The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
SC, look in this nested thread. There's very clearly no link to where that graph is sourced from (fact, not narrative).Spiritual_Chaos said:
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Page 1272 in the "Donald Trump" thread.benjs said:
SC, look in this nested thread. There's very clearly no link to where that graph is sourced from (fact, not narrative).Spiritual_Chaos said:
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
One more thing, SC, if you're referring to that other graph you posted several pages back, that wasn't what I asked. If you're going to use the "twice as much on health care" as a talking point, and you extracted the talking point from this current graph, it's this current graph I would appreciate a source for. I thought that would've been clear.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Anyways, I'll check in later today - time to start getting ready for work. Have a good one, everybody!
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
"Haha" Okey.benjs said:
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
I will say the same when someone says Ten is a bigger album than Riot Act
"We can't have these apple-to-apple comparions, We have to look at the cultural landscape, the changing of the music industry, the arrival of the mickey mouse club pop scene, so Riot Act selling nothing compared to Ten can actually be seen as selling DOUBLE the amounts of Ten, therefore You Are can be seen as a bigger single than Evenflow and should be played at every show instead of Evenflow."Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just giving some context.cincybearcat said:
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"cincybearcat said:dignin said:
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:
I’m more concerned.The Juggler said:I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?cincybearcat said:
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just giving some context.cincybearcat said:
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"cincybearcat said:dignin said:
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:
I’m more concerned.The Juggler said:I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Piggy backing off of the article Russel posted yesterday:
When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/opinions/when-did-barack-obama-become-a-republican-avlon/index.html(CNN)When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
I'm asking because, according to some folks on the debate stage in Detroit, support for policy positions like the public option, comprehensive immigration reform and trade agreements are now dismissed as "Republican talking points." The same applies to asking practical questions about how proposals would be passed or paid for. That's not only a sign of how far left Democrats are moving but also a warning about how liberals risk reinforcing Donald Trump's re-election playbook.Of course, all this is absurd. Obama is the Democratic Party's most popular ex-President in living memory. Despite Republicans' relentless and often unhinged attacks on him as socialist and worse, it's now clear that he was a responsible center-left leader.After inheriting the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Obama actually reduced the deficit in his second term and backed bipartisan reforms on stubborn issues like immigration. Many of his policy outreaches to Republicans were rebuffed, and it's because of the reflexive demonization of Obama that many Democrats today are saying that it's useless to reach out to Republicans. I understand their frustration. But still, the ability to work with Republicans is the third quality that a CNN poll shows Democrats want most in their next president, the first being an ability to defeat Donald Trump. And that requires more than a purely play-to-the-base strategy that ignores independent swing voters.
Let's not forget that passing Obamacare was a massive task. Obama proposed a public option as a more practical and popular alternative to the single-payer system that very few Democrats supported just a decade ago.
Clink the link to read the rest of the article.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
The question is whether these candidates are actually reflective of the voters. So far, with Biden polling highest, the answer appears to be "no". But as candidates drop, and people move to their second choices, we'll know better.mcgruff10 said:Piggy backing off of the article Russel posted yesterday:When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/opinions/when-did-barack-obama-become-a-republican-avlon/index.html(CNN)When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
I'm asking because, according to some folks on the debate stage in Detroit, support for policy positions like the public option, comprehensive immigration reform and trade agreements are now dismissed as "Republican talking points." The same applies to asking practical questions about how proposals would be passed or paid for. That's not only a sign of how far left Democrats are moving but also a warning about how liberals risk reinforcing Donald Trump's re-election playbook.Of course, all this is absurd. Obama is the Democratic Party's most popular ex-President in living memory. Despite Republicans' relentless and often unhinged attacks on him as socialist and worse, it's now clear that he was a responsible center-left leader.After inheriting the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Obama actually reduced the deficit in his second term and backed bipartisan reforms on stubborn issues like immigration. Many of his policy outreaches to Republicans were rebuffed, and it's because of the reflexive demonization of Obama that many Democrats today are saying that it's useless to reach out to Republicans. I understand their frustration. But still, the ability to work with Republicans is the third quality that a CNN poll shows Democrats want most in their next president, the first being an ability to defeat Donald Trump. And that requires more than a purely play-to-the-base strategy that ignores independent swing voters.
Let's not forget that passing Obamacare was a massive task. Obama proposed a public option as a more practical and popular alternative to the single-payer system that very few Democrats supported just a decade ago.
Clink the link to read the rest of the article.0 -
I think you need to learn to read and understand. It's like talking to a child waiting for their turn to speak next. You make no fucking sense.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Doesn't seem much has been that moved forward at all?cincybearcat said:
Yeah cause the political climate is sooooo good this way. Moderates are for moving forward. Just not only in the way 1 party thinks.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just giving some context.cincybearcat said:
When did it become about just posting “it’s not the same” and all the “false equivalencies” bullshit?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Well, one side is shifting to "we should make a better society - look at how much better other countries are doing, we're been doing it wrong. oops" and the other side shifted to "we are awful, racist people and here: we give you Donald Trump"cincybearcat said:dignin said:
I believe Warren and Sanders are talking to those people.The Juggler said:cincybearcat said:
I’m more concerned.The Juggler said:I'm less confident about these democrats' chances than I was a month ago.
Mostly because
1) I now think Biden is a terrible candidate. Never liked the guy but thought he could win. He seems tired and like he doesn’t want to be there.
2) Dems keep moving left, which is away from me and moderates. So even if they win, I’m not going to like the result.
3) it seems like it’s a Biden/Sanders/Warren race at the moment at that is about as bad as it could get for me.
But yeah, overall, pretty disappointing if you're a moderate. They barely spent any time talking about the voters they need to win those most important 12-15 states last night.
But I do agree, if you are a moderate, the shift in the Democratic party would be disappointing.
The shift in both parties. Republicans just started sooner
So, its not the same.
Having kids die in cages and not stopping the gun-violence epidemic VS a green new deal and wanting citizens to actually live
Im simply saying each party is moving more towards their extremes. Each party moving away from the moderates in their party or the moderate independents. I’m not comparing policies.
Maybe it's time to leave the "moderates" behind and whatever their reasons are for staying "moderates" if some change is actually to happen - for the american people and the world.
Are you still allowed to beat your kids over there?
One example, I bet (just a theory) would have been gone if the US would have allowed itself to lean more left (as in e.g classic social democratic) through the years. And I bet the Warrens and the Bernies of the US would push for that being made illegal at a faster pace, than moderates while kids keep being beaten legally.
(And now I'm speaking of american moderates, and not the Swedish type of centrists. Which would be a bit more left-leaning (Social-liberal) with our political spectrum not being tilted as far right and as much focus on egocentrism.)
So why be a "moderate", when you are free to not be one and can have a look of your country. Would be my question. The world is burning.
I'm talking about the parties moving to their poles...away from the middle. You "Do you beat your kids"Post edited by cincybearcat onhippiemom = goodness0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
Your answer should be thank you very much generous american taxpayer for making my Euro healthcare cheaper
Anerican big pharma develops life saving drugs, charges Americans thru the nose, then once billions are made, sells it cheaper globally.
The misconception that folks like mcgruff10 have about prohibitive cost for MFA is a big problem for dems and like I said last night, I blame Bernie for doing a poor job explaining that we need a conversion of employer funding from health insurance to salary.
With that and cost care reduction, it become obvious "who is paying for this" is malarkey.
But we need public option first. If that works then maybe MFA. If bernie or liz win the nom trump will pound away at them.
0 -
When did healthcare turn into "drugs" ?Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
Your answer should be thank you very much generous american taxpayer for making my Euro healthcare cheaper
Anerican big pharma develops life saving drugs, charges Americans thru the nose, then once billions are made, sells it cheaper globally.
The misconception that folks like mcgruff10 have about prohibitive cost for MFA is a big problem for dems and like I said last night, I blame Bernie for doing a poor job explaining that we need a conversion of employer funding from health insurance to salary.
With that and cost care reduction, it become obvious "who is paying for this" is malarkey.
But we need public option first. If that works then maybe MFA. If bernie or liz win the nom trump will pound away at them.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
One last question,benjs said:
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
on here a while back someone (american) said that his wife needed an aspirin (or similiar) at the hospital while being in labor. And that was added to their bill for the visit, the cost I think was 80-100 dollar for that pill.
In Sweden, that would have been given for no charge and the actual charge of it for the taxpayers would be the cost of the pill (whatever Aspirin cost per pill, in Sweden or the US).
And I understand that it is impossible to compare the US because it is the apple to every other countries oranges.
But will I find an answer to that difference in health care cost in your block of text above?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I find that unbelievable. Not calling you a liar because hell, maybe someone really did say that. But you can get a bottle of 500 aspirin pills for like $5.Spiritual_Chaos said:
One last question,benjs said:
And to answer your second question - I'll reiterate exactly what I said before. You need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons. This is the art of fair polling is understanding the factors and the way one population functionally differs from another, so that when you compare them, you account for those realities. Without insights to how these numbers were produced, they are not worth anything, no matter how extreme the differences appear. I too can put five different-length bars on a piece of paper and put numbers beside them and claim facts. I hope people wouldn't believe me in that situation either.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I gave you another graph, with a source, showing the same thing. So chill out with your paintbrush and your narrative-creation.benjs said:
I know you like to distil things to binary, but that's not how this works; you clearly don't understand statistics, polling for authenticity, or how to evaluate or correct bias if you're asking me that question. I don't need Sweden to be put next to a country identical in way, shape and form to Sweden to compare it - but I need to evaluate its characteristics and weigh facts differently. That holds true for any comparison - you need to put work in to approximate apple-to-apple comparisons.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Name another country that can be compared to the US?benjs said:
Do you even bother reading what I write? I explicitly said I'm not here stating that I support one healthcare program over another, but that I'm asking you to post information fairly. You never gave a source for your chart. Your chart has a title that has bias. Your chart is based on total spend when many nations rely heavily on insurance to cover portions of that (which should be removed - but still include the insurance cost to consumers). Your chart doesn't consider how costs scale across populations and geographies. Your chart doesn't subdivide to classes/rural vs. urban splits/races to try to understand what's going on (exclusively trying to judge - always a red flag for me). Your chart doesn't account for the fact that costs for rare drugs are far higher than commodity drugs, meaning there is implicit bias in comparing a larger population to a smaller one. And finally, you keep doing this shit! When you post a barrage of YouTube videos and graphs like this, why would anyone trust your opinion?Spiritual_Chaos said:
I don't know enough of that terminology (especially in English) to respond to whatever you are saying.benjs said:
The graph with a biased title, no division of "out of pocket" vs. insurance-covered, no normalization for population size beyond PPP, no segmentation into meaningful population cohorts, no consideration for commodity vs. high-demand drugs, no recognition of the subsidies which American drug-buyers support the R&D of global drugs, and the graph which somehow tries to distil healthcare results to a single number? That graph is meaningless in the state you posted it (if you truly are interested in taking it in the right order).Spiritual_Chaos said:
With those two questions of yours... I must ask - could you read and understand the graph I posted?mcgruff10 said:
How much will my taxes go up? Where is the money coming from to pay for this?Spiritual_Chaos said:Elizabeth Warren: Medicare For All Is Cheaper Than Our Current System
https://youtu.be/RlHik6YAPns
So, first answer this question - what does that graph tell you?
And after that, I can answer your question. Because I don't really understand why your question even would be asked if you can read the graph.
So lets take it in the right order.
BTW, I don't think I need to state this, but please don't confuse my asking for you to post meaningful information with sources, with supporting one health care system over another.
But in the words of David Letterman
But let me ask you, now that you are not ignoring me and not defending but defending the US having DOUBLE the price of health care (haha) - name another country that can be compared to the US? Or are you saying that US is a unique snowflake of a country impossible to compare with others? So diverse. So big. 12 years old can marry. Healthcare prices must be double Etc.
As for your 'now that you're not ignoring me' comment - I read almost all of your posts. I respond to the ones that I think are worth responding to (really no different to anyone else on here). Only difference is now I don't have to scroll through as many silly one-liners or gifs about why Bernie Sanders is the messiah and the rest of politicians are Satan reincarnated.
Feel free to elaborate where you still have confusion. I hope I've shown you already that at least 80% of what I said is not crap, just stuff you'd like to ignore.
The point is though, I couldn't begin to say whether the graph was generated fairly, because upon my third request, you still refuse to tell anyone here where you got it from. That wreaks of disingenuous behaviour.
So, what you are saying is no country can be compared to the US (with its healthcare spending being DOUBLE)?
on here a while back someone (american) said that his wife needed an aspirin (or similiar) at the hospital while being in labor. And that was added to their bill for the visit, the cost I think was 80-100 dollar for that pill.
In Sweden, that would have been given for no charge and the actual charge of it for the taxpayers would be the cost of the pill (whatever Aspirin cost per pill, in Sweden or the US).
And I understand that it is impossible to compare the US because it is the apple to every other countries oranges.
But will I find an answer to that difference in health care cost in your block of text above?
Then again, when you're in a hospital and at the will of insurance companies, I guess anything can happen.
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
I got a splint once in a hospital that fell apart 2 hours later and they charged me $900Post edited by MayDay10 on0
-
That's, from what I have learnt in this thread, just because Sweden is taking a free ride on american pharmaceutical companies research costs.MayDay10 said:I got a splint once in a hospital that fell apart 2 hours later and they charged me $900"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help