Dumber than a bag of hammers
Comments
-
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.SFGbob said:Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug. -
Just shut the fuck up2001400ex said:
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.SFGbob said:Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
This bored would be great without you
When you're gone it is -
You can't quit me Race. You had to bring in backup to fuck it up worse.RaceBannon said:
Just shut the fuck up2001400ex said:
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.SFGbob said:Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
This bored would be great without you
When you're gone it is -
I didn't bring anything or need anything2001400ex said:
You can't quit me Race. You had to bring in backup to fuck it up worse.RaceBannon said:
Just shut the fuck up2001400ex said:
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.SFGbob said:Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
This bored would be great without you
When you're gone it is
The only thing fucking this bored is you. Even @CoachThomas knows it -
You admitted that you were "wrong" by claiming that we were both wrong and by lying about the numbers I provided. It was like the guy who apologizes to his wife for beating her but says "I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't pissed me off."2001400ex said:
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.SFGbob said:Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
You weren't "trolling" you were lying. -
I think you're right that the scope of the federal government reaches beyond what the Founders probably imagined.SFGbob said:You know I never did get back to you in that thread. I want to know why you believe that Federal Government should be paying for people's healthcare. Why did we go so many years in country's history where that idea would have been unfathomable and now it's just accepted and even called a "right?"
And do you really believe that we constituted a Federal government and gave it power over our lives so that it could be a retirement and health insurance operation that also has a military?
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now. -
To add on to your last point. How many people don't leave their job and take a risk on a new venture because the cost of health Care? Cobra is there but the cost is astronomical. It's been a consideration of mine throughout my life and I was on my own a couple times contacting. Health insurance sucks when your employer doesn't pay for it.Squirt said:
I think you're right that the scope of the federal government reaches beyond what the Founders probably imagined.SFGbob said:You know I never did get back to you in that thread. I want to know why you believe that Federal Government should be paying for people's healthcare. Why did we go so many years in country's history where that idea would have been unfathomable and now it's just accepted and even called a "right?"
And do you really believe that we constituted a Federal government and gave it power over our lives so that it could be a retirement and health insurance operation that also has a military?
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now. -
Naaah, that was great. ThanksSquirt said:
I think you're right that the scope of the federal government reaches beyond what the Founders probably imagined.SFGbob said:You know I never did get back to you in that thread. I want to know why you believe that Federal Government should be paying for people's healthcare. Why did we go so many years in country's history where that idea would have been unfathomable and now it's just accepted and even called a "right?"
And do you really believe that we constituted a Federal government and gave it power over our lives so that it could be a retirement and health insurance operation that also has a military?
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now. -
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success. -
You can tell when we get to a healthy medical insurance market. We will be inundated with advertisements from health care providers and insurers. In Portland, Leif’s car repair has more advertisements than Kaiser, United Healthcare and Blue Cross combined. Let alone the ferocious competition for car insurance – State Farm, Farmer’s, Geico, Progressive, Liberty Mutual, the General and USAA all compete for your business and drive down costs.
Lasik? Not covered by medical insurance. Gets better and cheaper every year. Same with boob jobs and liposuction. Free market competition provides for lower costs and better service. You single government providers for some reason think that I want the VA to cover my families insurance. No thanks.
