Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Thursday, June 22, 2017

"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:59PM

> Pelosi, which is the first sign of intelligence I have seen from them
> in many years. You are one of those saying "We are doing the right
> thing, we just need to do more of it."
 
Only your complete lack of intelligence and patently dishonest nature
are preventing you from grasping the point.
 
> I guess we could give you guys a "participation trophy" if that makes
> you feel better.
 
"you guys"?
 
Who the fuck are you talkng about you dumb moron.
 
(A legitimate conclusion drawn from evidence provided by yourself.)
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 22 01:09PM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 11:39:50 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > https://www.opensecrets.org/
 
> Which states very clearly that the Republicans spent even more...
 
> ...but I guess to you that doesn't count, right?
 
You, as usual, are wrong; Ossoff spent FIVE TIMES more than Handel.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 08:15PM


> > "MOST MONEY IN HISTORY"?
 
> > Got a cite for that?
 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/
 
That does not actually directly support your claim.
 
In fact it rather looks like the republicans spent the "MOST MONEY IN
HISTORY" but I don't see a break down to make a solid conclusion.
 
So if you don't wnat your assertion to be graded as yet another Trumpet
falsehood how about providing some actual support for your assertion.
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 22 03:21PM -0500


>> Fact: ALL the polls show that Trump's approval rating has fallen.
 
>Fact: most "journalists" are liberal Dimocrats and Trump's news coverage has been overwhelmingly negative, including totally fake stories.
 
>So why would you expect anything different?
Not as long as we have this absolute maniac as POTUS
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 08:27PM

Moderate wrote:
 
> > prevention of certain demographics from exercising their franchise
> > (as has been found to have happened by the courts).
 
> So how does that impact the polls being wrong? It doesn't.
 
The polls weren't wrong, you are, unsurprisingly.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election,_2017#Polling
 
The latest polls had Handel ahead in 2 out of three and tied in the
third.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Jun 22 03:37PM -0500

Moderate wrote:
 
>> Which states very clearly that the Republicans spent even more...
 
>> ...but I guess to you that doesn't count, right?
 
> Where is that stated?
 
He has no idea WTF he's talking about. R's spent about 5 mill, D's
spent almost 24 mill.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 01:44PM -0700


>> Which states very clearly that the Republicans spent even more...
 
>> ...but I guess to you that doesn't count, right?
 
> You, as usual, are wrong; Ossoff spent FIVE TIMES more than Handel.
 
I didn't say "Handel", did I?
 
Outside money:
 
'Where Handel has Ossoff beat, however, is in outside spending totals.
Super PACs have not been shy about showing their support for either
candidate, but Handel has been the beneficiary of twice as much outside
money as Ossoff. Outside spending boosting her campaign or attacking
Ossoff totaled $18.2 million as of June 19, against just under $8
million by groups backing Ossoff or opposing Handel.'
 
Oops.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 01:53PM -0700

On 2017-06-22 1:37 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
> He has no idea WTF he's talking about. R's spent about 5 mill, D's
> spent almost 24 mill.
 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html
 
Incorrect. From your own cite:
 
'But the Republican Also
Benefited From Outside Money
 
Although Mr. Ossoff's campaign far outraised Ms. Handel's, she had much
more outside support from party committees and "super PACs." These
groups spent more than $25 million on the race, primarily on advertising
against the other side.'
 
You seem to have a very convenient ability to only read the bits you like.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 08:51PM

> coverage has been overwhelmingly negative, including totally fake
> stories.
 
> So why would you expect anything different?
 
So Trumpets believe that journalists fake the polls?
 
You're too much. No, stop it.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 01:55PM -0700

On 2017-06-22 12:22 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Which states very clearly that the Republicans spent even more...
 
>> ...but I guess to you that doesn't count, right?
 
> Where is that stated?
 
Combine what Handel spent (referenced in the article but here is their
source):
 
<https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633362/>
 
With what outside money spent on defeating Osoff:
 
'Where Handel has Ossoff beat, however, is in outside spending totals.
Super PACs have not been shy about showing their support for either
candidate, but Handel has been the beneficiary of twice as much outside
money as Ossoff. Outside spending boosting her campaign or attacking
Ossoff totaled $18.2 million as of June 19'
 
And she spent more than he did.
 
:-)
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 01:58PM -0700

On 2017-06-22 12:25 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> of certain demographics from exercising their franchise (as has been
>> found to have happened by the courts).
 
> So how does that impact the polls being wrong? It doesn't.
 
The predictions being wrong doesn't make the polls wrong, doofus.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 09:05PM

MNMikeW wrote:
 
 
> > Where is that stated?
 
> He has no idea WTF he's talking about. R's spent about 5 mill, D's
> spent almost 24 mill.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html
 
Mikey math 5+24=55
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 02:11PM -0700

On 2017-06-22 2:05 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> spent almost 24 mill.
 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html
 
> Mikey math 5+24=55
 
One of the best cases of selective blindness I've ever seen.
 
:-)
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 09:11PM


> > Which states very clearly that the Republicans spent even more...
 
> > ...but I guess to you that doesn't count, right?
 
> You, as usual, are wrong; Ossoff spent FIVE TIMES more than Handel.
 
Another clearly dishonest misrepresentation and deviation.
 
The question is how much the Dems spent vs the Reps and your assertion
in answer is clearly dishonest on more than one level.
 
Fucking lying Trumpets.
 
Quote *expenditure* that supports your claim or admit ignorance and
dishonesty, Trumpet.
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:51PM

> > > > >> Here you go, five sites listing lies that Trump has told. If
> > > > you >> google "Trump's Lies" you'll find over 13 pages with at
> > > > least 12 sites >> on each page of them. Pick one.
 
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byru
> > > > ling/pants-fire/ >> >>
 
http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-thousand-and-one-lies-donald-t
> > > > rump-611858 >> >>
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-12/trump-s-history-o
> > > > f-lies-according-to-biographer-timothy-o-brien >> >>
 
http://www.essence.com/news/politics/100-days-donald-trumps-lies-and
> > > > -failed-promises >> >>
 
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-intentionally-lies-to-us/
 
> > Pretending to be the little monkey with hands over his eyes is still
> > lying.
 
> Yeah, just LIKE Trump's lies: all in your little brain.
 
Me,everyone you know of and around a billion or two more.
 
You're just a little Trumpet; singing from the same c-rap sheet.
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 22 01:16PM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 12:55:02 PM UTC-7, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
> > Yeah, just LIKE Trump's lies: all in your little brain.
 
> Me,everyone you know of and around a billion or two more.
 
> You're just a little Trumpet; singing from the same c-rap sheet.
 
YAWN....
"DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.america@gmail.com>: Jun 22 09:01PM


> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 12:55:02 PM UTC-7, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
> > You're just a little Trumpet; singing from the same c-rap sheet.
 
> YAWN....
 
Dogs also do that when they are stressed.
 
Are you even house trained?
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 22 01:15PM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> >> Why won't you answer?
 
> > Which is why I exposed you as a FRAUD!
 
> Why are you so afraid to answer?
 
Why are you a FRAUD?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 02:03PM -0700


>>> Which is why I exposed you as a FRAUD!
 
>> Why are you so afraid to answer?
 
> Why are you a FRAUD?
 
Answer my question...
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 02:03PM -0700

On 2017-06-22 12:20 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> :-)
 
> When did Trump say he had tapes?
 
He implied it to attempt to intimidate Comey.
 
The fact that he phrased it in weasel words doesn't change anything.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Jun 22 12:51PM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 1:47:04 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Pluses and minuses.
 
I've not read it yet to get into details.
 

> formulating plans that do not cover items that people want,
> such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will
> spur competition and lower cost.
 
I disagree.
 
What will happen is that people will pay less and get less,
and this "flexibility" will actually end up being how the
companies will create policies which initially appear to
look good, but are actually crap that doesn't pay anything.
 
Its the "Payday Loan" bit all over again, where the less
educated will be rip-off victims.
 

> will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a
> long-term solution, especially for those recipients who
> are adults.
 
My understanding of Medicaid (right or wrong) was that it is
intended to be a safety net for the poor. Broadly, we're
seeing the Middle Class erode away and the trend has been
that four have gone down for every one that went up in income.
As such, the need for a safety net for the poor is growing,
not shrinking, so planning for future costs to be lower is
fiscally irresponsible.
 

> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake.
 
Agreed.
 
 
> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger
> people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
 
Is this a change in the allowed ratio (eg, 1:3 to 1:5)?
 
If so, I'm not optimistic that the rates will really decline
for the young by as much as they notionally should.
 
> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age.
> Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
 
And is this observation a good or bad thing?
 

> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will
> not be a benefit to most Americans.
 
True, it is a tax cut for the rich (who also are getting
an age-based subsidy).
 
 
> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance
> companies to be creative with coverages ...
 
I don't mind a certain degree of 'creativity', but I do have
concerns with not having minimum standards as well as the
consequences of inviting excessive complexity: from the
consumer's standpoint, simpler is better for cross-comparison
shopping. Trying to use the competitive forces of capitalism
simply doesn't work when it becomes harder to compare products.
 
Just look at shopping for a mattress: stores sell the same
brands, but with different model#s at each store, which makes
it impossible to price-shop for the same product.
 
> ...but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping
> subsidies for those who need it.
 
Agreed, don't roll tax cuts for the rich into this, and also
have some sort of "means test" for the poor. BTW, this also
means that tax credits are a horribly bad way to implement
this, since the poor don't have the free cash to float the
cost of a healthcare policy for a year (until tax time).
 
> I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
 
This one is problematic in that if the principle is that
Medicaid is for assistance to the poor, what is the plan
to have fewer poor people?
 
 
> Interesting times ahead.
 
Indeed it is.
 
> It's pathetic that the Democrats and their presstitutes will
> nitpick this to death without offering any solutions on their
> own. Perhaps a few will break away from their so-called leadership.
 
 
One of the things I notice in your post as apparently absent
is how any of these change initiatives will actually reduce the
real costs of medical services.
 
The only point that's even close to this is to permit insurance
companies to sell policies which have lower premiums because
they cover less, but that's a dodge because it does not actually
reduce the real costs of medical care ... its merely a transference
of who pays the bill from the Insurance Company back to the Individual.
 
OTOH, if this transference also comes with the Individual being able
to pay the lower rate that the Ins Co traditionally pays, then there
may be some potential for real cost reductions ... but that's another
example of where there's opportunities for the Insurance providers
to increase product complexity through schemes which aren't easy for
a consumer to assess the value of and cross-compare.
 
Thus, it still comes back to the basic question I asked months ago,
which was noting that for true costs to come down, someone has to
ultimately receive less money for their services - - "whose ox will
be gored?" was how I expressed it.
 
 
-hh
BK@Onramp.net: Jun 22 03:17PM -0500

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:35:16 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> They had an entire health care programs as a solution. Let the shit for brains repugs pass it and watch them fall flat on their faces. But I'm certain that they will continue, after o-care is gone, blaming the health care problems on it and not their piece of shit toss-together.
 
>Obamacare was not a solution. It failed. It failed at a very
> costly price.
 
It was flawed and set for changes, but better than the first two tries
by the GOP this year. I don't think this last one will pass either.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Jun 22 02:02PM -0700

This device makes it very difficult to respond line by line so I will postpone that until later.
 
I do want to address the more permanent solution, which neither ACA or this GOP bill does. The efficient solution to the healthcare delivery and purchase.
 
I think the solution is single payer.
 
Now before Carbs has a heart attack, I'm not suggesting the Canadian system. I'm suggesting that every American be entitled to a hospital only catastrophic plan, with a $10,000 out-of-pocket max. Premiums would be paid for upon completion of our tax returns with rates based on age. $100/mo. for those under 30 and rising incrementally as one ages.
 
Those who want to can supplement this catastrophic coverage through group employer policies or purchase individually, using the same open enrollment rules as are in place now. Similar to what people do with Medicare plans.
 
Medicaid would be scaled back and cover the legitimately poor or disabled.
 
IMO, this system allows insurance companies to compete heavily with each other, same as the doctors and other providers. This is occurring already with Medicare plans. Quite successfully!
 
Thoughts?
tomseim2g@gmail.com: Jun 22 01:14PM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 11:55:39 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings," Trump wrote
> on Twitter.'
 
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN19D1TU>
 
Proves you don't know what a lie is: he NEVER said that he had tapes.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Jun 22 02:01PM -0700

>> on Twitter.'
 
>> <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN19D1TU>
 
> Proves you don't know what a lie is: he NEVER said that he had tapes.
 
It proves that you don't understand what "lie" means in a larger context.
 
He said something that was purposely untrue in order to try to
intimidate Comey.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment