Won't this be great - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Won't this be great (/thread-19949.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Won't this be great (/thread-19949.html)
Pages:
1
2
Won't this be great - OutsiderFan - 06-26-2020
As the USA cleared the 40,000 new case mark for the first time ever, 3 months into the pandemic, the White House is basically ignoring the virus now, pretending it doesn't exist. The POTUS is even claiming there will be fewer infections with fewer tests, when in fact there will be more infections with fewer tests because if you test, you at least know where the virus is and can TRY to mitigate it.
At the same time, the DOJ is arguing to the SCOTUS that the ACA should be overturned, so any American can be denied medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. We have 2.5 Million confirmed Covid-19 cases. The CDC director said he thinks there are 10x that many who have been infected. Let's take his word for it, and assume 25 Million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.
So we have the People's Justice Department arguing that the American people should have no right to have health insurance if they are known to have had Covid-19. Given we have evidence that shows long-term damage can be caused by it, even in people who never presented symptoms, this doesn't seem ideal. Almost 10% of the population could be ineligible for health insurance coverage.
The Federal Government is doing all it can to "open the economy" and putting literally millions of people at risk for infection, while arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.
Just let this sink in.
lex24 - lex24 - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 06:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As the USA cleared the 40,000 new case mark for the first time ever, 3 months into the pandemic, the White House is basically ignoring the virus now, pretending it doesn't exist. The POTUS is even claiming there will be fewer infections with fewer tests, when in fact there will be more infections with fewer tests because if you test, you at least know where the virus is and can TRY to mitigate it.
At the same time, the DOJ is arguing to the SCOTUS that the ACA should be overturned, so any American can be denied medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. We have 2.5 Million confirmed Covid-19 cases. The CDC director said he thinks there are 10x that many who have been infected. Let's take his word for it, and assume 25 Million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.
So we have the People's Justice Department arguing that the American people should have no right to have health insurance if they are known to have had Covid-19. Given we have evidence that shows long-term damage can be caused by it, even in people who never presented symptoms, this doesn't seem ideal. Almost 10% of the population could be ineligible for health insurance coverage.
The Federal Government is doing all it can to "open the economy" and putting literally millions of people at risk for infection, while arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.
Just let this sink in.
Purely political post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.
RE: Won't this be great - fullmetal - 06-26-2020
It is not purely political to point out the healthcare coverage for millions of Americans is now threatened by their own federal government during a pandemic, a situation where every American needs to have health insurance to protect against the possibility of immediate medical bankruptcy.
This fact may not put supporters of the federal executive branch in a good light, but it is a fact related to the pandemic and America's ability to survive the pandemic.
RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)lex24 Wrote:(06-26-2020, 06:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As the USA cleared the 40,000 new case mark for the first time ever, 3 months into the pandemic, the White House is basically ignoring the virus now, pretending it doesn't exist. The POTUS is even claiming there will be fewer infections with fewer tests, when in fact there will be more infections with fewer tests because if you test, you at least know where the virus is and can TRY to mitigate it.
At the same time, the DOJ is arguing to the SCOTUS that the ACA should be overturned, so any American can be denied medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. We have 2.5 Million confirmed Covid-19 cases. The CDC director said he thinks there are 10x that many who have been infected. Let's take his word for it, and assume 25 Million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.
So we have the People's Justice Department arguing that the American people should have no right to have health insurance if they are known to have had Covid-19. Given we have evidence that shows long-term damage can be caused by it, even in people who never presented symptoms, this doesn't seem ideal. Almost 10% of the population could be ineligible for health insurance coverage.
The Federal Government is doing all it can to "open the economy" and putting literally millions of people at risk for infection, while arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.
Just let this sink in.
Purely political factual post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.
FIFY
NOTHING in my post was a political statement. It is all facts. The only part that was opinion is the "this doesn't seem ideal" comment I put in.
RE: Won't this be great - 2006alum - 06-26-2020
Fits comfortably within the Terry Rule - talking about policy and litigation choices and their effects on how people get (and get covered for treatment of) COVID-19.
lex24 - lex24 - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)lex24 Wrote:(06-26-2020, 06:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As the USA cleared the 40,000 new case mark for the first time ever, 3 months into the pandemic, the White House is basically ignoring the virus now, pretending it doesn't exist. The POTUS is even claiming there will be fewer infections with fewer tests, when in fact there will be more infections with fewer tests because if you test, you at least know where the virus is and can TRY to mitigate it.
At the same time, the DOJ is arguing to the SCOTUS that the ACA should be overturned, so any American can be denied medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. We have 2.5 Million confirmed Covid-19 cases. The CDC director said he thinks there are 10x that many who have been infected. Let's take his word for it, and assume 25 Million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.
So we have the People's Justice Department arguing that the American people should have no right to have health insurance if they are known to have had Covid-19. Given we have evidence that shows long-term damage can be caused by it, even in people who never presented symptoms, this doesn't seem ideal. Almost 10% of the population could be ineligible for health insurance coverage.
The Federal Government is doing all it can to "open the economy" and putting literally millions of people at risk for infection, while arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.
Just let this sink in.
Purely political factual post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.
FIFY
NOTHING in my post was a political statement. It is all facts. The only part that was opinion is the "this doesn't seem ideal" comment I put in.
Bunk. And using all caps while striking part of my comment changes nothing. It is rife with your opinions. The “White House is basically ignoring the virus “ is not a fact. It’s an opinion. The 25 million figure is also not a fact. It’s an educated guess. Although that the comment was made is a fact.
You then bring in Texas v California which is the ACA suit the Court is to hear next term. You opine that the Admin is putting millions at risk and make the assertion that they they are “ arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.“ If you can find that argument in their brief by all means show it to me. Otherwise you are putting your “spin” on the administration’s position. That’s an opinion not a fact.
That Trump sided with Texas et al should not be surprising. Trump ran in part on overturning the ACA. Not saying it’s the “right” position to take. Just pointing out the “fact”
(06-26-2020, 11:15 AM)2006alum Wrote: Fits comfortably within the Terry Rule - talking about policy and litigation choices and their effects on how people get (and get covered for treatment of) COVID-19.
Insurance coverage is part of the rule? You truly want to open up discussions on the ACA?Hard to think of a more political topic.
RE: Won't this be great - M T - 06-26-2020
Lex24, I agree with your assessment of the nature of the post.
RE: lex24 - 2006alum - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 11:41 AM)lex24 Wrote:(06-26-2020, 11:15 AM)2006alum Wrote: Fits comfortably within the Terry Rule - talking about policy and litigation choices and their effects on how people get (and get covered for treatment of) COVID-19.
Insurance coverage is part of the rule? You truly want to open up discussions on the ACA?Hard to think of a more political topic.
The rule is not no politics, or even no "very political" topics. The rule is no discussion of politics that isn't also about COVID-19. Discussing relationship between treatment, health insurance, and COVID-19 diagnoses is clearly (in part) about COVID-19.
If things get out of hand, we can always reconsider. But the post you reference uses the term COVID-19 three times and references it several others, so it's hard to say that post is not at all about COVID-19, even if it is also very political.
RE: Won't this be great - 76lsjumb - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 11:15 AM)2006alum Wrote: Fits comfortably within the Terry Rule - talking about policy and litigation choices and their effects on how people get (and get covered for treatment of) COVID-19.
The Terry Rule appears to be kind of like the U.S. Constitution. What it actually says isn't quite as important as how it can be interpreted to support whatever outcome the person invoking it wants.
RE: Won't this be great - Genuine Realist - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 10:15 AM)fullmetal Wrote: It is not purely political to point out the healthcare coverage for millions of Americans is now threatened by their own federal government during a pandemic, a situation where every American needs to have health insurance to protect against the possibility of immediate medical bankruptcy.It's about as political as you can get.
This fact may not put supporters of the federal executive branch in a good light, but it is a fact related to the pandemic and America's ability to survive the pandemic.
RE: Won't this be great - 2006alum - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 12:28 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(06-26-2020, 11:15 AM)2006alum Wrote: Fits comfortably within the Terry Rule - talking about policy and litigation choices and their effects on how people get (and get covered for treatment of) COVID-19.
The Terry Rule appears to be kind of like the U.S. Constitution. What it actually says isn't quite as important as how it can be interpreted to support whatever outcome the person invoking it wants.
Here's the last time we closed a thread due to a Terry Rule violation. Tell me how many times COVID-19 came up in that post:
Quote:I actually have a good estimate of those forces. As to White supremacy, there are only 6,000 KKK members in the entire country - less than some high schools. There are maybe 50,000 actual White supremacists - not enough to elect a school board member in a medium size city.
As to racism. the prosaic fact is that the Armed Forces and urban police forces are probably the most culturally diverse institution in the country. The percentage of African-American officers in the military exceeds the percentage of the general population. The services are also extremely Hispanic - and everyone seems to get along rather well.
The same is true of urban police departments (suburban are catching up). For example, the largest demographic in LAPD is Hispanic, slightly over 40% servicing a population that is 46% Hispanic. Africa-American officers are another 12%, over a population base of 8%. As I mentioned in another post, the flagship police department in the nation, NYPD, is more than 50% POC. Other urban police departments are similar.
So where exactly this racist force of arms is supposed to come from, I don't know. What changed after Trump was elected is that the MSM began covering the chicken sh!t rallies of these creeps as if they mattered. You had to read to the fourth paragraph to learn they were getting maybe 20 people from a whole state.
My last post on the subject, as this has become too political. PM me i you want links or to continue the discussion.
I get that some of you are tired of the Trump-bashing in these quarters, and it's to a large degree asymmetric because the GOP controls most of the federal government right now, so most criticism of the federal government will be inherently anti-GOP, which means there is way more criticism of GOP-affiliates than DEM-affiliates.
However, the rule is not about politics per se, it's about politics divorced from COVID-19. So stop complaining that something is "political" and start complaining that is "unrelated to COVID-19."
lex24 - lex24 - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:00 PM)2006alum Wrote:(06-26-2020, 12:28 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(06-26-2020, 11:15 AM)2006alum Wrote: Fits comfortably within the Terry Rule - talking about policy and litigation choices and their effects on how people get (and get covered for treatment of) COVID-19.
The Terry Rule appears to be kind of like the U.S. Constitution. What it actually says isn't quite as important as how it can be interpreted to support whatever outcome the person invoking it wants.
Here's the last time we closed a thread due to a Terry Rule violation. Tell me how many times COVID-19 came up in that post:
Quote:I actually have a good estimate of those forces. As to White supremacy, there are only 6,000 KKK members in the entire country - less than some high schools. There are maybe 50,000 actual White supremacists - not enough to elect a school board member in a medium size city.
As to racism. the prosaic fact is that the Armed Forces and urban police forces are probably the most culturally diverse institution in the country. The percentage of African-American officers in the military exceeds the percentage of the general population. The services are also extremely Hispanic - and everyone seems to get along rather well.
The same is true of urban police departments (suburban are catching up). For example, the largest demographic in LAPD is Hispanic, slightly over 40% servicing a population that is 46% Hispanic. Africa-American officers are another 12%, over a population base of 8%. As I mentioned in another post, the flagship police department in the nation, NYPD, is more than 50% POC. Other urban police departments are similar.
So where exactly this racist force of arms is supposed to come from, I don't know. What changed after Trump was elected is that the MSM began covering the chicken sh!t rallies of these creeps as if they mattered. You had to read to the fourth paragraph to learn they were getting maybe 20 people from a whole state.
My last post on the subject, as this has become too political. PM me i you want links or to continue the discussion.
I get that some of you are tired of the Trump-bashing in these quarters, and it's to a large degree asymmetric because the GOP controls most of the federal government right now, so most criticism of the federal government will be inherently anti-GOP, which means there is way more criticism of GOP-affiliates than DEM-affiliates.
However, the rule is not about politics per se, it's about politics divorced from COVID-19. So stop complaining that something is "political" and start complaining that is "unrelated to COVID-19."
Quite honestly, I don’t care about the Trump bashing. It’s not my point to stop that. Never has been. Bash away.
But what I have indicated and suggested is the problem goes a little deeper than just Trump and while it’s easy to simply point the finger of blame at Trump, there are other factors as well.
In addition, when someone suggests that something is purely factual and it is actually primarily a political opinion, I’m gonna point it out. Simple as that.
RE: Won't this be great - OutsiderFan - 06-26-2020
Fact: The POTUS stopped having Covid pressers 2 months ago
Fact: The Veep said it would all be gone by Memorial Day
Fact: The POTUS said more testing equals more cases
Fact: The POTUS has held indoor events during the pandemic, not following CDC guidelines; encouraging virus spread
Fact: The first Covid presser was held today since April
Fact: The U.S. set its record for most new reported infections on June 25, after the White House acted like the virus wasn't important
Fact: The DOJ is arguing against the ACA in court right now
Fact: If the DOJ gets what it is arguing, insurance companies could refuse coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
Fact: Covid-19 infection can be considered a pre-existing condition
Fact: There are 2.5 Million confirmed Covid cases in the U.S.
Fact: The CDC Director believes there could be as many as 10x more people infected than have tested positive
How can anyone conclude the White House is taking the virus seriously when not talking about it for two months, claiming it would be over by Memorial Day, and having events that promote virus spread? If this is concern, what constitutes no concern? Getting crop dusters with Covid-19 and spraying live virus over lines of people standing to get in stores, food pantries, or to vote?
Of course the DOJ isn't arguing people who get Covid-19 shouldn't be able to get insured, in those words. But what they are arguing is for all intents and purposes arguing exactly this. How is this hard? It's like adding two and two together.
RE: lex24 - JustAnotherFan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)lex24 Wrote:(06-26-2020, 06:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As the USA cleared the 40,000 new case mark for the first time ever, 3 months into the pandemic, the White House is basically ignoring the virus now, pretending it doesn't exist. The POTUS is even claiming there will be fewer infections with fewer tests, when in fact there will be more infections with fewer tests because if you test, you at least know where the virus is and can TRY to mitigate it.
At the same time, the DOJ is arguing to the SCOTUS that the ACA should be overturned, so any American can be denied medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. We have 2.5 Million confirmed Covid-19 cases. The CDC director said he thinks there are 10x that many who have been infected. Let's take his word for it, and assume 25 Million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.
So we have the People's Justice Department arguing that the American people should have no right to have health insurance if they are known to have had Covid-19. Given we have evidence that shows long-term damage can be caused by it, even in people who never presented symptoms, this doesn't seem ideal. Almost 10% of the population could be ineligible for health insurance coverage.
The Federal Government is doing all it can to "open the economy" and putting literally millions of people at risk for infection, while arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.
Just let this sink in.
Purely political factual post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.
FIFY
NOTHING in my post was a political statement. It is all facts. The only part that was opinion is the "this doesn't seem ideal" comment I put in.
Your post most certainly is political because the conditions around the pandemic are absolutely political and we should put to bed this absurd notion that we can talk about Covid-19 in a non-political way. The American debacle with regard to Covid-19 cannot be explained away without addressing the realities of the abject failures and corruption of Federal and state govenrments. .
Politics maybe should stay out of discussions of football and softball, but not Covid-19. There are so many people in power who are willing to see Americans die so that they can hold onto power. That's just reality. Speak it loudly.
RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:24 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: There are so many people in power who are willing to see Americans die so that they can hold onto power. That's just reality. Speak it loudly.
PREACH!
RE: Won't this be great - BostonCard - 06-26-2020
The original post at least mentions COVID-19, and insurance coverage is germane. However, I'm sympathetic to Lex; the post had more to do with ACA and the decision to challenge its constitutionality in the Supreme Court than it is about COVID-19, and the ACA is one of the most frought political issues of the last decade. And I also agree with him that the post was heavy on editorialization.
However this post started, it has turned into an argument of whether the original post violated Terry's rule or not, which itself seems unrelated to COVID-19.
If you want to focus on whether declaring the ACA unconstitutional will have an impact on COVID-19 (note, the case wouldn't be heard until the fall, and wouldn't be decided until 2021), have at it, but please keep the focus on the relationship to COVID-19.
BC
RE: Won't this be great - 76lsjumb - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 02:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The original post at least mentions COVID-19, and insurance coverage is germane. However, I'm sympathetic to Lex; the post had more to do with ACA and the decision to challenge its constitutionality in the Supreme Court than it is about COVID-19, and the ACA is one of the most frought political issues of the last decade. And I also agree with him that the post was heavy on editorialization.
However this post started, it has turned into an argument of whether the original post violated Terry's rule or not, which itself seems unrelated to COVID-19.
If you want to focus on whether declaring the ACA unconstitutional will have an impact on COVID-19 (note, the case wouldn't be heard until the fall, and wouldn't be decided until 2021), have at it, but please keep the focus on the relationship to COVID-19.
BC
This is just too much fun! The challenge now is obviously to see whether it's possible to get a thread shut down under the Terry Rule by excessive discussion of... the Terry Rule!
Hard to imagine a better way to spend a toasty Friday afternoon in late June... :-)
lex24 - lex24 - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:24 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(06-26-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(06-26-2020, 09:55 AM)lex24 Wrote:(06-26-2020, 06:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As the USA cleared the 40,000 new case mark for the first time ever, 3 months into the pandemic, the White House is basically ignoring the virus now, pretending it doesn't exist. The POTUS is even claiming there will be fewer infections with fewer tests, when in fact there will be more infections with fewer tests because if you test, you at least know where the virus is and can TRY to mitigate it.
At the same time, the DOJ is arguing to the SCOTUS that the ACA should be overturned, so any American can be denied medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. We have 2.5 Million confirmed Covid-19 cases. The CDC director said he thinks there are 10x that many who have been infected. Let's take his word for it, and assume 25 Million Americans have been infected by Covid-19.
So we have the People's Justice Department arguing that the American people should have no right to have health insurance if they are known to have had Covid-19. Given we have evidence that shows long-term damage can be caused by it, even in people who never presented symptoms, this doesn't seem ideal. Almost 10% of the population could be ineligible for health insurance coverage.
The Federal Government is doing all it can to "open the economy" and putting literally millions of people at risk for infection, while arguing in court that if they get infected, they should have no ability to have health insurance.
Just let this sink in.
Purely political factual post. I am not asking it be taken down. I’m against that. Just pointing out the obvious.
FIFY
NOTHING in my post was a political statement. It is all facts. The only part that was opinion is the "this doesn't seem ideal" comment I put in.
Your post most certainly is political because the conditions around the pandemic are absolutely political and we should put to bed this absurd notion that we can talk about Covid-19 in a non-political way. The American debacle with regard to Covid-19 cannot be explained away without addressing the realities of the abject failures and corruption of Federal and state govenrments. .
Politics maybe should stay out of discussions of football and softball, but not Covid-19. There are so many people in power who are willing to see Americans die so that they can hold onto power. That's just reality. Speak it loudly.
Party over country. Unfortunately . My last point on this. Then I’ll move on. In 1986 Congress passed and Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act. It passed 323-107. Senate Bill passed on a voice vote. Reconciliation and final bill passed 67-8 in the Senate and 282-95 in the House.
Move ahead to the two major legislative achievements of Obama and Trump. The ACA passed in the House with 1 GOP vote. Straight party line in Senate. The Trump tax bill passed on a straight party line vote ( Bob Corker, I believe is the only Republican to vote against.) No Dems voted for.
My point is not to suggest that any of these bills are “good or bad”. It’s to illustrate the increased partisanship. And it seems that partisanship dips into almost every issue and aspect of our lives. Including COVID-19.
I find it to be very troubling. But it’s unfortunately where we are. And it’s where we’ve been for a while. If interested there is a terrific book written in 2013 on this : The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Cant talk about Religion and Politics.” By Jonathan Haidt.
Sorry if I crossed the line.
RE: lex24 - 76lsjumb - 06-26-2020
(06-26-2020, 01:27 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(06-26-2020, 01:24 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: There are so many people in power who are willing to see Americans die so that they can hold onto power. That's just reality. Speak it loudly.
PREACH!
No complaints about the Terry Rule. It's only rubbish like this that I find ...unhelpful.
RE: Won't this be great - oregontim - 06-26-2020
Two days ago my daughter called very upset after a trip to the local grocery store here in Eugene, where I live. Alias Berkeley north, a pretty liberal college town. Maybe 80-90% of us wear masks in public places. We have modified opening, restaurants only outside (and they're empty), gyms, hair, dentists etc. only with masks and controls.
My daughter was upset because she had just seen an older man wearing mask and gloves verbally attacked by a younger man. The aggressor was in the old guy's face shouting, fucker this and ***** that, asshole etc, the whole gamut, calling him coward and idiot and sheep and brainwashed. It was so bad that store employees called the police and rushed out to rescue the old guy immediately, without waiting for the police.
This was not typical. It didn't get into the local paper, not even the nextdoor.com discussion.
I mention it here, in this thread, because it's an exact point where politics meet pandemic. Donald Trump and his enablers made the wearing of masks political. No other president in my lifetime would have done that. No conscientious leader in my lifetime would have done that. And I blame him and them for it. In the middle of a pandemic, POTUS purposely makes things worse. As I discuss Covid-19 and the pandemic, it's not neutral. It's not apolitical. This moron and his enablers put politics right into the middle of it.
This is just one of the several Covid-19 related issues in which politics has had major impact on pandemic and it's impact. Testing? Official responses? Funding? Management of supplies? Economics, bailouts, public understanding? Treatments. Politics have been YUGE.