John McCain Diagnosed With Brain Cancer

[Minoosh]

Health care repeat and replace. He was not listed to the list of senator which refused to vote for it. Am I wrong ?

Maybe I'm being sentimental, but I hoped he was building up to a no vote.

From what I've seen of governing bodies: Certain people are more or less allowed to vote against a bill if they have a good excuse - as long as the vote does not actually fail. So the ones who came out against McConnell were sufficient while the rest could claim party loyalty (and avoid punishment).

Just a theory.

I'll always admire McCain for putting comprehensive immigration reform above his own chance to win the presidency.

 

[Oystein]

Okay, I was wondering if you had a Damascus road incident.

What happened with you? Did you forget your signature "LOL"?

 

[Oystein]

Getting back to John McCain:

I certainly disagree with some of his political positions, but he as always struck me as a man with a heart and consistent, ethical attitudes. We can differ on relative measures of priorities and values, but at least he does have priorities and values.

I was very happy with the outcome of the 2008 presidential primaries: I liked Obama and wanted him to win, but I felt that, if he loses, at least we'd get a decent Republican as US President - would definitely have been an improvement on Bush the Younger. America had a choice between two good candidates. 2016 was the exact opposite - a choice between the plague and cholera.

I am sad to know he'll be gone soon.

 

[Minoosh]

Certain people are more or less allowed to vote against a bill if they have a good excuse - as long as the vote does not actually fail.

Conversely, if the votes aren't there, leadership can claim there are just a few holdouts. It looks a little better than a huge rift in the GOP. Though that could still happen.

 

[Aepervius]

Well, like I said: It was largely payed for by the insurance.
With private health insurance in Germany, you usually get the bill, pay for it out of your pocket, then get reimbursed by the insurance.

Private health insurance CAN provide higher coverage than public insurance but are not allowed to provide lower coverage. So while you get a itemized bill having numbers , the person and have to advance the money theoretically, usually for chronical illness there are arrangement you can take to make sure you do not get to be without money for long especially if it goes to triple zero sum and above.

The german governement capped private insurance to something like 4000 or 5000 euro per years, so the maximum you are out of pocket even with deductible, AND you can remove part of what you pay from your lohnsteurer.

That's how you know what the drugs actually cost, even if you end up paying only a token. With drugs this expensive, of course you are wise to strike a deal. In our case, the pharmacy agreed to wait a couple of weeks longer for payment of the chemotherapy, and the insurance agreed to reimburse a couple of weeks sooner, such that reimbursment came in sooner than bill was payed. Since this was a monthly routine, it worked out nicely.

This is what I was speaking of and is a routine arrangement. ETA and as a public insured when I had MRI or hospitalization I had not to advance a cent - total cost came to a thousand over 3 months. It is a property of the private insurance only to have to advance that much money.

In the case of the Proton Therapy, that was a more difficult case, and her family actually payed some 20,000 Euros out of private funds, and then it took a while until the insurer reimbursed. But they only reimbursed the medical costs themselves - diagnostocs, radiation, drugs -, not the guest house and also not the rental car and gas to travel to Munich. In all honesty, that was both a bit of luxury, which I payed.

Housing and transportation is usually at the cost of the person, so no surprise here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Getting back to John McCain:

I certainly disagree with some of his political positions, but he as always struck me as a man with a heart and consistent, ethical attitudes. We can differ on relative measures of priorities and values, but at least he does have priorities and values.

If only his actions matched his words.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am always fascinated by the castigation of voting with party. The saying is there is no I in team.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am always fascinated by the castigation of voting with party. The saying is there is no I in team.

Then he shouldn't pretend he is some maverick who does what he wants, but is a total party loyalist who just talks about having independence while not meaning any of it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then he shouldn't pretend he is some maverick who does what he wants, but is a total party loyalist who just talks about having independence while not meaning any of it.

I didn't mention McCain in my post. I can't speak to if he called himself or not. The castigation is often directed at people who make no claims to independence.

 

[Giordano]

I didn't mention McCain in my post. I can't speak to if he called himself or not. The castigation is often directed at people who make no claims to independence.

You might chec,k out the title of the OP if your comment was specifically intended to not apply to McCain.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You might chec,k out the title of the OP if your comment was specifically intended to not apply to McCain.

It isn't his hypocrisy specifically that fuels all the complaints. If a basketball play declared himself the best ball hog in the league but was actually the greatest team ball player ever, there wouldn't be a ton of complaining about hypocrisy. If the most sinless man called himself a sinner no one would bat in eye.

 

[The Don]

I didn't mention McCain in my post. I can't speak to if he called himself or not. The castigation is often directed at people who make no claims to independence.

I guess that one would need to look at each circumstance. For example, I could understand criticism for someone under one or more of the following circumstances:

• Where voting in line with the party runs counter to the interests of the majority of their constituents
• Where voting in line with the party runs counter to long-held and clearly expressed personal beliefs
• Where voting in line with the party runs counter to one or more major policies on which they successfully campaigned
• Where voting in line with the party specifically breaks one or more promises they have made

Of course no-one is entitled to an explanation but if the decision to vote in line with the party also comes without any explanation - or where the explanation is entirely self-serving - then that makes criticism even more justified IMO

In the case of John McCain, several of the points above could apply.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I guess that one would need to look at each circumstance. For example, I could understand criticism for someone under one or more of the following circumstances:

• Where voting in line with the party runs counter to the interests of the majority of their constituents
• Where voting in line with the party runs counter to long-held and clearly expressed personal beliefs
• Where voting in line with the party runs counter to one or more major policies on which they successfully campaigned
• Where voting in line with the party specifically breaks one or more promises they have made

Of course no-one is entitled to an explanation but if the decision to vote in line with the party also comes without any explanation - or where the explanation is entirely self-serving - then that makes criticism even more justified IMO

In the case of John McCain, several of the points above could apply.

But those last three all seem to fall under things you have to compromise on to help the team. We don't say "no I in team" because your individual interests are in alignment with them.

 

[The Don]

It isn't his hypocrisy specifically that fuels all the complaints. If a basketball play declared himself the best ball hog in the league but was actually the greatest team ball player ever, there wouldn't be a ton of complaining about hypocrisy. If the most sinless man called himself a sinner no one would bat in eye.

It depends on what he was signed for. If he was signed as a scoring machine who would shoot, successfully, on sight then I could understand criticism if instead he distributed the ball to team-mates who were less good at scoring.

For example in football (soccer) many strikers are intensely selfish ball-hogs which is why they're so successful. You can often tell when a striker has lost confidence, instead of selfishly shooting at every opportunity, he starts to lay off the ball to team-mates.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It depends on what he was signed for. If he was signed as a scoring machine who would shoot, successfully, on sight then I could understand criticism if instead he distributed the ball to team-mates who were less good at scoring.

For example in football (soccer) many strikers are intensely selfish ball-hogs which is why they're so successful. You can often tell when a striker has lost confidence, instead of selfishly shooting at every opportunity, he starts to lay off the ball to team-mates.

I debated whether to include "....and wins championships"

 

[The Don]

But those last three all seem to fall under things you have to compromise on to help the team. We don't say "no I in team" because your individual interests are in alignment with them.

Again, it all depends.

If you stood on a platform of "I will never support gay marriage", if you have been a long-time anti-gay marriage activist, if you explicitly and repeatedly promised constituents that you would always oppose any bill supporting gay marriage and you have repeatedly criticised your party's pro-gay marriage position then I think it's reasonable for those who voted for you to get a bit miffed if you suddenly, and without explanation toe the party line and vote to support gay marriage.

If it subsequently turned out that the reason you made that decision because you wanted a plumb committee position which would enable you to personally enrich yourself as a lobbyist after you retire from politics then I think that your constituents are justified in criticising you.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Again, it all depends.

If you stood on a platform of "I will never support gay marriage", if you have been a long-time anti-gay marriage activist, if you explicitly and repeatedly promised constituents that you would always oppose any bill supporting gay marriage and you have repeatedly criticised your party's pro-gay marriage position then I think it's reasonable for those who voted for you to get a bit miffed if you suddenly, and without explanation toe the party line and vote to support gay marriage.

If it subsequently turned out that the reason you made that decision because you wanted a plumb committee position which would enable you to personally enrich yourself as a lobbyist after you retire from politics then I think that your constituents are justified in criticising you.

Suppose the reason was to more broadly advance the party agenda. Why would constituents be miffed? I'm assuming a plurality of your voters are also of the same party. Why is it miffed and not cheers for good team role player.

 

[The Don]

Suppose the reason was to more broadly advance the party agenda. Why would constituents be miffed? I'm assuming a plurality of your voters are also of the same party.

That case would have to be made, which is why I've repeatedly stated that the decision is made without explanation. In John McCain's case he repeatedly makes dissenting noises but then votes in line with party policy without providing any explanation.

Why is it miffed and not cheers for good team role player.

This assumes that people are in favour of the entire party platform - I don't think that is a safe assumption. For some people, a candidate's stance on a single policy, or a small range of policies - whether it's abortion, gun control/rights or the role of the ten commandments in U.S. law are enough to make their decision. A sudden change of direction in order to be a good team player could invalidate their choice.

 

[Giordano]

That case would have to be made, which is why I've repeatedly stated that the decision is made without explanation. In John McCain's case he repeatedly makes dissenting noises but then votes in line with party policy without providing any explanation.



This assumes that people are in favour of the entire party platform - I don't think that is a safe assumption. For some people, a candidate's stance on a single policy, or a small range of policies - whether it's abortion, gun control/rights or the role of the ten commandments in U.S. law are enough to make their decision. A sudden change of direction in order to be a good team player could invalidate their choice.

^^ Exactly! McCann received good press, and a lot of political support, because of his reputation of not knuckling under to a mindless unified Republican agenda but instead deciding on issues as an thoughtful and moral individual. This is how it should be; Senators who let go of their own intelligence and consciences to become "team players" actually become "lackeys" instead.

Unfortunately McCann too often speaks like an independent mind but then votes as a lackey.

 

[BobTheCoward]

^^ Exactly! McCann received good press, and a lot of political support, because of his reputation of not knuckling under to a mindless unified Republican agenda but instead deciding on issues as an thoughtful and moral individual. This is how it should be; Senators who let go of their own intelligence and consciences to become "team players" actually become "lackeys" instead.

Unfortunately McCann too often speaks like an independent mind but then votes as a lackey.

How do you determine the difference between team player and lackey?