America First=Seccession

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(02-22-2023, 03:14 AM)basballguy Wrote: You’re new around here but damn man you’re so far off.  If you were even half way paying attention to current events during Covid then you would know the GOP pushed back on “aid” resulting from Covid.  The GOP is Who swallowed their pride to get a deal across to help Americans.

The Democratic Party is what ****** us.  Ask any small business owner that no longer owns a small business due to Covid shutdowns.

So the GOP was in control of the Senate, and the executive branch, correct?  Trump could have vetoed any bailout and the buck stoped with him, Correct? And, guess what?  He didn't.  The GOP also engaged in corporate welfare cutting the corporate tax and allowing billionaires to fly up to outer space while sticking the average American worker with a higher tax bill, and that also lead to more inflation.  Yes, GOP welfare in the form of corporate tax breaks that added Billions to our deficit, thus we have another inflationary factor.

So you think the democrats were behind the $7-Trillon that was injected into the stock market to protect the investor class?  
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/27/federal-reserve-corporate-debt-coronavirus/

Do you really think the Democrats were behind the Federal Reserve Chairman not raising interest rates when he knew the economy was overheating?  The one time he did Trump threw an absolute fit b/c it cause the stock market to dial itself back.  Trump tried every day and every way possible to fire Jermore Powell b/c one of his many obsessions was an increasing stock market and how dare he raise the interest rate to calm down inflation.

Trump allowing the top 5% to pay less % of income tax than the average blue-collar union worker, also added to inflation.  Re: US deficit--President Obama added $8 trillion in 8-yrs, Trump added $8.2-Trillion in 4-years, adding the $1.5-Trillon from the fiscal year of 10/1/2020-10/1/2021 .  See the table below:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]At the end of the fiscal year 2020, the debt was $26.9 trillion. Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between the fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, a 33.1% increase, largely due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, the 2020 recession, and the stock market bailout.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]In his FY 2021 budget, Trump's budget included a $966 billion deficit.17 However, the national debt actually grew by $1.5 trillion between October 1, 2020, and October 1, 2021.[/color]

• FY 2021: $1.5 trillion
• FY 2020: $4.2 trillion
• FY 2019: $1.2 trillion
• FY 2018: $1.3 trillion
  

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(02-22-2023, 02:39 AM)pally Wrote: In the meantime, industries that drive inflation are experiencing record profits.  Profits that are being spent on buying back stock. Stock which is then given to company executives in the form of options. Then they up the dividends so that these executives with massive stock options make even more money. All the while, screwing over both their employees and consumers.  Out of control greed that makes the rich get richer and more powerful.

As long as they stay in power the MTGs of the MAGA world don’t care that we are heading for an authoritarian government controlled by the oligarchs.  America First…yeah right.  I just can’t understand the attraction for ordinary people.

Then the GOP turns around and engages in corporate WELFARE by allowing these companies and billionaires to pay less % in taxes than the average school teacher and blue-collar union worker.   By removing the financial regualtions that Obama put into place to safeguard from what the Bush GOP did to the middle class and our deficit by "The too big to fail" Corporate bailouts at the end of 2008.  TARP $$ bailout and Quantitative easing, but according to the GOP none of this led to any inflation were experiencing now.  


2020- The GOP Senate and Trump approve $Trillions to bail out the stock market. 

[Dill]

(02-21-2023, 12:27 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Why are you bringing FOX into this? I speak from experience as someone who takes care of our company benefits. ACA is unaffordable and so is most insurance to most Americans who are either not rich or poor. I continuously hire employees who deny coverage because they can't afford it and we start out at $30hr. ACA is a joke and has always been a joke. I don't discuss it much because GOP had an opportunity to improve it and even promised they would and failed. But that doesn't make ACA good. Damn, it amazes me how some of you act like the mother of a spoiled democrat party that can't do any wrong. If you continue to follow blindly, sooner or later you'll get your head stuck in the fence, and that could end up horrible. 

Yo H-Dog!

1. I'm sure that you know all kinds of things about the ACA and its effects that I do not, if you are working with "benefits" etc. My son, moving between handyman jobs for several years, was able to have insurance thanks to the ACA. That's my closest experience to it on the receiving end. If you can explain, using specifics, how it causes you and your company problems, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say, not in "refuting" it, though I might have questions. Another question--is it possible the rise in insurance rates has more to do with nature of American insurance, capitalism and free market ideology than Obama/Dems? The insurance was ALWAYS going to go up in cost, right? With the ACA more are able to afford it and insurance companies can't punish you for illness by refusing coverage.

2. I bring Fox in because their job is to disrupt sober, careful analysis of policy, turning everything back to Dems as primary cause, dumping disinformation on voters, etc.  Remember Nixon instituted HMOs to help cut health care casts back in '73(?). And they were serving people well as non-profits--until the Reagan era when they were converted to for-profit, sold, and used to "harvest" profits for investors. Obama would have preferred something like a non profit insurance solution, but that could only be possible if the Republican base were on board. So Obama had to take what he could. If that still brings in the flaws of "free-market" insurance, It is not really clear analysis to see him as "cause." 

[basballguy]

(02-22-2023, 03:27 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So the GOP was in control of the Senate, and the executive branch, correct?  Trump could have vetoed any bailout and the buck stoped with him, Correct? And, guess what?  He didn't.  The GOP also engaged in corporate welfare cutting the corporate tax and allowing billionaires to fly up to outer space while sticking the average American worker with a higher tax bill, and that also lead to more inflation.  Yes, GOP welfare in the form of corporate tax breaks that added Billions to our deficit, thus we have another inflationary factor.

So you think the democrats were behind the $7-Trillon that was injected into the stock market to protect the investor class?  
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/27/federal-reserve-corporate-debt-coronavirus/

Do you really think the Democrats were behind the Federal Reserve Chairman not raising interest rates when he knew the economy was overheating?  The one time he did Trump threw an absolute fit b/c it cause the stock market to dial itself back.  Trump tried every day and every way possible to fire Jermore Powell b/c one of his many obsessions was an increasing stock market and how dare he raise the interest rate to calm down inflation.

Trump allowing the top 5% to pay less % of income tax than the average blue-collar union worker, also added to inflation.  Re: US deficit--President Obama added $8 trillion in 8-yrs, Trump added $8.2-Trillion in 4-years, adding the $1.5-Trillon from the fiscal year of 10/1/2020-10/1/2021 .  See the table below:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]At the end of the fiscal year 2020, the debt was $26.9 trillion. Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between the fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, a 33.1% increase, largely due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, the 2020 recession, and the stock market bailout.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]In his FY 2021 budget, Trump's budget included a $966 billion deficit.17 However, the national debt actually grew by $1.5 trillion between October 1, 2020, and October 1, 2021.[/color]

• FY 2021: $1.5 trillion
• FY 2020: $4.2 trillion
• FY 2019: $1.2 trillion
• FY 2018: $1.3 trillion
  

oh my, where to begin......There's a lot in your post that smells very much like an r/antiwork mentality.  Maybe it's just coincidence but I'm going to avoid deep diving with you just in case that is your mentality here.     

Quote:So the GOP was in control of the Senate, and the executive branch, correct?  Trump could have vetoed any bailout and the buck stoped with him, Correct? And, guess what?  He didn't. 

Assuming you're serious here, do you really think the president, regardless of party, would/should veto a bill that passed at the senate like 96-0?  That's mighty strange if you do.  

Quote:So you think the democrats were behind the $7-Trillon that was injected into the stock market to protect the investor class?   

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/27/federal-reserve-corporate-debt-coronavirus/

I'm not sure you (or this author) realize a huge chunk of this stock market is built on the back of retirement/pension accounts (something the author in this article fails to even mention while trying to say "derp, they're bailing out corporate America").  Who's retirement/pension accounts?  Ours, duh.  You damn well better expect our politicians (regardless of party) to protect it.  

Here are a couple POVs of mine that may help if we further this discussion:

• I think the shutdowns were stupid.  I think the shutdowns were an overreaction started by liberal leaning leaderships across the country which ended up influencing the world.  Cities led by democrats (even in red states) began shutting down very early march.  The first states to shutdown entirely were blue states.  
• I think all the COVID relief bailouts were stupid but necessary once it became clear what the damage was from these shutdowns.  I separately think the CARES Act response was poorly managed by both parties across the country.  
  

Separately, i think it's a bad faith argument when using statistics from the Covid pandemic to improve your argument.  Things like unemployment, national debt, budget, jobs loss/create are all inflated due to covid and the covid recovery.  You should know this already.  

[Dill]

(02-21-2023, 12:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I state frequently - there are several issues where I would say one side behaves worse then the other, and there are other aspects where I feel it's more equal. When it comes to communicating badly with each other, there's not that much difference imho. Behaving deliberately destructive in any given conversation is one of those things that indeed both sides do. In different ways, sure, not necessarily on an equally bad level, but close enough for me.

I don't necessarily mean you personally.

Hollo, your criticism of U.S. politicians has, in theory, been aimed at "both sides," but in practice has come down most heavily (and effectively!) on Trump and some Trumpists. That is not because of "bias" or "hate," but because Trump/Trumpists exhibit qualitatively and quantitatively worse behavior.  In this case, you aren't assuming the bad behavior MUST somehow be distributed equally. You are just describing what is, and Hillary whatabouts cannot suck you into false equivalence. No real distance between us there.

But when we are focused on the level of rhetoric, I wonder if you are asserting an (partial?) equivalence that also isn't there. You don't seem so ready with examples as you are with Trump's bad behavior.  I'm willing to grant that some Dem leaders and their supporters do stupid things, like a certain comedian photographing herself with Trump's severed head or college students "canceling" some celebrity or accusing you of "racism" if you ask someone to define "white privilege." 

I'm thinking maybe our difference here has to do with how we define and source "deliberately destructive" communication behavior and evaluate its effects. Gingrich's creation of a memo explaining how to always refer to Dems with degrading and villifying adjectives, regardless of the issue, and the viral spread of such behavior throughout the GOP ranks over the next decade. What is "close enough" to that on the Dem side? The Dem equivalent of Trump calling Hillary a "nasty woman" during a presidential debate?  Some Dems see the success of such tactics and try to emulate them. Doesn't work for Dem voters though, but the result is some matter for asserted "equivalence" then, as people compare both sides. 

Also, remember my argument is that our parties and media outlets, when divided "left" and "right," are not simply mirror images in terms of argument style and behavior. They are asymmetical, operating with different standards of civility and rationality, a different vision of republican (small r) government, and so different communication goals. Disinformation simply cannot circulate unchecked in the "liberal" media the way it can in the Fox/Newmax/OANN environment. Though Dems may indeed attempt disinformation, there are far more checks on them than on Repubs. That's also a check on "deliberately destructive" communication.  So I'm arguing that we need to focus on institutions, to try understand how they are working and create the conditions for bad behavior. We can't do that very well if we simply see aggregates of people who are morally good or bad as individuals, on "both sides." 

Hard to say much more without knowing what you are counting as examples of destructive Dem behavior and their context. I know you don't like the topic much. I'm interested in your response but happy to wait till another thread where such examples arise organically from the topic. No rush.

[Dill]

(02-22-2023, 05:06 PM)basballguy Wrote: oh my, where to begin......There's a lot in your post that smells very much like an r/antiwork mentality.  Maybe it's just coincidence but I'm going to avoid deep diving with you just in case that is your mentality here.     

B-guy, I'd like to hear an actual refutation BigDaddy's argument, if you have one.

Just "smells like r/antiwork" doesn't meet that standard. 

Specifying which points exactly you are addressing (doesn't have to be all) and why they "smell" would meet that standard. 

If you avoid the deep dive "just in case," that looks bad. Like you are shucking off policy facts/results that don't confirm or support
your cause/effect analysis and assignment of blame here.

I don't claim to understand this topic very well; I'd just like to see both sides of a disagreement like this make the best case
so us less informed can learn more.

[basballguy]

(02-22-2023, 05:21 PM)Dill Wrote: B-guy, I'd like to hear an actual refutation BigDaddy's argument, if you have one.

Just "smells like r/antiwork" doesn't meet that standard. 

Specifying which points exactly you are addressing (doesn't have to be all) and why they "smell" would meet that standard. 

If you avoid the deep dive "just in case," that looks bad. Like you are shucking off policy facts/results that don't confirm or support
your cause/effect analysis and assignment of blame here.

I don't claim to understand this topic very well; I'd just like to see both sides of a disagreement like this make the best case
so us less informed can learn more.

Often times when I have these conversations I forget about people that just read/follow along and don't comment.  

What I meant when saying this is I didn't want to spend time hunting down references...i still made the points but didn't want to spend time providing the data to someone that seems like will not accept the data.  Like...i don't know what the actual vote was on the CARES Act, but know it was pretty high bipartisan acceptance....or the actual % of retirement/pension assets in the market.  

Big Daddy's points:

"Trump could've vetoed if he wanted to" Is not an argument.  It's a lazy thought.

The article he linked is almost 3 years old and has a tone that's very anti big business.  So I provided the real perspective that goes beyond big business....pension/retirement

Trying to use unadjusted numbers from Covid is bad faith arguing.  Though I'm also not sure what point he was trying to make there for an inflation discussion.

Saying "Trump allowed the top 5% to pay less taxes" is the same thing as saying "Biden allowed me to kick my dog".  He didn't stop it...so he must've allowed it.  Also not a good faith argument....and isn't even worth touching for this conversation.  

[*pally*]

(02-22-2023, 05:06 PM)basballguy Wrote: Separately, i think it's a bad faith argument when using statistics from the Covid pandemic to improve your argument.  Things like unemployment, national debt, budget, jobs loss/create are all inflated due to covid and the covid recovery.  You should know this already.  

you don't get to just eliminate statistics that don't bolster your position.  Trump has to own the pandemic, his response, and the fallout of it.  These are as much a part of his presidency and legacy as record stock market levels are.  The measure of a President is how he handles things when the going gets tough.  Trump failed to lead and we are still paying the price for it,

[basballguy]

(02-22-2023, 06:04 PM)pally Wrote: you don't get to just eliminate statistics that don't bolster your position.  Trump has to own the pandemic, his response, and the fallout of it.  These are as much a part of his presidency and legacy as record stock market levels are.  The measure of a President is how he handles things when the going gets tough.  Trump failed to lead and we are still paying the price for it,

I didn't suggest eliminating them but they most certainly should be adjusted for Covid.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics will produce unadjusted and adjusted numbers because adjusting data for outliers is a thing.  

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/the-challenges-of-seasonal-adjustment-for-the-current-employment-statistics-survey-during-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm

Some reading material if you're bored.  It just speaks to the importance of adjusting numbers and how difficult it was to adjust for Covid (but they did).  

[HarleyDog]

(02-22-2023, 04:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Yo H-Dog!

1. I'm sure that you know all kinds of things about the ACA and its effects that I do not, if you are working with "benefits" etc. My son, moving between handyman jobs for several years, was able to have insurance thanks to the ACA. That's my closest experience to it on the receiving end. If you can explain, using specifics, how it causes you and your company problems, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say, not in "refuting" it, though I might have questions. Another question--is it possible the rise in insurance rates has more to do with nature of American insurance, capitalism and free market ideology than Obama/Dems? The insurance was ALWAYS going to go up in cost, right? With the ACA more are able to afford it and insurance companies can't punish you for illness by refusing coverage.

2. I bring Fox in because their job is to disrupt sober, careful analysis of policy, turning everything back to Dems as primary cause, dumping disinformation on voters, etc.  Remember Nixon instituted HMOs to help cut health care casts back in '73(?). And they were serving people well as non-profits--until the Reagan era when they were converted to for-profit, sold, and used to "harvest" profits for investors. Obama would have preferred something like a non profit insurance solution, but that could only be possible if the Republican base were on board. So Obama had to take what he could. If that still brings in the flaws of "free-market" insurance, It is not really clear analysis to see him as "cause." 

Just an example of 1 employee who had previous health issues when we had ACA backed healthcare plan. His premiums were (IIRC) $305wk ($238 out-of-pocket). His wife didn't work and he carried her on our health plan. He grossed about $1100wk. This was on a $6500 deductible plan. Eventually, I was able to find another plan with Anthem which shared the premiums between the workforce and everyone paid the same. After 1yr, our premiums rose 49%. This now made this plan unaffordable as well. 

I remember when I was a kid, my dad paid $1 a week for insurance on the family (General Motors). Of course, GM covered most of the premiums but it was affordable and if a spouse carried insurance you had secondary insurance and didn't have to worry about a bill. Not sure why I even brought that up because those are good ole days gone. 

Anyway, Here's what sucks. The owners and I got together and found a way to pay 100% of the premiums for all our employees who have coverage. In August, when renewal comes, if they raise the rates another 49%, that will hurt big time and may eventually cause us to stop providing it and just give employees so much per month to go find their own healthcare plan, which they won't be able to afford.

[*Nately120*]

(02-22-2023, 07:07 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I remember when I was a kid, my dad paid $1 a week for insurance on the family (General Motors). Of course, GM covered most of the premiums but it was affordable and if a spouse carried insurance you had secondary insurance and didn't have to worry about a bill. Not sure why I even brought that up because those are good ole days gone. 

Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but this seems like a pretty pro-union bout of sentiment you're laying down here, and I can relate but my parents were among the dozen or so people who weren't buying into Reagan's "union-busting for your own good" schtick back then.

[basballguy]

(02-22-2023, 07:07 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Anyway, Here's what sucks. The owners and I got together and found a way to pay 100% of the premiums for all our employees who have coverage. In August, when renewal comes, if they raise the rates another 49%, that will hurt big time and may eventually cause us to stop providing it and just give employees so much per month to go find their own healthcare plan, which they won't be able to afford.

I forgot this was even a thing.  I had an employer do something similar about 10 years ago....it seems like, with most benefits, employers will be issuing stipends/allowances instead of actually providing the benefits (to save/cut costs).

• Pensions cut?  Here's a 401k match...don't worry it's the same thing!
• We no longer want to cover your work phone/laptop, but we will give you a monthly credit to use your own!
  

I can totally see, over the next couple decades, employer provided insurance being a thing of the past.  

[*Nately120*]

(02-22-2023, 07:29 PM)basballguy Wrote: I can totally see, over the next couple decades, employer provided insurance being a thing of the past.  

Probably...I mean, what are we going to do about it?

[guyofthetiger]

(02-22-2023, 07:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Probably...I mean, what are we going to do about it?

I had a great job with great health insurance that they kept taking pieces away. Now, I'm on Medicare and get even better health insurance on the taxpayer dime. I think the solution to non employer health insurance is to join one of these health care funds often offered by the church. People pay into it and withdraw from it. The number of people active in it keeps it solveable. My sister has been in hers for a long time and all her hospital bills have been paid. Of course, she pays into it each month.

[*pally*]

(02-23-2023, 12:24 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I had a great job with great health insurance that they kept taking pieces away. Now, I'm on Medicare and get even better health insurance on the taxpayer dime. I think the solution to non employer health insurance is to join one of these health care funds often offered by the church. People pay into it and withdraw from it. The number of people active in it keeps it solveable. My sister has been in hers for a long time and all her hospital bills have been paid. Of course, she pays into it each month.

Except these church type plans are often insolvent especially if hit with a massive bill from someone’s cancer diagnosis. They are also unregulated. They are stopgap measures at best

Why, in the .United States America, do we have to resort to desperate measures to pay medical bills. The major insurance companies makes BILLIONS in profits. Just imagine if that money was actually put into the medical system to cover care for people instead of making stock holders rich. Pharmaceutical companies make BILLIONS in profits even after recouping development costs. HCA, the largest for profit hospital system, made over a billion. All this money in profit is coming out of our pockets and is pricing medical care out of reach of anyone but the upper class

It is Feb 22 and my medication costs for a chronic disease have already exceeded $20000. My out of pocket last year was almost $7000 and believe me when I say I am far from rich.

The ACA is not perfect but it is a safety net that didn’t exist before. Medical insurance keeps people in the workforce because people can get injuries and illnesses treated before they become disabling. Republicans want to “make America Great Again” well having affordable and accessible medical for everyone regardless of financial status is part of that. But they don’t even want to cap insulin, a drug that costs pennies to make, at $35.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(02-22-2023, 05:06 PM)basballguy Wrote: oh my, where to begin......There's a lot in your post that smells very much like an r/antiwork mentality.  Maybe it's just coincidence but I'm going to avoid deep diving with you just in case that is your mentality here.     


Assuming you're serious here, do you really think the president, regardless of party, would/should veto a bill that passed at the senate like 96-0?  That's mighty strange if you do.  



I'm not sure you (or this author) realize a huge chunk of this stock market is built on the back of retirement/pension accounts (something the author in this article fails to even mention while trying to say "derp, they're bailing out corporate America").  Who's retirement/pension accounts?  Ours, duh.  You damn well better expect our politicians (regardless of party) to protect it.  

Here are a couple POVs of mine that may help if we further this discussion:

• I think the shutdowns were stupid.  I think the shutdowns were an overreaction started by liberal leaning leaderships across the country which ended up influencing the world.  Cities led by democrats (even in red states) began shutting down very early march.  The first states to shutdown entirely were blue states.  
• I think all the COVID relief bailouts were stupid but necessary once it became clear what the damage was from these shutdowns.  I separately think the CARES Act response was poorly managed by both parties across the country.  
  

Separately, i think it's a bad faith argument when using statistics from the Covid pandemic to improve your argument.  Things like unemployment, national debt, budget, jobs loss/create are all inflated due to covid and the covid recovery.  You should know this already.  

First, we didn't know what we were dealing with when it came to the novel Coronavirus, so we errored on the side of caution.  Cities and then countries in Europe began shutting down long before we went into full lockdown.  


Yes, the Senate voted 96-0 for the Covid bailout packages.  The Senate was controlled by the GOP, and the executive branch by Trump, so are you suggesting the buck didn't stop with them?  Why were we sending bailouts to companies domiciled in foreign countries?  In pointing this out just like in 2008, when it come to bailing out the Corporations and investor class the GOP is the first to hand out free cash, and then turn around and want to blame all the inflation on the Democrats and pretend they had nothing to do with it.  It’s GOP hypocrisy at its finest!  Obama even caught Hell for what the Bush admin did when they were they ones who lifted the Glass-Steagall Act allowing investment banks & insurance companies to start trading derivatives and investing in non-investment grade securities. And commingle with the commercial banks.

Do you think Trump's interference with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell was right? I'm really waiting for the rationale on this one.

It is not a bad-faith argument to use stats from the Pandemic, or even before, b/c the GOP had both houses of congress from 2016-18 and the Senate from 2016-20, and their spending patterns were no different than that of any Democrat. The argument can be made it was worse even before covid b/c Trump engaged in expansionism instead of being conservative and paying down our debt.  The amount of corporate welfare the GOP gave to corporations and the top 5% while trying to convince the average American they were helping them was total BS.  

The illustration below is before the pandemic and you can see the trend and Trump's well ahead of any Democrat in only 4-yr in office per the US dept of Treasury stats.   I think we can both agree Trump wasn't a fiscal conservative, not interested in paying down debt only leveraging debt, he was an expansionist and that's the way he's always run all his businesses and lead them all into bankruptcy.  

Also, explain the conservative stance on the 2008 "To Big to fail-TARP bailouts"  and how that was remotely conservative. 


Also, r/antiwork is kinda like wokeism, something I've never heard of until today, a right-wing fear-mongering term and tactic to label a once-center-right republican into placing them into a socialist category.   Nice try, but sorry you're dead wrong!

[hollodero]

(02-22-2023, 05:07 PM)Dill Wrote: But when we are focused on the level of rhetoric, I wonder if you are asserting an (partial?) equivalence that also isn't there.

That's what I'm asserting. Not so much when it comes to public figures, but more when it comes to the you and me folk. It indeed would be a bottomless barrel to get into all the aspects of why I'm asserting that. But here's one of the big ones: Liberals and conservatives usually attempt to make the other person look as stupid, clueless, hypocritical and nefarious as possible. The basis for conversation is not respectfully disagreeing, but mockery and derision. I'm not saying you behave like that, but most behave just like that. Starting the examples you demanded from this microcosm here; I often tried to engage conservatives to explain their thinking, to have an honest debate with them. But quite often when I asked a question, some liberal swooped in and answered for the conservative, of course in a demeaning manner, and that was it for the debate. It turned into mud-swinging, and it always seems to go like that.


In a somewhat more relevant bigger picture, I assert that both sides shape their arguments in a manner that is designed to cause maximal rejection and outrage from the other side. I guess there's no need to show that for the conservative side, making liberal heads explode is very much desired, but the left imho does it too. Defund the police and all that. Also, the accusation of xenophobia or racism lost all meaning. Someone says racist, what gives, maybe the other person was racist, or maybe just had an issue with Obama or is for stricter immigration rules. The most common answer to someone who is for stricter immigration rules is not a valid counter-argument, it's claiming "uuuh, the brown people, I am a conservative, I am so afraid of brown people, the horror!" and much applause for that. That is the style of conversation as I see it. And there could be much more examples and much more to say about the role of the media and the lack of nuance and grey areas in the American's dualistic political worldview, but that might be for another time indeed.

[samhain]

(02-23-2023, 12:24 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I had a great job with great health insurance that they kept taking pieces away. Now, I'm on Medicare and get even better health insurance on the taxpayer dime. I think the solution to non employer health insurance is to join one of these health care funds often offered by the church. People pay into it and withdraw from it. The number of people active in it keeps it solveable. My sister has been in hers for a long time and all her hospital bills have been paid. Of course, she pays into it each month.

I will be in a similar situation in 20 years if I'm lucky enough to live that long.  My employer plan is top notch, but we go to medicare at 65 whether we're still in their employ or retired.  

Most of the retirees I talk to that I've worked with feel the need to buy supplemental coverage once Medicare kicks in.  I know very little about medicare, but I was under the impression that medicare alone wasn't sufficient coverage.

The prospect scares the shit out of me, frankly.  It's a major reason that I try my best to stay in shape and avoid major medical needs as long as possible.

[Goalpost]

(02-23-2023, 07:22 PM)samhain Wrote: I will be in a similar situation in 20 years if I'm lucky enough to live that long.  My employer plan is top notch, but we go to medicare at 65 whether we're still in their employ or retired.  

Most of the retirees I talk to that I've worked with feel the need to buy supplemental coverage once Medicare kicks in.  I know very little about medicare, but I was under the impression that medicare alone wasn't sufficient coverage.

The prospect scares the shit out of me, frankly.  It's a major reason that I try my best to stay in shape and avoid major medical needs as long as possible.

I retired at 58.  I had good enough insurance with my company but lost it when I did.  I had to go to COBRA, no choice, and got similar coverage, but COBRA is only for a limited time.  At that point I received a letter to find my own insurance company and I'm with Anthem now.  At 65 I will go to medicare and I hear that is much cheaper.  But you're right, at that point I will have to purchase supplemental insurance.  You almost have to get supplemental at that age.  

[samhain]

(02-23-2023, 08:24 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I retired at 58.  I had good enough insurance with my company but lost it when I did.  I had to go to COBRA, no choice, and got similar coverage, but COBRA is only for a limited time.  At that point I received a letter to find my own insurance company and I'm with Anthem now.  At 65 I will go to medicare and I hear that is much cheaper.  But you're right, at that point I will have to purchase supplemental insurance.  You almost have to get supplemental at that age.  

It's really going to be some shit in this country in about 20 years. 

People my dad's age (baby boomers) largely retired with health care coverage and an actual retirement.  

My dad passed 9 years ago, but despite probably not saving quite enough, my mom is well taken care of by the railroad both pension-wise and healthcare-wise.  

People like that are going to be a thing of the past.  We will soon have an entire country full of retirees that either saved enough through a 401K (if they had a decent one), or will live off of social security.  Regardless of their savings, they'll likely be on medicare.  

That's going to be an entire elderly populace either working until death or incapacitation, or living off of the government to some extent.  Yikes.