the ridiculousness of these dems and the media on 'medicare cuts'.....

[michael anderson]

So Obama does a massive Medicaid expansion(btw Medicaid is not insurance) and now all of a sudden any rollback to that at all is "drastic cuts to the poor and most needy"? Wtf....this goes to show that the old saying about entitlement programs is true- once you expand them there is this sense of permanency that develops....

The republicans are framing it all wrong. When they are asked these ridiculous questions on Medicaid, they respond with:

"cuts? We're authorizing a 750% increase in Medicaid spending compared to (pick a date where this would be applicable)"....

it's all in how you frame it.

It's the same bullshit dems do with tax increases...they always want to use the most recent increase as a baseline. As if this is the only number that now matters.

Reframe it.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

If your main point is that the GOP should point their propoganda team at the central truth - less citizens will have health coverage if we get this bill through - agreed. And propoganda is sort of the right's bread n butter, so should be easy peasy.

Cheers.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:37:28 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>If your main point is that the GOP should point their propoganda team at the central truth - less citizens will have health coverage if we get this bill through - agreed. And propoganda is sort of the right's bread n butter, so should be easy peasy.
>
>Cheers.

You mean less citizens will have health coverage if freebies paid for
by responsible working people are reduced? Trump is making the country
great again.

Hugh


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[michael anderson]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> If your main point is that the GOP should point their propoganda team at the central truth - less citizens will have health coverage if we get this bill through - agreed.

well fewer citizens will have Medicaid(which btw isn't health insurance) compared to the wreckless Obama expansion....that is the central truth, and yes I agree the gop should be up front about that. They should also be up front and honest about the fact that more citizens will still be covered under Medicaid than have been at various points in the past as well. The central truth isn't that Republicans are cutting Medicaid...it's just as much a central truth that they are 'allowing' millions of people to remain on Medicaid.

That would be like Clemson going 10-2 next year and calling it a disastrous and disappointing year because it was a 'cut' from their previous year. Yeah, it was....it was also better than their historical average and should be considered a bunch of wins.

[unclejr]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If your main point is that the GOP should point their propoganda team at the central truth - less citizens will have health coverage if we get this bill through - agreed.
>

> That would be like Clemson going 10-2 next year and calling it a disastrous and disappointing year because it was a 'cut' from their previous year. Yeah, it was....it was also better than their historical average and should be considered a bunch of wins.

Oh, he mad.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

"That would be like Clemson going 10-2 next year and calling it a disastrous and disappointing year because it was a 'cut' from their previous year. Yeah, it was....it was also better than their historical average and should be considered a bunch of wins."

So as long as Alabama's life expectancy and child mortality rates are above, you know, historical averages, it's all win.

Cool argument bro.

Cheers.

[michael anderson]

On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 12:08:05 AM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> "That would be like Clemson going 10-2 next year and calling it a disastrous and disappointing year because it was a 'cut' from their previous year. Yeah, it was....it was also better than their historical average and should be considered a bunch of wins."
>
> So as long as Alabama's life expectancy and child mortality rates are above, you know, historical averages, it's all win.

Again with this misguided thinking constructed along artificial lines. Do many citizens in Alabama have more health problems than the national average? Sure...but these simply reflect the demographic makeup of the state and nothing else. Nothing particular about it being Alabama.
Adjusted for demographics, it's likely that life expectancy rates in Alabama are no different than anywhere else. The fact that I'm a 37 year old white male with a past medical history of x living in Alabama with education and income level y and a tobacco and substance use history of z is really all that matters....the life expectancy numbers for that situation are going to mirror other 30something white males with similar x, y, z. If you don't understand this, well, I don't know what else to tell you. If I move to North Carolina or Ohio or Massachusetts(and my risk factors remain the same), my life expectancy doesn't change....

you're so caught up on your team being 'better' than the other team that you can't see that the best players on your team are more likely to be actually playing for the other team, and the worst players on the other team are more likely to be playing for your team.



>
> Cool argument bro.
>
> Cheers.

[Michael Press]

In article <a311a474-6d2a-45b2...@googlegroups.com>,

John McCain in the latter category.
Who is in the former category? Tulsi Gabbard?

--
Michael Press