As the joke goes, "how did God create the universe in 7 days? No installed base"

In the 2020 debate, Joe Biden said he would veto Medicare for all*. Just this week, Hakeem Jeffries said he did not support Medicare for all and wouldn't vote for it. You already mentioned Joe Lieberman

None of what I just said implies "it's not partisan" nor does it imply "both sides are the same" -- multiple things can be true at the same time

It sure does, however, reinforce the original, plain statement: "The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a 'votable' decision."

*By April 8, 2020, Biden was the "presumptive Democratic nominee" -- at that time, 22 states still hadn't yet held their primary elections. As such, for those 22 states it was quite literally not a votable decision

That is a discussion of specific subtypes of melanoma. You've turned that into a general statement about melanoma:

> not all skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, and this is more true for Melenoma which occur both more frequently in darker skinned people and in place where there is little sun exposure.

These are "Two rare ... forms of melanoma" not "melanoma as a whole." The article does not say melanoma as a whole is more frequent in darker-skinned people and in places with little sun exposure. Those two subtypes are.

Let's also quote from https://wasatchdermatology.com/blogs/basal-cell-vs-squamous-...

> BCC ... can cause significant local tissue damage if left untreated. Most cases are linked to chronic sun exposure, especially in fair-skinned individuals.

> While it often remains localized at first, SCC can invade deeper tissues and, in some cases, metastasize to lymph nodes or other organs. Risk factors include cumulative sun exposure, a history of sunburns, and immunosuppression.

> While not all skin cancers can be prevented, effective sun protection and healthy habits can greatly reduce your risk for basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma.

That does not support "most skin cancers are not a big deal"

> Melanomas can vanish on their own

Your link does not support that statement https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-021-00870-2

"Whilst some studies reported an association with improved survival ... others did not find any significant association, and some even reported worse outcomes in patients whose tumors showed regression"

You seem to have read this as "melanoma just goes away and the problem is gone" rather than "the primary tumor can recede, and in that case survival odds are somewhat better by a few percentage points (but actually worse for Stage III patients!)"

Edit: and even now you still put words in my mouth with your edit (so that's every message in this thread that does so). Best of luck to you

> Most skin cancers are not a big deal, and even Melanomas can vanish on their own

PSA: don't take medical advice from internet comments

> "I already have universal healthcare here in Canada"

I don't think I'm the one misreading the discussion as it is.

If you take a deep breath and re-read, maybe you'll understand the point I've been trying to make is you're jumping down people's throats that aren't disagreeing with you, which at best does your own arguments a disservice. To put words in someone's mouth and say this is the fault of 'people like you' is out of line.

Have a good one

Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort

I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you

What contribution does this add to your point? It comes off as a put-down

That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare nor even a public option.

Nothing about that says anything about who voted for whom, where anyone even lives for that matter, or anything about political parties.

To say this is the fault of "people like you" is out of line.

If you and I are in a phone call (the target of the phone call located in a one-party consent jurisdiction), I can record it or you can record it without telling the other: that's one-party consent, because one of the parties of the call consents to it

At first glance that may sound pointless, but it means a third party outside the call (e.g. phone company) could not record it without one of us consenting

By notifying that the call is being recorded, that now can create two-party consent because you are still on the line (and thus implicitly agree to the recording, but as you and GGP point out that's not always considered consent enough) -- one-party consent would have been if the company on the other side of the line simply recorded the call without telling you

Only as long as you're too big to fail...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49331481

"On the virtues of the trailing comma" https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20240209-00/?p=10...

So with the "elapsed time" out of the way (now over an hour, incidentally), how about "how long will it be down?"