is the way things should be right?


What? Total bollocks.

You act like people haven't slaughtered and mocked these groups for the past two decades. How else was the Tea party received outside of it's narrow group? Or any republican to courted them against Obama? This board, the internet, the mainsteam media has for years mocked any extremist political ideology and identity politics under any brand for the most part. You seem to have a need to want to believe we need to go through the civil rights movement again despite the patent fact the vast majority of people are past that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
Early poll shows Bernie, Tulsi running ahead of Trump:

https://ivn.us/2019/02/08/ivn-poll-inde ... -for-2020/

About IVN, a nonpartisan website:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independ ... twork-ivn/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8556
Bowens wrote:
Because they don’t want to lower costs, especially for drugs. This is something Trump ran on and has failed to deliver.


That's not true. Insurance companies absolutely want lower drug costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
They blame each other. What’s clear is costs are rising under the current system. And more to the point, it’s another unfulfilled Trump promise.

Quote:
The Hartford, Conn.-based insurer's announcement is intended to redirect blame for rising drug prices toward pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a drug industry lobbying group, is fighting back with an ad campaign launched Thursday highlighting how insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers block patients from applying cost-saving copay coupons to their deductibles.


https://www.modernhealthcare.com/articl ... /180329919


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
And then there’s this...

Quote:
To catch you up: A Wall Street Journal exposé reported last week that major U.S. health insurance companies dramatically inflated their cost projections under Medicare's Part D prescription drug benefit program for financial gain.

Under peculiar language of the statute, insurers are paid by Medicare for drugs in advance of their purchase, based on their own estimated outlays. However, they only have to repay a portion of the overpayments to the Treasury if their estimates come in high. Insurers exploited this loophole for a decade, and American taxpayers coughed up a staggering $9 billion to insurers for drug costs that they never actually incurred.

Giants like UnitedHealthcare, which covers many AARP members, won’t be voluntarily returning the windfall anytime soon. They are feigning ignorance and blaming drugmakers – their favorite foil – for unpredictable price increases that led to the inaccurate cost estimates.


https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... phony-drug


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8556
Bowens wrote:
They blame each other. What’s clear is costs are rising under the current system. And more to the point, it’s another unfulfilled Trump promise.

Quote:
The Hartford, Conn.-based insurer's announcement is intended to redirect blame for rising drug prices toward pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a drug industry lobbying group, is fighting back with an ad campaign launched Thursday highlighting how insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers block patients from applying cost-saving copay coupons to their deductibles.


https://www.modernhealthcare.com/articl ... /180329919


As someone who works with payers (not just insurance companies, most unions self insure on drug spend for their members as do many large companies) to lower their prescription drug costs, the drug manufacturers are absolutely to blame for rising drug costs. Pick any drug and I can tell you how much they've raised their prices on it over the last 10 years. Those coupons they're talking about were instituted by drug companies to milk payers for every last penny and to circumvent plan designs. Any attempt by payers to control costs or manage utilization and the drug companies go nuts. The PBMs (not all, just some) who do a poor job of utilization management are complicit in rising prices because they're basically doing the drug companies' bidding in doing nothing to combat rising prices so the idea that the drug companies are shifting the blame to PBMs is laughable. The drug companies really are reprehensible.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5837 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 146  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], danny_fitz, diarm, Floppykid, frillage, Frodder, Gavin Duffy, geordie_6, Google Adsense [Bot], happyhooker, henry, HKCJ, Laurent, Mullet 2, MungoMan, OB.., piquant, Rinkals, Sandstorm, Wendigo7, YOYO and 88 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group