OT: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Pity that when the income tax was created, there wasn't a limit. If a
max of, say 10% had been suggested, the country would have gone into
an uproar over such an absurdly large future tax.

It was created at the same time as the Federal Reserve so the money
could be printed and let loose into the private sector and then pulled
back by taxation, so it couldn't be so limited because it had to
transfer the money back. Any resemblance to the definition of money
laundering is coincidental.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:21:05 AM UTC+11,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some iron-clad
principle of equity and justice as Rick blithely assumes; there are
many instances where free people must *not* allow it.

Not that James Arthur can be bothered to name one. Like the founding
tax evaders, he's nervous of mob rule.

Why fear mob rule? Go ahead and storm that Bastille, burn that cross,
lynch that...

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote
to apply only to that decision.

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some iron-clad
principle of equity and justice as Rick blithely assumes; there are
many instances where free people must *not* allow it. I moved the
metaphor offshore to try to decouple the issues for Rick's thinking.

I understood. I know you wouldn't advocate making treaties by
plebescite.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:55:27 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:36:39 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

You do realize there are other factors in "life expectancy" besides the inner workings of a healthcare system, right?

James Arthur has been a full bottle on the subject in the past. American exceptionalism can explain why black is white.

Won't matter anyway.
I thought the rising oceans were going to swallow us all whole in a few year anyway.

There's about ten metres of sea level rise tied up the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheet. When they finally decide to slide off into the ocean - which is unlikely to happen in the next few years, but is quite hard to predict - it will flood every coastal city in a thoroughly inconvenient way, but isn't going to swallow much land area.

> Either that, or some coronavirus?

The Spanish flu killed a lot of people, but it wasn't exactly world-ending.

> You and I (OK, maybe more YOU) are old enough not to give too much of a damn either way.

Depending on motivation. You don't have much factual knowledge - see above - and don't seem to have learned any of the skills required to separate attractive nonsense from evidence-based fact. You do seem to think that carrying a gun around makes you feel safe, and resist the idea that the increased risk of suicide wipes out any imagined advantage.

What this says about you is that you should find your nearest handy drug dealer and buy your feeling of self-satisfaction from the most reliable source around.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote
to apply only to that decision.

Huh??? One person-One vote is the process by which we elect
virtually every representative in the country.

That's why they are called "representatives" and the president is not.

And that "huh" suggests you are very easily confused, since we were
discussing his point about things the government does like treaty
negotiations.

This is getting into the territory of my 3rd reason for the EC, which
involves the question of why you don't advocate direct democracy, and on
the contrary you and your party have long advocated making policy by
un-elected bureaucrats and judges who are not the least bit accountable
or answerable to the people whereas the EC does not make the president
unanswerable. You vote for policy, not people. The people you elect
don't always give you the policy you expected, but you accept that you
vote for policy indirectly, and don't demand direct democracy, while
rejecting the EC because it adds another layer of indirection, and while
embracing the much more indirect process of bureaucracy and legislating
from the bench. That's about as inconsistent as you can get. But I
didn't what to go into that in detail because you don't understand the
simpler reasons.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary,

I don't see where you have posted in this thread until now. What are
you talking about???

This is hardly the first time you started on this topic.

and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them. They
were de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from
being elected.

The Electoral College is ballot stuffing agnostic. The two are
orthogonal or the EC might encourage ballot stuffing since a small
amount of it focused in the right locations could both be more
effective and harder to detect than in most other locations in the
country. That's why Trump was talking about the election fraud in PA
even before the election. PA was a close race.

If there was no EC, no one would focus on a few votes in any one
state. Much less chance of Trump finding 3 million fraudulent votes
than finding a few thousand.

Ballot stuffing is more likely to happen, and to be undetected, in
non-swing states where the election staff and election commision at all
levels are more likely to conspire. In such a state, thanks to the EC,
it doesn't matter if you get 51% or 99% (which is also what keeps
extremists from winning) so stuffing the ballots in a state that would
have been won anyway is not profitable to those who would conspire.

There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.

The first two you didn't describe?

I have before, and readdressed here.

There are NO valid reasons to keep the EC. Everyone should have an
equal vote in the Presidential race. It really is that simple. Why
can't you understand something that is so fundamental to our country?

We do have equal votes. It works the same for all.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 4:27:30 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote
to
apply only to that decision.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary, and the fact
that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them.

Nobody else has found them remotely good. How smart the founding tax
evaders were doesn't really come into it. They were being innovative,
and the electoral college clearly wasn't an attractive innovation, no
matter how much you may like it.

They objected to the lack of representation, not taxes. They also had
no obligation to design a government on Enlightenment ideas but chose
to. But you don't prefer monarchy to the Enlightenment; you prefer the
19th century philosophers who gave us Nazis and Communists and
Socialists and Progressives. Yeah I know, you Socialists and
Progressives like to stress the huge distinction. Can't even see the
obvious surface fact that the USSR fell because it was Socialist, not
because of any of those distinctions.

They were de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing
extremists from being elected.

Except that it didn't stop Trump getting elected, which kills that
argument stone-dead (unless you to too silly to recognise that Trump
is obviously defective).

Naturally you would think pursuing his country's interests makes Trump
an extremist, but Clinton dedicating her thesis to Allinsky who in turn
dedicated his thesis to Satan does not.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 8:57:33 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose
that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No,
I don't support non sequiturs.

On the contrary, it's central to the issue of electing the U.S.
president and the reasons for this Electoral College that so
confuses you.

You say "one person, one vote." Okay, so why shouldn't Africans
have 1.4 billion votes in European elections, versus Europeans'
445 million?

Answer that, and you're on the right track.

Because Trump would claim election fraud even before the election!

Actually it's the Democrats who claimed fraud every time a Republican
won in 1980, 2000, and 2016. It was also the Democrats who registered
several websites like bushcoup.com over a week before the 2000 election
and the name on the registration was David Lytel, who created
whitehouse.gov in 1996 (he won an award for best site) and previously
worked for the Clinton administration. He also put his company name
(Democrats Dot Com Inc which makes sites for many of their campaigns) on
the registration which means they paid him for it. When they created
similar sites before the 2004 election they used proxy registration.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 3:23:12 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 4:27:30 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

<sip>

Nobody else has found them remotely good. How smart the founding tax
evaders were doesn't really come into it. They were being innovative,
and the electoral college clearly wasn't an attractive innovation, no
matter how much you may like it.

They objected to the lack of representation, not taxes.

But they wouldn't have worried about the lack of representation if they6 hadn't resented the taxes.

> They also had no obligation to design a government on Enlightenment ideas but chose to.

They were pretty much the only ideas around at the time. Even then they went for the Moderate Enlightenment rather than the Radical Enlightenment - basically wimping out on doing the job right.

But you don't prefer monarchy to the Enlightenment; you prefer the
19th century philosophers who gave us Nazis and Communists and
Socialists and Progressives.

I don't think much of any of them as philosophers. Marx and Engels pioneered the idea of working out how well the working classes were doing by collecting statistics, which was a brilliant innovation in social science, but Marx went to to get chucked out of the international socialism by championing "the leading role of the party" which his socialist colleagues correctly saw a road to tyranny.

"If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself" dates from that period. Mikhail Bakunin was remarkably smart, but his anarcho-syndicalism isn't all that practical at any scale above the local co-operative.

Yeah I know, you Socialists and
Progressives like to stress the huge distinction. Can't even see the
obvious surface fact that the USSR fell because it was Socialist, not
because of any of those distinctions.

The USSR fell because Communism isn't actually Socialist. It looked after the interests of the party members rather than the interests of the population as whole. The population realised that they could do better under a different system. What they've got now isn't much better, and it certainly isn't any more socialist.

They were de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing
extremists from being elected.

Except that it didn't stop Trump getting elected, which kills that
argument stone-dead (unless you to too silly to recognise that Trump
is obviously defective).

Naturally you would think pursuing his country's interests makes Trump
an extremist, but Clinton dedicating her thesis to Allinsky who in turn
dedicated his thesis to Satan does not.

Trump doesn't understand his country's interests in enough detail to pursue them effectively. He lies non-stop about why he doing what he is doing, but none of his lies are remotely credible. At least not to anybody bright than Tom Del Rosso.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

takes issue with Allinsky's enthusiasm for "across-the-board 'social catharsis'". She didn't think that this was a productive approach, even back when she was an undergraduate.

Tom Del Rosso doesn't understand anything all that well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:21:10 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:26:09 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
And yet we still can't seem to figure out how to provide health care to all. Yeah, we are knocking it out of the park!


Remove your weasel words "seem to", in the above and we're good to go.
It's a pretty safe bet with this one.

Speaking of which, why haven't you told them how to provide health care to all.
Surely that is within your wheelhouse of knowledge and expertise.
Why the suspense?

What is the mystery? How about if we stop limiting it only to those who can pay for it? Now if you give that some thought you will realize that is a much less expensive goal than what sounds expensive, giving free healthcare to everyone!

Those who currently have healthcare are paid for by some means. Let all those revenue sources continue to provide funds for healthcare. Then the only funds that need to be provided are for those presently with no healthcare..

It can't be too hard to do. There are many, many nations doing it. The bit we need to fund to reach 100% coverage can be found the way Trump does it.. Take money from other parts of the budget! I guess we know why he wants to spend so big on the military, so he has more money to take for other, non-military projects.

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 8:23:12 PM UTC-8, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Naturally you would think pursuing his country's interests makes Trump
an extremist, but...

It's odd to see 'his country's interest' as the Trump agenda.

Israel thinks he's helping them. To become an armed enclave? Peace treaty might
work better. He's "helping" the US reduce foreign trade, and supply chains are in
disarray until that's settled. Farmers are getting a bailout while taxes got cut,
but WE have to pay interest on the resulting deficit (rivaling post-WWII).

Armtwisting OF HIS FELLOW AMERICANS is much in evidence, too; didn't you notice that
government shutdown at all?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 3:40:36 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:18:15 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:16:27 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 6:29:34 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:54:10 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:00:31 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC-5, DemonicTubes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 8:33:53 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

The process of ranking a bunch of candidates in order of increasing repulsiveness is complicated, and about 5% of the vote consists of the donkey vote (which numbers down from the top of the ballot) and the reverse donkey vote (numbered up from the bottom).

The numbered-up from the bottom approach sounds messy, especially if actual donkeys are used.

That's OK, Sloman is an expendable brainwashed ass, and supposedly biodegradable.

Quite what I'm supposed to being expended on isn't entirely clear. Michael Terrell's idea of what constitues a brain-washed ass is somebody who doesn't share every last one of his half-baked delusions, which does seem to be anybody who has gotten any kind of education (brain-washing from his point of view).

There are bits of me which won't be biodegradable - modern dentistry puts in chunks of titanium, which do seem to be bug-proof - but Michael Terrell won't know about that.

The Veterans Administration would regard that as reserved for officers only..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 3:43:14 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:52:08 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There's a difference between working, and working well. The US constitution is the MS/DOS of political operating systems - good enough to work, but not good enough to work well. There are better constitutional arrangements around, but they don't work as well for the people with lots of money.


Bad analogy...
MS-DOS was written by Americans.

Geez, I'm surprised this one slipped by you Bill.

And it rarely ever crashed, unlike Sloman and his beloved Socialism.

The kind of socialism I like doesn't crash. The kinds of "socialism" that has been drawn to the attention of Michael Terrell - National Socialism and the union of the ostensibly socialist soviet republics - hasn't done as well.

If you've got a good product, every cheap rip-off merchant in town will be selling something with the same name (but poorer performance).

If you get your news from the US press, they do try to paint every last failed state as socialist. It's part of the anti-trade union propaganda that has been going on for about 150 years now.

And if Michael thinks that MS/DOS didn't crash often, he didn't use it much..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:38:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:24:39 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

We came to the 'equal rights' stable point in the last century, and the old Constitution's words give us no comprehensible reason to leave it now.

Mostly. We are still arguing over equal rights in a number of areas most recently equality for women. Yeah, 100 years after getting the vote women still are second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I was in my thirties when Virginia still had a law on the books that forbid a married woman from owning property in her name only. Yes, that's right, women are not fully equal in the law no matter what some people would have you believe.

One of the prominent reasons is that if we give women equal rights, we may have to give equal rights to others who some people still fear.

Yeah, it's the 21st century and we still have people who think that way.

Well I'll be damned!
Ric finally gets one right.

Link: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php

Specifically, Section 16-15-50 "Seduction under promise of marriage"

A male can't seduce a woman under false pretense of marriage, but there's no law prohibiting the practice with the gender roles reversed.

Under the ERA, women would lose many rights, and have to take responsibility for many more. On thing that stopped it from becoming an amendment was that all women of Draft age could end up not only in the Military if the draft is reinstated, but they would be on the font lines with men. They would have to put up with the same lack of sleep, regular meals an hygiene in dirty, wet uniforms.

You mean like now? Women are rifleman, machine gunner and mortar Marines in the the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines. Sgt. Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star for actions during a firefight in Iraq.

The only difference is women would be subject to the draft which we don't have presently.

You seem to be living in the past.

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:10:06 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso
wrote:

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote
to apply only to that decision.

Huh??? One person-One vote is the process by which we elect
virtually every representative in the country.

That's why they are called "representatives" and the president is not.

Is that supposed to mean something??? The President talks frequently about representing the people who elected him.

And that "huh" suggests you are very easily confused, since we were
discussing his point about things the government does like treaty
negotiations.

I must have missed something. This is the first I've seen anyone mention "treaty negotiations" in this conversation. What is the relevance???

This is getting into the territory of my 3rd reason for the EC, which
involves the question of why you don't advocate direct democracy, and on
the contrary you and your party have long advocated making policy by
un-elected bureaucrats and judges who are not the least bit accountable
or answerable to the people whereas the EC does not make the president
unanswerable. You vote for policy, not people. The people you elect
don't always give you the policy you expected, but you accept that you
vote for policy indirectly, and don't demand direct democracy, while
rejecting the EC because it adds another layer of indirection, and while
embracing the much more indirect process of bureaucracy and legislating
from the bench. That's about as inconsistent as you can get. But I
didn't what to go into that in detail because you don't understand the
simpler reasons.

Wow! You must have long arms because that is some reach!

The EC doesn't add "another layer of indirection" as the electors vote for who the voters said they wanted. The EC simply distorts the numbers by effectively forcing the vote of everyone in most states to match the vote of the majority in that state. If 51% of the votes in the state are for one candidate, all the electoral votes are for that candidate and the other 49% have no say in who becomes President.

With a popular vote, everyone in every state has their vote counted toward electing the President.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary,

I don't see where you have posted in this thread until now. What are
you talking about???

This is hardly the first time you started on this topic.

Oh, the elephant memory guy...! Lol... whatever. We've heard all the arguments before and none hold water. Most are actually the opposite of reality talking about protecting small states and such nonsense.

and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them. They
were de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from
being elected.

The Electoral College is ballot stuffing agnostic. The two are
orthogonal or the EC might encourage ballot stuffing since a small
amount of it focused in the right locations could both be more
effective and harder to detect than in most other locations in the
country. That's why Trump was talking about the election fraud in PA
even before the election. PA was a close race.

If there was no EC, no one would focus on a few votes in any one
state. Much less chance of Trump finding 3 million fraudulent votes
than finding a few thousand.

Ballot stuffing is more likely to happen, and to be undetected, in
non-swing states where the election staff and election commision at all
levels are more likely to conspire.

Ok, can you support that claim??? You do realize that if there is no electoral college there are no swing states, yes?

In such a state, thanks to the EC,
it doesn't matter if you get 51% or 99% (which is also what keeps
extremists from winning) so stuffing the ballots in a state that would
have been won anyway is not profitable to those who would conspire.

Your logic is absurd! What matters with the EC is whether you get 49% or 51% and even a little ballot tampering can make the difference.

There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.

The first two you didn't describe?

I have before, and readdressed here.

The unnamed two?

There are NO valid reasons to keep the EC. Everyone should have an
equal vote in the Presidential race. It really is that simple. Why
can't you understand something that is so fundamental to our country?

We do have equal votes. It works the same for all.

No, that's why some states are swing states. Only those states decide the election. The other states are a given and in particular, the voters in those states who didn't vote for the state winner have NO SAY in the ultimate outcome of the election. With the popular vote every vote has the same weight.

It really is that simple. I don't know why people are so mentally blocked that they can't see it.

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:75de72c9-881a-4f4a-890b-2d00d6ef8660@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 6:21:05 AM UTC-8,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some
iron-clad principle ...

Rule by consent of the governed, and one person one vote, ARE
principles, and seem to many to be akin to the virtue(s) of
fairness and justice.

As for 'iron-clad', we can plate in a variety of metals, like
gold, silver, titanium, chromium... there's nothing especially
relevant to politics in element #26.

Mag-Lev trains?

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:46:17 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There are bits of me which won't be biodegradable - modern dentistry puts in chunks of titanium, which do seem to be bug-proof - but Michael Terrell won't know about that.

The Veterans Administration would regard that as reserved for officers only.

Another brain dead comment from Sloman. The VA only does dental work for service connected issues, regardless of rank.

This is typical of brainwashed Liberals false beliefs from what the lying media bleats.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:13:46 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:46:17 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There are bits of me which won't be biodegradable - modern dentistry puts in chunks of titanium, which do seem to be bug-proof - but Michael Terrell won't know about that.

The Veterans Administration would regard that as reserved for officers only.

Another brain dead comment from Sloman. The VA only does dental work for service connected issues, regardless of rank.

And how do you know that the quality of the work they do is regardless of rank?

Your reports of the medical care you got don't make inspiring reading. An ex-officer who got that kind of treatment would have better places to complain about it than here.

> This is typical of brainwashed Liberals false beliefs from what the lying media bleats.

Michael Terrell's confidence in the impartiality of the Veterans Administration is touching, but doesn't seem to be all that well-informed.

I've never seen anything in the media about the performance of the US Veterans Administration. I've got a family connection to somebody who was high up in the Australian equivalent for quite a while, but that hasn't done anything to form my opinion of how the US operation might work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:30:23 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:13:46 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:46:17 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There are bits of me which won't be biodegradable - modern dentistry puts in chunks of titanium, which do seem to be bug-proof - but Michael Terrell won't know about that.

The Veterans Administration would regard that as reserved for officers only.

Another brain dead comment from Sloman. The VA only does dental work for service connected issues, regardless of rank.

And how do you know that the quality of the work they do is regardless of rank?

Sigh. You don't know one damned thing about the various medical systems offered to our Veterans. For many, it is the only care available, due to disability. Some use it because they won't pay for their medications from Civilian doctors, so they see a VA doctor once a year to get the VA to pay for prt or all of them.

It wasn't the VA who set the rules about Dental Care. It was the Democrats, who get top notch care at tax payer expense.

> Your reports of the medical care you got don't make inspiring reading. An ex-officer who got that kind of treatment would have better places to complain about it than here.

Dumbass! I have gone to the Us Representative for my distract tio file formal complaints, more than once. I am currently awaiting a decision on changing doctors. If it is turned down, another complaint will be filed. My current VA doctor is as ignorant as you are. She is an Indian Indian who refuses to discuss anything, and like you, tells everyone that they are beneath them.

VA care isn't intended to be top notch for everyone. It is on the level of the Socialist's proposed 'Medicare For All'.

This is typical of brainwashed Liberals false beliefs from what the lying media bleats.

Michael Terrell's confidence in the impartiality of the Veterans Administration is touching, but doesn't seem to be all that well-informed.

Once again, you are spouting lies.

> I've never seen anything in the media about the performance of the US Veterans Administration. I've got a family connection to somebody who was high up in the Australian equivalent for quite a while, but that hasn't done anything to form my opinion of how the US operation might work.

You are a moron. Most officers retire after 20 years of service. The get 'Tricare For Life' instead of VA care.

I knew a woman who worked for Australasia's version of their VA. We discussed both systems for hours and hours. She agreed that we did a lot of things better than they did. She didn't like the scattered facilities, but that is changing as they move clinics from leased space, to custom medical facilities. A former president oped the system to a lot of previously ineligible Veterans, into a system that was already overloaded. My current clinic has 100 exam rooms. It has Xray and Ultrasound, ant to small Operating rooms. If it had rooms for patients, it would be a full hospital. It was built a few years ago as the prototype for new CBOCs.

https://www.northflorida.va.gov/locations/theVillages.asp

I heard this morning that the other local CBOC is to move into a new facility as soon as construction is complete. The land has been purchase, and the General Contractor hired. It will be across the street from a 10 year old public hospital. It is currently scattered all over a former mall, and a couple medical centers around Ocala.

Learn about things before making a fool of yourself, yet again.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:46:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:

I knew a woman who worked for Australasia's version of their VA. We discussed both systems for hours and hours. She agreed that we did a lot of things better than they did. She didn't like the scattered facilities, but that is changing as they move clinics from leased space, to custom medical facilities. A former president oped the system to a lot of previously ineligible Veterans, into a system that was already overloaded. My current clinic has 100 exam rooms. It has Xray and Ultrasound, ant to small Operating rooms. If it had rooms for patients, it would be a full hospital. It was built a few years ago as the prototype for new CBOCs.

The thing I don't get is why VA has separate medical facilities for retired Vets. Why isn't the standard medical care adequate? It seems redundant to have multiple medical systems for different classes of patients.

I can see needing medical care for active duty personnel, but retirees would have to be near a VA facility to receive care from what you say. I know a WWII vet who used to drive 60 miles to a VA facility to receive the same care he could have gotten within 3 miles of his home in a civilian facility..

--

Rick C.

+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 11:39:08 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:46:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:

I knew a woman who worked for Australasia's version of their VA. We discussed both systems for hours and hours. She agreed that we did a lot of things better than they did. She didn't like the scattered facilities, but that is changing as they move clinics from leased space, to custom medical facilities. A former president oped the system to a lot of previously ineligible Veterans, into a system that was already overloaded. My current clinic has 100 exam rooms. It has Xray and Ultrasound, ant to small Operating rooms. If it had rooms for patients, it would be a full hospital. It was built a few years ago as the prototype for new CBOCs.

The thing I don't get is why VA has separate medical facilities for retired Vets. Why isn't the standard medical care adequate? It seems redundant to have multiple medical systems for different classes of patients.

Sigh. The VA deals with more disabled patients than any other system. that is why they specialize in the needs for these patients. My VA Hospital is in Gainesville, and it is across a busy highway from the University of Florida's Shands teaching hospital. A lot of their students intern at the VA, to see first hand the damage done to people who served our Nation.

Tricare For Life are mostly typical retirees, with very few problems that aren't related to aging. Treatment is usually provided at VA facilities, but the payments come from a different source.

> I can see needing medical care for active duty personnel, but retirees would have to be near a VA facility to receive care from what you say. I know a WWII vet who used to drive 60 miles to a VA facility to receive the same care he could have gotten within 3 miles of his home in a civilian facility.

That was his choice. They can refer you to civilian doctors for some treatments, but you have to request it. Also, in many parts of the country, the DAV provides eight passenger vans to take people to appointments in another city. Once again, you have to request this service. The DAV buys the vehicles, and turn them over to the GSA who pays for fuel and repairs. They are also covered in the same insurance as other Federal vehicles. Local Veterans volunteer to drive them. They give up one day a week, in exchange for a 'free' lunch while they wait for everyone to report in from their appointments. They can leave early, if everyone finishes early, but there is a sharp 2:00 PM cutoff for departure, so people are home before 4:00PM. You have to have an appointment to secure a ride. They verify it, and call you back. This service was already in use over 20 years ago, before I needed it.

One of the VA's biggest problems is the shortage of good doctors and nurses, so they have to hire what they can get. I had one excellent VA doctor. he was so good that he was appointed director of the Ocala CBOC. Then they transferred him to the St. Petersburg VA hospital, as the director.