SNAP benefits cut!!! Musk gets a trillion dollars!

[Freddy Figbottom]

I see. So is it your position that only one person in the nation 'makes money in the private sector'?

Fascinating.

dumbest shit ever.

 

[Into the Night]

They are soul-less ghouls whose life motto is "I got mine. Fuck the rest of you." I'm sure as a veteran, Gardner is more than happy to take advantage of Tricare, supplied by us taxpayers. But damned if he wants anyone else to have health care.

There is another aspect to the ACA that would cause even more disaster if removed -- the prohibition against canceling/refusing to insure those with pre-existing conditions. Had a skin cancer removed? Nice, but no more insurance for you. Had a chest pain episode that was checked out by a cardiac cath? Bye-bye, insurance, you're too high risk. Had a couple of weekend athlete injuries that needed treatment? Nope, you're too risky too. Got a kid in college with asthma? Off your insurance plan she goes.

ACA is not health care.

 

[Into the Night]

An indication of irrational thinking on his part. He used to be rational compared to some MAGAts who were damaged or defective before showing up to JPP. IMO, that indicates elderly cognitive issues or mental illness.

You think you're being abused, Sybil?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

the absolute core of Terry's position is that saying because citizens speak out and let the politicians know how they want the tax dollars prioritized and spend on their behalf, that equals an appeal to populism and therefore somehow that makes it wrong and to be ignored.

he is correct that is an appeal to populism. But as i have told him prior he simply does not understand the fallacies he tries to use and he applies them wrong.

In the instances when politicians are trying to assess spending priorities, for tax payer dollars, what the citizens actual want (populism) when it crosses partisan considerations and is almost universal should be arguably, the top thing politicians consider.

The entire 'taxation without representation' that started a war, was citizens fighting back against their tax dollars not representing their views, wants and desires.

Terry does not understand this and so just says 'appeal to populism' thinking it won him the point and it does not.

Well said. Is it just him, or is the desire to let the Great Father in Washington decide for us a conservative trait?

 

[martin]

Irrelevant appeal to popularity.

If appeal to popularity were irrelevant Trump wouldn't be in office.

 

[Althea]

And further more it costs corporations MORE and citizens more, when you have this total 'for profit' insurance model as opposed to the Federal gov't just using the same tax payer dollars, they have already taken in to create a National INsurance program.

There is one truism no one can escape and that is the bigger the insurance pool, the cheaper the insurance is across the board for all, during their lifetime'.

Canada has the 'insurance part' right but made the mistake of extending in to the care delivery service part, which gov'ts should stay out of, beyond basic regulations.

The reason why corporations like providing the Insurance, despite the higher costs, is because it gives them a massive lever of control of employees that corporations in countries with government insurance do not have. It makes it so much harder to quit US companies and move unless you can find a similar or better plan.

EBI does give businesses more control over employees, and it saves them matching FICA funds. 8+%. One of the key aspects of ACA was that people no longer had to stay in low wage jobs (that often didn't even cover the cost of daycare) just for the health insurance.

ACA was never a final design. It was a hard fought battle that created a strong foundation for future building. Instead, Republicans fought from day one to kill it, and eventually lost a billion dollar Supreme Court ruling when they illegally defunded the law.

ACA properly focused on reduced costs through preventive testing/care, and insurers loved that approach.

Instead of making this a wedge issue, Republicans should have worked across the aisle to perfect it.

Notice you don't hear the 'illegals are getting free healthcare' lie in the past few weeks?

 

[Althea]

No, he's the last normal one left. He and Damo. Most of the time TA backs up what he says with sources, and I appreciate that he communicates in complete sentences.

The rest of the trumptard clan here is just a collection hate-filled, run on sentences. Try reading one of TobyOne's posts - you'll need a drink and a joint afterwards i guarantee it

Just because Terry is civil, does not mean that he backs his lunacy with 'sources'. They often directly refute his claims, as he never reads past the title of the articles.

 

[Althea]

If you have an HSA, yes. Not all medical insurance deductions are pre-tax.

HSA is totally different, and can only be used in conjunction with certain policies. I have one because I am self employed.

Generally speaking, with a few exceptions, every penny spent on insurance premiums is either pre tax dollars or in most cases can be taken as a tax deduction if you itemize. If an employer offers insurance and you refuse it, typically you pay with post tax dollars and you would have to itemize your taxes to get reimbursement if you purchase health insurance.

High earners might not be able to take an itemized deduction if premium costs are less than 7.5% of AGI. But that deduction is part of all medical costs being deducted. A person whose AGI is $50k/year can deduct all medical expenses (including premiums) over $3500.00 for the year. Coinsurance/deductibles are not what I was referencing. Only premiums. Everyone who uses doctors had OOP expenses that are post tax.
It would make absolutely no sense to refuse pre tax insurance policies from an employer and then go out and purchase insurance in the marketplace. I'm guessing that's rare. In many cases, one spouse will refuse coverage because the other spouse already covers the family.

 

[QP!]

EBI does give businesses more control over employees, and it saves them matching FICA funds. 8+%. One of the key aspects of ACA was that people no longer had to stay in low wage jobs (that often didn't even cover the cost of daycare) just for the health insurance.

ACA was never a final design. It was a hard fought battle that created a strong foundation for future building. Instead, Republicans fought from day one to kill it, and eventually lost a billion dollar Supreme Court ruling when they illegally defunded the law.

ACA properly focused on reduced costs through preventive testing/care, and insurers loved that approach.

Instead of making this a wedge issue, Republicans should have worked across the aisle to perfect it.

Notice you don't hear the 'illegals are getting free healthcare' lie in the past few weeks?

I have been involved in running companies both in the USA and in Canada.

It is a real joy in Canada to not have to worry about that expense on an individual basis and know each employee is always covered.

The only advantage to corporations is that while it has no impact on them firing who they want, employees, especially young ones with families have to real think it over 5 times, before quitting. Even if the job is shitty, as long as the benefits are ok and covering the family. Because even if you move to a new job with benefits you have to weigh the risk you may not stick and might get let go during the probation period.

 

[Althea]

They are soul-less ghouls whose life motto is "I got mine. Fuck the rest of you." I'm sure as a veteran, Gardner is more than happy to take advantage of Tricare, supplied by us taxpayers. But damned if he wants anyone else to have health care.

There is another aspect to the ACA that would cause even more disaster if removed -- the prohibition against canceling/refusing to insure those with pre-existing conditions. Had a skin cancer removed? Nice, but no more insurance for you. Had a chest pain episode that was checked out by a cardiac cath? Bye-bye, insurance, you're too high risk. Had a couple of weekend athlete injuries that needed treatment? Nope, you're too risky too. Got a kid in college with asthma? Off your insurance plan she goes.

Hard to believe that what you reference was reality for millions before ACA. In fact, every girl was born with a pre existing condition...the ability to become pregnant.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If appeal to popularity were irrelevant Trump wouldn't be in office.

You don't understand what that fallacy is or how it works.

 

[martin]

You don't understand what that fallacy is or how it works.

I think I do, but thanks for the concern.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Hard to believe that what you reference was reality for millions before ACA. In fact, every girl was born with a pre existing condition...the ability to become pregnant.

My niece fell off her bike and broke her arm when she was nine. Her dad was a self-employed CPA. They had purchased private health insurance. They covered her care, and then canceled them because t hey used it. He got new coverage eventually. They were told that any subsequent issues with her arm would not be covered. This was in the early 90s.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My niece fell off her bike and broke her arm when she was nine. Her dad was a self-employed CPA. They had purchased private health insurance. They covered her care, and then canceled them because t hey used it. He got new coverage eventually. They were told that any subsequent issues with her arm would not be covered. This was in the early 90s.

The Republicans are claiming Obamacare doesn't work and needs to be fixed. They've been saying this since 2012. Trump has been claiming he'll provide something better since 2016.

This is why all MAGAts are liars and cannot be trusted.

 

[QP!]

If appeal to popularity were irrelevant Trump wouldn't be in office.

@T. A. Gardner knows the names of the fallacies but has no clue what they mean or how to apply them.

Populism is the very core of elections. While not everything, it the biggest thing.

Politicians try to learn what is popular with voters in each district and then run on giving them. That is called 'taxation with representation'.

Terry sees it populism, and think 'oh i have heard there is a fallacy about populism so it must apply here as a way to say politicians do not need to care or deliver anything 'popular' the citizens want.

He thinks and says that as he is simply stupid and trying to apply words he does not understand.

 

[QP!]

You don't understand what that fallacy is or how it works.

The fallacy DOES NOT say, politicians should run on 'popular things' voters want but then simply ignore them once elected 'saying appeal to populism' as the reason not to deliver on them.

Be less stupid.

 

[Althea]

My niece fell off her bike and broke her arm when she was nine. Her dad was a self-employed CPA. They had purchased private health insurance. They covered her care, and then canceled them because t hey used it. He got new coverage eventually. They were told that any subsequent issues with her arm would not be covered. This was in the early 90s.

Extremely common at the time. This is what Terry years for.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

@T. A. Gardner knows the names of the fallacies but has no clue what they mean or how to apply them.

Populism is the very core of elections. While not everything, it the biggest thing.

You are retarded. An Appeal to Popularity fallacy does not apply to something like a popular vote. It applies when someone uses the argument that something is popular (by polling, number of things purchased, etc.) and therefore everyone else should do, or think, the same thing.

Populism applied is not fallacious. Arguing that it should be applied because something is popular is the fallacy.

You don't understand the difference, and have proven so. That means you don't understand the fallacy.

Politicians try to learn what is popular with voters in each district and then run on giving them. That is called 'taxation with representation'.

And, that is a propaganda technique using the fallacy.

Terry sees it populism, and think 'oh i have heard there is a fallacy about populism so it must apply here as a way to say politicians do not need to care or deliver anything 'popular' the citizens want.

The vote itself is not fallacious. Asking for someone's vote on the basis of popularity is.

He thinks and says that as he is simply stupid and trying to apply words he does not understand.

You are stupid, and you just proved it.

 

[QP!]

You are retarded. An Appeal to Popularity fallacy does not apply to something like a popular vote. It applies when someone uses the argument that something is popular (by polling, number of things purchased, etc.) and therefore everyone else should do, or think, the same thing.

Populism applied is not fallacious. Arguing that it should be applied because something is popular is the fallacy.

You don't understand the difference, and have proven so. That means you don't understand the fallacy.


And, that is a propaganda technique using the fallacy.


The vote itself is not fallacious. Asking for someone's vote on the basis of popularity is.

You are stupid, and you just proved it.

Ya stupid.

We are talking about citizen support of ObamaCare as a reason not to cancel it and you are arguing that 'citizen support' is an appeal to popularity and that is why you think citizens wanting it can be ignored.

That IS NOT how things work in politics.

What is funded or not, absolutely SHOULD reflect the voting populace priorities and desires, or what we might say another way, is popular with them.

I am not saying ObamaCare is good because it is popular, (that would be in the fallacy) and i am saying what the Politicians CONSIDER AND FUND, should take in to account that voters want it (popular).

And you keep replying, like the dunce you are, that is the Popularity Fallacy, when it is not.

Almost all of what politicians promise and fulfil is based on voter demands (popularity) when those politicians are not being corrupt or just lying.

Popularity (voter demand and wants) in politics is not to be dismissed as all a popularity fallacy, as the way to dismiss it.

Be less stupid Terry.

 

[QP!]

Do magats like Terry think Trump should deliver on the populist agenda he ran on?

Do they think election have consequences and thus the voters deserve to get what they were promised and want?

Terry would say yes to that, while then saying if the same voters want ObamaCare and or it not to be taken from them without something better being delivered that should be ignored as he says voters do not get what they want and thinks just hand waving and using the words 'fallacy' works in saying no to them.

terry will switch back and forth shamelessly between the two and probably does not realize he is doing it as he is stupid.