« prev   random   next »
1   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 14, 7:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

How much do I get for pointing out Liberals who have done the same thing?
2   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 14, 7:49pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
How much do I get for pointing out Liberals who have done the same thing?


I believe the going rate is 5,000 GOP votes in November for each instance.
3   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 14, 8:43pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
I believe the going rate is 5,000 GOP votes in November for each instance.


Lol, yes it is! Pretty expensive, but Democrats don't seem to care.
4   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 14, 9:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

the college educated idiot said: the reason is because the conservatives are more closed minded and only focus on one issue? What the fuck does that even mean?
5   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 14, 11:19pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

It seems like if you had real confidence in Trump, you would be defending Climate change denial, or perhaps explaining why deficits only matter when democrats are in power.

Instead you're going to make a silly generalization or at least imply another generalization about liberals, based on what some extremist left winger children do. That is kids with extremist identity politics views that don't even represent 10% of democratic voters.

Don't get me wrong. I get it. All of your arguments in favor of Trump are hollow. Where is his health care plan ? Where's his wall ? H's going to take credit for a continuation of the expansion that started 8 or 9 years ago, but he won't talk about the debt increase he was willing to take on in growth times to make it happen.

I'm talking real policies here, not what the flakiest right wing racists are saying to an interviewer at a wallmart in Arkansas.

Are Trumps deportation numbers up to Obama levels yet ?

You all were sold a bunch of hogwash. Shame on you for being so gullible. And for letting him appeal to your darkest angels.
6   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 14, 11:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So can’t find one instance Marcus?

Didn’t think so.
7   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 14, 11:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Of course not. I also can't find a liberal that would post a thread as stupid as this one.
8   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 14, 11:35pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Of course not. I also can't find a liberal that would post a thread as stupid as this one.


It hurts doesn’t it. It’s okay man. Sometimes the truth is like that.
9   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 6:12am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That one went in with no lube!
He’s gonna feel that tomorrow.
10   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 7:01am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It seems like if you had real confidence in Trump, you would be defending Climate change denial

Trump may not be one of the AGW evangelists, but he has actually pursuing action that would reduce carbon emissions:
- working to produce goods in USA rather than China (USA pollution laws would apply)
- working to curb unfettered illegal immigration (increasing 1st world population means more carbon footprint)
- supports fracking that allowed more substitution of natural gas over other more carbon emitting fuels

And as I am sure you have noticed, USA carbon footprint has been decreasing.

When it comes to pollution/carbon/depletion, actual action beats a profession of faith.
11   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 7:20am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
It seems like if you had real confidence in Trump, you would be defending Climate change denial


It's funny how people think that by getting a bunch of rich fucks to fly in their private jets to some meeting place and discuss "climate change" over lobster lunches and expect the usa to pay for the majority of the costs, will be the solution to "climate change"....lol...And if you see through all these shenanigans, and don't want to participate, it means that you want to destroy the world. What happened to the people that could actually think and not just go hysterically stupid?
12   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 7:25am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
you would be defending Climate change denial, or perhaps explaining why deficits only matter when democrats are in power.

those are different issues from shutting down conservative opinions at universities. I happen to agree with left on AGW and on deficits both sides are retarded.

If Left is so confident they are right in everything, then why do they try to shut down others?

Where did "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" disappear?
13   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 8:05am   ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

dr6B says
Where did "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" disappear?


When the Left began talking about “hate speech” as being too dangerous to be allowed. Of course, since the Left also gets to define “hate speech,” it can designate any speech it doesn’t approve of as hate speech. And since they’ve decided that some speech is “too dangerous to be protected,” that means that “dangerous” speech is also fair game for censorship and retribution. And since they control what is defined as “dangerous speech,” they control the conversation. And Free Speech is effectively dead.
14   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 8:22am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
since the Left also gets to define “hate speech,”


Seems kind of ... nazi-like.
15   cmdrdataleak   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 8:30am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


And since they control what is defined as “dangerous speech,” they control the conversation. And Free Speech is effectively dead.


Yes, but remember: It isn't everyone pushing for scrapping open dialog in favor of groupthink. It isn't even all of the left and left-leaners. It is a paltry 8%, it is the so-called "Progressive Activists" (who, ironically, advocate some of the most regressive positions):



Classic Liberals, Left-leaners, Moderates, Liberalists, Conservatives, Traditionalists, and the center-Right all have more in common with each other than they do with the regressive 8%.

This is the narrative that we could be amplifying: there is unity in America, and it is among the 92%ers who still value freedom of expression and open dialog. The real battle to be won is against the cynicism and nihilism of the 8% regressives and the rejection of progress and the Enlightenment that they're trying to stuff down the throats of the 92%.
16   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 8:46am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You are quite correct! However these progressives have effectively infiltrated national media and the university system and are working hard to miseducate students and the public. Every new grad who believes this crap chips away at the majority of sane people. And we have the media propaganda blaring 24/7 defining the national discussion and trying to gas light us all into believing their horse shit.
It’s a terrorist war.
17   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 9:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

cmdrdataleak says
cynicism and nihilism of the 8% regressives


Yes, this population of incels, losers, and fat pigs, are the ones pushing the SJW bullshit and since they have the most time out of everyone (since they have no social life outside of SJWism), they dedicated 100% of their energy into it.
18   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 9:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Aphroman says
A very accurate description of Republicans in 2018

Nice to see some are finally waking up



Yes, it's the GOP voters who are pushing group identity politics and collectivism.

19   cmdrdataleak   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 9:55am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
You are quite correct! However these progressives have effectively infiltrated national media and the university system and are working hard to miseducate students and the public. Every new grad who believes this crap chips away at the majority of sane people. And we have the media propaganda blaring 24/7 defining the national discussion and trying to gas light us all into believing their horse shit.
It’s a terrorist war.


Most importantly, they've infiltrated the "FAANGs" companies, (a.k.a. Facebook, Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Netflix,...), and those companies not only have influence on, but fiat control over what we can find, see, hear, show, and say. Mission objective #1 of the 92% should be oversight, regulation, and maybe even trust-busting of these juggernauts.

Start by making them decide between becoming media companies, and losing all their CDA section 230 protections, or reaffirming their status as common carriers, and being treated as the "public square" and thus enjoined from any sort of content censorship.
20   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 5:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says

Yes, it's the GOP voters who are pushing group identity politics and collectivism.


Trump Jr. sure did today.
21   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 15, 6:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

cmdrdataleak says
Most importantly, they've infiltrated the "FAANGs" companies, (a.k.a. Facebook, Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Netflix,...), and those companies not only have influence on, but fiat control over what we can find, see, hear, show, and say. Mission objective #1 of the 92% should be oversight, regulation, and maybe even trust-busting of these juggernauts.

Start by making them decide between becoming media companies, and losing all their CDA section 230 protections, or reaffirming their status as common carriers, and being treated as the "public square" and thus enjoined from any sort of content censorship.


This is an interesting problem. Perhaps the 92% would be in favor of better regulation of the FAANG companies, but is it even possible to get the message out there when the media is effectively monopolized by them, and they have an effectively infinite amount of money to bribe Congressmen with donate to Congressional campaigns.

Maybe it's just as important to try to infiltrate a more diverse range of opinions into the FAANG companies themselves, though even mild questioning is typically punished with firing.
22   LastMan   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 15, 6:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FAANG = corporations that have been deemed people. They have a right to express their opinions. Do you want to repress their right to free speech?
23   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 15, 7:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
You all were sold a bunch of hogwash.


We are still awaiting your hogwash example. (I hear Washpo has a few thousand for you.)
24   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 15, 11:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
We are still awaiting your hogwash example. (I hear Washpo has a few thousand for you.)


Actually Wapo has a few thousand examples for anyone to prove aren't lies.

Guess what ? Nobody has even tried. Because all reality based people know what a lie looks like. Only total flakes want to say, "well actually, truth is relativite" or "oh, lying out his ass is just his style, we all know that," or "all politicians lie, same old same old." Yeah okay. That just makes you a lying piece of shit.

In that other thread did you ever respond with some true things Trump said from his editorial ? Perhaps you thought that his statement that liberals with their "medicare for all," are actually trying to take seniors medicare benefits away, was true ?

I didn't think so.
25   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 15, 11:12pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
marcus says
Of course not. I also can't find a liberal that would post a thread as stupid as this one.


It hurts doesn’t it. It’s okay man. Sometimes the truth is like that.


Wow you got a lot of likes from the dimbulb club.

Look let's get real for a minute. There is a huge part of the country that are relatively moderate. Presumably you and I are both part of that group. But we have disagreements. WE could discuss those. But instead what ?

You want to associate me and my beliefs and opinions with people that I don't respect at all, that represent the far left.

I guess maybe it's some sort of payback for the decades of humiliation you've experienced for being associated you with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Brietbart Alex Jones, TPB, and all the other morons that represent the right wing as we know it ?

The only difference, is that I denounce SJWs, and disassociate myself from that kind of politics. Where as all those listed actually represent you, and the people giving you those likes.

You have reason to be ashamed of your politics, that is, if you are honest.

I don't
26   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 15, 11:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

cmdrdataleak says
Most importantly, they've infiltrated the "FAANGs" companies, (a.k.a. Facebook, Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Netflix,...), and those companies not only have influence on, but fiat control over what we can find, see, hear, show, and say. Mission objective #1 of the 92% should be oversight, regulation, and maybe even trust-busting of these juggernauts.


I agree, and Universities should be #2. We may need to take tenure power from State Universities and invest it in a board picked by the Governor/State Legislature, since the State is subsidizing it.

The radicals were given jobs in the 70s in the name of intellectual diversity, and many were pro-diversity/free speech themselves (often part of the "Academic Freedom" and "Free Speech Movements") in the beginning, feeling that if New Left ideas could be presented, they'd be rapidly adopted. However, as their radical causes failed to gain the strength they believed it would, they turned around and began adopting more aggressive strategies - for example, only approving those who shared their worldview. Political Correctness was developed and adopted precisely because these Radicals believed that "Structure" of the language of Bourgeois Capitalist society was an obstacle that prevented people from "Seeing the Truth".

As late as the 60s, professors were as likely to be Centrist Liberal and/or Republican/Conservative as not in the Social Sciences, and NOT rare as rain in Spain like they are today. Hard Left Profs were rare and more often found outside the Humanities/Liberal Arts. The lack of Non-AltLeft Profs, esp. in the Social Sciences, is not an accident nor because smart people are always Hard Left. To the 60s radicals and their proteges on the Social Science Tenure Committees , Middle of the Road Liberals like Dershowitz, EJ DIonne, or Thomas Mann are regarded as Reactionary Neanderthals little better than Hitler.

The real boom in Hard Left Professors has actually occurred between the late 90s and today, again a result of the now-dominant 60s/70s radicals and their immediate proteges having the seniority to dominate tenure boards. Professors (overall, not just Lib Arts/Soc Science) identifying as Hard Left or Left of Center was about 45% in 1988, and is now 63% in 2012. That's not because STEM scientists got more Left, but because the Humanities and Social Scientists have moved further to the Left. Interestingly, the survey stopped asking Community College Professors.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left

27   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 16, 12:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The idea of Social Democracy dominating the worldview of the Humanities, Groupthink, and why Departments have to veer to the Left (Prestige and Publishing).
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_04_7_klien_stern.pdf
28   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 5:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Guess what ? Nobody has even tried.


We shared our top laughs from the first page of that group last time it was posted. You chose not to defend any of those. You also chose not to defend any of your choice. You should sincerely ask yourself why. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit you've been lied to. These lists are propaganda designed to convince the soft minded that Trump is the bad guy (with the goal of them never reading or researching any of the claims.)

Prove to us you are better or admit you cant make a case for trump being a liar.
29   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 16, 5:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

These folks are in denial, hence the anger. What if a good deal of what you were force fed and now believe was absolute nonsense? One possibility is that you would be very angry at anyone exposing your lie based life, and lash out at them. (Blue pill).
30   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 6:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Prove to us you are better or admit you cant make a case for trump being a liar.


You look at that list, or you look at that recent op-ed of Trumps, and you see no lies. THat makes you a bigger liar than Trump, becasue Trump is aware that he's a complete and constant bullshitter.

Here, from that op-ed.


In practice, the Democratic Party’s so-called Medicare for All would really be Medicare for None," Trump wrote. "Under the Democrats' plan, today’s Medicare would be forced to die."

Tapper on Sunday interviewed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a proponent of Medicare for all who has been harshly critical of Trump’s op-ed.

“He said we are going to weaken Medicare coverage for the elderly. That is an outrageous lie,” Sanders told Tapper. “We expand coverage to include dental care, vision care and hearing aids.”


When I hear you claim that WaPos list of Trump lies is propaganda, basically asserting that you have absolutely no idea what a fact is, I can only feel sorry for you. THere are millions of right wingers, that are even less intelligent than you, who will say the lies are small, or that the lies are politics, "all politicians lie." But no you say "let's discuss," challenging me ? I don't engage, becasue facts are facts. And if we get in to analyzing anyone of Trumps lies, it plays in to Trumps strategy of overwhelming us with his bullshit.

Most single individual lies, are no worse than the worst lies other politicians tell. But with Trump it's all you get. 24/7.

What the fuck, you guys harp on "you didn't build that" (out of context), or "you can keep your doctor." Trump lies more than both of those combined on a typical day before breakfast. It's too much to keep track of.
31   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Oct 16, 6:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

Most single individual lies, are no worse than the worst lie other politicians tell. But with Trump it's all you get. 24/7.

TDS at its finest!
32   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 6:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"He said we are going to weaken Medicare coverage for the elderly."

-This is an absolute fact and has been proven already. Obamacare was meant to be the precursor to Medicare for all. The plans are designed VERY MUCH like Medicare advantage plans. Part of funding for Obamacare came from Medicare. Therefore people who have paid for a system (Medicare) were handed a bill for people who havent paid (Obamacare).

I'm sorry you were lied to by your corporate propaganda. Anything else you need clarified?
33   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 6:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
I agree, and Universities should be #2. We may need to take tenure power from State Universities and invest it in a board picked by the Governor/State Legislature, since the State is subsidizing it.

It would be sufficient to de-fund Departments of Oppressed Womyn, Enslaved Minorities, and perhaps Education. They breed 99+ % of SJW's and cause vast majority of idiocy on campuses. If you think about it, their name says that they get paid for causing trouble.
34   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 6:50am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Aphroman says
You’re not supposed to go there, you might trigger the GOPe Cult45

companies=people has somehow backfired on the Right I will believe that companies should have equal rights with people when my Great State of Texas starts executing companies, or at least their CEO's
35   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 6:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Anything else you need clarified?


I don't believe that you believe your own bullshit.

One, the flow to and from medicare relating to Obamacare are far more complicated than what you implied with your empty assertion.

But it's irrelevant, becasue those talking about medicare for all, are talking about something completely from the ACA with it's mandate. Medicare for all would increase the medicare tax rate, and everyone would be on medicare.

Obviously, if we were even to consider it. OR I should say, when we finally implement is, it will probably have supplemental policies provided as traditional insurance.

Wouldn't be easier for once in your life to admit it was a total lie designed to get the republican senior vote out in even higher numbers than usual ? TRy to slavage some small amount of self respect, and admit it. I guarantee most of the other dimbulbs would.
36   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 7:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Medicare for all would increase the medicare tax rate, and everyone would be on medicare.


To do this, "medicare as we know it would die".

Your assertion is Trump lied. Please point out where/how.
37   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 7:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Wouldn't be easier for once in your life to admit it was a total lie designed to get the republican senior vote out in even higher numbers than usual ?


Please point out the exact Trump lie you are referencing.

I have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.
38   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 8:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm upping the offer to $200.

Any takers from the left?
39   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 16, 8:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
I'm upping the offer to $200.

Any takers from the left?


Welfare gives more. Can you match it?
40   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 8:42am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
Welfare gives more. Can you match it?


It's technically still my money even then.
42   georgeliberte   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 16, 9:09am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?
43   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 6:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
I have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.


You made a ridiculous assertion based on nothing. Please point me to a thoughtful analysis of this topic done by a serious (AND HONEST) source.

I
44   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 16, 6:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

dr6B says
Where did "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" disappear?


Exactly. Remember Voltaire? Probably most of the modern left don't know who he was.

Quigley says
When the Left began talking about “hate speech” as being too dangerous to be allowed. Of course, since the Left also gets to define “hate speech,” it can designate any speech it doesn’t approve of as hate speech. And since they’ve decided that some speech is “too dangerous to be protected,” that means that “dangerous” speech is also fair game for censorship and retribution. And since they control what is defined as “dangerous speech,” they control the conversation. And Free Speech is effectively dead.


Yep.
45   Tenpoundbass   ignore (13)   2018 Oct 16, 7:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

georgeliberte says
Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?


He was a Socialists too!
46   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 16, 7:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
georgeliberte says
Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?


He was a Socialists too!


All politicians are associated with Hitler. Just ask the other side.
47   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 7:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
CBOEtrader says
I have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.


You made a ridiculous assertion based on nothing. Please point me to a thoughtful analysis of this topic done by a serious (AND HONEST) source.

I


Facts arent an honest source to you? That's bizarre.

Let's review: Medicare benefits have already been sacrificed to help finance Obamacare. Fact.

The exact same thing would happen if we went to medicare for all, effectively killing Medicare as we know it. Fact.

Do you have an argument? Or do you always run when it's time to use specific facts?
48   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 16, 7:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Feelings! Nothing more than feelings!
I should get Marcus a teddy bear to snuggle for Christmas.
And get APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch what he really wants: a gunnysack full of kittens and a ball peen hammer!
49   HEYYOU   ignore (25)   2018 Oct 16, 8:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If Conservatives don't like pissed-off Liberals,they shouldn't piss Liberals-off.
50   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 16, 8:56pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
If Conservatives don't like pissed-off Liberals,they shouldn't piss Liberals-off.


Without pissed off liberals and pissed off conservatives, elections would be so boring.
51   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 16, 10:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Let's review: Medicare benefits have already been sacrificed to help finance Obamacare. Fact.





Actually no, and I did answer you above with this.

marcus says
One, the flow to and from medicare relating to Obamacare are far more complicated than what you implied with your empty assertion.



As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.

The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.

Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away.
In exchange for these kinds of reductions in Medicare spending, funding for the program was bolstered in other ways by the ACA. Preventive care is now covered at 100% for Medicare beneficiaries and a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage will slowly close under the law. Some Medicare beneficiaries, primarily wealthy Americans, will pay higher Medicare premiums and taxes under the ACA.

The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.


http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/

As I said, the details are more complicated, and for such problems there are always solutions. No offense intended, but your assertions are political spin, and downright silly. . EVen if you were correct, and there weren't another side to it (which there is - just read), there is no reason it couldn't be fixed.

If you want to consider the ultimate SIMPLE FACT , and forgive me if it's too simple or too obvious, but Medicare already covers a huge percentage of our health care, that is when people over 65 are dying from heart disease, Cancer, or any one of the other myriad ways that every person eventually dies. This has to be way more than 70% of all "major medical" type health care spending. The kind we need insurance for.

It's a no brainer, to anyone with any sense, that our current insurance system for people under 65, is vastly inefficient and downright stupid compared to just having medicare cover whatever the other (I don't know the number is it 15% ? ) small fraction of all major medical expenditures. Yes, it would mean a large increase in medicare taxes, and a great reduction (to zero) in what many pay for shitty health care plans that don't cover everything, and that bankrupt people when they get really sick.
52   Misc   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 16, 11:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

$200 is $200. It should make for a nice dinner out. I actually believe you will pay up. If I remember... there were some schools in Red areas that were very pro-gun during the student led walkouts eg https://www.businessinsider.com/national-school-walkout-students-protest-gun-violence-in-us-2018-3 where the students dissed those few democrats in attendance that participated. Weak compared to the leftist college protests, but it happened nonetheless.
53   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 2:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
No offense intended, but your assertions are political spin, and downright silly.
marcus says
As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers.


One of these statements cant be true. You are literally contradicting yourself.

Let's remember your original assertion that trump lied w evry word. Medicare as we know it dying in favor of a medicare for all is NOT a lie. It is a fact.

The fact that more can be said than what Trump said in a speech is ofc, completely irrelevant. More can always be said on a topic.

You have gotten to the point where you believe the propgandized lies, this is a dangerous time for our country
54   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 6:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
You have gotten to the point where you believe the propgandized lies, this is a dangerous time for our country


MY belief, and that of so many reality based people is that you have described exactly what you suffer from. Although, apparently you have been "at this point" for quite some time.

CBOEtrader says
this is a dangerous time for our country


Yes it is. Donald Trump is President.

CBOEtrader says
Medicare as we know it dying in favor of a medicare for all is NOT a lie.


Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.

This could just be the stupidest assertion of a supposed fact that I've ever heard on Patrick.net.
55   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 17, 6:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

“ in an infinite number of different ways negotiated by congress”

Do any of those ways come attached with a price tag of less than 10 trillion?

Asking for a friend.
56   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 7:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Yes, cost is the question. But at least you presumably get that the cost doesn't have to take from existing medicare. IT could even be structured to enhance medicare for the elderly.

But of course cost matters. The new medicare taxes added would have to be significantly less than the major medical part of the health insurance we now pay for.

Economies of scale baby ! And everyone is paying in. So of course the cost is less.
57   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 8:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.


Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.

Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?

So yeah, the only feasible way to have a medicare for all program would be for existing medicare funds intermingle w medicare for all funds. This is guaranteed hurt those who've already paid. History has shown this to be true w Obamacare.
58   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 8:13am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Economies of scale baby ! And everyone is paying in. So of course the cost is less.


They made the same arguments about Obamacare. How'd that work out?
59   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 17, 8:38am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Economies of scale baby !


Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.
60   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 8:56am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Just look at how the government has handled the VA.


Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.
61   d6rB   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 17, 9:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.

Part D was R's. Obamacare was D's. Both are budget- and common-sense busting monstrosities, enacted to pay off Big Pharma and Insurance. And we are arguing here if R's or D's are worse...
62   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 9:10am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

dr6B says
CBOEtrader says
Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.

Part D was R's. Obamacare was D's. Both are budget- and commons-sense busting monstrosities, enacted to pay off Big Pharma and Insurance. And we are arguing here if R's or D's are worse...


Well this argument started when Marcus posted an article claiming every word of Trumps speech was a lie. I asked him to get behind one of his claims and he wouldn't again.

So I took the liberty of pointing out the valid criticisms and truthful statements in trumps speech.
63   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 17, 9:59am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
marcus says
Economies of scale baby !


Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.


If you have an inefficient bureaucracy, greater volume will only create a greater inefficient bureaucracy.
Two weeks ago I heard on the radio, 30% of government workers are not at work at any given time for a variety of reasons. And I'm pretty sure, when they are at work, they are hardly working. Almost impossible to fire incompetent government workers, and yet they get early retirement with mega pensions for life.
64   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 17, 10:02am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Exactly.

My company is working with the Department of Education in California. One of my key contacts, a "web developer", hasn't been to work in 3 months. Supposedly out on "stress leave". So California is paying me to hire a developer so the work can be completed by me!

That's two salaries being paid to do the work of "one" person.

Big government is great at waste.
65   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 17, 10:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Big government is great at waste.


That is also the case with a California government employee we are acquainted with. Takes days off at will. This is why bigger governments are never welcome.
Big governments are the greatest ripoffs ever.
66   HEYYOU   ignore (25)   2018 Oct 17, 10:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Can we just move forward to Civil War 2.0?

How many Republicans are employed by Big Govt.?
How many Republicans are enjoying all the infrastructure Big Govt. has built?
Asking these questions make stupid Rep/Cons look more stupid.
67   marcus   ignore (7)   2018 Oct 17, 9:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.

Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?


This is stupid and makes no sense. You might be right. Just as republicans didn't like Al Gore's idea, of a "lock box" for social security. If you give republicans a chance to fuck over the elderly, by spending their medicare, just to prove that single payer doesn't work, they would. Hell, they could probably get some big tax cuts out of the deal with the consequences blamed on the libruls.

But it's insanely stupid to think that the moneys brought in for medicare for people under 65, HAVE TO be commingled, and also have to be insufficient, therefore causing stealing from medicare. This makes no sense, even if you were right about the ACA doing that, which you aren't. You clearly didn't read through the balanced last link a gave.

But I will say this, I understand your instincts, but think a better analogy would be the way we keep lowering taxes, and then we are going to say we can't afford "entitlements" such as SS and medicare.

Maybe you're right. Medicare for all might just end up being another way for republicans to fuck over the democrats and the people, and say "I told you so" with their tax cuts and (at all costs democrats never get to do anything) ensuring a more solid rule by the corporations and the plutocracy.

Although unfortunately that also means the end of humanity. Oh, well. We had a good run.


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions