Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, warbird said:

image019.jpg

Yes, warbird. You posted that already. Time to take your pills and have a lie down old man. Looks like your lucid period is even shorter today than normal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, warbird. You posted that already. Time to take your pills and have a lie down old man. Looks like your lucid period is even shorter today than normal. 

I’d pay to see warbird try to give AOC shit in person at closing time.  Little pissant meet Bronx bartender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, warbird. You posted that already. Time to take your pills and have a lie down old man. Looks like your lucid period is even shorter today than normal. 

Changed for you

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:
6 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, warbird. You posted that already. Time to take your pills and have a lie down old man. Looks like your lucid period is even shorter today than normal. 

 Changed for you

752707239_ScreenShot2019-03-11at9_28_07am.png.79d47c69199934821c7f96caae31ba9e.png

Yeah. Bang up job, old man. You really need to take that lie down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, warbird. You posted that already. Time to take your pills and have a lie down old man. Looks like your lucid period is even shorter today than normal. 

And some other right wing dipstick posted one yesterday using her picture and Cold War and Winter.  How droll!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

And some other right wing dipstick posted one yesterday using her picture and Cold War and Winter.  How droll!

No need, she makes herself a joke

Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." (It’s at about 5:45 in this video.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:
6 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

And some other right wing dipstick posted one yesterday using her picture and Cold War and Winter.  How droll!

No need, she makes herself a joke

Indeed, and yet you right-wingers are so fixated on her that you keep making up shit instead of focusing on the stuff she actually does say.

Once again, the last time a Democratic woman got this much attention from you guys, you were shit scared she was going to be president. The fear from your side is palpable and, frankly, I don't see why. She's got years before she's any threat to any position of power in government. Outside motivating the youth vote, she's nothing... but fear her you guys do. Sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

No need, she makes herself a joke

Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." (It’s at about 5:45 in this video.)

“I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke.'

'My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.'

'A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.'

'You know, it really doesn't matter what the media write as long as you've got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.'

'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible.

'An "extremely credible source" has called my office and told me that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a fraud.'

 

 

take your pick .......................there's plenty more

Link to post
Share on other sites

From CNN Aug 8, 2018:

"Then you get into the partisan issue of money which is, man, do you want to spend a lot of my tax money on these proposals that you and Bernie and others have? Medicare for all, college tuition, maybe even housing that the Green New Deal that you have, it is all very expensive especially on the single payer side, and that it gives people sticker shock -- even in Bernie's home state, they got sticker shock.  

They couldn't get it done in his state because of how expensive it is. And that was an 11 percent increase in taxes, 9 to 11 percent. Even that was too much for people.  

How do you pay? How do you sell it?"

CORTEZ: "So, first of all, the thing that we need to realize is people talk about the sticker shock of Medicare for all. They do not talk about the sticker shock of our -- of the cost of our existing system.  

You know in a Koch Brothers-funded, you know, study, if any study's going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers. It shows that Medicare for all is actually much more -- is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.  

And let's not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don't buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.  

So, we're paying for this system. We -- Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we're also not talking about is, why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system.  

Why don't we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy because they have -- because they are having issues like diabetes or they don't have access to the healthcare that they need?

I think at the end of the day, we see that this is not a pipedream. Every other developed nation in the world does this, why can't America? And that is the question that we need to ask.  

We have done these things before. We write unlimited blank checks for war. We write a $2 trillion -- we just wrote a $2 trillion check for that tax cut, the GOP tax cut, and nobody asked those folks how are they going to pay for it. So, my question is why is it that our pockets are only empty when it comes to education and healthcare for our kids? Why are our pockets only empty when we talk about over 100 percent renewable energy is going to save this planet and allow our children to thrive?  

We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do. But when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to be -- to invent that money very easily.  

And to me, it belies a lack of moral priorities that people have right now, especially the Republican Party."

 

Say what you want, but she is not "dumb". She's talking truth to power, and that is upsetting to some.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I wouldn't call what you do thinking but, the words of praise proclaiming Trudeau were right here in this forum.

Cite?

I haven't seen anyone post any fan stuff about Joe Trudeau.

Closest thing to it was comparing him to Trump - and even with SNC he comes off a winner by a country mile - or three - in that competition.

Nothing about it was about enriching himself.

You really are nothing but a partisan moran hack - how do you even look in a mirror without feeling shame?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." (It’s at about 5:45 in this video.)

I ran into one of the secretaries from the DA's office at Home Depot.  Yes, she has two jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

I ran into one of the secretaries from the DA's office at Home Depot.  Yes, she has two jobs.

@hasher Do you understand what was so absurd about AOC’s comment?  Because it seems you don’t.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J28 said:

@hasher Do you understand what was so absurd about AOC’s comment?  Because it seems you don’t.

Illuminate us....

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J28 said:
1 hour ago, hasher said:

I ran into one of the secretaries from the DA's office at Home Depot.  Yes, she has two jobs.

@hasher Do you understand what was so absurd about AOC’s comment?  Because it seems you don’t.

Do you understand what is so absurd about your mocking things AOC didn't really say?

Because she's a lot smarter, and knows more about politics and economics, than you

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - @Steam Flyersince AOC did say "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." you are wrong.  And since you other three idiots @hasher, @Mrleft8and @dacapo seem to think she is right, you're going to have to cite something that proves she is. 

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J28 said:

OK - @Steam Flyersince AOC did say "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family." you are wrong.  And since you other three idiots @hasher, @Mrleft8and @dacapo seem to think she is right, you're going to have to cite something that proves she is. 

Otherwise shut the fuck up.

So early in the day for panties to get all wadded up.  The issue defined becomes the winner of the argument.  I love it that she is moving the issue.  Why don't you harp on why the little don?  Life was failing for lots of hard working folks.  He offered failed solutions.  So sad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you understand what is so absurd about your mocking things AOC didn't really say?

Because she's a lot smarter, and knows more about politics and economics, than you

-DSK

Here is the transcript.  You do the math.

MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.

And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.

Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

When this country started, we were not a capitalist — we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

Here is the transcript.  You do the math.

MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.

And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.

Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

When this country started, we were not a capitalist — we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

The interesting thing was that, indeed, the US was a mercantile, not capitalist society when it first came about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And since you other three idiots @hasher, @Mrleft8and @dacapo seem to think she is right, you're going to have to cite something that proves she is. 

 

Where the fuck do you get I think she's right ?  You are one dumb fuckwit...as i stated above, stop posting...for all of humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Laker said:

capitalist society

Adam Smith understood the limits to capitalist ideology.

Many very successful people have also ascribed to the idea that you make your money and then more importantly, you give it away.

Personally, I believe people need to be paid a fair wage.  I can only control that in my little space.  I'd also like a political structure that does not support a Walmart that we have to subsidize because of their employment practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Here is the transcript.  You do the math.

MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.

And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.

Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

When this country started, we were not a capitalist — we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

So discussing some of the failings of capitalism means that she is a loony commie leftie that wants to eliminate capitalism from American society?

You are even dumber than I thought.

Congratulations - quite an accomplishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

 I'd also like a political structure that does not support a Walmart that we have to subsidize because of their employment practices.

What's wrong with that?

Good Republican economics - socialism for the rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

What's wrong with that?

Good Republican economics - socialism for the rich.

Purple font please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

So discussing some of the failings of capitalism means that she is a loony commie leftie that wants to eliminate capitalism from American society?

You are even dumber than I thought.

Congratulations - quite an accomplishment.

Do the math.  If you are capable.

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dacapo said:

And since you other three idiots @hasher, @Mrleft8and @dacapo seem to think she is right, you're going to have to cite something that proves she is. 

 

Where the fuck do you get I think she's right ?  You are one dumb fuckwit...as i stated above, stop posting...for all of humanity.

You’re a fucking idiot @dacapo.  Here’s something you might understand: go fuck yourself.  Then have a good cry.

 BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

You’re a fucking idiot @dacapo.  Here’s something you might understand: go fuck yourself.  Then have a good cry.

 BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

We just fall on our knees in front of your intelligence, wit and graceful glory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J28 said:

Still waiting for @hasherto explain why she’s right when she said:  “Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs”.

 

I have the same response to any idiot trying to prove a meaningless point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, phillysailor said:

From CNN Aug 8, 2018:

"Then you get into the partisan issue of money which is, man, do you want to spend a lot of my tax money on these proposals that you and Bernie and others have? Medicare for all, college tuition, maybe even housing that the Green New Deal that you have, it is all very expensive especially on the single payer side, and that it gives people sticker shock -- even in Bernie's home state, they got sticker shock.  

They couldn't get it done in his state because of how expensive it is. And that was an 11 percent increase in taxes, 9 to 11 percent. Even that was too much for people.  

How do you pay? How do you sell it?"

CORTEZ: "So, first of all, the thing that we need to realize is people talk about the sticker shock of Medicare for all. They do not talk about the sticker shock of our -- of the cost of our existing system.  

You know in a Koch Brothers-funded, you know, study, if any study's going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers. It shows that Medicare for all is actually much more -- is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.  

And let's not forget that the reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don't buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.  

So, we're paying for this system. We -- Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare as it is, and what we're also not talking about is, why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can't afford access to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system.  

Why don't we talk about the cost of reduced productivity because of people who need to go on disability, because of people who are not able to participate in our economy because they have -- because they are having issues like diabetes or they don't have access to the healthcare that they need?

I think at the end of the day, we see that this is not a pipedream. Every other developed nation in the world does this, why can't America? And that is the question that we need to ask.  

We have done these things before. We write unlimited blank checks for war. We write a $2 trillion -- we just wrote a $2 trillion check for that tax cut, the GOP tax cut, and nobody asked those folks how are they going to pay for it. So, my question is why is it that our pockets are only empty when it comes to education and healthcare for our kids? Why are our pockets only empty when we talk about over 100 percent renewable energy is going to save this planet and allow our children to thrive?  

We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do. But when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to be -- to invent that money very easily.  

And to me, it belies a lack of moral priorities that people have right now, especially the Republican Party."

 

Say what you want, but she is not "dumb". She's talking truth to power, and that is upsetting to some.

So - assuming she even knows who the Koch Brothers are - does she provide any empirical data to support the assertion she's making in this claim?   IMHO - the easiest way to gain voter support for a thing is to demonstrate that that thing really IS the best approach - the character attacks jsut serve to entrench opponents. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - assuming she even knows who the Koch Brothers are - does she provide any empirical data to support the assertion she's making in this claim?   IMHO - the easiest way to gain voter support for a thing is to demonstrate that that thing really IS the best approach - the character attacks jsut serve to entrench opponents. 

 

She is a young lady who is addressing what ills society.  Is she going to misstep?  Anyone who reads knows the Kock Brothers are not one entity.  Imagine this, two people who don't always agree.  I like having a young person stepping up to the plate.  In baseball, if you get a hit one third of the time, you are a superstar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Do the math.  If you are capable.

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.

And you know better of course.

I'd say that having worked as a bartender would give her a hell of a lot better view of the working class than anything an ignorant old fart like you might be able to gather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hasher said:

We just fall on our knees in front of your intelligence, wit and graceful glory.

Not to mention our envy of his boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, J28 said:
1 hour ago, dacapo said:

And since you other three idiots @hasher, @Mrleft8and @dacapo seem to think she is right, you're going to have to cite something that proves she is. 

 

Where the fuck do you get I think she's right ?  You are one dumb fuckwit...as i stated above, stop posting...for all of humanity.

You’re a fucking idiot @dacapo.  Here’s something you might understand: go fuck yourself.  Then have a good cry.

 BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You know, most folks would say "Whoops.  Should not have included you in that post.  My bad."

At least, those with integrity would do that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hasher said:

She is a young lady who is addressing what ills society.  Is she going to misstep?  Anyone who reads knows the Kock Brothers are not one entity.  Imagine this, two people who don't always agree.  I like having a young person stepping up to the plate.  In baseball, if you get a hit one third of the time, you are a superstar. 

So - the messenger is more important than the factual accuracy of the message?   You're grasping here, I suspect that it might be because you mistook my comments as a slam against Mz AOC, rather than the idea that actually presenting empirical measurements and supportable facts is a better defense for a position than is baseless character attacks against that position's opponents.    

If she's run #s that show that "medicare for all IS cheaper"?  Then THAT is what everyone should be talking about.  If those #s don't exist? Then nobody ought to be making the claim.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

#s

Yes the numbers exist.  It means that insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies get less money.  Do you think they have lobbyists?  Get the best government you can buy and don't come crying when you got bought out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

...

I'd say that having worked as a bartender would give her a hell of a lot better view of the working class than anything an ignorant old fart like you might be able to gather.

A big city gal. Smart rural bartenders are nonexistent. Ask me how I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hasher said:

Yes the numbers exist.  It means that insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies get less money.  Do you think they have lobbyists?  Get the best government you can buy and don't come crying when you got bought out.

If they exist - ( and I question that ) - then they ought to be at the forefront of any discussion.   The ACA sucks - in almost every way it can be considered.  I don't want to see another poorly conceived, even more poorly executed bureaucratic mess being suggested to address shortcomings in such a major component of our society and economy.  If we're going to make a change - then we ought to make the right change, for the right reasons, as efficiently as possible. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The ACA sucks - in almost every way it can be considered

Yep, it sucks so bad that uninsured numbers have plummeted. It sucks so bad that people with pre-existing health conditions can't be denied health insurance. I helped a crew buddy fill out the Covered CA paperwork to get health insurance which he couldn't even get because of a pre-existing condition. Idiot then voted for your boy Shitstain. What an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yep, it sucks so bad that uninsured numbers have plummeted. It sucks so bad that people with pre-existing health conditions can't be denied health insurance. I helped a crew buddy fill out the Covered CA paperwork to get health insurance which he couldn't even get because of a pre-existing condition. Idiot then voted for your boy Shitstain. What an idiot.

Edited to remove a stupid comment and add a little more context. 
That it created some benefit for some folks doesn't negate that it's a POS that didn't come close to addressing it's intended objectives, it was shoved thru on a party line vote to saitsfy the insurance lobby.    My costs have increased 300% since its inception with a significant reduction in benefits.   There are 2 things that the ACA did well - eliminated exclusions due to pre-existing conditions, and provided the ability for adult children to be covered on their parents' plans 'til age 26.     NEITHER of those things has done anything to address the cost of health care delivery ( as was touted as the main selling point ).  The same things could have been accomplished much simpler and more cheaply with greater overall benefit by simply expanding Medicaid and establishing a graduated premium schedule.   BUT - "Obama's Legacy" and the appearance of "giving something to the helpless" were more important considerations for the Ds. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - J28 - I think you're a bit outta line shittin' on Cap, he's not in the same boat as Jiblets or 3 in 1.  

Yeah - his post was soooo helpful to the convo.  But - neverless, I apologize to da cap. @dacapo

Still waiting for @hasher (or anyone) to defend her unemployment comment.  Since @Bus Driver is apparently this thread’s policeperson, maybe he/she would like to take a swing.

BTW - Let’s face it, nobody is in the same boat with @3to1.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J28 said:

Yeah - his post was soooo helpful to the convo.  But - neverless, I apologize to da cap. @dacapo

Still waiting for @hasher (or anyone) to defend her unemployment comment.  Since @Bus Driver is apparently this thread’s policeperson, maybe he/she would like to take a swing.

BTW - Let’s face it, nobody is in the same boat with @3to1.

Pointing out your bullshit comment and encouraging you to man up and apologize is hardly being a "policeperson".

Just trying to help you grow the fuck up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The numbers have been run. For society as a whole it's cheaper.

The angst is over who pays the bill.

Show me the #s - and the methodoogy behind them, for the US and it's population.   If they exist - then THAT should be the basis for the conversation, and who pays for it how is an almost equal consideration.   The bullshit of "the left wants government to pay for everything" and " the right are evil bastards who want to keep minorities too sick to fight back" is just that - bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-sanders/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

mercatus study (conservatives)

if medicare for all doesn't control costs - what will (aside from people dieing?)

Thanks for the link - finally, something substantive to discuss.  From your cite: 

"The Mercatus report’s author took issue with Sanders’ focus on that figure.

Charles Blahous said that to come up with that estimate, Mercatus used a relatively generous assumption about how well Sanders’ plan will end up controlling health care costs. It assumes that provider payment will be reduced to Medicare levels, that negotiation with prescription drugmakers will generate significant savings, and that administrative costs will be cut from 13 to 6 percent.

However, in an alternative scenario in which cost-control works less effectively (see Table 4) Mercatus found that over the same 10-year period, national health expenditures would actually increase by $3.252 trillion compared to current law.

So while the number Sanders chose really does appear in the report, he’s cherry-picked the more flattering of two estimates.

Sanders’ bill "indicates that health providers would be paid at Medicare’s payment rates, which are about 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurance," Blahous said. "Obviously, immediately cutting payments to health care providers by roughly 40 percent would lower national health spending."

But would cuts that large actually occur (and without other negative consequences, such as mass retirements of doctors unwilling to accept lower fees)? This is where independent experts express caution.

Sustained cuts as deep as those projected in the Mercatus model Sanders pointed to are "not likely feasible," said John Holahan, a fellow in the health policy center at the Urban Institute. His Urban Institute colleague, Linda Blumberg, agreed, saying it’s a "pretty heroic assumption to say that you can dial payment rates down to those levels system-wide politically."

So - the answer is likely somewhere close to that - and understanding the basis for the variance is where rational discussion of options can occur.   I personally think that expanding Medicaid/Medicare, w/a graduated premium schedule would have been significantly more effective and palatable to that part of the public who are now paying for ACA's largesse.   

So, IMHO - we ought to figure out the most efficacious approach, while balancing costs/benefits - and then figure our the best way to pay for it.   I think that the best way is going to be a combination of increased taxes ( line items, not sin taxes) and premiums - and that if it can be demonstrated that the indivudal outlay is teh same or reduced?  That the basis for rational objection is gone.    

I don't think that Sanders is right - I don't think that "medicare for all" WILL reduce costs - individually or collectively, because I don't think that the assumptions he makes will survive implementation.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You might be right. The problem with US healthcare is it costs too much. Without "negative consequences" reducing cost is impossible.

We agree - lots of opportunities for cost reduction:  Reduce over-utilization ( IE ER visits for a cold),  standardization of administrative proceses/procedures/adjudication factors,  tort reform,  moving from FFS to outcome-based billing, pharmaceutical price controls, standardized pricing - ie, an EKG oughta cost what an EKG costs - regardless of where it's being done or whether the person has good insurance or not.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - the messenger is more important than the factual accuracy of the message?   You're grasping here, I suspect that it might be because you mistook my comments as a slam against Mz AOC, rather than the idea that actually presenting empirical measurements and supportable facts is a better defense for a position than is baseless character attacks against that position's opponents.    

If she's run #s that show that "medicare for all IS cheaper"?  Then THAT is what everyone should be talking about.  If those #s don't exist? Then nobody ought to be making the claim.    

Jeezuss - how much evidence do you need? Every other advanced nation has it and they all provide it for a fraction of what the USA spends.

There's nothing to talk about or discuss - except for right wingers who will do and say anything to prevent that commie socialized health care from destroying freedom and the USA.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

they walk the tight rope of wtf idiocy, but they won't concede their smelly little bags of ideological shit, even in the face of good reason, evidence, and facts. fucking man-children, pushing the boundaries of the dunning-kruger parameters all day long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - J28 - I think you're a bit outta line shittin' on Cap, he's not in the same boat as Jiblets or 3 in 1.  

TY Guy... j28 is dick....has been since his first asinine post..

 

as far as shittin on me....I  sail with some curmudgeons far tougher than this little shit.  I have thick skin and when I poke the bear I expect a  response more in line with an adult and not a childish Git.   I take offense to fuckstick thinking somewhere in this thread I agree with AOC on this particular issue...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J28 said:
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Indoctrinated adolescents educated in the US public school system have a positive view of socialism, despite the lessons of history.  

FIFY

Twisting another poster's words like that is a pure dick move.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 " 2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't think that Sanders is right - I don't think that "medicare for all" WILL reduce costs - individually or collectively, because I don't think that the assumptions he makes will survive implementation."   

You make assumptions unsupported by anything but your "thinking", yet demand hard  "empirical" numbers from everyone else.  

Well, look around and you might just find that "emprical" evidence in the fact that universal healthcare - in the myriad varieties it appears around the planet in equivalent economies from Switzerland to the UK to France to Canada to Namethat country - is less expensive than healthcare in the US and has similar or better outcomes.  

There's your empirical evidence.  And no, the USA is not so unique in its population - except for its generally crappy diet -  that the experience of literally dozens of other nations isn't a valid and successful experiment.  

QED

No if you want to argue that the intransigent republicans will try - perhaps successfully - to fuck up implementation, you may be right about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dacapo said:

TY Guy... j28 is dick....has been since his first asinine post..

 

as far as shittin on me....I  sail with some curmudgeons far tougher than this little shit.  I have thick skin and when I poke the bear I expect a  response more in line with an adult and not a childish Git.   I take offense to fuckstick thinking somewhere in this thread I agree with AOC on this particular issue...

And here we have the graciousness of the left on full display.  

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Jeezuss - how much evidence do you need? Every other advanced nation has it and they all provide it for a fraction of what the USA spends.

There's nothing to talk about or discuss - except for right wingers who will do and say anything to prevent that commie socialized health care from destroying freedom and the USA.

OK, if you don't control spending you add another 3.6 trilllion annually to the budget.There are roughly a third of a billion Americans.  the Total Labor Force (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is about 162 million.  Your share, (and every man, woman and child's) would be about another 15,000 plus per year in medicare tax on top of what you are now paying.  Since medicare has it's own tax stream, It's 2.9 percent at present collected over your entire working life on your full pay.

The

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

And you know better of course.

I'd say that having worked as a bartender would give her a hell of a lot better view of the working class than anything an ignorant old fart like you might be able to gather.

Still haven't done the math have you.

Suppose there were 100 jobs and 100 people were filling them.  The unemployment rate is 0%.

Suppose ten people decide that they want to work two jobs.

If they each take one of the 100 available jobs, ten other less competent people currently filling them are laid off or fired.

You still have 100 jobs 20 of them are being filled by ten people with two jobs.  Ten other people are unemployed and the unemployment rate is 10%.

Filling two jobs increases the unemployment rate.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

OK, if you don't control spending you add another 3.6 trilllion annually to the budget.There are roughly a third of a billion Americans.  the Total Labor Force (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is about 162 million.  Your share, (and every man, woman and child's) would be about another 15,000 plus per year in medicare tax on top of what you are now paying.  Since medicare has it's own tax stream, It's 2.9 percent at present collected over your entire working life on your full pay.

The

You're a moron so we can simply ignore that steaming pile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Still haven't done the math have you.

Suppose there were 100 jobs and 100 people were filling them.  The unemployment rate is 0%.

Suppose ten people decide that they want to work two jobs.

If they each take one of the 100 available jobs, ten other less competent people currently filling them are laid off or fired.

You still have 100 jobs 20 of them are being filled by ten people with two jobs.  Ten other people are unemployed and the unemployment rate is 10%.

Filling two jobs increases the unemployment rate.

 

Just suppose.

Suppose you tried dealing in reality instead of stupid bullshit theories like JerKZ.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

god damn you are fucking stupid. and I mean, angrily, republican, stupid dumb. It's not 15k "on top of what you are paying". It's 15k - minus your current health expenditures for basic healthcare. What the fuck did you do before you became a retirement leach that allowed you to be so fucking stupid?

He was either an architect or a rocket surgeon of some sort. :lol:

 

As if.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

OK, if you don't control spending you add another 3.6 trilllion annually to the budget.There are roughly a third of a billion Americans.  the Total Labor Force (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is about 162 million.  Your share, (and every man, woman and child's) would be about another 15,000 plus per year in medicare tax on top of what you are now paying.  Since medicare has it's own tax stream, It's 2.9 percent at present collected over your entire working life on your full pay.

Yes, and in exchange you won't be spending the exorbitant amount you do on healthcare per person that you do now. You do realise that a socialised healthcare system will supplant some of that cost right? That you don't keep paying for the basic health insurance covered by the government, you keep it down to what you need on top of that. You understand basic economics right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SloopJonB is stoopid on steroids.  He never makes an argument - he only demeans and spews angry insults because he can’t make a fact- and logic-based point.  

Plus, he’s just a senile old Canuckistani.  Who cares what he thinks?

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

god damn you are fucking stupid. and I mean, angrily, republican, stupid dumb. It's not 15k "on top of what you are paying". It's 15k - minus your current health expenditures for basic healthcare. What the fuck did you do before you became a retirement leach that allowed you to be so fucking stupid?

Nope, it's a tax that is 15K on top of your current tax bill.  That money has to come from somewhere.  If your employer is paying for your health insurance you aren't likely to get that $7500 they are paying in your paycheck.   You may recover some of what you are paying though.  Somebody needs to show me some real numbers on "Medicare For All" and not just tell people that they won't have to pay for their healthcare.  PLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEE don't try to convince me that the 3.6 Trillion will be less if the money all has to pass through Washington and an army of bureaucrats.

Since it's medicare you want that's only going to cover 80% of your expenses.  There will still be plenty of procedures, devices and doctors visits that won't be covered.  Then there is the deductable and you'll need some sort of supplemental coverage for the 20% not paid by Medicare.  You will also need to pay for prescription coverage since Part D is separate.

Here is some info on "free" medicare.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/medicare-costs-at-a-glance

2019 costs at a glance
Part A premium Most people don't pay a monthly premium for Part A (sometimes called "premium-free Part A"). If you buy Part A, you'll pay up to $437 each month. If you paid Medicare taxes for less than 30 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $437. If you paid Medicare taxes for 30-39 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $240.
Part A hospital inpatient deductible and coinsurance You pay:
  • $1,364 deductible for each benefit period
  • Days 1-60: $0 coinsurance for each benefit period
  • Days 61-90: $341 coinsurance per day of each benefit period
  • Days 91 and beyond: $682 coinsurance per each "lifetime reserve day" after day 90 for each benefit period (up to 60 days over your lifetime)
  • Beyond lifetime reserve days: all costs
Part B premium The standard Part B premium amount is $135.50 (or higher depending on your income).
Part B deductible and coinsurance $185 per year. After your deductible is met, you typically pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for most doctor services (including most doctor services while you're a hospital inpatient), outpatient therapy, and Durable medical equipment (DME)
Part C premium
The Part C monthly  Premium varies by plan.
Compare costs for specific Part C plans.
Part D premium
The Part D monthly  Premium  varies by plan (higher-income consumers may pay more).
Compare costs for specific Part D plans.
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, warbird said:

OAC

OMG.  The Democratic Party recruits candidates.  Why would they do such a thing?  Why not let billionaires just volunteer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it is not.

Yeah... you know what follows people saying that as a first line? Conspiracy theories. 

I don't care about conspiracy, I am just humored by the "cattle call" aspect of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

https://wsau.com/blogs/ben-armstrong-blog/20344/wow-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-exposed/

Interesting read. OAC is the product of a lib PAC casting call. YCMTSU

Hmm, an organization seeking a candidate to do a job? Hiring the most qualified according to their goals? I’m not sure how seeking specific qualities and background in an elected official is problematic.

Far too often these decisions are made by friends and family already empowered by political and economic advantages. 

I understand that you fear a meritocracy, but that’s what is necessary to empower groups which are new to the halls of power and Congress. 

George Bush would NEVER have been a candidate without daddy, Trump NEVER would have been galvanizing without daddy’s millions.

The Democrats are actively empowering minorities and women and it chaps your butt.

Go get some cream. But stop the whining already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

reduce costs

There is this idea that you don't need to reinvent the wheel.  Guess where lower health care costs are working?  Everywhere but here.  We are so exceptional, or is it just those with their pockets padded.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hasher said:

There is this idea that you don't need to reinvent the wheel.  Guess where lower health care costs are working?  Everywhere but here.  We are so exceptional, or is it just those with their pockets padded.  

Yes, we have lots of government interference in our healthcare system.  It causes lots of problems.

Which country leads the world in medical research and innovation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Hmm, an organization seeking a candidate to do a job? Hiring the most qualified according to their goals? I’m not sure how seeking specific qualities and background in an elected official is problematic.

Far too often these decisions are made by friends and family already empowered by political and economic advantages. 

I understand that you fear a meritocracy, but that’s what is necessary to empower groups which are new to the halls of power and Congress. 

George Bush would NEVER have been a candidate without daddy, Trump NEVER would have been galvanizing without daddy’s millions.

The Democrats are actively empowering minorities and women and it chaps your butt.

Go get some cream. But stop the whining already.

Again, I am humored by the casting call aspect. Watch the video, read the article......

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Again, I am humored by the casting call aspect. Watch the video, read the article......

I did read, watched a bit.

Unsurprising stuff, and I get that someone is trying to make a big deal out of this.

But really, talk about Ocasio from you guys is weak. No serious discussion just memes and insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites