Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 250
  1. #181
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    See? Complete indifference to Covid deaths. Because we donít all live in bubbles to stop all death, doing anything short of a bubble doesnít matter regardless of how many it saves.
    That is not it at all, but say what makes you feel better about yourself
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,171
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Why do you not live in a bubble? I mean you spread deadly things all the time. Do you not care?
    If we are always spreading deadly things, and that is your reasoning as why not to take precautions to save lives, what diff does abortion make? Why are you arguing against it?

    We all do deadly things all the time, like drive a car. What diff does it make?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Well, economically, yes. No matter how you spend your time, donating, volunteering, the real impact is done on a societal level. Not an individual level. Doing things individually or as a family is all good , but it doesn't have a widespread impact. Supporting conservative or libertarian economic policies (or, being against social programs, however you'd like to look at it) would more than cancel out the work you're doing out in the field.

    That's the flaw that will always exist with being economically conservative.

    Watching out for number one is fine in your own house, dealing with your finances. But expecting that do be the way a society works is inherently selfish, even if that isn't the intention.
    yeah, I'm just gonna leave all that alone....the subject at the time was abortion rights and you're arguing economics
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Modesto
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    The essence of conservatism is almost always "pick yourself up by your bootstraps " , every family for themselves unless you feel like helping someone. What you're willing do charitably on your own means nothing on a societal level.

    In case you're about to say something about not trusting things in the hands of the government, spare me please. Everyone has their issues with the government but that doesn't change anything.


    At the very least, that is most certainly US conservatism.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    So in your ideal "liberal / socialist world" charities like Red Cross, Salvation Army Goodwill. Hospice, blood drive donations, Disabled veterans, Wikipedia, food drives, food recycle, would all be replaced by government agencies in the US?

    Then you have lots of private training charities funded by unions and industry to train anyone for jobs for industries for non college people, because schools have eliminated so many trades and focus on college only. Would you start Trades in high school and beyond like Germany with true training and apprenticeship or keep the focus on college only and know that it will take a college degree person to build a house, dig a hole, mow a lawn, repair a car, install a solar panel install a wind farm.

    Then on the other side you have the prison industries (government) making billions of dollars of goods for basically no cost and selling to the government, would you eliminate those industries or move more work into the prisons where the costs are lower to keep government costs down?

    I donated about 10k last year to a variety of charities mostly based on how efficient a donated dollar is spent and other than tragedies, most my donations only go for local use, plus all the goods our business gave to people in need.

    The difference is you want to legislate, control and decide who gets what aid and who needs what aid at a federal or state level and if it isn't part of a government program, people won't have any needs other than what the government provides.

    We should also eliminate all scholarships and tax the college endowments to help fund free education. The last thing we want are non government scholarships. ( charity people helping people)

    All those crazy conservative things I do, donate to the red cross, hurricane relief, flash fire relief, DAV, Goodwill, wiki, salvation army, hospice, habitat for humanity.

    We could also eliminate charities like MAD, Planned parenthood, Emily's list, Sierra Club, Childrens defense fund, NOW, NAACP, Human rights campaign, GLAAD, humane society, PETA or is just the charities that conservatives donate to or whose principals you disagree with that you want to eliminate?
    "He's getting the best job in baseball."

    Bruce Bochy sent a clear message to whoever will be the Giants' next manager
    🙌
    https://bit.ly/2ndI9eG

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,331
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    It's just legalized, still murder however
    Actually if it's legal, it's not murder. But do go on...
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,089
    Why would they need to be replaced?
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.Ē

    -JFK


  7. #187
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,336
    Quote Originally Posted by SfgiantsJD3 View Post
    So in your ideal "liberal / socialist world" charities like Red Cross, Salvation Army Goodwill. Hospice, blood drive donations, Disabled veterans, Wikipedia, food drives, food recycle, would all be replaced by government agencies in the US?

    Then you have lots of private training charities funded by unions and industry to train anyone for jobs for industries for non college people, because schools have eliminated so many trades and focus on college only. Would you start Trades in high school and beyond like Germany with true training and apprenticeship or keep the focus on college only and know that it will take a college degree person to build a house, dig a hole, mow a lawn, repair a car, install a solar panel install a wind farm.

    Then on the other side you have the prison industries (government) making billions of dollars of goods for basically no cost and selling to the government, would you eliminate those industries or move more work into the prisons where the costs are lower to keep government costs down?

    I donated about 10k last year to a variety of charities mostly based on how efficient a donated dollar is spent and other than tragedies, most my donations only go for local use, plus all the goods our business gave to people in need.

    The difference is you want to legislate, control and decide who gets what aid and who needs what aid at a federal or state level and if it isn't part of a government program, people won't have any needs other than what the government provides.

    We should also eliminate all scholarships and tax the college endowments to help fund free education. The last thing we want are non government scholarships. ( charity people helping people)

    All those crazy conservative things I do, donate to the red cross, hurricane relief, flash fire relief, DAV, Goodwill, wiki, salvation army, hospice, habitat for humanity.

    We could also eliminate charities like MAD, Planned parenthood, Emily's list, Sierra Club, Childrens defense fund, NOW, NAACP, Human rights campaign, GLAAD, humane society, PETA or is just the charities that conservatives donate to or whose principals you disagree with that you want to eliminate?
    The argument isnít eliminate private charity, itís that the Government should be providing services and support where society isnít as reliant on private charities for people to not struggle.

    You say you want the government to control who gets the aid and you think people should be free to donate where they wish, well the problem with the private charities is the help isnít getting to everyone who needs it.

    1/3 of all GoFundMeís are for medical related issues and yet 66% of all Bankruptcies are tied to medical costs. So obviously the help private charities offer is not getting to all the people who need it for medical reasons.

    So now knowing that private charity has failed to adequately provide assistance to those who need it, what is your plan?

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Modesto
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The argument isnít eliminate private charity, itís that the Government should be providing services and support where society isnít as reliant on private charities for people to not struggle.

    You say you want the government to control who gets the aid and you think people should be free to donate where they wish, well the problem with the private charities is the help isnít getting to everyone who needs it.

    1/3 of all GoFundMeís are for medical related issues and yet 66% of all Bankruptcies are tied to medical costs. So obviously the help private charities offer is not getting to all the people who need it for medical reasons.

    So now knowing that private charity has failed to adequately provide assistance to those who need it, what is your plan?
    What you're willing do charitably on your own means nothing on a societal level.

    That is a pretty clear statement, what I do with food banks and shelters and red cross means nothing, only the government can do it.

    If you want to go from broad brush conservative giving doesn't work to specific items then that is a different discussion.

    I favor a single payer system at the federal level which like medicare is income based and you can buy add ons (medicare advantage). I favor it from taxes, but not increasing the tax on the business, continue the medicare split on an employee and the employee pays based on income just like medicare, the more you make the more you pay until you hit the cap.

    Get rid of the cash economy like Obama wanted to make all this off the books work have to contribute.
    Allow national pools that cross state lines instead of regional pools.

    But giving 100 % no out of pocket insurance to everyone who can cross the border whether they are legal or not ( resident aliens are legal, and are non citizens) or some 120 day residency or 180 day residency requirement so everyone in the world doesn't come here for free health care and leave. If you or a parent pay taxes you are eligible.

    Require people to learn how to manage their insurance and have a conversation with a Dr. where they disclose everything.

    You do realize there are lots seniors that have a very tough time with just medicare, that's one of the nasty "conservative charities" I give to.

    Drugs can be very expensive on Medicare unless its group A or B.

    I have voiced my medicare for all questions many times and mostly I get ignored because a large % of the users on this board have no idea how Medicare really works, just that they want it but they can't define the parameters other than no cost.

    Would everyone on here be willing to take a pay cut to get hc coverage like Medicare and limit there dr choices for better care?

    But none of this solves things that the Red Cross does or goodwill or Salvation army or any of the others I listed, those have no impact according to the statement I replied to and that was the key broad brush phrase that I disagreed with, maybe I don't fit in your all conservatives are dumb and think alike box.

    I get by okay for a guy without a college degree, ( I quit College when I was accepted at University of CA and didn't know what I was going to do) so didn't feel like working and paying for college with out a clear goal.
    That was almost 50 years ago. I never even thought of asking my parents for money. My income was off about 35% last year but I am fine so I chose to help others who aren't. If you want to legislate out which charities think "correctly" and do away with them well let me know when the reeducation camps (Bernie Sanders Aide) are going to open so I can get the hell out of here.
    "He's getting the best job in baseball."

    Bruce Bochy sent a clear message to whoever will be the Giants' next manager
    🙌
    https://bit.ly/2ndI9eG

  9. #189
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Actually if it's legal, it's not murder. But do go on...
    That's a technicality of law not of life but you be you
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,336
    Quote Originally Posted by SfgiantsJD3 View Post
    What you're willing do charitably on your own means nothing on a societal level.

    That is a pretty clear statement, what I do with food banks and shelters and red cross means nothing, only the government can do it.

    If you want to go from broad brush conservative giving doesn't work to specific items then that is a different discussion.

    I favor a single payer system at the federal level which like medicare is income based and you can buy add ons (medicare advantage). I favor it from taxes, but not increasing the tax on the business, continue the medicare split on an employee and the employee pays based on income just like medicare, the more you make the more you pay until you hit the cap.

    Get rid of the cash economy like Obama wanted to make all this off the books work have to contribute.
    Allow national pools that cross state lines instead of regional pools.

    But giving 100 % no out of pocket insurance to everyone who can cross the border whether they are legal or not ( resident aliens are legal, and are non citizens) or some 120 day residency or 180 day residency requirement so everyone in the world doesn't come here for free health care and leave. If you or a parent pay taxes you are eligible.

    Require people to learn how to manage their insurance and have a conversation with a Dr. where they disclose everything.

    You do realize there are lots seniors that have a very tough time with just medicare, that's one of the nasty "conservative charities" I give to.

    Drugs can be very expensive on Medicare unless its group A or B.

    I have voiced my medicare for all questions many times and mostly I get ignored because a large % of the users on this board have no idea how Medicare really works, just that they want it but they can't define the parameters other than no cost.

    Would everyone on here be willing to take a pay cut to get hc coverage like Medicare and limit there dr choices for better care?

    But none of this solves things that the Red Cross does or goodwill or Salvation army or any of the others I listed, those have no impact according to the statement I replied to and that was the key broad brush phrase that I disagreed with, maybe I don't fit in your all conservatives are dumb and think alike box.

    I get by okay for a guy without a college degree, ( I quit College when I was accepted at University of CA and didn't know what I was going to do) so didn't feel like working and paying for college with out a clear goal.

    That was almost 50 years ago. I never even thought of asking my parents for money. My income was off about 35% last year but I am fine so I chose to help others who aren't. If you want to legislate out which charities think "correctly" and do away with them well let me know when the reeducation camps (Bernie Sanders Aide) are going to open so I can get the hell out of here.
    Obviously the statement wasnít as clear as you think because I took it to mean that society at large shouldnít be involved in charitable assistance because itís an individuals responsibility and not societyís. As for your points:

    A). I think your questions about how universal healthcare would work are obfuscation. Every other industrialized country on earth figured out how to run it. Are you saying weíre the only country too dumb to figure it out?

    B). Would everyone be willing to take a pay cut for better healthcare? Iím sure many would. The countries that pay for universal healthcare are also happier than us. So obviously the higher taxes to pay for these services arenít making them angry at how much they have to pay.

    C). Iím glad you never thought about asking your parents for money. Most donít even have that option as their parents have no money to give them.

    D). I donít want to legislate which charities think correctly, I want the charity to go to all who need it. Currently private charity does not. Thus far youíve provided no solution on how those who need assistance but donít get it from private charities can get help.

    I guess it just sucks to be them?

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Modesto
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    A). I think your questions about how universal healthcare would work are obfuscation. Every other industrialized country on earth figured out how to run it. Are you saying weíre the only country too dumb to figure it out?
    My questions are legitimate. I have been providing health insurance for my employees for over 40 years so I have a little understanding on the cost to a business and the restrictions and differences by state and cities. I am on Medicare with a Medicare Advantage plan and have been for almost 5 years so I have a pretty good understanding how that works and I definitely know how they charge based on income, what the deductibles are and what the out of pockets are. Its not 100% free full coverage

    Every other industrialized country on earth figured out how to run it. Are you saying weíre the only country too dumb to figure it out?
    Well in 2009 the democrats controlled all 3 branches of government and couldn't figure it out, they locked the republicans out of the discussions so apparently Obama, Biden, Pelosi and the NV senator whose name escapes me couldn't figure it out. Yes it can be figured out but "Medicare for all" is not a free insurance, I pay $545 for Medicare and $99 for my advantage plan and $49 for dental. Medicare has 4 parts, only 1 is "free".

    Lets look at who isn't on Medicare, lots of state and federal employees from unions, railroad employees and some other groups, they are not in the system so that is a lot of "insurance money" that isn't in the current pool.
    The more groups that get excluded and the inability to have groups across state lines is one of the key cost drivers along with young healthy people being able to opt out. The more people you cover the more healthy people you have and the lower the costs are. Those are the just some of the issues that need to be solved.






    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    B). Would everyone be willing to take a pay cut for better healthcare? Iím sure many would. The countries that pay for universal healthcare are also happier than us. So obviously the higher taxes to pay for these services arenít making them angry at how much they have to pay.
    Well the popular opinion is all the costs go to a business which means that all the uninsured have to be paid for out of business income. I know 20 years ago in Germany employers had the option to add on private plans with better coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    C). Iím glad you never thought about asking your parents for money. Most donít even have that option as their parents have no money to give them.
    Well they were just middle class, only my dad worked. They were frugal, they grew up before and during the depression and the rationing in WWII so they saved everything. My dad retired about a year after I would have started college so it would have been hard on them, they helped my older brother get his degree but he worked. What I do remember is my mom told me we always ran out of money before we ran out of month.

    I would have worked and paid but it was why pay for something if you aren't sure what you are doing. I would have lived at home to save money. There has to be some motivation that college is a path, not let me go party and stretch it out for years, how that's done I don't know but if the government is going to pay then scholarships won't be required so all that money in trusts and foundations should help cover the costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    D). I donít want to legislate which charities think correctly, I want the charity to go to all who need it. Currently private charity does not. Thus far youíve provided no solution on how those who need assistance but donít get it from private charities can get help.

    I guess it just sucks to be them?
    Just because private charities don't meet all the needs of everyone doesn't mean they don't have value. The government can't meet all the needs, they definitely can't perform as fast as charities like the red cross. My point is if the government is going to provide all required assistance then none of them should be allowed to exist or get tax deductions, one side doesn't get to pick and choose, like planned parenthood and Emily's list stay but Salvation army or any faith based charity is out.
    "He's getting the best job in baseball."

    Bruce Bochy sent a clear message to whoever will be the Giants' next manager
    🙌
    https://bit.ly/2ndI9eG

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,331
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    That's a technicality of law not of life but you be you
    I trust that you are in 100% opposition to the death penalty? The same level of opposition gets used for people who use a gun when exerting their second amendment rights?

    Nobody can make the biological argument that there are fetuses involved there rather than humans. 100% of the people in those cases are human beings.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,336
    Quote Originally Posted by SfgiantsJD3 View Post
    My questions are legitimate. I have been providing health insurance for my employees for over 40 years so I have a little understanding on the cost to a business and the restrictions and differences by state and cities. I am on Medicare with a Medicare Advantage plan and have been for almost 5 years so I have a pretty good understanding how that works and I definitely know how they charge based on income, what the deductibles are and what the out of pockets are. Its not 100% free full coverage

    Every other industrialized country on earth figured out how to run it. Are you saying weíre the only country too dumb to figure it out?

    Well in 2009 the democrats controlled all 3 branches of government and couldn't figure it out, they locked the republicans out of the discussions so apparently Obama, Biden, Pelosi and the NV senator whose name escapes me couldn't figure it out. Yes it can be figured out but "Medicare for all" is not a free insurance, I pay $545 for Medicare and $99 for my advantage plan and $49 for dental. Medicare has 4 parts, only 1 is "free".

    Lets look at who isn't on Medicare, lots of state and federal employees from unions, railroad employees and some other groups, they are not in the system so that is a lot of "insurance money" that isn't in the current pool.
    The more groups that get excluded and the inability to have groups across state lines is one of the key cost drivers along with young healthy people being able to opt out. The more people you cover the more healthy people you have and the lower the costs are. Those are the just some of the issues that need to be solved.

    Well the popular opinion is all the costs go to a business which means that all the uninsured have to be paid for out of business income. I know 20 years ago in Germany employers had the option to add on private plans with better coverage.

    Well they were just middle class, only my dad worked. They were frugal, they grew up before and during the depression and the rationing in WWII so they saved everything. My dad retired about a year after I would have started college so it would have been hard on them, they helped my older brother get his degree but he worked. What I do remember is my mom told me we always ran out of money before we ran out of month.

    I would have worked and paid but it was why pay for something if you aren't sure what you are doing. I would have lived at home to save money. There has to be some motivation that college is a path, not let me go party and stretch it out for years, how that's done I don't know but if the government is going to pay then scholarships won't be required so all that money in trusts and foundations should help cover the costs.

    Just because private charities don't meet all the needs of everyone doesn't mean they don't have value. The government can't meet all the needs, they definitely can't perform as fast as charities like the red cross. My point is if the government is going to provide all required assistance then none of them should be allowed to exist or get tax deductions, one side doesn't get to pick and choose, like planned parenthood and Emily's list stay but Salvation army or any faith based charity is out.
    First Bolded: That's because not every Democrat (especially at the time) wants universal healthcare. But it's gaining more and more popularity and it's easy to see why. We have the worst health care system of any industrialized nation on earth in terms of % of country covered and costs. So in shaping our system, we could pick literally any other system and it would probably be better.

    Second Bolded: And that's a good idea. Give people the option to be able to purchase premium private plans if they want, but that won't absolve them of paying into the universal system.

    Third Bolded: Agreed. Charities have tremendous value. But I do not like the ideological belief that the Government should stay out of helping people or charity and it'd should fall completely on the private sector, because the private sector absolutely does not help everyone who needs it. The Government can't meet everyone's needs either, but they are able to have a greater scope and reach in many cases. The Government was able to give almost every American a check for covid, there is no charity that could have done that.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,496
    Currently, the Medicare tax rate is 2.9% and is split between employee and employer equally.
    If we're expecting universal health care, not unreasonable for us to pay a higher tax for it.

    The most reasonable would be that everyone gets the equivalent of Medicare Parts A and B (basic Medicare) and maybe a basic Part D (prescription drugs). Currently, that costs in the neighborhood of $175/mo. This isn't complete coverage, but it's basic coverage (complete coverage would come from adding an Advantage or Medigap plan).

    So yes, if everyone automatically got a Medicare type coverage, the rest could be add-on. However, insurance costs currently are a deterrent for employers to hire older workers because they cost more (I mean like up to $1,000/mo more) so that would also need to be factored in.

    Now, if a company no longer has to pay for a group health plan, they can pay much of the above and still be money ahead. I think that's a part that people don't necessarily think of. However, that doesn't pay for those NOT currently on a group plan (part-timers, unemployed, etc)
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    15,986
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Currently, the Medicare tax rate is 2.9% and is split between employee and employer equally.
    If we're expecting universal health care, not unreasonable for us to pay a higher tax for it.

    The most reasonable would be that everyone gets the equivalent of Medicare Parts A and B (basic Medicare) and maybe a basic Part D (prescription drugs). Currently, that costs in the neighborhood of $175/mo. This isn't complete coverage, but it's basic coverage (complete coverage would come from adding an Advantage or Medigap plan).

    So yes, if everyone automatically got a Medicare type coverage, the rest could be add-on. However, insurance costs currently are a deterrent for employers to hire older workers because they cost more (I mean like up to $1,000/mo more) so that would also need to be factored in.

    Now, if a company no longer has to pay for a group health plan, they can pay much of the above and still be money ahead. I think that's a part that people don't necessarily think of. However, that doesn't pay for those NOT currently on a group plan (part-timers, unemployed, etc)
    Employers not paying for employees health insurance and employees paying for it is a bad idea at every angle you look at it.
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •