(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

(06-14-2019 06:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

Not only would they think that -- they would mandate that public healthcare for her, *and* everyone else that might need it. *That* is the core of progressivism.

I mean crap, they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual....... kind of instructive in that regard....

Yes - the idea being that someone would not be forced into bankruptcy due to factors outside their control, or have to worry about whether or not they should call an ambulance because they can't afford the bill, and so on.

Good god you cant even discern the comment due to your left lurch. I have no issue that those cases are better -- but you are so fing over the left field wall you cant even bother to discern that pretty much *all* fing choice in health care has been wiped out.

*That* is the core of progressivism. So get the **** off your 'poor poor people you heartless bastards' schtick -- no one is maddy poo about that.

But the fact of the matter is that *everyone* now has the same piece of fing crap insurance. Again, progressivism at its top shining moment....

I *would* like to be discriminatory in *my* fing choice on the matter. *That* is the point. Good god. Read the fing sentence.

(06-14-2019 08:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

What makes you think he is paying for merely "adequate" care?

Elsewhere you argued that allowing a person to use public funds to obtain education of their own choice is terrible.* Is it also terrible to use public funds to obtain health care of one's own choice?

*To be clear, school choice seems to be considered terrible only at the elementary or secondary level -- i.e. if it addresses the fundamental needs of poor people. If it's COLLEGE education (the staple of the middle and upper classes), then using public funds to help students go to the school of their choice is considered wonderful.

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yes. You win. Especially since I surrendered the virtue contest prior to your entering it.

And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

(06-14-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 06:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

Not only would they think that -- they would mandate that public healthcare for her, *and* everyone else that might need it. *That* is the core of progressivism.

I mean crap, they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual....... kind of instructive in that regard....

Yes - the idea being that someone would not be forced into bankruptcy due to factors outside their control, or have to worry about whether or not they should call an ambulance because they can't afford the bill, and so on.

Good god you cant even discern the comment due to your left lurch. I have no issue that those cases are better -- but you are so fing over the left field wall you cant even bother to discern that pretty much *all* fing choice in health care has been wiped out.

*That* is the core of progressivism. So get the **** off your 'poor poor people you heartless bastards' schtick -- no one is maddy poo about that.

But the fact of the matter is that *everyone* now has the same piece of fing crap insurance. Again, progressivism at its top shining moment....

I *would* like to be discriminatory in *my* fing choice on the matter. *That* is the point. Good god. Read the fing sentence.

Everyone now has the same insurance? What reality do you live in?

(06-15-2019 07:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 06:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not only would they think that -- they would mandate that public healthcare for her, *and* everyone else that might need it. *That* is the core of progressivism.

I mean crap, they *mandated* what type of health insurance must be bought by each and every individual....... kind of instructive in that regard....

Yes - the idea being that someone would not be forced into bankruptcy due to factors outside their control, or have to worry about whether or not they should call an ambulance because they can't afford the bill, and so on.

Good god you cant even discern the comment due to your left lurch. I have no issue that those cases are better -- but you are so fing over the left field wall you cant even bother to discern that pretty much *all* fing choice in health care has been wiped out.

*That* is the core of progressivism. So get the **** off your 'poor poor people you heartless bastards' schtick -- no one is maddy poo about that.

But the fact of the matter is that *everyone* now has the same piece of fing crap insurance. Again, progressivism at its top shining moment....

I *would* like to be discriminatory in *my* fing choice on the matter. *That* is the point. Good god. Read the fing sentence.

Everyone now has the same insurance? What reality do you live in?

I would ask you a snarky question of whether you *really* think that a choice of 'gold, silver, or bronze' is really a hill you want to defend on your comment above, but then realize two facts: a) you have never probably bought insurance as an individual but through employment; and b) probably not old enough to remember the marketplace pre-2012 and do a comparative analysis about the 'choice' available.

The answer of 'what reality' is the reality of gold, silver and bronze packages. As opposed from the veritable smorgasborg that the market made available previous to the abortion of Obamacare. That one being forced down our throat. Some of us actually bought insurance packages (sometimes multiples, sometimes overlapping) under the old system, lad.

I guess the people that lap this **** up are truly the ones too young to remember that world of choice available. And dont remember the world of choice that was destroyed by Federal diktat.

Whats the best way to squash all health insurance to less than a handful of choices? Progressivism. Because choice is bad and big brother knows best about how I should spend my money. And they didnt even have the fing balls to take the money from me as taxes and do it that way.

A government that destroys 90%+ of the choice in an offering in the private sector, when they could have allowed a world and a half of private offerings on. True, not socialism in the 'government owns production' as you squawk about, but also absolutely true as a complete opponent of capitalism in the sense of free choices that capitalism thrives under. Call it whatever the fk you want, but both are just as much the enemy of capitalism as the other. Health insurance is picture perfect example of it.

And some claim (I guess) that the choice after the Chicxulub style health insurance event is 'thriving' much as you do. Truly, this board needs a forehead slap emoji.....

(06-15-2019 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

what does the left think it should do for somebody who has some illiquid assets but no money and no income?

I can tell you. The left won’t lift a finger until she is penniless.

So she has no cash, and the govmint won’t help because she is “rich”. (That is, not broke).

But if you would like to contribute $500 a month, I will let you. After all, you don’t need it, and you don’t deserve it, and my sister needs it, and she deserves it.

(06-15-2019 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:33 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  And of course I wouldn't have entered the contest if "progressives" had not elevated virtue competition to such a prominent sport. I think it's a stupid contest, and that your choices about your money are no more or less virtuous than mine.

Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

what does the left think it should do for somebody who has some illiquid assets but no money and no income?

I can tell you. The left won’t lift a finger until she is penniless.

So she has no cash, and the govmint won’t help because she is “rich”. (That is, not broke).

But if you would like to contribute $500 a month, I will let you. After all, you don’t need it, and you don’t deserve it, and my sister needs it, and she deserves it.

(06-14-2019 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 08:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

What makes you think he is paying for merely "adequate" care?

Elsewhere you argued that allowing a person to use public funds to obtain education of their own choice is terrible.* Is it also terrible to use public funds to obtain health care of one's own choice?

*To be clear, school choice seems to be considered terrible only at the elementary or secondary level -- i.e. if it addresses the fundamental needs of poor people. If it's COLLEGE education (the staple of the middle and upper classes), then using public funds to help students go to the school of their choice is considered wonderful.

I guess I should have said “up to $60k” to make it clear that the point is that progressives’ positions would be that someone would not need to pay out of pocket for care, that one would only pay out of pocket if they wanted to do so (just like how someone should be able to pay for private school should they want to send their child their).

(06-14-2019 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I also did not say that allowing a person to use public funds to obtain an education of choice was terrible - can you point me to that post where I provided such an emphatic response to using public funds to obtain an education of their choice?

(06-14-2019 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ... don’t let that get in your way of trying to denigrate me.

(06-14-2019 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And we actually haven’t discussed higher education on this board, so you’re drawing conclusions about my thoughts on higher education funding.

(06-15-2019 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Total agreement there.

I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

what does the left think it should do for somebody who has some illiquid assets but no money and no income?

I can tell you. The left won’t lift a finger until she is penniless.

So she has no cash, and the govmint won’t help because she is “rich”. (That is, not broke).

But if you would like to contribute $500 a month, I will let you. After all, you don’t need it, and you don’t deserve it, and my sister needs it, and she deserves it.

The same thing everyone else - have basic healthcare covered by the government. That's what would happen in a program like M4A. Have you really not figured out that progressives have been fighting for a system that provides coverage for all citizens?

Your sister is a perfect example of the type of person who is left out in the current system and who would benefit from a chance in our healthcare system. I know that she would be covered with a system like M4A, but I'm less sure of how she would be handled in the Bismark system that Owl#s advocates for (but my guess is she would be provided for in that system as well).

(06-15-2019 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I’m better than both of you. I take care of my physically and mentally challenged sister to the tune of $60K a year, plus I drive her to all her appointments, manage her affairs. Because I can afford to do this, at least for now, the left thinks I don’t deserve/need my money and it should be taken from me and used to make somebody more equal. Somebody not me and not my sister.

But I get a $200credit on my taxes for my efforts. Tax break for the rich, I think it is called.

The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

what does the left think it should do for somebody who has some illiquid assets but no money and no income?

I can tell you. The left won’t lift a finger until she is penniless.

So she has no cash, and the govmint won’t help because she is “rich”. (That is, not broke).

But if you would like to contribute $500 a month, I will let you. After all, you don’t need it, and you don’t deserve it, and my sister needs it, and she deserves it.

The same thing everyone else - have basic healthcare covered by the government. That's what would happen in a program like M4A. Have you really not figured out that progressives have been fighting for a system that provides coverage for all citizens?

Your sister is a perfect example of the type of person who is left out in the current system and who would benefit from a chance in our healthcare system. I know that she would be covered with a system like M4A, but I'm less sure of how she would be handled in the Bismark system that Owl#s advocates for (but my guess is she would be provided for in that system as well).

You guys have all made the same wrong assumption. My cost is not health care. She has healthcare from Medicare and a supplement paid for from her SocSec. What I pay for is her living expenses - a place to live, food, with a staff to help her bathe and when she falls and do her laundry. It is called Senior Residential Living, and is not subsidized by the government. So the healthcare debate you guys are having is moot.

The SocSec check is her only income, and without me, she would be living under bridge or dead. The government and the liberals could not care less.

She is “rich” because she has a 1/3 share of some property in another county with former partners, who do not want to sell due to taxes. But her
disposable income is less than 5% of her needs.

She is not retarded. She has a Ph.D. And speaks - spoke - five languages. She is crazy - delusional - and if the government takes over her care, it will be in a dank pit of a place. Ever see “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”?

Physically she is on a walker due to multiple back surgeries, and on oxygen due to partially paralyzed diaphragm. She cannot work. She is 71 now.

I guess I could take the progressive view and just leave it up to the government to take of her with Warren Buffet’s Taxes. If I did that, the government would let her die in the streets. Good thing she has a brother who prospered in the capitalistic system and saved some money instead of relying on the government to support HIM in his old age.

Advice for the young(er) - buy Long term care insurance. (Unless your plan is to go broke and rely on the government) Save your money, at least what they let you keep. Forego spending needlessly. Don’t trip and fall.

(06-15-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 06:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 05:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes - the idea being that someone would not be forced into bankruptcy due to factors outside their control, or have to worry about whether or not they should call an ambulance because they can't afford the bill, and so on.

Good god you cant even discern the comment due to your left lurch. I have no issue that those cases are better -- but you are so fing over the left field wall you cant even bother to discern that pretty much *all* fing choice in health care has been wiped out.

*That* is the core of progressivism. So get the **** off your 'poor poor people you heartless bastards' schtick -- no one is maddy poo about that.

But the fact of the matter is that *everyone* now has the same piece of fing crap insurance. Again, progressivism at its top shining moment....

I *would* like to be discriminatory in *my* fing choice on the matter. *That* is the point. Good god. Read the fing sentence.

Everyone now has the same insurance? What reality do you live in?

I would ask you a snarky question of whether you *really* think that a choice of 'gold, silver, or bronze' is really a hill you want to defend on your comment above, but then realize two facts: a) you have never probably bought insurance as an individual but through employment; and b) probably not old enough to remember the marketplace pre-2012 and do a comparative analysis about the 'choice' available.

The answer of 'what reality' is the reality of gold, silver and bronze packages. As opposed from the veritable smorgasborg that the market made available previous to the abortion of Obamacare. That one being forced down our throat. Some of us actually bought insurance packages (sometimes multiples, sometimes overlapping) under the old system, lad.

I guess the people that lap this **** up are truly the ones too young to remember that world of choice available. And dont remember the world of choice that was destroyed by Federal diktat.

Whats the best way to squash all health insurance to less than a handful of choices? Progressivism. Because choice is bad and big brother knows best about how I should spend my money. And they didnt even have the fing balls to take the money from me as taxes and do it that way.

A government that destroys 90%+ of the choice in an offering in the private sector, when they could have allowed a world and a half of private offerings on. True, not socialism in the 'government owns production' as you squawk about, but also absolutely true as a complete opponent of capitalism in the sense of free choices that capitalism thrives under. Call it whatever the fk you want, but both are just as much the enemy of capitalism as the other. Health insurance is picture perfect example of it.

And some claim (I guess) that the choice after the Chicxulub style health insurance event is 'thriving' much as you do. Truly, this board needs a forehead slap emoji.....

You're stretching your argument far too thin by saying that there is no choice. If you want to argue there is less choice than before, go ahead. But you explicitly said that Obamacare mandated the type of insurance you must have - which is explicitly 100% incorrect. We all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance," as you stated above.

You even admitted we all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance" by saying there is still employer-sponsored healthcare. For example, I can use the health insurance offered by my company, by my fiance's company, private plans, or the plans included in the marketplace.

(06-14-2019 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Agree. But I'm really not the population that deserves the tax break IMO.

Some say that the people who actually pay the taxes are those who are deserving of any breaks.

Quote:I'll take it for my kids' 529 (probably if I was a more principled person I'd send the entirety of it to charity). My receiving a tax windfall doesn't help the issue of income inequality.

And what is happening is that you are receiving more freedom to do whatever with the income that *you* earned. 529 it, spend it on hookers and blow, give it to income challenged people, burn it, or invest it. Awesome and simple concept at its core.

The interesting thing is that for every action in that list above (but one) that money is providing a far better multiplier than the government friction stop that taxes represent overall.

And further, one would hope, is that you respect the freedom not only of *your* liberated money, but that of others as well.

I have no issue with you wanting to (and actually performing the action of) use(ing) it to affect income inequality. Your money, your right to to with it as you please. The main issue with progressive stances is that simple respect of those amounts for others typically isnt held.

And the main problem with conservatives stances is that they fail to publicly recognize that the government has an important role to play in keeping society running and providing for the common good - and that costs money.

We have a woefully neglected infrastructure system because Republicans have morphed into the party of every policy proposed by the Democrats is socialist or taxes must always be cut, deficit, integral services, etc. be damned.

We need better roads and bridges to make travel more efficient, the movement of most major electrical infrastructure underground so we do not need to waste millions in repair costs after every major storm, and so on.

I double dog dare you to find a conservative who states 'fk building roads', or 'fk the bridges' in lieu of being taxed for those items.

Some of those 'infrastructure' plays you regale us with include the (in)famous Alaska bridge to nowhere, mind you. Or how about the fing California 'high speed rail' between farm communities extending only 50 mile.

I dont think there is a single conservative that disdains the 'core function' of government you wax so eloquently about --- defense, disaster relief, etc at the Federal level; roads, bridges, highways, dams at the less than Federal level.

But for all your yelping about 'how conservatives disdain infrastructure and core government', you amazingly gloss the fk over the actual monies spent on them. Compared to the gd social welfare state, the issues on 'infrastructure' are a friggin spit in the ocean when stacked against the fing 2.75 trillion or so in 'mandatory spending', of which about 85% is directed to Social Security and medicare/medicaid.

And yes, dont you gd call these as 'earned benefits' -- there is no fing way I will *ever* see any decent fraction of the monies I have pumped in the pyramid/redistributionist-centric scheme of Social Security.

On top of that it is the progressive ideology that wants to double down on things like 'hell lets pay for college for *everyone*' (on my back, mind you) and all of the other Madoff-like programs that are proposed by the progressive school of thought this election cycle.

So no, I dont buy your 'conservatives whine about roads' schtick --- most if not all conservatives I know are true business people and realize these are investments in the economy. The real issue is is the fing redistribution machine that the Federal government applies on a Manhattan-project scale each and every fiscal cycle. *That* is what most conservatives ***** about.

I double dog dare you to find elected conservatives in Republican states and Congress that vote for increasing infrastructure spending at a rate that is needed to fix our aging system, or proactively fix issues like above-ground utilities.

Heck, it took Texas' conservatives 2 years to approved Harvey funding. TWO YEARS. And we still haven't done jack **** with regards to protecting the bay from an Ike-like event that could do catastrophic damage to the ship channel and our local economy.

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 06:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Good god you cant even discern the comment due to your left lurch. I have no issue that those cases are better -- but you are so fing over the left field wall you cant even bother to discern that pretty much *all* fing choice in health care has been wiped out.

*That* is the core of progressivism. So get the **** off your 'poor poor people you heartless bastards' schtick -- no one is maddy poo about that.

But the fact of the matter is that *everyone* now has the same piece of fing crap insurance. Again, progressivism at its top shining moment....

I *would* like to be discriminatory in *my* fing choice on the matter. *That* is the point. Good god. Read the fing sentence.

Everyone now has the same insurance? What reality do you live in?

I would ask you a snarky question of whether you *really* think that a choice of 'gold, silver, or bronze' is really a hill you want to defend on your comment above, but then realize two facts: a) you have never probably bought insurance as an individual but through employment; and b) probably not old enough to remember the marketplace pre-2012 and do a comparative analysis about the 'choice' available.

The answer of 'what reality' is the reality of gold, silver and bronze packages. As opposed from the veritable smorgasborg that the market made available previous to the abortion of Obamacare. That one being forced down our throat. Some of us actually bought insurance packages (sometimes multiples, sometimes overlapping) under the old system, lad.

I guess the people that lap this **** up are truly the ones too young to remember that world of choice available. And dont remember the world of choice that was destroyed by Federal diktat.

Whats the best way to squash all health insurance to less than a handful of choices? Progressivism. Because choice is bad and big brother knows best about how I should spend my money. And they didnt even have the fing balls to take the money from me as taxes and do it that way.

A government that destroys 90%+ of the choice in an offering in the private sector, when they could have allowed a world and a half of private offerings on. True, not socialism in the 'government owns production' as you squawk about, but also absolutely true as a complete opponent of capitalism in the sense of free choices that capitalism thrives under. Call it whatever the fk you want, but both are just as much the enemy of capitalism as the other. Health insurance is picture perfect example of it.

And some claim (I guess) that the choice after the Chicxulub style health insurance event is 'thriving' much as you do. Truly, this board needs a forehead slap emoji.....

You're stretching your argument far too thin by saying that there is no choice. If you want to argue there is less choice than before, go ahead. But you explicitly said that Obamacare mandated the type of insurance you must have - which is explicitly 100% incorrect. We all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance," as you stated above.

You even admitted we all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance" by saying there is still employer-sponsored healthcare. For example, I can use the health insurance offered by my company, by my fiance's company, private plans, or the plans included in the marketplace.

Funny -- all one can find these days as a private buyer is the piece of fing crap bronze, silver, or gold. You think that is a fing fantastic place to dance your liberal cha cha cha on that pinhead for apparently 'oodles and fing oodles of choice' and unicorns and pixie dust -- go for it.

Yes, your side fing destroyed the vast vast vast majority of choice in that arena. Why is so fing hard for you to actually even own up to that?

I mean, it gives progressives a literal hard-on to mandate economic decisions -- this is the Viagra of the decade for that.

I mean, lad, how hard is it for you to actually admit the epoch species clearing that liberals undertook with health insurance? Can you? Or continue to do the classic progressive side step about that --- I mean you already used the 'yesterdays old fish' excuse of how terrible it is for underprivileged and bankruptcy that it fing overshadows the elimination of 98% of choice in the matter, so I wonder what vapid sidestep you will do around that mass extinction event, or *how* that mass extinction event is the best thing since sliced bread. You know, defend the crap out of it without really even bothering to address that mass extinction of choice.

(06-15-2019 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Some say that the people who actually pay the taxes are those who are deserving of any breaks.


And what is happening is that you are receiving more freedom to do whatever with the income that *you* earned. 529 it, spend it on hookers and blow, give it to income challenged people, burn it, or invest it. Awesome and simple concept at its core.

The interesting thing is that for every action in that list above (but one) that money is providing a far better multiplier than the government friction stop that taxes represent overall.

And further, one would hope, is that you respect the freedom not only of *your* liberated money, but that of others as well.

I have no issue with you wanting to (and actually performing the action of) use(ing) it to affect income inequality. Your money, your right to to with it as you please. The main issue with progressive stances is that simple respect of those amounts for others typically isnt held.

And the main problem with conservatives stances is that they fail to publicly recognize that the government has an important role to play in keeping society running and providing for the common good - and that costs money.

We have a woefully neglected infrastructure system because Republicans have morphed into the party of every policy proposed by the Democrats is socialist or taxes must always be cut, deficit, integral services, etc. be damned.

We need better roads and bridges to make travel more efficient, the movement of most major electrical infrastructure underground so we do not need to waste millions in repair costs after every major storm, and so on.

I double dog dare you to find a conservative who states 'fk building roads', or 'fk the bridges' in lieu of being taxed for those items.

Some of those 'infrastructure' plays you regale us with include the (in)famous Alaska bridge to nowhere, mind you. Or how about the fing California 'high speed rail' between farm communities extending only 50 mile.

I dont think there is a single conservative that disdains the 'core function' of government you wax so eloquently about --- defense, disaster relief, etc at the Federal level; roads, bridges, highways, dams at the less than Federal level.

But for all your yelping about 'how conservatives disdain infrastructure and core government', you amazingly gloss the fk over the actual monies spent on them. Compared to the gd social welfare state, the issues on 'infrastructure' are a friggin spit in the ocean when stacked against the fing 2.75 trillion or so in 'mandatory spending', of which about 85% is directed to Social Security and medicare/medicaid.

And yes, dont you gd call these as 'earned benefits' -- there is no fing way I will *ever* see any decent fraction of the monies I have pumped in the pyramid/redistributionist-centric scheme of Social Security.

On top of that it is the progressive ideology that wants to double down on things like 'hell lets pay for college for *everyone*' (on my back, mind you) and all of the other Madoff-like programs that are proposed by the progressive school of thought this election cycle.

So no, I dont buy your 'conservatives whine about roads' schtick --- most if not all conservatives I know are true business people and realize these are investments in the economy. The real issue is is the fing redistribution machine that the Federal government applies on a Manhattan-project scale each and every fiscal cycle. *That* is what most conservatives ***** about.

I double dog dare you to find elected conservatives in Republican states and Congress that vote for increasing infrastructure spending at a rate that is needed to fix our aging system, or proactively fix issues like above-ground utilities.

Heck, it took Texas' conservatives 2 years to approved Harvey funding. TWO YEARS. And we still haven't done jack **** with regards to protecting the bay from an Ike-like event that could do catastrophic damage to the ship channel and our local economy.

If you didnt notice there is just a teensy weensy gap between "[we have a] neglected infrastructure system because Republicans have morphed into the party every policy proposed by the Democrats is socialist or taxes must always be cut, deficit, integral services, etc. be damned" and "elected conservatives in .... that vote for increasing infrastructure spending at a rate that is needed to fix our aging system", or do you notice that?

Do conservatives toss money at every infrastructure that progressives do? Probably not. The California bullet train is ample proof of that bias.

And, I am surprised that you utterly neglect the spit in the bucket that infrastructure is relative to every fing Santa Claus handout in the welfare system. No, let me change that --- I am not surprised at all.

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 01:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 02:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The left likely thinks that you shouldn't have to pay $60k per year to provide adequate care for your sister and that someone with physical and mental handicaps should have publicly funded healthcare caring for them.

what does the left think it should do for somebody who has some illiquid assets but no money and no income?

I can tell you. The left won’t lift a finger until she is penniless.

So she has no cash, and the govmint won’t help because she is “rich”. (That is, not broke).

But if you would like to contribute $500 a month, I will let you. After all, you don’t need it, and you don’t deserve it, and my sister needs it, and she deserves it.

The same thing everyone else - have basic healthcare covered by the government. That's what would happen in a program like M4A. Have you really not figured out that progressives have been fighting for a system that provides coverage for all citizens?

Your sister is a perfect example of the type of person who is left out in the current system and who would benefit from a chance in our healthcare system. I know that she would be covered with a system like M4A, but I'm less sure of how she would be handled in the Bismark system that Owl#s advocates for (but my guess is she would be provided for in that system as well).

You guys have all made the same wrong assumption. My cost is not health care. She has healthcare from Medicare and a supplement paid for from her SocSec. What I pay for is her living expenses - a place to live, food, with a staff to help her bathe and when she falls and do her laundry. It is called Senior Residential Living, and is not subsidized by the government. So the healthcare debate you guys are having is moot.

The SocSec check is her only income, and without me, she would be living under bridge or dead. The government and the liberals could not care less.

She is “rich” because she has a 1/3 share of some property in another county with former partners, who do not want to sell due to taxes. But her
disposable income is less than 5% of her needs.

She is not retarded. She has a Ph.D. And speaks - spoke - five languages. She is crazy - delusional - and if the government takes over her care, it will be in a dank pit of a place. Ever see “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”?

Physically she is on a walker due to multiple back surgeries, and on oxygen due to partially paralyzed diaphragm. She cannot work. She is 71 now.

I guess I could take the progressive view and just leave it up to the government to take of her with Warren Buffet’s Taxes. If I did that, the government would let her die in the streets. Good thing she has a brother who prospered in the capitalistic system and saved some money instead of relying on the government to support HIM in his old age.

Advice for the young(er) - buy Long term care insurance. (Unless your plan is to go broke and rely on the government) Save your money, at least what they let you keep. Forego spending needlessly. Don’t trip and fall.

I don’t know every single nitty gritty detail of what is/isn’t covered, but I would find it surprising if senior care or mental health care were not covered under most progressive programs for universal healthcare, in ways that don’t just cover nursing homes or mental health wards.

It sounds to me like your sister is a perfect example of the type of individual that falls through our current system’s cracks and who should have some sort of safety net provided. As you said - don’t trip and fall. Our current system is woefully ill equipped to cover people who are on the **** end of the stick. Thank god preexisting conditions are at least covered these days.

(06-15-2019 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 07:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Everyone now has the same insurance? What reality do you live in?

I would ask you a snarky question of whether you *really* think that a choice of 'gold, silver, or bronze' is really a hill you want to defend on your comment above, but then realize two facts: a) you have never probably bought insurance as an individual but through employment; and b) probably not old enough to remember the marketplace pre-2012 and do a comparative analysis about the 'choice' available.

The answer of 'what reality' is the reality of gold, silver and bronze packages. As opposed from the veritable smorgasborg that the market made available previous to the abortion of Obamacare. That one being forced down our throat. Some of us actually bought insurance packages (sometimes multiples, sometimes overlapping) under the old system, lad.

I guess the people that lap this **** up are truly the ones too young to remember that world of choice available. And dont remember the world of choice that was destroyed by Federal diktat.

Whats the best way to squash all health insurance to less than a handful of choices? Progressivism. Because choice is bad and big brother knows best about how I should spend my money. And they didnt even have the fing balls to take the money from me as taxes and do it that way.

A government that destroys 90%+ of the choice in an offering in the private sector, when they could have allowed a world and a half of private offerings on. True, not socialism in the 'government owns production' as you squawk about, but also absolutely true as a complete opponent of capitalism in the sense of free choices that capitalism thrives under. Call it whatever the fk you want, but both are just as much the enemy of capitalism as the other. Health insurance is picture perfect example of it.

And some claim (I guess) that the choice after the Chicxulub style health insurance event is 'thriving' much as you do. Truly, this board needs a forehead slap emoji.....

You're stretching your argument far too thin by saying that there is no choice. If you want to argue there is less choice than before, go ahead. But you explicitly said that Obamacare mandated the type of insurance you must have - which is explicitly 100% incorrect. We all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance," as you stated above.

You even admitted we all don't have "the same piece of fing crap insurance" by saying there is still employer-sponsored healthcare. For example, I can use the health insurance offered by my company, by my fiance's company, private plans, or the plans included in the marketplace.

Funny -- all one can find these days as a private buyer is the piece of fing crap bronze, silver, or gold. You think that is a fing fantastic place to dance your liberal cha cha cha on that pinhead for apparently 'oodles and fing oodles of choice' and unicorns and pixie dust -- go for it.

Yes, your side fing destroyed the vast vast vast majority of choice in that arena. Why is so fing hard for you to actually even own up to that?

I mean, it gives progressives a literal hard-on to mandate economic decisions -- this is the Viagra of the decade for that.

I mean, lad, how hard is it for you to actually admit the epoch species clearing that liberals undertook with health insurance? Can you? Or continue to do the classic progressive side step about that --- I mean you already used the 'yesterdays old fish' excuse of how terrible it is for underprivileged and bankruptcy that it fing overshadows the elimination of 98% of choice in the matter, so I wonder what vapid sidestep you will do around that mass extinction event, or *how* that mass extinction event is the best thing since sliced bread. You know, defend the crap out of it without really even bothering to address that mass extinction of choice.

If choice didn’t exist, I wouldn’t have the ability to choose if I wanted to stay on my employer-sponsored insurance or change from it. Your continued insistence that choice has gone extinct is clearly false. Again, if you want to argue that it has been limited, go for it. I would agree that it resulted in private insurance plans often becoming more expensive or private insurers discontinuing coverage in certain states. But you’re speaking in hyperbole here - do you think there are death panels too?

I take issue with your description of the ACA as eliminating choice - it distinctly does not do that.

(06-15-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny. Most care went from literally tens of thousands of plans from hundreds or thousands of providers to ----
a) bronze **** plan;
b) silver crap plan;
c) gold still kind of crappy plan.
What rock have you hidden under to miss that mass extinction of choice in healthcare plans? To be blunt, that 'extinction event' in what is offered is part and parcel of the fing law.
To characterize the change as "[does not] eliminat[e] choice" relative to pre-ACA is indicative of a pretty superlative form of psilocybin.
Seriously lad, the fact that you cannot even comprehend that, or fight substantively on that point, makes me truly wonder if you are capable of owning up to *any* shortcoming that progressive idolatry has inherent in it.
I mean, it was less than two weeks ago that you tried the absolute serious 'progressive shuffle' in your explanation of the booing at the California Democratic convention -- and in this instance you either cant (or wont) even face up to the absolute fing massive reduction in choice of style of healthcare plans that the ACA is responsible for.
I mean, most conservatives can wake up and face the music in the shortcomings in both results and philosophies that their actions result it, or could result in.
To claim that the ACA did *not* result in a truly extinction event-like culling of numbers of styles of healthcare plans available simply borders on delusional, to be blunt. Are you so vested in support of the ACA that you cannot fathom or even admit to that stark fact?

(06-16-2019 12:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I forget which one of the Wonder Twins I was discussing crowds with, but just out of the blue at dinner, my GF commented on how crowded it was. Said it was the most crowded she had ever seen it.

I had not mentioned our little talks to her. She is a Trump hater and listens to CNN all day, so unlikely she was trying to credit Trump.

Remember to check the stats when they come out and let me know.