Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - HUGE SCANDAL!!!!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Ignorance is beliving that Medicare for All, or New Green Deal, both of which AOC and most of the potential presidential contenders support, are anywhere near being fiscally responsible.

Apparently the Open Socialism is even worse.

I do like how she is stirring things up. Perhaps a partial Green Deal in exchange for some border improvements. Who knows, as long as the discussion continues.

No, I rather think they ignorance is after being told by officials in the government that it’s perfectly legal to be openly in the pocket of corporations and to draft laws in favour of corporations to you yourself own shares in, and that even the few laws that apply to congress do not apply to the president and launching into yet another screed against Socialism. 

[Farmer77]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Ignorance is beliving that Medicare for All, or New Green Deal, both of which AOC and most of the potential presidential contenders support, are anywhere near being fiscally responsible.

Not really. Fiscally speaking in America what happens is people cant afford, or just dont want, to spend or go into debt for minor medical issues or preventative care. So they wait until they reach medicare age. At that point the health conditions that they have been allowing (wittingly or not)  to fester have become complicated , expensive and often chronic issues that are then the government's responsibility.

So the taxpayer is going to pay the bill eventually. We can do it when its cheaper and we can get ahead of and manage costs or we can wait until folks have spent decades ignoring their bodies and creating horrific comorbid medical conditions for us to pay for.

 

 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Walls are not a generic solution.  Walls are built to handle specific threats. In the case of the Great Wall of China it was an invasion of a Mongol army.  In the case of Israel, it is to prevent terrorists including suicide bombers.  Contrary to the rhetoric, this is not an invasion on the scale of the Mongol threat.  A camera is adequate to alert an SUV with three of four border patrol agents to intercept an invasion of half a dozen hot and thirsty "invaders"  who in many cases are trying to give themselves up.

 

I'm not concerned with those who are trying to give up. I'm concerned with those who are trying not to be caught. 

More people coming here, to work and live, is not the problem. The wall is to slow down those people who have criminal intent. A camera isn't going to stop criminals coming across the border in an organized cartel.

Plus, the cost of such a system, combined with upkeep over the long term, and the number of employees required, will make the cost of the wall seem quaint. We hear about alternatives, but seldom the cost.

Keep in mind that around 500,000 people were detained last year at the border. Some turned back, some taken into custody. 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Keep in mind that around 500,000 people were detained last year at the border. Some turned back, some taken into custody. 

Keep in mind that those numbers include those who attempted to enter legally but were turned back due to bureaucratic issues.

Considering that CBP agents have a wide degree of latitude on how they operate (at least they do in the aviation world)  that statistic is kinda tough to call accurate.

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Not really. Fiscally speaking in America what happens is people cant afford, or just dont want, to spend or go into debt for minor medical issues or preventative care. So they wait until they reach medicare age. At that point the health conditions that they have been allowing (wittingly or not)  to fester have become complicated , expensive and often chronic issues that are then the government's responsibility.

So the taxpayer is going to pay the bill eventually. We can do it when its cheaper and we can get ahead of and manage costs or we can wait until folks have spent decades ignoring their bodies and creating horrific comorbid medical conditions for us to pay for.

 

 

Meh.... sounds like your justifying to me? I had a bone spur causing blood clots, and so I had a surgery. I wasn't going to wait 15 years.

Are you honestly saying that people with medical concerns wait decades to get into Medicare before dealing with them?

People have issues in retirement because they are getting OLD. Retirement is usually in the mid 60s and US lifespan is about 80. Meaning for more then half a person's retirement they are probably dying/poor health. Because they are OLD.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Meh.... sounds like your justifying to me?

Just sharing my professional experiences.

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Are you honestly saying that people with medical concerns wait decades to get into Medicare before dealing with them?

Absolutely!!! And further people simply dont know that they have medical conditions because they arent getting proper regular examinations. So now all of a sudden at 65 they have access to healthcare so they figure "why not" go for that "annual" exam thats actually been 15 years since the last one and they discover something that could and should have been nipped in the bud before it became complicated and when it was much less expensive 10 years ago when it actually started.

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Keep in mind that those numbers include those who attempted to enter legally but were turned back due to bureaucratic issues.

Considering that CBP agents have a wide degree of latitude on how they operate (at least they do in the aviation world)  that statistic is kinda tough to call accurate.

Turned back is still being detained, as they check them out. 

I think I did check out how many were actual arrests for illegal border crossings. And it was about 350,000, or around 70% of the total detained. That is about 30000 a month. 7000 a week. 1000 people per day.

[+DieChecker]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Just sharing my professional experiences.

Absolutely!!! And further people simply dont know that they have medical conditions because they arent getting proper regular examinations. So now all of a sudden at 65 they have access to healthcare so they figure "why not" go for that "annual" exam thats actually been 15 years since the last one and they discover something that could and should have been nipped in the bud before it became complicated and when it was much less expensive 10 years ago when it actually started.

So 70% of Americans, who have insurance through work, wait till retirement to see a doctor? I'm going to want to see some data to prove that. I go every year. And a simple blood test can find most major issues.

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If climate change is as certain as many scientists seem tot think, the argument of being fiscally irresponsible might ring a little hollow to your grandchildren.

That's true. But even experts say that getting rid of ALL gas cars... ALL nonrenewable power plants... Rebuilding all buildings.... And whatever else is in the Green New Deal, is not necessary. I reads like spending for liberal idealism rather then factual based cutting back.

I mean, it could be a "Trumpian" like starting point, but as proposed, it simply isn't going to happen.

Edited February 12, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

So 70% of Americans, who have insurance through work, wait till retirement to see a doctor?

Hell I have insurance and paying a thousand dollar deductible is a luxury for me. If im not dying im not going.

Now I have MS which makes my situation complicated and I used to think unique. It seems that in 21st century America it might just be that the majority are battling extenuating circumstances as well and my situation isnt as unique as I thought.

 

[+DieChecker]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Hell I have insurance and paying a thousand dollar deductible is a luxury for me. If im not dying im not going.

Now I have MS which makes my situation complicated and I used to think unique. It seems that in 21st century America it might just be that the majority are battling extenuating circumstances as well and my situation isnt as unique as I thought.

 

Sorry to hear that. But, you are not waiting till 65 surely?

I agree that high deductibles keep people away from the doctors. It is something I often said about Obamacare. Forcing insurance on people who can't afford it wasn't going to help. They were insured, but still wouldn't go on their own.

I'm not even against public healthcare, but I just realize that it is going to suck (quality wise) compared to what private insurance offers. And cost a ton. And raise taxes. And probably still not help those who are homeless, illegal, and outside the system.

[+DieChecker]

Article on cost of drones used at border.

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/drones-border-efficacy-privacy-implications

Basically, history with drones shows them being expensive, hard to use, and just ineffective.

[Farmer77]

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Sorry to hear that. But, you are not waiting till 65 surely?

Thank you . No but it has been several years since ive had a scan done....my wife was actually beating me up over that the other day.

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I agree that high deductibles keep people away from the doctors. It is something I often said about Obamacare. Forcing insurance on people who can't afford it wasn't going to help. They were insured, but still wouldn't go on their own.

Yeah obamacare type insurance is basically nothing more than a government permit to go further into debt.

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

'm not even against public healthcare, but I just realize that it is going to suck (quality wise) compared to what private insurance offers. And cost a ton. And raise taxes. And probably still not help those who are homeless, illegal, and outside the system.

Id like to invite you to leave the 21st century confines of the city of roses and come out to AZ for a visit. Having experience dealing with 2nd world hospitals my brain was melting at the ER experience we had with my wife a couple of weeks ago. It honestly cant get much worse than what we have now.

The fact is our medical industry is designed specifically to benefit the practitioners and not the customers and that design has made all of our lives worse.

Edited cuz TMI

Edited February 12, 2019 by Farmer77

[Myles]

32 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So 70% of Americans, who have insurance through work, wait till retirement to see a doctor? I'm going to want to see some data to prove that. I go every year. And a simple blood test can find most major issues.

I agree with Farmer on this.   Probably not at the 70% though.

I'm sure lots of folks with crappy or no insurance don't see a doctor as much as they should.  

[+DieChecker]

23 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

..my wife was actually beating me up over that the other day.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that too. 

Quote

The fact is our medical industry is designed specifically to benefit the practitioners and not the customers and that design has made all of our lives worse.

I'd agree, but I don't know what will be done about it. My mother in law and sister in law, and many friends, are in nursing. They get paid very well. But under a public option, I can't see that continuing. Their pay would be cut by at least a quarter, maybe half. Otherwise, like I said, the cost will be prohibitive, and it would never happen.

An article I read yesterday suggested that under Medicare for All payments would continue at 75% "normal" rates. Which would require hospitals to reduce hours, appointments, and pay by 25%. If you think the ER is fun now....

Quote

Edited cuz TMI

Edited February 12, 2019 by DieChecker

[aztek]

56 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So 70% of Americans, who have insurance through work, wait till retirement to see a doctor? I'm going to want to see some data to prove that. I go every year. And a simple blood test can find most major issues.

of course it is a complete bull crap. whenever i have to see a doctor in half the cases it is less than a week for an appointment, in the other half next day,  in some cases it can be same day if i call early in the morning.

[Farmer77]

Just now, aztek said:

of course it is a complete bull crap. whenever i have to see a doctor in half the cases it is less than a week for an appointment, in the other half next day,  in some cases it can be same day if i call early in the morning.

Well this is a weird turn: the lefty reminding the righties that life off the coasts and out of the major cities is quite a bit different.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'm not concerned with those who are trying to give up. I'm concerned with those who are trying not to be caught. 

More people coming here, to work and live, is not the problem. The wall is to slow down those people who have criminal intent. A camera isn't going to stop criminals coming across the border in an organized cartel.

Plus, the cost of such a system, combined with upkeep over the long term, and the number of employees required, will make the cost of the wall seem quaint. We hear about alternatives, but seldom the cost.

Keep in mind that around 500,000 people were detained last year at the border. Some turned back, some taken into custody. 

This DieChecker is good conversation.  It might lead to the more effective way to secure our border.  In the engineering  design groups I have been in, we brainstorm all sorts of ideas, some crazy, then start shooting holes in them.  When we get rid of all of the obvious  problems, we select a solution then try to find all of the weaknesses in that too and eliminate them, the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. FMEA. 

Your position seems to be that a wall is less expensive than cameras and upkeep. 

Your position seems to be that a wall will stop people with criminal intent crossing the border and cameras will not.

A wall will stop the  family looking for a place to come and work.  I suggest that a wall as a passive defense will not stop an organization with  millions of dollars  worth of product to transport.  They have the resources to dig tunnels, scale the wall, hire unemployed Central American ex-special forces soldiers to commando it across the barrier.  They can use airplanes to fly it across.  They can cut through or blow up a section and drive across. They can hide it in trucks or rail containers and hope to sneak it through a checkpoint. 

It seems to me at this point that if you have a wall, you will still need cameras and patrols as backup.  A wall will not replace those expenses.  They are not alternatives to the wall but necessary accessories to make it function properly. How do you counter vehicles at checkpoints? More inspections and better detection technology.  How do you stop planes? air traffic radar and interception.  How do you patrol all of the possible dirt landing strips within 100 miles of the border? Geosynchronous satellites  focused on the border area.

I think you are correct that the expense will be large, maybe 10 times the cost of the wall.  I think reality is that if we want to stop illegal traffic across the border, we will have to pay the price.  What concerns me most is not a wall but spending 3 or 6 or some billion dollars to build a wall, the Administration and Congress dusting their hands and saying "Mission Accomplished" and nothing changes, except that people forget about the problem..

[Einsteinium]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Article on cost of drones used at border.

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/drones-border-efficacy-privacy-implications

Basically, history with drones shows them being expensive, hard to use, and just ineffective.

Kind of like the other proposed solution- a wall.

It seems clear to me that we need a multifaceted solution on border security, not just drones, not just fence, not just agents, but a combination of all of the above deployed in various ways where needed.

A smart, well thought through solution. Not a simple one size fits all approach.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That's true. But even experts say that getting rid of ALL gas cars... ALL nonrenewable power plants... Rebuilding all buildings.... And whatever else is in the Green New Deal, is not necessary. I reads like spending for liberal idealism rather then factual based cutting back.

I mean, it could be a "Trumpian" like starting point, but as proposed, it simply isn't going to happen.

I think you are so right.  Liberal idealism pulls one way and conservative idealism pulls the other. We will do something in the middle.  Its not all or nothing, but something in the middle. Its like all feedback systems DieChecker, two opposing inputs are integrated into an output that represents some function of both inputs.

[RoofGardener]

Remind me again.. how does this relate to Alexandria Casio Cortez ? 

[acidhead]

 

[+DieChecker]

RoofGardener. The border, and the Green New Deal, are what she goes on about most.

Edited February 13, 2019 by DieChecker

[F3SS]

She's an idiot. I seen one interview with her where she said this isn't 1998,  soccer moms driving minivans and Furbies... that jsut isnt America anymore.

I'm pretty sure soccer moms, minivans and popular toys are a constant. 

[Golden Duck]

On 13/02/2019 at 12:26 AM, DieChecker said:

I'm not concerned with those who are trying to give up. I'm concerned with those who are trying not to be caught. 

More people coming here, to work and live, is not the problem. The wall is to slow down those people who have criminal intent. A camera isn't going to stop criminals coming across the border in an organized cartel.

Plus, the cost of such a system, combined with upkeep over the long term, and the number of employees required, will make the cost of the wall seem quaint. We hear about alternatives, but seldom the cost.

Keep in mind that around 500,000 people were detained last year at the border. Some turned back, some taken into custody. 

A wall requires maintenance too.  It's estimated that you'll be paying the cost of the wall every seven years.

At a rate of about 10 per cent, far exceeds inflation, yet your stick with the same level of technology.

Seems about right for a government project.