Page 22 of 30 FirstFirst ... 12181920212223242526 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 445

Thread: Democratic Debate

  1. #316 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    The Public Option gives private insurance companies competition.
    What is the competition?

    This is why I asked what a Public Option does differently from Aetna.

    There is no difference. They both do the exact same thing.

    My argument is that when the payor has a profit motive, there's no incentive for that payor to negotiate lower costs. So if you have two parties who are both mutually benefiting from higher costs, what's the incentive to lower them?


    Those who obtain great coverage from employers would never go into the Public Option.
    Health insurance and health care are two different things. "Great coverage" doesn't mean anything because you're still restricted to your provider network. So you have no choice for your health care. You have no frame of reference and no ability to shop around for a doctor who might be the best one for you. You are limited by your insurance coverage. It's not freedom.

    The only competition you are talking about is competition among payers for who reimburses your doctor, not competition for what doctor treats you best.

    And hundreds of thousands of people have insurance and go broke from medical costs anyway. So you're not solving anything.

    Also according to KFF, it costs the average business $15K to provide coverage to just one worker. And the worker is still paying $7,100 in premiums, deductibles, and other OOPE. All that goes away with M4A, and it saves everyone money, even the business.


    People like myself, who have been trapped in the individual market for 40 years, would jump at the chance to obtain quality insurance at a reasonable price.
    So, let's do some math...

    Right now, the median income in this country is $61,000.
    Right now, the average worker who gets coverage through their employer, pays $7,100, or 12% of their income.
    In M4A, that same worker would instead pay 4% of their income, or $2,440 if we use median income as the standard, and the business would pay 7.5% of its income. For almost every business, they will end up saving far, far more. Take Netflix for example:

    Netflix
    7,100 full-time workers
    $845M in profit in 2018
    Using KFF's metric, Netflix pays $106.5M to provide health care to all their workers.
    Using M4A's 7.5% rate, Netflix pays $63.4M to provide health care to all their workers.

    So M4A would save Netflix $43M.

    What can they do with that?

    Fund productions which create jobs (every show Netflix produces creates about 500 jobs, from production through distribution)
    Give all its 7,100 employees a $6K raise
    Acquire more content so people will subscribe to the service
    Expand (thereby creating jobs)
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. #317 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

  3. The Following User Groans At evince For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (10-19-2019)

  4. #318 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    What is the competition?

    This is why I asked what a Public Option does differently from Aetna.

    There is no difference. They both do the exact same thing.

    My argument is that when the payor has a profit motive, there's no incentive for that payor to negotiate lower costs. So if you have two parties who are both mutually benefiting from higher costs, what's the incentive to lower them?




    Health insurance and health care are two different things. "Great coverage" doesn't mean anything because you're still restricted to your provider network. So you have no choice for your health care. You have no frame of reference and no ability to shop around for a doctor who might be the best one for you. You are limited by your insurance coverage. It's not freedom.

    The only competition you are talking about is competition among payers for who reimburses your doctor, not competition for what doctor treats you best.

    And hundreds of thousands of people have insurance and go broke from medical costs anyway. So you're not solving anything.

    Also according to KFF, it costs the average business $15K to provide coverage to just one worker. And the worker is still paying $7,100 in premiums, deductibles, and other OOPE. All that goes away with M4A, and it saves everyone money, even the business.




    So, let's do some math...

    Right now, the median income in this country is $61,000.
    Right now, the average worker who gets coverage through their employer, pays $7,100, or 12% of their income.
    In M4A, that same worker would instead pay 4% of their income, or $2,440 if we use median income as the standard, and the business would pay 7.5% of its income. For almost every business, they will end up saving far, far more. Take Netflix for example:

    Netflix
    7,100 full-time workers
    $845M in profit in 2018
    Using KFF's metric, Netflix pays $106.5M to provide health care to all their workers.
    Using M4A's 7.5% rate, Netflix pays $63.4M to provide health care to all their workers.

    So M4A would save Netflix $43M.

    What can they do with that?

    Fund productions which create jobs (every show Netflix produces creates about 500 jobs, from production through distribution)
    Give all its 7,100 employees a $6K raise
    Acquire more content so people will subscribe to the service
    Expand (thereby creating jobs)
    Health insurance companies do not provide healthcare. The company buys it. It is part of a worker's compensation. Insurance companies fight and deny care. That increases their profits. They make being ill a much worse experience. Spending time on the phone, writing letters and emails to get the procedures your doctor prescribes is demeaning and cruel, especially when you are at your weakest.
    They make up complicated systems that require experienced people to find a way through it. They force doctors to hire staff to administer insurance claims which are purposely made more complex.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gonzomin For This Post:

    Cinnabar (10-19-2019), LV426 (10-21-2019)

  6. #319 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Happy Saturday gfm,

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Hello Poli,

    True. But it doesn't prevent ANY President from using it for that purpose, though, so let's not just focus on "Orange Man Bad". That's why the scope/power of the federal government should be very limited, so that it can't be used for that purpose by ANYONE. Instead, let each State/person govern themselves, as originally intended. Why do you wish for an all powerful federal government to rule over you?? Can you not rule over yourself??
    The only individuals who can rule over themselves are people who exist all alone in a completely secluded place away from the rest of society. As soon as you get a bunch of people sharing the same land there has to be a government and laws. I am pleased to be a part of great self-rule as it is in the USA. Meaning, of course, that we used our self-rule to create a vast government to control and govern our great nation. The very fact that we disagree on the basic implementation of that shows that personal self-rule without powerful government is not workable in society. People need to conduct themselves and self-police to the law of the land, a law only possible with a strong government to stand behind it, and if people don't self-police then the government needs to enforce the powerful law of the land.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I'm not gonna attempt digging up a quote outright stating "I hate the Constitution", but when Liberals are against so much of the document (as I will outline in further detail below), those actions speak louder than words regarding their true feelings about the document.
    That is the point where you begin to put words into the mouths of liberals, speak for them, and essentially hold both sides of the conversation, assigning the worst of thoughts to liberals and reserving the best to conservatives. It would be more realistic to let liberals speak for themselves and react to that rather than what you make up about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    No, this is stuff which Liberals have outright stated

    ...

    To conclude, Liberals hate the 1st Amendment.

    GUNS: Liberals are openly saying that

    ...

    To conclude, Liberals hate the 2nd Amendment.

    I could type up numerous paragraphs of examples about various other articles and amendments to the Constitution, but I think this should suffice as a few examples...
    All that suffices in doing is showing how you pretend to be reacting to liberals but instead are putting words in their mouths and reacting to your caricature. It's a strawman fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Inversion Fallacy. LIBERALS are doing so, not Trump.
    In your view. In the views of others those roles are reversed. You are only entitled to your own view, not your own facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    How is Trump destroying it? I've given you numerous examples (see above) of how Liberals are destroying it...
    I said I am glad that Trump cannot destroy the Constitution. And I disagree when you say liberals are destroying it. Nobody is destroying it. The Constitution is still there. Same document. It has not changed, nor has it been destroyed. All that is changing is the current events and our challenge of trying to imagine how to apply a several hundred year old document, written by candle light and whale oil to the age of cell phones and the internet. That interpretation is our challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    WRONG. They don't wish to follow it (see above for examples).
    You made that part up. You have no commonly heard quote from liberals claiming they do not want to follow the Constitution. Where are the pictures and videos of crowds of protesting liberals carrying signs that read "Destroy the Constitution?" There AREN'T any. You made it up because your view cannot work unless liberals are horrible people who are trying to destroy the USA, the very place they live and love, which is absurd at face value.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    There IS basis for that claim (see above for examples).
    Correct. There is no basis for that claim, none in the creative examples you imagine, because the claim itself is simply incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    The document doesn't need to be interpreted. It is written in plain English. It says what it says.
    That's just flat wrong. There is no written language which conveys a thought or concept absolutely. Everything said or written is always open to interpretation. What is a thought? How do you quantify it? We can't even do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Yes, they are.
    No, they are not. You made an unsolicited observation ABOUT ME, falsely claiming: "You wish to be ruled, rather than rule yourself. You wish to be a slave, rather than be a free man."

    That is strictly your view. It is not true, not a fact. Your view has already been shown to be fallible because you foolishly have declared that the Constitution requires no interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Cute, but doesn't change the truth.
    I do not have to sit here and listen to you trying to tell me how I think. The truth and what you think are two very different things. You need to stop talking about me. I could very easily decide that you are not respecting me and place you on Ignore forever. You are getting the benefit of the doubt right now. That is exhaustible. Testing my limits doesn't usually end well. Just stop talking about me and we are fine. I hope you can understand this and why I need to draw the line at some point. We have reached that point. Consider that line drawn right now. If this is an issue I know how to solve it very easily once and for all. I do hope you understand. You may like to put words in my mouth but I do not appreciate that. It takes two to have a conversation. If either person decides it is not worth it because the other has gotten too personal, and decides to end it, then it is ended. If there is any part of this which is unclear I have an (unfortunately irreversible) way to make it very easily understood once and for all, I assure you.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    No, it's not.
    It is very straightforward logic to say a large and strong country needs a large and strong government. It only follows. It is illogical to believe capitalism is so magical that it can take the place of a large and effective government which addresses all facets of American society. Capitalism has no planning; nor responsibility to society.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Capitalism.
    This is your explanation of how a small and weak government can produce a large and strong nation? One word? Capitalism? So you think capitalism is the end-all be-all? Can never do any wrong? No, that is not correct. Capitalism is not all good. Prostitution is capitalism. The street drug market is capitalism. Loan sharking is capitalism. Usury is capitalism. Pollution is capitalism. A for-profit mechanism for providing a product to meet demand, with the emphasis on maximizing profits, not meeting the need. No responsibility to society nor the environment is implied nor required. How can drug dealers, thugs, polluters and hookers build a large and strong nation? Sounds more like expecting cancer to build a strong body. Cancer is simply undirected growth, just like capitalism. Goes wherever it finds it can thrive. Capitalism is a great engine of ingenuity but it requires the guidance of a large and comprehensive government. Unchecked capitalism would turn the USA into one giant strip-mall.

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    To list a few examples: The EPA, FDA, FAA, and NUMEROUS other federal government agencies, as well as the current House of Representatives (led by Nancy Pelosi).
    If those things are in violation of the Constitution why have powerful conservatives not been able to have them eliminated even though they hold a majority of the Supreme Court?

    The answer, of course, is that those things are actually in compliance with the Constitution, and you are flatly wrong that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. It is a foolish mistake to think that your interpretation alone is the only one possible. That is not allowing others the same freedom of thought and opinion that you claim for yourself. A nation of people who think like that cannot exist unless they all hold the same exact view. No diversity allowed.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  7. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (10-19-2019)

  8. #320 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    31,007
    Thanks
    7,095
    Thanked 5,196 Times in 3,829 Posts
    Groans
    433
    Groaned 261 Times in 257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Health insurance companies do not provide healthcare. The company buys it. It is part of a worker's compensation. Insurance companies fight and deny care. That increases their profits. They make being ill a much worse experience. Spending time on the phone, writing letters and emails to get the procedures your doctor prescribes is demeaning and cruel, especially when you are at your weakest.
    They make up complicated systems that require experienced people to find a way through it. They force doctors to hire staff to administer insurance claims which are purposely made more complex.
    Wow, it sounds sadistic when you put it that way.......... Prob because it is.....

    Greatest country in the world & you have ppl dyeing for lack of proper & timely care.....
    "There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."



  9. #321 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Health insurance companies do not provide healthcare. The company buys it. It is part of a worker's compensation. Insurance companies fight and deny care. That increases their profits. They make being ill a much worse experience. Spending time on the phone, writing letters and emails to get the procedures your doctor prescribes is demeaning and cruel, especially when you are at your weakest. They make up complicated systems that require experienced people to find a way through it. They force doctors to hire staff to administer insurance claims which are purposely made more complex.
    They also collude with big provider networks to set artificially high costs for everything, knowing that both the provider network and insurer will mutually benefit from a business perspective, so the current system offers no incentives to lower costs. It's why we spend at least 2x per capita what every other first world nation does on health care. Greed is the only reason.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. #322 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,839
    Thanks
    6,476
    Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,066 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Happy Saturday gfm,
    Happy Monday Poli,

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The only individuals who can rule over themselves are people who exist all alone in a completely secluded place away from the rest of society.
    No, any individual can rule over themselves. It doesn't matter one iota where they happen to be located nor what their surroundings happen to be. I am speaking of internal rule over oneself. I am speaking of control (from within) over one's own body. I am not speaking about any external controls, as they are all irrelevant with regard to the inward control of oneself.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    As soon as you get a bunch of people sharing the same land there has to be a government and laws.
    Not at all. Anarchy is an option. You might be opposed to the idea, but anarchy is still an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I am pleased to be a part of great self-rule as it is in the USA. Meaning, of course, that we used our self-rule to create a vast government to control and govern our great nation.
    That's not what I'm talking about. You keep bringing external forces into the equation. I'm talking about self-governance. I'm talking about our inward forces governing over our own bodies. There's nothing external in that equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The very fact that we disagree on the basic implementation of that shows that personal self-rule without powerful government is not workable in society.
    We're talking about two different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    People need to conduct themselves and self-police to the law of the land,
    Correct. The "law of the land" being the Constitution of the United States. That's what I mean when I say self-governance under the Constitution, which is akin to how (if Christianity is believed to be true) Jesus Christ taught self-governance under God.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    a law only possible with a strong government to stand behind it,
    It's possible without a large centralized federal government. That's what State and Local governments are for...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    and if people don't self-police then the government needs to enforce the powerful law of the land.
    That's what State and Local governments are for.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That is the point where you begin to put words into the mouths of liberals, speak for them, and essentially hold both sides of the conversation, assigning the worst of thoughts to liberals and reserving the best to conservatives. It would be more realistic to let liberals speak for themselves and react to that rather than what you make up about them.
    Their actions are speaking for them. They refuse to utter the specific words due to the bad publicity they'd get if they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    All that suffices in doing is showing how you pretend to be reacting to liberals but instead are putting words in their mouths and reacting to your caricature. It's a strawman fallacy.
    Nope, those are all things which liberals have done and are still doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    In your view. In the views of others those roles are reversed. You are only entitled to your own view, not your own facts.
    Yet you're entitled to your "fact" that you've presented here?

    This isn't only hypocritical, it's also a lack of understanding of what a 'fact' is and the function of 'facts'.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I said I am glad that Trump cannot destroy the Constitution. And I disagree when you say liberals are destroying it. Nobody is destroying it. The Constitution is still there. Same document. It has not changed, nor has it been destroyed. All that is changing is the current events and our challenge of trying to imagine how to apply a several hundred year old document, written by candle light and whale oil to the age of cell phones and the internet. That interpretation is our challenge.
    That part was my bad; I said destroy when I meant ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    You made that part up. You have no commonly heard quote from liberals claiming they do not want to follow the Constitution. Where are the pictures and videos of crowds of protesting liberals carrying signs that read "Destroy the Constitution?" There AREN'T any. You made it up because your view cannot work unless liberals are horrible people who are trying to destroy the USA, the very place they live and love, which is absurd at face value.
    Again, they aren't going to openly say something like that. Their actions speak for what they wish to do. I have listed a few of those actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Correct. There is no basis for that claim, none in the creative examples you imagine, because the claim itself is simply incorrect.
    Wrong. There is basis for it. I have provided it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That's just flat wrong. There is no written language which conveys a thought or concept absolutely. Everything said or written is always open to interpretation. What is a thought? How do you quantify it? We can't even do that.
    The States are the owners of the Constitution. There is no outside "interpretation" of it by SCOTUS nor anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    No, they are not. You made an unsolicited observation ABOUT ME, falsely claiming: "You wish to be ruled, rather than rule yourself. You wish to be a slave, rather than be a free man."

    That is strictly your view. It is not true, not a fact. Your view has already been shown to be fallible because you foolishly have declared that the Constitution requires no interpretation.
    You have advocated for a large centralized federal government to tell you what you can and cannot do. You support people who wish to ban items which they personally do not like.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    [deleted "I'm a victim" whining]
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It is very straightforward logic to say a large and strong country needs a large and strong government. It only follows.
    No it doesn't. A "large and strong" country can have a small federal government which unites the country in defense issues and the like, as written in the Constitution, but there are fifty other State governments, and many more local governments, which can handle legislative powers not granted to the federal government, such as various social issues and everything that the federal government has an unconstitutional agency for. In fact, those agencies don't do a damn thing that they claim they do. They only make things harder for the companies which actually DO the work.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It is illogical to believe capitalism is so magical that it can take the place of a large and effective government which addresses all facets of American society.
    Capitalism is an economic system, not a government of any type. Capitalism can exist without ANY government present.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Capitalism has no planning; nor responsibility to society.
    It has planning... How do you think products are developed/tested/created/etc...?? It has responsibility to society. Society is who the products are made for... Society is who purchases the products...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    This is your explanation of how a small and weak government can produce a large and strong nation? One word? Capitalism?
    Yes. See the Industrial Revolution as an example. That was driven by capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    So you think capitalism is the end-all be-all? Can never do any wrong?
    No, that is not correct. Capitalism is not all good.
    It is the best economic system. It creates wealth. Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Prostitution is capitalism. The street drug market is capitalism. Loan sharking is capitalism. Usury is capitalism.
    Yup. So? Those things do not make capitalism bad. Immoral things will pop up, since nobody is perfect and since the free market cannot be destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Pollution is capitalism.
    No. Pollution is the introduction of something into an environment which is harmful to that environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    A for-profit mechanism for providing a product to meet demand, with the emphasis on maximizing profits, not meeting the need.
    Capitalism accomplishes both.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    No responsibility to society nor the environment is implied nor required.
    Yet companies are responsible to those things? Why is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    How can drug dealers, thugs, polluters and hookers build a large and strong nation?
    A few sects of capitalism are not capitalism as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Sounds more like expecting cancer to build a strong body.
    Has nothing to do with cancer.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Cancer is simply undirected growth, just like capitalism.
    Capitalism is VERY directed.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Goes wherever it finds it can thrive. Capitalism is a great engine of ingenuity but it requires the guidance of a large and comprehensive government. Unchecked capitalism would turn the USA into one giant strip-mall.
    Government is not required at all. Capitalism works even under anarchy. Government issued a "war on drugs" as its "direction". Guess what, drugs are still sold all around the country. See your local drug dealer...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    If those things are in violation of the Constitution why have powerful conservatives not been able to have them eliminated even though they hold a majority of the Supreme Court?
    Because once the government (unconstitutionally) gains power, it does not relinquish it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The answer, of course, is that those things are actually in compliance with the Constitution, and you are flatly wrong that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. It is a foolish mistake to think that your interpretation alone is the only one possible. That is not allowing others the same freedom of thought and opinion that you claim for yourself. A nation of people who think like that cannot exist unless they all hold the same exact view. No diversity allowed.
    They are against the Constitution.

  11. #323 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Goodbye gfm7175,

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    [deleted "I'm a victim" whining]
    ...
    Too bad you spent all that time writing out so many detailed responses to every point. I'll read none of it. The main thing I was interested in seeing was how you would handle the situation where you have taken it upon yourself to tell me how I think. I told you that is unacceptable, that I must be allowed to think for myself. You are not to write my posts. There is no point in us having a conversation if you are writing both parts. It's actually a bit creepy. And totally disrespectful of the person you are making things up about.

    This is what I actually said, not what you posted above and attributed to me:

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I do not have to sit here and listen to you trying to tell me how I think. The truth and what you think are two very different things. You need to stop talking about me. I could very easily decide that you are not respecting me and place you on Ignore forever. You are getting the benefit of the doubt right now. That is exhaustible. Testing my limits doesn't usually end well. Just stop talking about me and we are fine. I hope you can understand this and why I need to draw the line at some point. We have reached that point. Consider that line drawn right now. If this is an issue I know how to solve it very easily once and for all. I do hope you understand. You may like to put words in my mouth but I do not appreciate that. It takes two to have a conversation. If either person decides it is not worth it because the other has gotten too personal, and decides to end it, then it is ended. If there is any part of this which is unclear I have an (unfortunately irreversible) way to make it very easily understood once and for all, I assure you.
    Since you have not addressed this matter which obviously is very important to me in a manner of mutual respect, but instead have basically blown me off, I can take that no other way than doubling down. Which is certainly your prerogative, but I don't have to put up with it. I've enjoyed our past conversations, but they are concluded now. Feel free to write all you like. Respond to every phrase you disagree with, it won't matter. It will be like talking to a brick wall. I'll not respond again, ever. I'll not post to your threads, which is no big loss anyway, really, because most of them are disrespectfully stolen threads that I refuse to participate in out of respect for original authors of threads anyway. I'll not read your posts even when quoted by others. You are now considered not worthy of replying to. And with your little act of defiance, you become the latest example showing that I mean every word I say in my Signature PIP. You mouth off to me and we are done. So that's it.

    It's a shame the internet is so full of people who don't know how to communicate with basic mutual respect, but that certainly is the case, so it is only logical that the discerning poster will have a large Ignore List. Welcome to mine.

    And as far as being on my Friends List? Poof. You are unfriended. Unworthy of it.

    I'm sorry it has to end this way. It would not be my choice, but I must have my standards. Have a good life. This communication has ended.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  12. The Following 2 Users Groan At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    gfm7175 (10-22-2019), USFREEDOM911 (10-21-2019)

  13. #324 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6,560
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 2,936 Times in 2,054 Posts
    Groans
    852
    Groaned 948 Times in 862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    free health care
    free pre-school
    free child care
    free college
    wealth tax
    wealth inequality tax
    student debt forgiveness

    a few I forget
    Nothing is free. You pay for those things with your taxes.Like healthcare. You pay more taxes, but you do not have your healthcare costs or insurance costs. So people actually save a lot of money and never have to be concerned with the costs of healthcare. Companies are not concerned with running healthcare and that cost makes them more internationally competitive. Just calling it free is stupid. Universal healthcare can make drug purchasing competitive by bidding. That would make them much cheaper.

  14. #325 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,465
    Thanks
    16,662
    Thanked 20,736 Times in 14,331 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    All of whom are actively preventing wage growth at the companies they run (or ran).

    All of whom are setting the low compensation for recent grads.

    All of whom are not raising pay commensurate with experience, education, and training.

    None of which is the fault of higher education, but rather corporate greed.
    I'll jump back in here, as this issue was raised in more than one of your posts. Do you believe free college is going to stop corporate greed? Since Obama saved the economy, corporate profits are at an all time high. Corporate cash on hand remains at record highs.

    They are squeezing as much as they can from every employee...degree or not.

    Another anecdote:

    My friend's son graduated RIT engineering with honors. His application at G.E was one in a stack of 100. He was very lucky to win the position. I'm sure all 100 were more than qualified.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  15. #326 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,465
    Thanks
    16,662
    Thanked 20,736 Times in 14,331 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    According to BLS in 2017, Bachelor's grads have an unemployment rate of just 2.7%.
    According to BLS in 2017, Associates grads have an unemployment rate of 3.6%.

    According to BLS, Bachelor's grads have weekly median earnings of $1,100.
    According to BLS, Associates grads have weekly median earnings of $890.

    So just comparing those numbers, we see a clear advantage for people with a Bachelor's vs. Associates. Those people see higher lifetime earnings, which also correlates to health care in our current system. The more educated you are, the more you earn, the healthier you are,and the longer your life expectancy.
    I've seen those stats. Re. employment numbers, that doesn't mean that they are employed in their desired field, or in a job that requires a degree.

    Re. the median salary, that means a good number of grads are making much less than the median. I posted a link that addresses those stats, and the reality behind them.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  16. #327 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,465
    Thanks
    16,662
    Thanked 20,736 Times in 14,331 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    The current Chairman of WarnerMedia, Bob Greenblatt, was a theater major in college.

    Now, he runs the largest media company in the world.




    Well, weren't many modern nursing techniques developed in the Civil War? At least, around that time starting with Florence Nightengale in Crimea, but then carrying into Clara Barton and Louisa May Alcott. It wasn't until the mid-1800's that people discovered germs, and that you should probably clean and dress wounds so they don't get infected. In fact, the guide to modern nursing was developed during...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...the Civil War.

    Nursing in the Civil War
    http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/unco...ing-civil-war/

    Your GF should know this shit...it formed the basis of her profession. Civil War history is intrinsically important to nursing. That's where most of the nursing techniques we see today originated!
    Hey..you know I love ya, but this is a real stretch. She doesn't need to know how antibiotics were invented in order to administer them.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  17. #328 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,465
    Thanks
    16,662
    Thanked 20,736 Times in 14,331 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426
    Well, I would want well-trained nurses that were educated to a higher standards, don't you??
    Nothing that she was forced to study for more than 2 years, contributed to her nursing knowledge. In fact, it just caused a lot of stress because she was working full time as well. If the program that she was forced to study was based on advanced nursing techniques, then I would be in favor.

    No. No no no. This is why so many businesses fail. People think they can conventional wisdom their way through running a business. They think they're entitled to run a business. But let me be clear; no one is entitled to run a business, let alone run one poorly.
    Everyone has the right to run their own business. I can't imagine why you would disagree. Do you think that every successful business was a winner from the start? Hell...trump ran his business as an incompetent moron, and the results show it. 'Conventional' business methods are exactly what students are being taught in school. Frankly, being a success has more to do with drive, and motivation (I believe you claimed earlier that only students are motivated) than with being a genius.




    Well, I can't account for anecdotes, but from where I sit, the problem isn't that there aren't good engineers, the problem is that our infrastructure is outdated and in bad need of an overhaul; and putting a steel plate down over a hole, or patching it up with duct tape isn't gonna cut it.
    Well, you aren't in the field, so you'll just have to trust someone who is. Fortunately, most in the construction field are competent, so they catch the errors handed down from the educated engineers and architects.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  18. #329 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    36,465
    Thanks
    16,662
    Thanked 20,736 Times in 14,331 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,387 Times in 1,305 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    What is the competition?

    This is why I asked what a Public Option does differently from Aetna.

    There is no difference. They both do the exact same thing.

    My argument is that when the payor has a profit motive, there's no incentive for that payor to negotiate lower costs. So if you have two parties who are both mutually benefiting from higher costs, what's the incentive to lower them?


    There's a lot in that post that deals in averages and general info. The 'median' income is only $61,000 because the top of the food chain is in the tens of millions. I've seen you correctly make that point in other discussions here.

    The difference between Aetna and the Public Option is that people PAY IN to the P.O, thus helping the program that will be funding it whether it's Medicare or Medicaid.

    The cost to obtain coverage will drop, especially because you alter the risk demographic when healthy people like myself barely use the coverage. It might lead to 'free' healthcare in the future, but it doesn't shock the system overnight.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  19. #330 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    Insurance companies fight and deny care. That increases their profits.
    actually that isn't true......for example in Michigan, at least before Obamacare, state regulations limited insurance company profits to 7% of the benefits they paid out........therefore, companies made MORE if they paid more........that's why you have the curious phenomena that a CPAP machine provided by Medicare costs $3400......while the exact same machine can be bought online for $848.......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

Similar Threads

  1. Who did you like in Democratic Debate #2?
    By Jack in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 07-02-2019, 07:28 AM
  2. takeaways from the first Democratic debate
    By dukkha in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-27-2019, 10:11 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-22-2015, 01:05 AM
  4. Democratic debate gets lowest ratings of any debate this year
    By Truth Detector in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-21-2015, 03:13 PM
  5. Democratic Debate
    By Cancel7 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 03:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •