My neighbor put a Trump sign in his yard yesterday and I was shocked.

[crazed_hoosier2]

No.

OK, good. Because that would've been....well, silly.

But it's silly to chalk it up to gerrymandering, too. For one thing, in recent cycles, Republicans have done well in races at the state/local level and in statewide races (including for Governor and Senate). And, naturally, those have nothing to do with Congressional districts. For another, as I pointed out above, the districts in 2010 (when the Republicans made big gains in the House) were the exact same districts as those in 2006 (when the Democrats made big gains in the House).

Those are things you don't often hear from people who credit gerrymandering for downballot Republican successes. But they're entirely factual.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

OK, good. Because that would've been....well, silly.

But it's silly to chalk it up to gerrymandering, too. For one thing, in recent cycles, Republicans have done well in races at the state/local level and in statewide races (including for Governor and Senate). And, naturally, those have nothing to do with Congressional districts. For another, as I pointed out above, the districts in 2010 (when the Republicans made big gains in the House) were the exact same districts as those in 2006 (when the Democrats made big gains in the House).

Those are things you don't often hear from people who credit gerrymandering for downballot Republican successes. But they're entirely factual.

Have I said something that makes you think I'm an idiot? I point out that my fellow liberals are wrong to blame everything on gerrymandering, and offer a single example of a non-gerrymandering advantage the GOP enjoy, and your response is to mischaracterize my comment and then lecture me on the very fallacy I was dismissing?

It would also be - ahem - "silly" to deny that gerrymandering plays a role. A good example is Pennsylvania. Even in the GOP landslide of 2010, the Dems held on to 7 of 19 seats. After redistricting that heavily favored the GOP, the Dems now only hold 5 of 18. Gerrymandering is real, as evidenced by the fact that partisan advantage is one of the goals of redistricting sanctioned by courts, and one of the defenses states give when their new maps are legally challenged.

 

[twenty02]

What's this have to do with the point you're trying to make? I'm not questioning why there aren't Democrats who are lobbying against Clinton because of fear of what she'd do to the party. I'm questioning why there aren't Democrats (or anti-conservatives) who are supporting Trump because of the hope that he'd destroy the Republicans and conservatism.

Speaking as a conservative, if I wasn't particularly enamored of a Republican candidate and I thought the Democratic candidate would wreak havoc on the Democrats and their agenda, I'd probably make the strategic decision to support that Democrat -- wait 4 years for the Democratic implosion to set in and then open my arms for my dream scenario.



Wait a second.

First, I didn't think that it was "good" to nominate Trump. How many times do I have to say it? He was my last choice of those who sought the nomination. If we could rewind the clock and do it all again, he'd still be my last choice. He was the least conservative candidate in the field. Why in the heck would I support him, given the range of plausible choices at that time? I only support him now because of the range of plausible choices at this time.

No, I've been entirely consistent about Trump. I think he's a symptom of a Republican Party elected class that had badly lost its way -- and, as such, lost touch with its voters. I hope that, win or lose, his nomination will serve as a wakeup call for the party to rethink a number of things. I most certainly don't think his nomination was a good thing. But it may turn out to have been a healthy thing if it helps to bring about a rapprochement between Republican officials and the Republican voters who have just given them such a humiliating vote of no confidence by nominating a charlatan.

Second, you're still resting on the assumption that Trump's ascendency will be devastating to other Republican candidates. Do you realize that people started saying that about the time that he started leading primary polls last fall? And, once again, they weren't talking about 2018 or 2020, they were talking about 2016.

I've asked the question several times and it's been left unanswered each time. Maybe this time you'll answer it: how have those predictions panned out? As of now, people like Larry Sabato and Nate Silver are not only giving Republicans terrific odds to hold the House, but decent odds to hold the Senate (over 50% in one case).

So.....dude, where's my Trumpageddon?

I don't know of anybody that really thought the GOP would lose the House this cycle. I certainly never said as much. I think it's probable that they lose the Senate, but I don't really put that too much on Trump....it was always going to be a hard hold.

My point is that a Trump presidency (not necessarily nomination) would be devastating for the party. Parties are as much a brand as they are anything else. Ask an average person what names they associate with Republicans....you are going to get George Bush, Reagan, maybe Nixon. Certainly not so much Dole, McCain, or Ford.

You don't want the Trump association upon your brand. At least I wouldn't. That's a heavy cross to bear

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Have I said something that makes you think I'm an idiot?

Is that a trick question?

Kidding.

I point out that my fellow liberals are wrong to blame everything on gerrymandering, and offer a single example of a non-gerrymandering advantage the GOP enjoy, and your response is to mischaracterize my comment and then lecture me on the very fallacy I was dismissing?

Well, OK. But your example of another factor was a bit absurd.

Here's a link to the Census Bureau's report on apportionment after the 2010 census.

The average population of the 435 Congressional districts right now is 710K. The population of North Dakota is about 740K. The population of South Dakota is 860K. Furthermore, the most populous House district is Montana's (at 994K). The state with the smallest average size is Rhode Island (at 527K).

And, yep, for the record, both of Rhode Island's House members are Democrats. The lone members from ND, SD, and Montana are all Republicans.

It would also be - ahem - "silly" to deny that gerrymandering plays a role. A good example is Pennsylvania. Even in the GOP landslide of 2010, the Dems held on to 7 of 19 seats. After redistricting that heavily favored the GOP, the Dems now only hold 5 of 18. Gerrymandering is real, as evidenced by the fact that partisan advantage is one of the goals of redistricting sanctioned by courts, and one of the defenses states give when their new maps are legally challenged.

I didn't say it didn't play a role. It always has -- and it always will. But some people basically say it is the Alpha and Omega. And that's ridiculous.

But so was your one example of other things which factor into this.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I don't know of anybody that really thought the GOP would lose the House this cycle. I certainly never said as much. I think it's probable that they lose the Senate, but I don't really put that too much on Trump....it was always going to be a hard hold.

My point is that a Trump presidency (not necessarily nomination) would be devastating for the party. Parties are as much a brand as they are anything else. Ask an average person what names they associate with Republicans....you are going to get George Bush, Reagan, maybe Nixon. Certainly not so much Dole, McCain, or Ford.

You don't want the Trump association upon your brand. At least I wouldn't. That's a heavy cross to bear

Right, that's your point. Crazed's point is that Republicans are lemmings that'll vote Republican forever no matter what.

The truth is, Trump is getting the vote of a lot of gullible voters who are angry and hurting and they're going to be really pissed off when they find out Trump conned them and they'll pin that on the GOP. So the GOP will be left with what it had before but with fewer independents leaning their way. Meanwhile, the DNP will gradually have a larger base and more independent voters leaning their way. 2020 would be a "change" election and the change would be anything but Trump. Last time that happened, Obamacare was born.

Here's another way to look at it. COnservatives like things to stay the same, liberals like things to change. In this cyclical process,* when the liberals take control, they change things, then when conservatives take control, they maintain the new changes, because that's staying the same. So the worst-case scenario for narrow-minded conservatives is a filibuster-proof liberal Congress. The next time it happens, 2020 if Trump gets elected, will likely usher in single payer health care.

Mark my words, Crazed.

* Note that this cyclical process spans multiple election cycles but necessarily includes the liberals losing in individual election cycles, so Crazed's silly notion that losing is never good is actually farcically naive.

 

[IUJIM]

Of course it is. Are you really that obtuse? I'm happy to call racists deplorable every single day of the week, and you should too. Ask any female you know if it's ever ok to call them pigs. Or call a beauty queen Miss Housekeeping. So love that he double downed on it this morning, talking about the "tremendous" amount of weight she had gained. You truly think that's ok?? Just wow...

Well, I am glad you get to tell us which derogatory term is acceptable, and which one is not. Typical.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't know of anybody that really thought the GOP would lose the House this cycle.

Whether anybody really thought it or not, plenty predicted it when Trump started registering high in the polls...and they repeated it as he started winning primaries.

I could certainly see why they'd have said that. But my point is that they have (thus far, anyway) proven to have been wrong.

I think it's probable that they lose the Senate, but I don't really put that too much on Trump....it was always going to be a hard hold.

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Their odds have improved -- with Portman and Rubio both looking likely to prevail. And, while Young is behind Bayh by a few points right now, the race was moved into the toss-up category as the numbers have narrowed.

Either way, the point is that Trump's nomination has not killed the Republican Party's downballot candidates the way many warned it would.

My point is that a Trump presidency (not necessarily nomination) would be devastating for the party.

The reason I keep mentioning the nomination is that, even if you personally didn't say it, many people did: a Trump nomination will kill the party. The fears (or hopes, in some cases) have obviously proven overblown. If they were overblown for a nomination, isn't it possible that they'd be overblown for a presidency, too?

Parties are as much a brand as they are anything else. Ask an average person what names they associate with Republicans....you are going to get George Bush, Reagan, maybe Nixon. Certainly not so much Dole, McCain, or Ford.

You don't want the Trump association upon your brand. At least I wouldn't. That's a heavy cross to bear

The Republican brand was in a bad state long before anybody associated Donald Trump with it. In fact, I think Trump's ascendency is a symptom of that. It was amazing how many people stopped identifying as Republicans in the last 10 years or so. Most of them still vote Republican, it seems. But they were tossing the label in droves -- to the point where some 40% of Americans identified as "conservative" and just about 20% as "Republican." That's pathetic.

What conventional Republican politicians need to do is reconcile with their base. And -- as I've said countless times -- they should start by pivoting on the issue of illegal immigration. If they revert back to their Bush 2007 or Gang of 8 stances on immigration, they will pour fuel on the fire. They need to make it damn clear that they will only advance immigration reform in a "border first" manner. If they do that -- not just say, but DO it -- I think they will start healing the wounds that have led them to this place.

But if they say it and then once again fail to do it, the GOP will become a Trumpist party. And one thing you and I do agree on is that this would not be a good thing.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Right, that's your point. Crazed's point is that Republicans are lemmings that'll vote Republican forever no matter what.

The truth is, Trump is getting the vote of a lot of gullible voters who are angry and hurting and they're going to be really pissed off when they find out Trump conned them and they'll pin that on the GOP. So the GOP will be left with what it had before but with fewer independents leaning their way. Meanwhile, the DNP will gradually have a larger base and more independent voters leaning their way. 2020 would be a "change" election and the change would be anything but Trump. Last time that happened, Obamacare was born.

Here's another way to look at it. COnservatives like things to stay the same, liberals like things to change. In this cyclical process,* when the liberals take control, they change things, then when conservatives take control, they maintain the new changes, because that's staying the same. So the worst-case scenario for narrow-minded conservatives is a filibuster-proof liberal Congress. The next time it happens, 2020 if Trump gets elected, will likely usher in single payer health care.

Mark my words, Crazed.

* Note that this cyclical process spans multiple election cycles but necessarily includes the liberals losing in individual election cycles, so Crazed's silly notion that losing is never good is actually farcically naive.

LOL. Even Hillary Clinton has made it clear that single payer healthcare isn't going to happen here. She's almost certainly right about that. Heck, a couple of states have flirted with the idea -- and even uber-liberal Vermont had to put the kibosh on it. It was going to cut healthcare costs so much, they determined they couldn't afford it. Go figure.

If you and Twenty are right, then anybody who hates the GOP and wants them to become politically irrelevant, etc. etc. should be lusting after a Trump presidency.

There's a reason that they aren't....and, are instead publicly beclowning themselves with unhinged screeds like this one.

Also, why should I "mark your words" when all sensible people agree that Trump isn't going to win, anyway?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is that a trick question?

Kidding.



Well, OK. But your example of another factor was a bit absurd.

Here's a link to the Census Bureau's report on apportionment after the 2010 census.

The average population of the 435 Congressional districts right now is 710K. The population of North Dakota is about 740K. The population of South Dakota is 860K. Furthermore, the most populous House district is Montana's (at 994K). The state with the smallest average size is Rhode Island (at 527K).

And, yep, for the record, both of Rhode Island's House members are Democrats. The lone members from ND, SD, and Montana are all Republicans.



I didn't say it didn't play a role. It always has -- and it always will. But some people basically say it is the Alpha and Omega. And that's ridiculous.

But so was your one example of other things which factor into this.

I may have given a bad example. I was going from memory. I must have confused it with something else.

It is ridiculous to blame everything on gerrymandering. That's why I said that at the very beginning. And yet you still feel the need to lecture me about it. It's also ridiculous to downplay how big of a deal gerrymandering really is (in certain states).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Whether anybody really thought it or not, plenty predicted it when Trump started registering high in the polls...and they repeated it as he started winning primaries.

I don't remember anyone serious saying it. "The House is a pipedream, but we can get the Senate" has been the only battle cry I've been privy to.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Well, I am glad you get to tell us which derogatory term is acceptable, and which one is not. Typical.

I am sad you don't understand the difference. Trust me, most women do.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I am sad you don't understand the difference. Trust me, most women do.

Making fun of women for being fat.

Making fun of racists for being racist.

Basically the same thing.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's also ridiculous to downplay how big of a deal gerrymandering really is (in certain states).

No it isn't. It's something that tends to get more, not less, attention than it actually warrants.

We've always had wave elections every so often, regardless how the districts are drawn. The majority of House seats are basically uncompetitive. Incumbency is, and long has been, the biggest determining factor of outcome.

Maybe there are people who think that gerrymandered districts play no role in this. If so, I've never come across them. Who I typically come across are people who inflate the role of gerrymandering -- and my best guess is that this is just a way to salve their own cognitive dissonance. After all, it's got to be the result of some kind of trickery!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't remember anyone serious saying it. "The House is a pipedream, but we can get the Senate" has been the only battle cry I've been privy to.

Oh, for crying out loud. Is my computer the only one that has access to Google? It took me all of about 30 seconds to find something.

Here....from Politico in March.

 

[IUJIM]

Making fun of women for being fat.

Making fun of racists for being racist.

Basically the same thing.

Yep, you have all the answers. Most women are fat because they eat too much, and are lazy and don't exercise. There are a very few that have legitmate health issues. There is a reason that the US has BY FAR the biggest issue with obesity in the developed world, and it ain't close. So calling a woman fat because she sits on her fat ass all day eating Cheetos doesn't garner much sympathy from me.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No it isn't. It's something that tends to get more, not less, attention than it actually warrants.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Dems got more votes than Repubs in 2012, but lost by over 30 seats. Gerrymandering certainly played a big role in that in certain states. With a "fair" map, PA would have split down the middle. Instead the GOP held (and holds) a 13-seat lead. That was all a direct result of packing Pittsburgh and Philly.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh, for crying out loud. Is my computer the only one that has access to Google? It took me all of about 30 seconds to find something.

Here....from Politico in March.

Meh. The DCCC would be stupid not to cautiously explore it. That's their job. But that doesn't mean anyone was actually predicting it would happen, which was your original claim.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Dems got more votes than Repubs in 2012, but lost by over 30 seats.

Surely you realize how and why this would happen.

Go check out results in California -- which I'm pretty sure is not a state that has been districted by Republicans -- and you'll get your answer.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yep, you have all the answers. Most women are fat because they eat too much, and are lazy and don't exercise. There are a very few that have legitmate health issues. There is a reason that the US has BY FAR the biggest issue with obesity in the developed world, and it ain't close. So calling a woman fat because she sits on her fat ass all day eating Cheetos doesn't garner much sympathy from me.

Almost hard to believe your party can't win with women.

 

[Lucy01]

Yep, you have all the answers. Most women are fat because they eat too much, and are lazy and don't exercise. There are a very few that have legitmate health issues. There is a reason that the US has BY FAR the biggest issue with obesity in the developed world, and it ain't close. So calling a woman fat because she sits on her fat ass all day eating Cheetos doesn't garner much sympathy from me.

He called Rosie O Donald fat I don't identify it with being a woman

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Meh. The DCCC would be stupid not to cautiously explore it. That's their job. But that doesn't mean anyone was actually predicting it would happen, which was your original claim.

This was not a piece about the DCCC trying to flip seats. It was a piece saying that Trump's nomination put their majority in jeopardy.

Here's another one, from Ramesh Ponnuru -- also from June, also citing Trump's nomination.

It's nothing but a bunch of bed-wetting, thumb-sucking, and bitching about how the primary turned out. Projecting doom and gloom to try to get people to change their minds is a helluva lot easier than actually fixing the problem.

There's a reason Republicans got to this place. They need to fix the problem, and it really isn't all that hard to diagnose how they got here.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

He called Rosie O Donald fat I don't identify it with being a woman

Hehe. I admit it: I laughed.

 

[IUJIM]

Almost hard to believe your party can't win with women.

Facts are facts...deal with it

2/3's of Americans are overweight or obese. You want to fix healthcare costs and results, obesity would be a good place to start. And for the record, I don't really have much pity for obese men either, unless it is something out of their control.

Do you throw pity parties for the obese, or do you think that maybe they should get their act together and get off the couch?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Surely you realize how and why this would happen.

Go check out results in California -- which I'm pretty sure is not a state that has been districted by Republicans -- and you'll get your answer.

Sorry, you're gonna have to explain your point here.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Facts are facts...deal with it

2/3's of Americans are overweight or obese. You want to fix healthcare costs and results, obesity would be a good place to start. And for the record, I don't really have much pity for obese men either, unless it is something out of their control.

Do you throw pity parties for the obese, or do you think that maybe they should get their act together and get off the couch?

LOL.

 

[Rockfish1]

Well, I am glad you get to tell us which derogatory term is acceptable, and which one is not. Typical.

You're just acting out. Again.

zeke's simple point is undeniable. Leaving aside whether it was wise for HRC to call out the bigots who undeniably support Trump, it's okay to say that bigots are deplorable. It isn't okay to say that women are pigs.

Similarly, it's okay for HRC to invite prominent Trump critics to a debate. It wouldn't be okay for Trump to respond by inviting women who slept with her husband.

It's unclear why any of this requires an explanation.

 

[IUJIM]

LOL.

Unfortunately, that is probably what most Americans think about it also. It is a chronic issue that for whatever reason gets laughed off. I always see you and Rock posting about US healthcare cost vs results. Every time I have brought this up, and at times even used graphs and charts, you just laugh it off.

It is estimated that obesity is costing upwards of 20% of total healthcare, but you just laugh it off.

It is an issue with kids too. And a growing issue. I have coached youth sports for close to 20 years as my children have grown up. There are so many overweight kids that can't even run up and down the football field or basketball court. But I tell you what, they will kick your ass at Xbox. If only they could grow up to play professional Xbox

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's unclear why any of this requires an explanation.

It's not that unclear.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Unfortunately, that is probably what most Americans think about it also. It is a chronic issue that for whatever reason gets laughed off. I always see you and Rock posting about US healthcare cost vs results. Every time I have brought this up, and at times even used graphs and charts, you just laugh it off.

It is estimated that obesity is costing upwards of 20% of total healthcare, but you just laugh it off.

It is an issue with kids too. And a growing issue. I have coached youth sports for close to 20 years as my children have grown up. There are so many overweight kids that can't even run up and down the football field or basketball court. But I tell you what, they will kick your ass at Xbox. If only they could grow up to play professional Xbox

You're full of shit. I've never once laughed off or dismissed the obesity problem. In fact, I've discussed it repeatedly. What I'm laughing at is your use of it to justify being a sexist dickhead.

 

[IUJIM]

Good grief. We're back to your blame and shame health care "policy" -- which you imagine somehow justifies Trump's sexist assholery.

Maybe we should adopt a similar policy on this board. Instead of trying to educate ignorant assholes, we should just point and laugh.

Please tell me where I justified it.

Tell me, have you ever once called a women "fat"? I simply asked if calling an entire group deplorable was any worse than calling Rosie O'Donnell "Miss Piggy". Do you really find that offensive?
Do you think obesity should just be accepted, and pitied. With your attitude, it certainly never will get better, that is for sure.

 

[IUJIM]

You're full of shit. I've never once laughed off or dismissed the obesity problem. In fact, I've discussed it repeatedly. What I'm laughing at is your use of it to justify being a sexist dickhead.

Please be specific how I am being a sexist dickhead?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Yep, you have all the answers. Most women are fat because they eat too much, and are lazy and don't exercise. There are a very few that have legitmate health issues. There is a reason that the US has BY FAR the biggest issue with obesity in the developed world, and it ain't close. So calling a woman fat because she sits on her fat ass all day eating Cheetos doesn't garner much sympathy from me.

Is that you, Donald? Keep wondering why women don't vote GOP! PS Trump is fat.

 

[Rockfish1]

Unfortunately, that is probably what most Americans think about it also. It is a chronic issue that for whatever reason gets laughed off. I always see you and Rock posting about US healthcare cost vs results. Every time I have brought this up, and at times even used graphs and charts, you just laugh it off.

It is estimated that obesity is costing upwards of 20% of total healthcare, but you just laugh it off.

It is an issue with kids too. And a growing issue. I have coached youth sports for close to 20 years as my children have grown up. There are so many overweight kids that can't even run up and down the football field or basketball court. But I tell you what, they will kick your ass at Xbox. If only they could grow up to play professional Xbox

Yours is a stupid hijack, but for the record, yes by all means let's develop policies to reduce obesity. But blame-and-shame isn't a policy. It's just invective, and you never offer anything more.

Also, yes we're more obese than those in other developed countries, but they smoke and drink a lot more than we do. As I point out every single time you blame-and-shame overweight people, you never make any effort to establish that we pay twice as much because we're twice as unhealthy as everyone else. Indeed, the data show that huge cost disparities within this country have nothing to do with the health of patient populations.

Instead, we pay much more for health care than every other developed country because the unit price of every bit of health care we buy is dramatically higher than everyone else's. You ignore this because it doesn't allow you to fulminate against fat people.

 

[IUJIM]

Is that you, Donald? Keep wondering why women don't vote GOP! PS Trump is fat.

Maybe he is. I guess it is ok to call him fat, but not Hillary?

 

[IUJIM]

Yours is a stupid hijack, but for the record, yes by all means let's develop policies to reduce obesity. But blame-and-shame isn't a policy. It's just invective, and you never offer anything more.

Also, yes we're more obese than those in other developed countries, but they smoke and drink a lot more than we do. As I point out every single time you blame-and-shame overweight people, you never make any effort to establish that we pay twice as much because we're twice as unhealthy as everyone else. Indeed, the data show that huge cost disparities within this country have nothing to do with the health of patient populations.

Instead, we pay much more for health care than every other developed country because the unit price of every bit of health care we buy is dramatically higher than everyone else's. You ignore this because it doesn't allow you to fulminate against fat people.

If obesity is responsible for approx 20% of healthcare costs, (I have linked those numbers before), will costs not go down if obesity is reduced?

 

[Rockfish1]

Please tell me where I justified it.

Tell me, have you ever once called a women "fat"? I simply asked if calling an entire group deplorable was any worse than calling Rosie O'Donnell "Miss Piggy". Do you really find that offensive?
Do you think obesity should just be accepted, and pitied. With your attitude, it certainly never will get better, that is for sure.

I've already explained it. I don't understand why you affect to be an idiot.

 

[Rockfish1]

If obesity is responsible for approx 20% of healthcare costs, (I have linked those numbers before), will costs not go down if obesity is reduced?

Again, please see my post and respond as though you read it with comprehension.

 

[IUJIM]

Again, please see my post and respond as though you read it with comprehension.

Sorry, maybe I misread one of your sentences trying to get through all of the name calling.

That being said, what do you mean when you say that the cost disparities having nothing to do with the health of the patient?

 

[Rockfish1]

Sorry, maybe I misread one of your sentences trying to get through all of the name calling.

That being said, what do you mean when you say that the cost disparities having nothing to do with the health of the patient?

That's a frustrating question, because MtM and I have repeatedly referred you to the Dartmouth Atlas data which unambiguously establish that that there is no link between the health of regional patient communities and the huge regional cost disparities we see in this country. Yet still you're baffled that anyone could suggest such a thing. It's like you're not actually engaged in good faith discussion and are instead just bitching about fat people.

Again, yes by all means let's develop policies that would reduce obesity. We'd all be better off if we were all healthier. But you aren't, to put it mildly, a policy guy. And you evince no understanding of how our health care system actually works. Instead you just pop off with drive-by posts that don't engage anyone. And here in this thread you've studiously ignored the points made against you. Why should anyone waste their time with you?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's a frustrating question, because MtM and I have repeatedly referred you to the Dartmouth Atlas data which unambiguously establish that that there is no link between the health of regional patient communities and the huge regional cost disparities we see in this country. Yet still you're baffled that anyone could suggest such a thing. It's like you're not actually engaged in good faith discussion and are instead just bitching about fat people.

Again, yes by all means let's develop policies that would reduce obesity. We'd all be better off if we were all healthier. But you aren't, to put it mildly, a policy guy. And you evince no understanding of how our health care system actually works. Instead you just pop off with drive-by posts that don't engage anyone. And here in this thread you've studiously ignored the points made against you. Why should anyone waste their time with you?

That's because when someone does try to help Americans get healthy, IUJIM is the kind of guy who bitches about personal freedom and annoys his Facebook friends with memes about Michelle Obama using school lunches to turn our kids into communists.