Magox

Damn, he looked good!

I see that Peterman from the perspective of fans is the new polarizing figure on the team.

This is pretty much my take. He should begin getting more 2nd team looks.

Yeah, we are all just poor victims of this society.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

The question is, did you read the entire article? So in the context of this argument, if we go to Medicare-for-all, would the new enrollees be Existing Medicare patients or New enrollees? New enrollees, of course. Why would that be? Let's think about this a little bit. Are the reimbursement rates higher for doctors with Medicare or Private Insurance? Private Insurance. So if doctors are receiving less for Medicare and now you switch all their business to a lower level of the rates they will be reimbursed, what would logically follow? Would there be more doctors accepting it relative to the available patients or would there be less? Of course, there would be less as many would opt out to concierge care or other forms of private insurance. Would the quality of care and the time that doctors spend with their patients be longer or shorter? Shorter, of course. Logistically it would be a nightmare. There would be lots of unforeseen dislocations and unintended consequences in the Medical field. Basically healthcare would be divided into 2 types of care. People who have more money who would get higher quality care via Concierge or Private care and then there would be bureaucratic, rationed care for everyone else. But you'd have Universal healthcare. That is the trade off in regards to quality of care. Then of course there are the other impacts, such as the cost/taxation/debt and the effects it would have on the economy. At the very least it would be a slight drag on the economy, much like what we see in Europe. It would essentially put the last nail in the coffin to leading us to become yet another Zombie economy like we see in Europe. Stagnation

Maybe they should first try to pass it in Vermont and CA. first.

He ain't lying. That's how I feel about D.T He's a goddamn pathological liar.

O'leary

Well, that's sort of how it's gone. Except the looking good in preseason part.

I don't know, I thought he made lots of good points. Didn't think it was thaaat bad.

Why is there still an investigation? CB26 stated that Trump laundered money with Russia. Case closed? Right?

What does that have to do with.... Forget about it. Why do I even bother?

If that's your take, then you truly don't understand the other side of the argument.

I can't really argue with too much that was said from KTD. Personally, there was no way in hell that I could have voted for him, I think he is the most dishonest, unqualified, unknowledgeable, demagogic and ill-prepared person to have ever become president. I can rationalize why from the perspective of conservatives voted for him, the lesser of two evils deal. But for his true core supporters, it's something that I find to be almost unbelievable that he was able to hoodwink them into continuously getting their support. The dude, just 18 months before he famously went down the Trump tower escalator and essentially called all Mexicans who crossed the border rapists and murderers, was calling out Romney for being too mean towards illegal immigrants. I knew when everyone had gone crazy over that comment he'd garner strong support from the nativists but never did I believe that it would sustain. To his credit, he has natural political talents and he knew how to play his supporters like-a-fiddle. Whatever, hopefully he'll be able to get some meaningful tax reform and undo many of Obama's regulations. That's about as much as I could hope for.

Interesting.....On so many levels

So Trump did launder money for the Russians? I didn't know that this was verified. Can someone shoot me a link of this, I must have missed it.

No, I don't think so. I think the reason for the shift are a few reasons. A) Now that the media has shined a spot light on all the people who could lose coverage and people see the alternative that has very little backing even among Republicans, the choice between the ACA and what Republicans have offered suddenly makes the ACA look a lot more appealing. and B) Trump is now president and anything he is against, people will like.

Thanks for wasting my time. That won't happen again.

No you nitwit, this is the article that you laid out in response to my post.

You don't know what that word means, do you?

In other words, you aren't able to critically think for yourself. Got it

So to back up your claim, you cited a Politifact article that didn't refute it with any substance other than conflating something that Santorum misstated, and they used just the opinions of other scientists who they knew would be part of the 97% to refute the findings of the survey??? That's your response?? Here is the actual Survey, how about using this thing we called critical thinking? — Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I. … Read the Politifact article again. What is the basis of their dispute with this survey? Lets go over it Now show me where they are substantively disputing the survey in the above section! Basically the argument boils down to this - "We are right, he is wrong" The closest part to substantively disputing the survey comes below: So lets take a look at it: (you see, this is what critical thinking looks like, you should try it) The questions to the survey are at the top. So the guy that Politifact cites to dispute the survey says that they shouldn't count the 22% who "don't answer the question". Actually, they did. A) I don't know B) Unknown C) Other They selected one of those options. That right off the bat, starts off with 22% that are uncertain of the causes. They could be in agreement or they may not. That's what that means. Or as the finders of the survey correctly put it Well yeah. Duhhh Secondly they go on to question basically their definition of "extremely likely" . From 95% to 90%. That is nothing more than gobbledygook. This says nothing. And then the third point is a non sequitur to this topic, because it has to do with a misstatement from Santorum, who didn't properly convey what the findings of the survey were. So unless you can address with substance just the way I did refuting the BS findings from Politifact, don't bother responding. Also Did you open up any of the other links? Because if you had, you'd see that there are tons of peer reviewed articles that dispute the certainty that man is responsible for most of the increases. They aren't saying that man isn't, just that they don't know based of their studies. There in lies the difference.

Except the 97% number is a contrived figure. So there is that.

That keeps getting passed off as fact, when in fact it is fiction. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/ http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf