Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

Do you have evidence, beyond a survey?

The study coupled with the statistics about uninsured is what informs my opinion. I offered both of them already, in response to which you have offered...an anecdotal opinion.

[rogue06]

And let's hope Pelosi and her gestapo stop holding up necessary funds for people to make it through this unprecedented time just to get back at Trump and the Republicans....

Pelosi and her gang did try to sneak funding for abortion into some legislation but it was dropped, but it has been the Senate Democrats who have been playing politics with funding. Surprisingly this was actually mentioned on NBC's Today Show this morning.

The show's primary co-host Savannah Guthrie started the broadcast by saying that

"Stalemate. Overnight, Senate Democrats blocked the nearly $2 trillion coronavirus aid package, saying it has a slush fund for big business. Republicans warning their rivals are playing with fire as the economy tanks."

Shortly afterwards she again ingeminated the charge:



Moreover, about a half hour later while interviewing the Democrat Governor of Illinois Jay "J.B." Pritzker, who like most Democrats seems largely focused on being politically correct about the Chicom coronavirus, Guthrie pressed him on whether his fellow Democrats in D.C. are right to stall relief efforts saying



Pritzker defended his colleagues stalling leading Guthrie to continue in a manner that until now is done exclusively to non-liberals asking him "Well, how long do you want Democrats to hold this line?" A confused Pritzner, apparently not used to this sort of question from a member of the MSM, stammered "Say it again." leading to Guthrie reiterate:



Kudos to her for actually holding Democrats accountable for their placing ideology above expediency during this crisis. I wonder how long it'll be before NBC announces that she is on a leave of absence and replaces her.

[carpedm9587]

So now, to back up this claim, you need to show that those credit card balances are for unnecessary/luxury things. And 20% of America is still 65+ million people, hence my position that the testing should be free for all Americans regardless of income level or insurance situation.

Are you really trying to argue that low income, uninsured people should not have free access to testing for the coronavirus? That seems somewhat amazing to me.

[carpedm9587]

You always have a few bad apples. Just like on tweb.

So when a few governors praise Trump - it's "he's doing an awesome job"

And when a few governors criticize Trump - it's "they're bad apples!"


And you see this as a consistent position?

[carpedm9587]

I skipped about 7 pages. This thread grew quickly over the weekend. sorry.

NP. Stuff happens.

[lilpixieofterror]

You are welcome to link to any post I've made where I have been unwilling to provide the evidence that supports the views I hold. Until then, this is largely another ad hom. You're welcome to argue that way if you wish, Pix, it just won't do a lot to convince.

Did you read your own link? They pointed out the differences in different surveys and pointed out debt load was a problem.

[lilpixieofterror]

The study coupled with the statistics about uninsured is what informs my opinion. I offered both of them already, in response to which you have offered...an anecdotal opinion.

[lilpixieofterror]

So now, to back up this claim, you need to show that those credit card balances are for unnecessary/luxury things. And 20% of America is still 65+ million people, hence my position that the testing should be free for all Americans regardless of income level or insurance situation.

Are you really trying to argue that low income, uninsured people should not have free access to testing for the coronavirus? That seems somewhat amazing to me.

[carpedm9587]

Did you read your own link? They pointed out the differences in different surveys and pointed out debt load was a problem.

None of which changes the baseline argument being made. It is normal for different surveys to produce different results. It depends on their methodology, the means of selecting the target audience, and the size of that audience. That requires people to accept that any of them will have a margin of error that can vary.

It's kind of like polling.

As for debt load, I am aware that is a problem. It's not clear to me how debt load changes the fact of not being able to deal with an unexpected expense at this time of crisis. You seem to be trying to argue, "they should have X." The fact is, they didn't and now we are at a time of crisis. It is not only to their benefit to provide testing free of cost, it is to all of our benefit, hence my argument.

[carpedm9587]

I actually did read it. Debt does not change the basic argument I'm making.

[lilpixieofterror]

None of which changes the baseline argument being made. It is normal for different surveys to produce different results. It depends on their methodology, the means of selecting the target audience, and the size of that audience. That requires people to accept that any of them will have a margin of error that can vary.

It's kind of like polling.

As for debt load, I am aware that is a problem. It's not clear to me how debt load changes the fact of not being able to deal with an unexpected expense at this time of crisis. You seem to be trying to argue, "they should have X." The fact is, they didn't and now we are at a time of crisis. It is not only to their benefit to provide testing free of cost, it is to all of our benefit, hence my argument.

[carpedm9587]

Which is irrelevant to the argument I was making. HOW people arrived at a state where they cannot cover a $400 cost does not change the fact that a high percentage cannot and, in a time of crisis, that testing is critical to both them and us - hence the need to make it free across the board. I believe the first stimulus actually does that, it just hasn't, AFAIK, taken effect yet.

I never said anything about why they cannot afford an unexpected expense, so you are arguing against a strawman of your own making.

[lilpixieofterror]

Which is irrelevant to the argument I was making. HOW people arrived at a state where they cannot cover a $400 cost does not change the fact that a high percentage cannot and, in a time of crisis, that testing is critical to both them and us - hence the need to make it free across the board. I believe the first stimulus actually does that, it just hasn't, AFAIK, taken effect yet.



I never said anything about why they cannot afford an unexpected expense, so you are arguing against a strawman of your own making.

[carpedm9587]

Pix, everyone buys things they don't need and many buy things they cannot afford. You're not saying anything here that is germane to the argument I put forward. You seem to have gone off on a tangent of your own making against a position I did not take.

Again, my position (from the outset) has been that statistically some 40% (we can adjust that to 20-40% if you wish) cannot deal with an unexpected expense of $400. That's 65-130 million people. Coupled with the statistics about lack of insurance, it is my opinion that coronavirus testing should be made free for all American citizens - in their interests and the interests of the rest of us.

If you want to argue with that position, you can certainly do so. So far you haven't. You've just started flailing away at some tangent you manufactured. So I'm going to leave the last word to you unless you address the argument I've actually been making.


ETA: Cue the "nail jello to the wall" narrative...

[carpedm9587]

That has nothing to do with anything I've said. You've also done nothing to actually substantiate that claim with actual evidence, though anecdotally and based on personal experience, I do agree that pretty much everyone buys something they don't need and/or can't afford at one point or another, for a wide variety of reasons.