ORIGINAL: mind_messing
If by "controlling the discussion" you mean "trying to steer us away from politics," I've certainly done that. But the discussion in here has been robust, with very few "steerings" needed.
While a commendable exercise, it is worth highlighting that you have not been appointed a moderator on the forum. Unsure then why you feel the need to act as one, when they have demonstrated that they can and do involve themselves where needed.
The moderator has been absent when many of the most offensive political comments and posts have been made.
I don't ignore your post, but I don't like diverting the thread with lengthy chains of two parties posting "you said this" and "I said this" repeatedly. Already, that's what's happening here. Create another thread if you wish to go off on tangents. I've said that before. If that's controlling, so be it.
The need for excessive quoting is driven by your consistent attempts to misrepresent, distort and dismiss points that I have raised. If you were to cease with rhetoric and address the actual points raised then it would not be required and a more fluid discussion could emerge.
You have consistently misrepresented points that I have raised.
Our previous discussions have not gone well (Climate Change and some of the things in here), leading me to not want to get into lengthy discussions on tangential issues in here.
Our previous discussions have not gone well precisely because of the behaviour on your part I have outlined previously.
Our previous discussions have not gone well precisely because of your behavior, as described here.
I disagreed with your comments about the poor in the US not having access to healthcare.
That has been noted.
I pointed out the reasons for my thoughts.
Which were supported only by anecdotal evidence.
How things have played out, at least to this point, have supported my views. There has been no evidence that the poor have been denied healthcare, at least to any statistically relevant extent.
I provided a range evidence from the U.S Census, CDC and NCBI that demonstrated that this was not the case.
Given that it was quite some time ago, happy to repost to refresh the discussion:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... sured.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/access ... h-care.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6125037/
I would like to correct you on a point of language on discussion to healthcare. Denying is not quite the correct terminology from my reading on the subject; a more accurate term should be something like structural barriers to accessing healthcare.
As I pointed out, as others pointed out, and as circumstances have borne out, the poor haven't been denied healthcare or had structural barriers in accessing healthcare. Anyone who shows up at an emergency room is treated. Everybody (with of course minimal exceptions) knows it. There are times when somebody can't get to an emergency room because they don't have a car or they are so sick they can't drive, or because they might have legal problems so that they're afraid to go, but nobody is denied basic healthcare because they can't pay.
Truly, I think we ought to take this elsewhere. Or, I can be excused, if there's a pressing need to engage in political discussion or contretemps in here.
You keep reiterating that this discussion is supposedly political.
The above posted links are all firmly focused on technical and statistical matters related to healthcare. The only manner in which this discussion could turn political is if you make it so. I am more than content with sticking strictly to a technical, statistical and structural discussion on the topic.
Good. We can drop this back and forth then?
; Julia Child
