Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Ghost of LL

Burnt Ends
  • Joined

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. 19 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

    He does a great job of acting like belongs and getting media coverage, but sometimes the juxtaposition of where he actually is and where the Senators are is striking and unavoidable.  

    Here’s Kamala grilling Brett Kavanaugh or some high level Trump administration official.  Here’s Warren and Bernie talking about their bills for healthcare and Wall Street reform.  Here’s Biden talking about how the Bin Laden raid went down and what the Obama Administration did domestically and in foreign affairs. Here’s Mayor Pete getting yelled at by some guy after a police shooting.

    I have thought for a long time that Pete's best play is to raise money, increase his national stature, and then drop out after Iowa/New Hampshire with plenty of time to register for the Indiana governor's race.

  2. 9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    What is the rationale for abolishing private insurance that competes with MFA coverage?  Like, why not just implement MFA without such a provision and let competitors die on the vine rather than expressly banning them? 

    Yeah--I just don't get that.  B-t's explanation makes sense.  But that is at variance with Bernie's tweet above.

  3. 38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    I'm not sure what you mean.

    When I say "in or out" I mean the provider being either in or out of the system as a provider. If I'm Doctor to the Oligarchs and I treat all their congenital defects from centuries of inbreeding, I'm free to keep taking that sweet sweet DuPont lucre, but I can't be a normal doctor who takes Medicare patients during the day and moonlights with the inbreds for cash. I have to choose.

    At least, this is my understanding according to my (lay) reading of this section.

    Oh, ok--I misunderstood.  That makes a lot more sense.  I thought you were talking about the patient.

  4. 2 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

    I handicapped the O/U 5.5% fall in the polls within 2 weeks.  What side you got?

    I'm taking the over.  I see the numbers that b_t just posted.  And that's fine.  Joe's not going to lose because of a lack of African-American support.  Joe's going to lose because whites are going to flee him.

  5. 38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    You are allowed to buy private coverage for additional services not covered by M4A.

    The 100% cash concierge doctors that the rich enjoy today will still be available in Sanders's Communist Helltopia, as long as they do not ever take Medicare money. In or out.

    Ok--I'm good with that.

    Except I do wonder why they shouldn't be allowed to take Medicare money out.  It's a minor quibble, but that restriction doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If they pay in (and presumably at their income level, they should be paying a lot in), shouldn't they be able to take out irrespective of however else they spend their money?

  6. 2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    It was shorthand for "private insurance as the basis for runaday health insurance". MSNBC and the corporate whores who wrote the questions are very stupid and make things worse and less clear with their ineptitude.

    Sanders's M4A bill, which is a fully written and filed piece of legislation, allows private supplemental insurance.

    Ok.  So this is common in the UK.  There's the NHS.  But plenty of people have supplemental insurance that allows them to go to doctors who are outside the NHS.  They can still go to the NHS, of course.  But they can also go to a doctor that doesn't participate in NHS.

    Under Sanders' bill, that's not allowed?

    How about if we factor out insurance altogether.  Can I fund separate medical care out of my own pocket?  For example, there are plenty of concierge doctors now who charge $X/month and you go to them as your primary-care doctor (or, more precisely, they come to you).  Is that going to be illegal?

  7. 6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    pAsS tHe ToRcH tO tHe FrEsH yOuNg MeSsEnGeRs

     

    I really don't understand this "abolish private insurance" drive.  If you're pushing for Medicare for all, doesn't that necessarily imply extending the current Medicare structure?  Medicare doesn't ban private insurance.  It expressly allows for supplemental insurance and Part B plans.

  8. 28 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

    so they should be turned away left to die on the street? what do you think we do now? 

    It's not even a matter of dying in the street.  People who have communicable diseases that go untreated run around and infect other people.  It's not an immigration issue; it's a public-health issue.  We need to treat people who suffer from illnesses, irrespective of their immigration status, in order to protect the public at large.

    Look--last year there was a resurgence in whooping cough.  Right wingers tried to claim that it was brought by illegal immigrants.  It wasn't.  That was just another racist lie. 

    But whatever--let's imagine that it was brought by immigrants.  What sense would it make to refuse to provide those immigrants medical treatment and instead leave them untreated to infect others?  That's not just vile; it's intensely stupid.

    Which is to say that it's completely within the GOP's wheelhouse.  "Vile and intensely stupid." might as well be the Republican Party's motto.

  9. 26 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    Everyone is too quick to write Biden’s epitaph based on this one debate, but I don’t see that yet.

    I will say one thing, however, he looked old. 

    If Biden continues to perform like that, he will not be the nominee.

    Have you seen any indication that Biden won't continue to perform like that?

    Between now and the next debates, is he going to get younger?  Is he going to not have a questionable record on race, social justice, and combating economic inequality?  Is he suddenly going to be able to express succinct coherent thoughts?  

  10. Bernie demonstrated last night just how much American politics has changed over the last four years.  He looked very 2016 up there talking about Medicare-for-all as though it were some new and revolutionary idea.  It's not.  It may not be an idea that everybody (or even most people) support.  But it's neither new nor revolutionary.

    So with no new or revolutionary ideas, Bernie just looked old.

    So good for Bernie for mainstreaming his ideas.  He should retire on that and be very satisfied with his career.  But now he just looks like an old ballplayer whom the game has passed by.

  11. The entire raison d'etre for Joe Biden's campaign is "I can beat Donald Trump."  That is 100% the basis for his current support.  Nobody loves Joe Biden because his policy positions.  He doesn't have any.  Nobody loves Joe Biden because of his intense personal charisma.  He doesn't have that.  

    They'll vote for him because they think he is the best chance to beat Trump.

    Did he look like he would beat Donald Trump last night?  

    He couldn't put together a cogent two-minute thought.  On two separate occasions, he had to bail out of his own rambling with "oh, my time is up, ok."  No, Joe--your time isn't up.  Keep going.  Oh, you can't?  Ok, then.

    Harris just gutted a septuagenarian in front of a national audience.  Does anybody think she wouldn't do the same to another septuagenarian if she got the nomination?

  12. 8 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

    WaterloggedFlamboyantAmericanredsquirrel

    I can draw conclusions based on evidence.  It's not exactly a superpower.

    1 minute ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:


    Where did you see that I was supporting / defending him?
    JFC



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    When you complain that this photo was published "because of who's in the white house," you adopt a right-wing meme that the media is out to get Trump.  You're certainly careful not to say it outwardly, but it is the undercurrent beneath all of your posts.

  13. 4 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:


    Negative
    I do not support Trump
    But thanks for jumping to conclusions



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    For a non-supporter, you seem very eager to defend him against the purported agendas of the media.

    Sorry, but your denial just isn't ringing true.

  14. 7 hours ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

    I don't see media running pictures of opiod deaths on the front page. I don't see DWI deaths photos. Is it an agenda? Is it because these crisis aren't as shiny as the border region because of who's in the white house? 
     

    Aaaaaaand there it is.  You don't want to see it because you view it as an implicit rebuke of this Administration's monstrous policies.

    Well, Trump--and, by extension, you--stand rebuked.

    And don't think for a minute that you can just hide your eyes and avoid culpability.  You know.  And if you didn't know, now you know.

  15. 10 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

    I didn't say I didn't "want the news", I can read the article just fine.  I stand by my opinion that it's sensationalized media and the pictures didn't need to be posted.
     

    Perhaps you should focus your outrage on the governmental policies that led to the kid dying, rather than the newspaper that published a photo of the dead kid.

    I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the photograph being "sensationalized."  That's a nonsense word that conveys no information other than your subjective judgment.  Photographs are important because of how we humans digest and internalize information.  The photograph conveys what's happening on the border in a way words never could.

    And that's precisely why you object to it.

  16. 9 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

    How many pictures of a dead toddler do you need to see? I don't think there is a need to show one, much less two. 
    Are they going to show pictures of every child that dies tragically ?

    Not every picture of a child who died tragically is germane to the leading political controversy of the day.  Nor does every such picture have the potential to significantly impact that controversy.

    Is it your argument that a newspaper should not publish this photograph, knowing that it depicts the instant of death of numerous people (including children):

    e46b1627c2d57affb42fa2d0855cc1d0--americ

    Should western newspapers not have shown this photograph, relecting the Japanese atrocities in Nanking:

    Rape-of-Nanking-Massacre-Baby-Header.jpg

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.