Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
71. This whole subthread is based on semantic nitpicking
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 04:45 PM
Sep 2017

You know what was meant by the original comment.

Matthew 6:5

Are these alternative facts? BigmanPigman Sep 2017 #1
The Urban Institute is a liberal think tank... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #2
The Urban Institute is funded by health insurance and pharma interests. QC Sep 2017 #4
Still shooting? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #6
The president is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution? beam me up scottie Sep 2017 #8
Show me the "liberal" analysis... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #9
It's in the article, didn't you read it? beam me up scottie Sep 2017 #11
The opinion of some HuffPo bloggers? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #12
Urban Inst. funded by Cigna & Pfizer CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #15
Cigna and Pfizer? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #20
+++ sheshe2 Sep 2017 #25
Sourcewatch CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #43
That's a barely edited copy of the UI wikipedia page. ehrnst Sep 2017 #103
No they're not. They get less than 2% of their revenue from corporations. George II Sep 2017 #40
Sourcewatch CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #42
That says "industry funders are Cigna and Pfizer", it doesn't say how much. Plus... George II Sep 2017 #46
A copy and paste of the Urban Institute WIKIPEDIA page? ehrnst Sep 2017 #76
At least yours is reasonably current, not six years old, and has no mention of Cigna or Pfizer... George II Sep 2017 #87
Because Sourcewatch, which calls copy/paste from Wikipedia "research" says so? ehrnst Sep 2017 #101
Well done. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #27
Amazing Lordquinton Sep 2017 #60
Wait so SourceWatch thinks Keynesian economics is conservative? mythology Sep 2017 #21
Thank you! yallerdawg Sep 2017 #23
+++ sheshe2 Sep 2017 #31
Sarah Rosen Wartell is the President of the Urban Institute. George II Sep 2017 #35
Wait...Keynsian ecomomics is now a hall-mark of "the conservative wing of the Democratic party?" Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #61
Sounds hardright conservative to me. ananda Sep 2017 #14
Most recent revenue report (2015) yallerdawg Sep 2017 #18
How did you do that? I typed out the breakdown of their funding below (sans last two, got tired!!!) George II Sep 2017 #36
I tell you what. ananda Sep 2017 #117
If the information being provided is inaccurate, it would sound that way. But... George II Sep 2017 #59
With 1.4% of funding from corporate sources? Hardly. n/t pnwmom Sep 2017 #69
Actually it's a left leaning research org, as indicated by their partnerships ehrnst Sep 2017 #109
Here's a breakdown of their revenue: George II Sep 2017 #34
Much more recent, but I guess that 1.4% is enough to make it impure. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #57
Not really. It completely depends on the project. Look at NPR. ehrnst Sep 2017 #111
But if a corporation touches anything, it becomes impure! Unless it has been blessed of course Ninsianna Sep 2017 #113
Of course. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #114
Well, not really. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #56
Your link provides no evidence of significant funding. No dollar amounts, and no corporate donors pnwmom Sep 2017 #68
Again with the misrepresentation of the numbers to kill the messenger.... ehrnst Sep 2017 #75
A copy and paste of the Urban Institute WIKIPEDIA page? ehrnst Sep 2017 #77
Damn, that's liberal??? workinclasszero Sep 2017 #110
No, that's misinformation ehrnst Sep 2017 #115
DURec leftstreet Sep 2017 #3
18 trillion is probably low Progressive dog Sep 2017 #5
+++++++++++++ JHan Sep 2017 #10
It doesn't sound like Himmelstein is just picking numbers to fit his preference. dgauss Sep 2017 #13
Sure they would and the people put out Progressive dog Sep 2017 #17
People are freaking out about our national debt... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #22
So the ACA caused Reagan and Bush to win? guillaumeb Sep 2017 #29
Where do you get "Reagan and Bush" from this? yallerdawg Sep 2017 #33
You said: What flipped the US to Republican? The Affordable Care Act!!! guillaumeb Sep 2017 #38
Trying very hard to make a faulty strawman into a brilliant reposte... ehrnst Sep 2017 #80
Too many democrats vote only in Presidential elections. n/t whathehell Sep 2017 #54
I don't see any mention of Reagan or Bush there, do you? George II Sep 2017 #37
Please see reply #38. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #39
But that's a post from you. And... George II Sep 2017 #44
The ACA is a renamed "Romney care" that the GOP called Obamacare to play to the racism guillaumeb Sep 2017 #45
No, the ACA is the ACA, nicknamed "Obamacare". Has nothing to do with Romneycare except... George II Sep 2017 #47
The differences are that the ACA is Federal, the other is state. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #48
Most countries do it with multi-payer system, some of which use private insurance companies to ehrnst Sep 2017 #97
...to be fair, Romney got it from the Heritage Foundation. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #50
In other countries Lordquinton Sep 2017 #64
Obama also said that it would not be wise to go directly to Single Payer from our current system ehrnst Sep 2017 #98
He did. He also pushed for a public option, which a couple Senators killed. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #102
I guess that he didn't actually think it was the "only moral, fiscal" solution. ehrnst Sep 2017 #104
you didn't answer. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #105
This is what happened. ehrnst Sep 2017 #106
Like going down a rabbit hole, isn't it? ehrnst Sep 2017 #81
it's a "rabbit hole" to point out that the ACA has its origins in a Heritage Foundation proposal? Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #89
My bad ehrnst Sep 2017 #99
So, the claim was that the ACA flipped us to republican Lordquinton Sep 2017 #63
Do you folks forget that between Reagan and Bush (not sure which, probably the first) were... George II Sep 2017 #65
What two democratic presidents were those? Lordquinton Sep 2017 #66
Between Reagan and Bush and today. I'm sure you knew that is what was meant. George II Sep 2017 #67
This whole subthread is based on semantic nitpicking Lordquinton Sep 2017 #71
I really don't. It connected the ACA with Presidents Reagan and Bush, which occurred almost.... George II Sep 2017 #72
No it didn't Lordquinton Sep 2017 #73
Logic isn't going to work here. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #82
I realized that yesterday and just gave up. It was like.... George II Sep 2017 #84
It's a way that people who feel a need to Mansplain ehrnst Sep 2017 #86
Those would be Republican people.. whathehell Sep 2017 #53
"entitlement programs we are already running in the red!" Lordquinton Sep 2017 #62
Sure, and it could be fiftytwenty majilliozillion! Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #41
A welcome dose of reality in an overheated debate. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #49
You don't think demand would go up? MichMan Sep 2017 #51
When people go see the doctor for checkups and get regular dental care Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #52
Someone who can't multiply 10 Progressive dog Sep 2017 #85
And someone who doesn't understand that when you pay for something with cash Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #88
I don't even get what you are talking about Progressive dog Sep 2017 #90
And a Single Payer System isn't going to magically create more health care spending. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #91
The math is easy, no one other than the proponents Progressive dog Sep 2017 #92
You're deliberately ignoring the point. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #93
You are missing the point, not me Progressive dog Sep 2017 #95
"People do worry about their health and they will use more care if it is free" Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #96
An easy truth Progressive dog Sep 2017 #112
Actually, the increase in the number of people using health care is a cost issue in implementation ehrnst Sep 2017 #108
I guess any dissent from that bill is "making up numbers." ehrnst Sep 2017 #107
K & R! beam me up scottie Sep 2017 #7
You mean I read a 5 author 30 page analysis ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #16
You should have just read a blog where people say stuff they don't back up. Ninsianna Sep 2017 #55
K&R nt Rob H. Sep 2017 #19
K&R nt LostOne4Ever Sep 2017 #24
They HATE unions! juxtaposed Sep 2017 #26
Post removed Post removed Sep 2017 #30
Who? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #79
Recommended. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #28
That was written over a year ago. Hoyt Sep 2017 #32
Yes, for the plan that Sanders submitted last year ehrnst Sep 2017 #78
Poorly written legislation forces speculation. Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #58
I want to know why Sanders chose to announce his single payer on the same day everyone knew pnwmom Sep 2017 #70
That's a strategy that Sanders has used before to draw focus. ehrnst Sep 2017 #83
OMG, a liberal think tank decided to take a closer look at the actual numbers. ehrnst Sep 2017 #74
The text of the actual bill that was introduced lapucelle Sep 2017 #94
Yes, this is the analysis of the 2016 plan. ehrnst Sep 2017 #100
Yes, money from Cigna talks. alarimer Sep 2017 #116
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Urban Institute's Att...»Reply #71