FYP

My understanding is Heller has been targeted by a bunch of attack ads from the right.

Hey, nothing stopping the guy from growing a pair and calling out the GOP insanity. If Cliven Bundy fan clubbers primary him out, there's always K Street.

Either I haven't made myself clear through my posting in the past or you don't know what sympathy means. It could very well be the former because I don't post much.

Of course, but that's probably never happening. It's mostly interesting to see which part of the election he loses in.

I don't think conservatives want poor people to suffer. Rather I think they want them to beg. That is why I believe that those who need government help would be more likely to get it if they feign gratefulness toward those who, in most cases, just got lucky.

Option 4: Pull a Jim Jeffords and leave the GOP and say you'll be an independent who will caucus with the Democrats. Say something like, "This party has gone ****ing nuts. I've had enough; I must resist."

I don't know enough about Nevada politics to know how this would be received.

I mean most of them are thankful for government assistance, I know I was. I think you mean some symbolic public thankfulness, perhaps falling to their knees and prostrating as those higher on the hierarchy pass.

Here's my lazy cite. Start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...hcare_outcomes

Health outcome are roughly equal between the two countries.

In Canada there are very limited ways that you can pay for improved health care. You can't pay for faster tests/specialist appointments/surgeries/etc in most cases.

I think we can agree that in the US there is a large disparity in care between the well-off and the poor.

So, lazily, if you accept that health outcomes are roughly equal between the two countries, there's limited variation in health outcome by financial status in Canada (at least due to health care), there's large disparity in outcomes by financial status in the US.... you're left with poor people have worse outcomes in the US and rich people have better outcomes.

I'm pretty sure I've read actual studies detailing the disparity in the US, but couldn't find them in my 5 minutes of googling.

I think they just don't care and only care about themselves.

It's basically the same reason almost nobody in this forum is pushing for significant humanitarian intervention around the globe or true 'universal' healthcare for everyone on earth. Our circle of caring is just a bit larger than Republicans.

32 million more Americans would be uninsured by 2026 under Senate measure heading to a vote next week, CBO projects

Just keeps getting better.

Good option. I didn't leave the party, the party left me is another way to put it.

i know your political leanings, you seem like a solid dude. was just making a general comment re: "sucks for him"

Yeah, I hear ya. It's similar to a situation like you hear a couple talking. One says, "What is my most unattractive feature?" The other says, "X". You walk by thinking, "Whoa boy they're screwed." I don't feel bad for the person answering but I know what's coming.

They have these things called 'deductibles.' Very few people know about this. I'm starting to hear this term more and more.....

I don't doubt that he's right, but I imagine the cut-off is somewhere around the 85th percentile and rising. As in, around 85% of the people in the US receive worse healthcare than Canadians, while only about 15% receive better.

But the best way to prepare for a career in K street is to give the donors what they want now with understanding that they will funnel money to the new business you plan to start a year or so in which your primary job duty is to shill on their behalf. Not only are the immediate cash benefits wonderful, as a walking avatar of corporate influence and corruption it makes you much more effective in your job of convincing still sitting Congressmen of the rewards of toeing the corporate line.

The data definitely doesn't back this up (see the link I posted earlier). A large number of people get roughly equivalent care.

If I had to guess it would probably be something more like 20 worse, 60 equal, 20 better (obviously pulled right out of my ass, but you get the idea).

Is this in reference to something specific ITT or elsewhere?

Team Trump Used Obamacare Money to Run PR Effort Against It

http://www.thedailybeast.com/team-tr...ads-against-it

Obamacare may have the flu and need some fluids and rest, but Trump is holding a pillow over it's face yelling, "It's such a shame the condition is terminal!" Call it extreme hospice.

What I don't understand about the whole Obamacare thing from a GOP perspective...

Either the Congress fixes Obamacare

OR

It devolves so terribly that the population demands public option/single payer.

Why does the GOP risk the latter? They can fix Obamacare and prevent public option for a generation. Even if I totally buy the idea that all they care about is removing the ACA taxes for the rich... why do they risk any chance of Single Payer if they could just shore up ACA?

I don't understand from a game theory perspective.

How?

It's complicated, you wouldn't understand.

It started with DVaut and Sklansky's comments around Republicans wanting tax cuts and their views on the poor. Sklansky said that he thought Republicans wanted poor people to beg.

My response is that Republicans don't care about poor people at all. They just care about tax cuts and everything else is irrelevant.

The bolded was more that we all want "tax cuts" (or various 'luxury' services and no tax increases on the middle class) and we don't particularly care that that money could instead be used for very significant humanitarian good in places around the world.

Edit: Reading DVaut's comments again, I don't disagree with them. Sklansky is the one that inserted the idea that the Republicans are thinking about the poor at all. DVaut was just pointing out that the poor are the ones that suffer for the Republicans tax cuts. Which is obviously true.