US Universal Healthcare

Adder
Offline
Master
7 minds, 5 trials and 3 pillars.

15 Mar 2019 07:55 - 15 Mar 2019 08:00 #335677 by Adder

Replied by Adder on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

I disagree, for its not really a money saving effort but a money saving opportunity - for its not a loss of capability, just appropriate design. Specialization still exists where its needed, but its not needed everywhere. I decided to spoiler the rest of my reply because its way off topic :whistle:

Warning: Spoiler!

Remember it's a multi-role replacing a multi-role mostly. The outgoing F16 and F18's were designed from the go as multi-role. Specialization is nice but way way more expensive. If you think one multirole program is expensive then consider 3 or 4 different programs. Which begs the question is the cost issue driving down the capability... ie is the jet losing capability by not being specialized. Sure, to some extent, but not enough to matter or justify the cost. There are still other different specialized types like the pure fighter F22 and the strategic strike types.

If you want to know why they went this route 40 years ago. its probably the air battlespace changes based on the tech being developed, and fighter jet programs take a decade or so from decision to mission and then remain useful for a few decades.... so the current outgoing designs were based on the 70's and 80's environment and expectations.

But basically..... in the end of the 20th century it was realized that manned platforms were being outmatched by weapons. The way to view these things is to see the aircraft as a delivery platform - it used to be just to put a machine gun up the tail of another! But then became all about putting a short range missile up their exhaust pipe, and then became to be in the best energy position to give your longer ranged missile the best reach to hit them before they could hit you.
In other words... initially a bullet only went a few hundred yards in a straight ballistic line - simple. Then the short range missile came alone and could go a mile or 2 and turn with any aircraft.
And then the medium ranged ones started to reach out to 10nm and could outturn any aircraft! It was still dangerous but the nature of the effort and risk were changing.
You see the trend is that weapons were starting to out perform the delivery platforms. That was where they were when they designed the current outgoing aircraft. The same thing but even more now with the new jets coming online. That is a simple air-air example, but the trend is the same in all areas of air warfare.

For example in the 80's things changed dramatically for strike aircraft as well;
1. proliferation of integrated air defenses made the SEAD ops ineffective, and so denied mid and high altitude access to enemy airspace (and required SEAD to change).
2. 'look down shoot down' radars on fighters made low level penetration of enemy airspace too dangerous for manned strike platforms.
3. airborne early warning aircraft added another element of control to ones own airspace.

The US were able to address those things like stealth and cruise missiles through the 80's into the 90's and beyond.

TLDR:
But the key point here is that aircraft are now becoming delivery platforms more then ever. For a missile can outrun and outturn any manned jet. A guided glide bomb can be launched in numbers, maneuver through defenses. Of course not to mention weapons are expendable being unmanned and cheaper to make. The weapons are doing the work and aircraft can carry various different weapons which do various different things ie multirole.

What now is more important in aircraft design is the survivability and connectivity. There is still an argument for some types of specialization, if it can be afforded - but air warfare does not happen in isolation, it is part of a ground or maritime battlespace, and so the measure of a platforms activity in these things is determined by the phases these battlespaces go through, and the specialized platforms are called as such because they have specialist roles which are required for shorter periods of time and in smaller numbers to shape the battlespace such that the other domains of warfare (which are longer duration actions) can be supported etc - which is the job of the more adaptable and numerous multi-role. People in the know make these decision based on the actual needs. There is no real argument against the F35 except for the ones which happen to every new fighter jet program... and its greatest risk will be the security to its systems and networks - but that goes for all systems these days.

I just wonder if they will go ahead with plans to make a future version of the F35B which replaces the lift engine with a generator running a directed energy weapon ie laser :S

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu

Last edit: 15 Mar 2019 08:00 by Adder.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

JamesSand
Offline
Banned

15 Mar 2019 09:27 #335686 by JamesSand

Replied by JamesSand on topic US Universal Healthcare

You can have the best plane in the world, but it ain't much use if the pilot has the flu :dry: :lol: :silly:

Back onto healthcare - I have no idea of the mysteries of the US economy, but the Australian system (sort of) works (after a fashion)

Adders statement of "What does it cost for the public system.... 2% taxation on income." is not being completely honest.
Tax payers who earn a certain income are required to contribute that in order to access healthcare, (over or under a given threshold changes your contribution) but it only covers you for a certain range of services (of note, dental is not covered) and you better rather hope you're not in a hurry, because there is a bit of a wait for many things.

hence where private insurance comes in (which saves the G-man a bit of coin, so they'll actually give you some money BACK for buying private insurance....although this is obviously well known to the private insurance providers, so who knows if they just calculate some more into their premium so you feel like you're getting a rebate, but it ain't going into your pocket) and private insurance is in the business of making money, so they only cover you "up to" a certain figure (unlike a car, you're not covered for total write-off, that's a different insurance again

) - and doctors (and the other services involved - generally whoever owns the surgery/hospital, and anaesthetists etc) can charge whatever they want. So if a total head transplant is calculated to cost (say) $5000, but the doctor, surgery, rehab, etc etc bill runs to $10,000, you're still out $5k (plus your premium, plus your excess)

It's a bit hinky really, but if you're the sort of person who likes regular dental care, wears glasses, and enjoys regular upkeep on your flimsy, squishy husk, then the couple of grand it costs you a year is a necessary evil.

(There's other contributors as well, for example all employers are required to pay "Workers Compensation" - another hinky system that is hell to navigate if you actually intend to use it, but in theory means that your employer has to pay for any injuries or illnesses that occur due to your occupation (self employed people have to buy their own insurance) - however the regulations for this vary by state and many people simply can't be arsed utilising it unless it is a major injury, so it's just free money for the insurance providers.

So back to maintaining happy, healthy, and loyal citizens - cost of acquisition and maintenance of the platform itself aside - what does it cost to make and keep a pilot? (or a servicing technician?)

is it cheaper to look after the people you've got, or to keep building new ones?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

15 Mar 2019 15:09 #335694 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

Are you some sort of expert on this? Have you ever served in the military? Are you an aeronautical engineer or is this just uninformed opinion?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

15 Mar 2019 20:25 #335711 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Adder wrote:
Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

I disagree, for its not really a money saving effort but a money saving opportunity - for its not a loss of capability, just appropriate design. Specialization still exists where its needed, but its not needed everywhere. I decided to spoiler the rest of my reply because its way off topic :whistle:

Warning: Spoiler!

Remember it's a multi-role replacing a multi-role mostly. The outgoing F16 and F18's were designed from the go as multi-role. Specialization is nice but way way more expensive. If you think one multirole program is expensive then consider 3 or 4 different programs. Which begs the question is the cost issue driving down the capability... ie is the jet losing capability by not being specialized. Sure, to some extent, but not enough to matter or justify the cost. There are still other different specialized types like the pure fighter F22 and the strategic strike types.

If you want to know why they went this route 40 years ago. its probably the air battlespace changes based on the tech being developed, and fighter jet programs take a decade or so from decision to mission and then remain useful for a few decades.... so the current outgoing designs were based on the 70's and 80's environment and expectations.

But basically..... in the end of the 20th century it was realized that manned platforms were being outmatched by weapons. The way to view these things is to see the aircraft as a delivery platform - it used to be just to put a machine gun up the tail of another! But then became all about putting a short range missile up their exhaust pipe, and then became to be in the best energy position to give your longer ranged missile the best reach to hit them before they could hit you.
In other words... initially a bullet only went a few hundred yards in a straight ballistic line - simple. Then the short range missile came alone and could go a mile or 2 and turn with any aircraft.
And then the medium ranged ones started to reach out to 10nm and could outturn any aircraft! It was still dangerous but the nature of the effort and risk were changing.
You see the trend is that weapons were starting to out perform the delivery platforms. That was where they were when they designed the current outgoing aircraft. The same thing but even more now with the new jets coming online. That is a simple air-air example, but the trend is the same in all areas of air warfare.

For example in the 80's things changed dramatically for strike aircraft as well;
1. proliferation of integrated air defenses made the SEAD ops ineffective, and so denied mid and high altitude access to enemy airspace (and required SEAD to change).
2. 'look down shoot down' radars on fighters made low level penetration of enemy airspace too dangerous for manned strike platforms.
3. airborne early warning aircraft added another element of control to ones own airspace.

The US were able to address those things like stealth and cruise missiles through the 80's into the 90's and beyond.

TLDR:
But the key point here is that aircraft are now becoming delivery platforms more then ever. For a missile can outrun and outturn any manned jet. A guided glide bomb can be launched in numbers, maneuver through defenses. Of course not to mention weapons are expendable being unmanned and cheaper to make. The weapons are doing the work and aircraft can carry various different weapons which do various different things ie multirole.

What now is more important in aircraft design is the survivability and connectivity. There is still an argument for some types of specialization, if it can be afforded - but air warfare does not happen in isolation, it is part of a ground or maritime battlespace, and so the measure of a platforms activity in these things is determined by the phases these battlespaces go through, and the specialized platforms are called as such because they have specialist roles which are required for shorter periods of time and in smaller numbers to shape the battlespace such that the other domains of warfare (which are longer duration actions) can be supported etc - which is the job of the more adaptable and numerous multi-role. People in the know make these decision based on the actual needs. There is no real argument against the F35 except for the ones which happen to every new fighter jet program... and its greatest risk will be the security to its systems and networks - but that goes for all systems these days.

I just wonder if they will go ahead with plans to make a future version of the F35B which replaces the lift engine with a generator running a directed energy weapon ie laser :S

You note that it's meant to excel over the F16 and 18's, my beef with it is that it's meant to also replace the A-10 warthog in close air support. 1 You can't just lob a missile to do the job when there's troops not 10 yards from the target, you need a slower aircraft to get and keep your cross hairs on target. 2 Due to it's fighter plane platform it's meant to go in then get out, it's not meant to stay in the air for longer then 2 hours waiting for a call to assist. And 3, I don't know what the F35's survivability is, but the A-10 could lose one of every thing minus the fuselage yet still land safely.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Adder
Offline
Master
7 minds, 5 trials and 3 pillars.

15 Mar 2019 22:41 - 15 Mar 2019 23:00 #335713 by Adder

Replied by Adder on topic US Universal Healthcare

They were just examples. It''s the same for close air support. Why would you do something down low when you can do it more safely up higher.

The A10 was not designed for close air support as its primary role, rather battlefield air interdiction against Soviet armored columns at low levels. In the absence of that is also is a great platform for close air support - but less so in high intensity conflict and future war. Low level is getting too dangerous for manned platforms, and weapons and sensors are good enough now that it is not needed. Close air support is something which is not designed into a ground mission if it can be avoided... things like indirect fire support are much more preferred. And close air support is a really expensive way to get a round on a target! What CAS is meant to be is a capability which is on call when required, so the F35 can be planned to be on station if no other more suitable asset - for if suitability is sensors and weapons, it can be AC130 or even B52's which have longer loiter times. It''s just now that it can be delivered from mid and hi levels because the sensors and weapons (and over all employment) have matured enough. Ya gotta consider the future changes as well, things like directed energy weapons will come online in the near future, which will make low level a no-go zone for manned platforms. Not to mention cheap drones can take down a helicopter these days easily enough.

Anyway, its smart spending which enables funds to go to other areas of the economy.... but it depends on where the priorities are within each area, and a governments commitment to balancing those areas. These decisions are all then made with some measure of effort to predict what will be needed over the next 30-50 years - and things change fast, just not evenly across all areas which can create the sensation of things being stagnant.

Last edit: 15 Mar 2019 23:00 by Adder.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

16 Mar 2019 01:40 #335726 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Adder wrote: Anyway, its smart spending which enables funds to go to other areas of the economy.... but it depends on where the priorities are within each area, and a governments commitment to balancing those areas. These decisions are all then made with some measure of effort to predict what will be needed over the next 30-50 years - and things change fast, just not evenly across all areas which can create the sensation of things being stagnant.

And on that last bit I can agree with you. Now let us go forth in peace and with hope that congress starts working on plans that should have been implemented two decades ago, first and fore most, the green new deal.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

16 Mar 2019 07:22 #335742 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: Now let us go forth in peace and with hope that congress starts working on plans that should have been implemented two decades ago, first and fore most, the green new deal.

Peacefully is not the way any of this idiotic deal will be implemented.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

OB1Shinobi
Offline
Banned

22 Mar 2019 12:12 - 22 Mar 2019 12:16 #336105 by OB1Shinobi

Replied by OB1Shinobi on topic US Universal Healthcare

I know y’all like to make fun of AOC. Thats cool but i dont care what you say, i like her. She said something really awesome in her SXSW interview which i cant directly quote because im lazy but it went something like this: Keneddy decided to get us to the moon in ten years and no one had any idea how we were going to achieve it. If we’d have waited until we had all the answers we might still be un-moonless. We made the decidion to do it, then we figured out how. UHC isnt newrlt as mysterious: millions and trillions and billions of other countries have universal health care and we could do it too, if we stop bickering over whether or not its possible and just decid that we want to do it.

Billions and trillions of other countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_healthcare#Europe
I mean “billions and trillions” in like, a figurative way

People are complicated.

Last edit: 22 Mar 2019 12:16 by OB1Shinobi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 14:27 #336110 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

OB1Shinobi wrote: I know y’all like to make fun of AOC. Thats cool but i dont care what you say, i like her. She said something really awesome in her SXSW interview which i cant directly quote because im lazy but it went something like this: Keneddy decided to get us to the moon in ten years and no one had any idea how we were going to achieve it. If we’d have waited until we had all the answers we might still be un-moonless. We made the decidion to do it, then we figured out how. UHC isnt newrlt as mysterious: millions and trillions and billions of other countries have universal health care and we could do it too, if we stop bickering over whether or not its possible and just decid that we want to do it.

Billions and trillions of other countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_healthcare#Europe
I mean “billions and trillions” in like, a figurative way

LOL its not that we could not do it in ten years. Its that why would we want to implement any of her plans. All of them are impractical in the greatest degree.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 15:26 #336112 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

Are you some sort of expert on this?

...Are YOU?... T_T

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 15:41 #336114 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

This thread has become a discussion on both healthcare and U.S. military policy. While, as Naomi Klein as pointed out, the causes of many of America's current major challenges - poverty, health care, never-ending foreign entanglements, and the environment among them - are intertwined, I don't feel capable of effectively addressing both issues in a single post. My preference would be that the discussion on military policy gets moved someplace else, but setting that aside I'll focus just on health care here.

An excellent place to start is text from Kyrin's first post:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: ... There are 3 major factors in health care, only two of which can be priority at any time. Those factors are high quality, affordability, and universality. So the question becomes, which one of these three do you want to sacrifice to maximize the others?

Within a certain scope of economic resources and prudence in applying them, that's a fair statement. I doubt any of us could propose a means of providing the same quality of care that, say, a Rockefeller receives to everybody at a low cost. Compromises have to be made, no matter what healthcare system a nation adopts.

But it's also the case that when either our economic resources or our prudence fall sufficiently short, those tradeoffs are no longer relevant. A country sufficiently impoverished in terms of either funds or values can fail on all three counts, offering health care that is simultaneously poor in quality, unaffordable, and inaccessible. The evidence is that the U.S. is failing, compared to other developed nations, on all three counts. When we compare our own results to most of the nations of Europe, we spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care; most of our metrics regarding quality (e.g., infant mortality, average lifespan, etc.) are significantly poorer; and a smaller percentage of our citizens have ready access to healthcare than any of the other countries in this pool.

The system needs to be upended. I do not perceive that there is either an openly free-market health care system or a regulated market-based system anywhere on Earth that is working as well in any respect as the government-sponsored programs that every developed nation except the U.S. has. That is something to think about.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 15:42 #336115 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Stormcaller wrote:
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

Are you some sort of expert on this?

...Are YOU?... T_T

As a matter of fact yes. I served in the military for 10 years, I am a pilot and I have an astro-physics degree.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 15:56 #336116 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Stormcaller wrote:
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

Are you some sort of expert on this?

...Are YOU?... T_T

As a matter of fact yes. I served in the military for 10 years, I am a pilot and I have an astro-physics degree.

And I openly believe you would answer this way regardless of the conversation and context; I don't believe you, and I think you're propaganda fueled opinions aren't interchangeable with the reality of the outside world you happily slap down because they don't align with the view from inside the American Bubble.

Short version: I think you're full of shit, and I wish you'd stop coming into this place just to snub nose people who don't agree with you OR have the nerve to tell you YOU ARE WRONG.

And that's all I have to say.

Good day.

(let's change my name to hypocrisy, while we're at it; head off your next excuse for an argument)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 16:12 #336117 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Its ok, I will be your Villain. I hope it makes you feel better.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 17:27 - 22 Mar 2019 17:28 #336118 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Sigh - one more example of what happens when the focus of a discussion turns from its original subject to someone designated as "you".

I'm wondering if Godwin's Law is about to gather more substantiation: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

I believe you're a strong soul, Kyrin, but I'm still sorry the conversation devolved this way.

Last edit: 22 Mar 2019 17:28 by . Reason: I originally misspelled Kyrin's name.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Manu
Topic Author
Offline
Banned
Nosce te ipsum

22 Mar 2019 18:04 #336120 by Manu

Replied by Manu on topic US Universal Healthcare

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again, your problem, Kyrin, is delivery.

When you say:

LOL its not that we could not do it in ten years. Its that why would we want to implement any of her plans. All of them are impractical in the greatest degree.

It just comes off as dismissive. It immediately triggers most readers into getting defensive, and thus the blanket statements and quick judgments follow.

If that was your intent, then bravo, I guess.

Anyway, I don't expect you to change. But I would follow up your statement with the question:

Why are AOC's plans impractical in the greatest degree?

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 18:28 #336122 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Impractical is not a dismissive term I would say. To answer your question as to why, high speed rails work well in small countries with dense populations. The usa is not that. Ending air travel is never going to happen. Its by far the cheapest and safest and fastest form of travel available. The restructuring of every building will take more money than the wealth of the entire us population. And people will never stop eating meat.

My delivery may seem harsh at times but at least it is consistent. I find it so entertaining that those that are so quick to reprimand me all the time seem to be silent about storms comments. Ideas not people, right?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Manu
Topic Author
Offline
Banned
Nosce te ipsum

22 Mar 2019 18:39 #336123 by Manu

Replied by Manu on topic US Universal Healthcare

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Impractical is not a dismissive term I would say. To answer your question as to why, high speed rails work well in small countries with dense populations. The usa is not that. Ending air travel is never going to happen. Its by far the cheapest and safest and fastest form of travel available. The restructuring of every building will take more money than the wealth of the entire us population. And people will never stop eating meat.

It might be cool to start a new thread discussing indepth some of the proposals in the Green New Deal. Might be a learning experience for all.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: My delivery may seem harsh at times but at least it is consistent. I find it so entertaining that those that are so quick to reprimand me all the time seem to be silent about storms comments. Ideas not people, right?

You know me better than to think I am reprimanding you. I am fond of you, thus you get my attention. I don't really know Storm, he/she is evidently upset, but why he/she would think the emotional response would help is beyond me.

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward

The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 18:54 #336124 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Of course Manu, I'm not referring to you but those that never claim they are out to start a fight with me but then single my comments out for criticism but ignore storms.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

User

22 Mar 2019 19:42 #336127 by

Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

I may not have been clear. In this particular case, it was Storm's latest previous response that caused me dismay, not yours, Kyrin. I apologize if I conveyed a different message.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: Morkano, WrenPhoenix, The Coyote, Rini, Tavi, Khwang

US Universal Healthcare

Totjo Login

Online Jedi