As Andy L says, put a phrase that you want google to find in quotation marks AND put a minus sign/hyphen in front of a word you want google to skip. The search above would be:
Watching Ted Cruz extol Ronald Reagan is like watching a village elder talk about the Prophet Mohammed.
I’ll take your word for that. But why would you watch it in the first place?
I’m not one to give a Republican Representative too much benefit of the doubt, but I’ve heard friends who work in ER bemoan the people with trivial problems who clog their waiting rooms and divert medical professionals from critical cases. Now back to the continuing rant!
That’s because the Republicans are taking away the health care that would allow them to go to regular doctors instead of being forced to go to the ER. If they didn’t have ERs, they would have no care at all.
I only caught ten minutes, and was curious to see how Sanders would fare, but it wasn’t worth it.
Actually, when I look back at the quote, “eight-grade” is of lesser concern than her actual misstatement. She wrote, “CO2 is … the catalyst for photosynthesis, the most vital energy conversion in our biosphere.” That is a genuinely ignorant misuse of fancy-ass lingo. I would prefer that people who are to make important decisions not be pretending to understand stuff that they clearly are not understanding.
I certainly agree with your sentiment! (Although, withstanding that CO2 is not a ‘catalyst’, photosynthesis is the most vital energy conversion in our biosphere; isn’t it?)
I was just curious about ‘eight-grade’ and got irritated by Google’s presumption.
I think my main complaint was that the hyphen was ignored: ‘eight-grade’ was treated as ‘eight grade.’ Note that your example has the hyphen only in the URL, where space would be troublesome. (I did get the hit with Books, though.)
It’s not that simple. The Republicans are indeed trying to take health coverage away from 30-odd million people. And my ER friends, true liberals that they are, rail against them. But the problem they see predates the ACA. The complaint goes toward people who do not bother with routine or preventative health care and who have no established relationship with a physician or other health care provider. And they use the ER not for emergency care, but for ailments that could and should be handled by primary care practitioners. They bring all the coughing, sneezing kids, no appointment needed day or night, take up ER doctors’ time, get pronounced “not life threatening”, and get sent home with pockets full of prescriptions. Often either not charged or with an uncollectible bill. These aren’t women in labor or critical cardiac arrhythmias being turned away without care. These are simple, common conditions for which other care options are more appropriate.
Most of us do remember eighth-grade science. Most of us also passed the eighth grade and moved onto ninth-grade, tenth-grade, and even university-level science. Which is apparently not the case with this person.
IIRC people are actually more likely to use the ER if they have insurance.
I’m not sure how she would get science’y stuff wrong seeing as she has degrees in East Asian studies and comparative literature. :smack:
And unaffordable.
Wouldn’t it be neat to have a system where average Americans could have affordable care and not need to abuse emergency rooms? Congress could pass a law and, I dunno, call it something like the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” ?
Of course that would be impossible if the GOP ever got 51 Senators or the White House.
I suppose the one Trump ass-licker who did take high school science is now the Undersecretary of State for East Asia. :smack:
Of course. And I’m 100% in favor of that. Or even ‘universal health care’ paid for out of general tax revenue. But that wasn’t the topic.
This goes back to a Republican Representative stating that emergency rooms should be able to turn patients away, which received instant condemnation. But then Really Not All That Bright said:
And I offered one of those arguments from the other side.
The position that emergency rooms should be able to refuse anybody for any reason they choose is indefensible. History demonstrates the human suffering that results from such a system.
But the idea that many ailments do not require the services of a full blown emergency room, and bringing them there is unnecessarily expensive as well as possibly dangerous to other patients, isn’t crazy at all.
Sadly, finding a way to serve everyone who may have a relatively minor problem but lacks the financial wherewithal to pay for treatment (or pay for insurance to pay for treatment) is another problem entirely. One that I and my ER friends would solve with universal health care funded out of general tax revenue.
Former MTV veejay Kennedy on Fox News: “We are addicted to Obamacare. Obamacare is heroin, the subsidies are methadone.”
Yeah, who would ever have thought that people get sick and die without healthcare.
Not too mention how tortured grandma’s 1-foot platforms are. That’s the real problem. WTH is she talking about? I couldn’t quite parse the analogy.
House Republicans are considering a sharp cut in 401(k) contribution limits and other changes.
New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html and Market Watch There’s talk of capping 401(k) contributions at $2,400 per year - MarketWatch talk about capping the contribution at something like $2,400 a year instead of 18,000 + 6,000 for those over age 50
Politico: Politico Trump’s team and lawmakers making strides on tax reform plan - POLITICO The article talks about taxing the contributions up-front instead of when you start withdrawing the money down the road.
The first proposal is pretty awful. Many businesses have already cut pensions and steered employees to 401(k)s. Now Congressional Republicans are thinking about cutting 401(k) contributions way down to help pay for their tax plan. How do they expect Americans to save for their retirement? 401(k)s (and the Thrift Savings Plan for Government employees like myself) make it easier for people to save for retirement (including the employer matching) and more likely that they will. Otherwise, they will have to do it on their own and many won’t, and many will probably be too confused as to what options there are. Mutual funds or index funds at places like Vanguard may be a good alternative perhaps, but why kill a system that’s currently working?
What in the world makes you think the GOP thinks that anything that takes money away from the possibility of being in their hands constitutes a “system that’s working”? It clearly isn’t working, from their point of view.
This.
Who the fuck cares? If they were too stupid not to be born rich then that’s their problem and they can’t expect the government to **interfere **in the rugged individualism that Made This Country Great. Helping make things better for ordinary citizens is NOT in the plan. You’ve probably noticed that by now.