Kneeling NFL players

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Who is having a rough time? Did someone say that?


You may find it interesting to read what I wrote, as I alluded to what you have now pointed out-the system our major financial institutions use, that you speak of, I've had 1v1 discussions with senior leadership of those financial institutions that pointed out exactly what I said to you: if you are smart enough to regulate, you are worth them cherrypicking to avoid regulation. I know that's difficult to fathom, but its how the business world actually works in the big leagues. Somehow I know that from my interaction with them, guess you just haven't gotten that far yet?



Literally has nothing to do with the convo, other than illustrating how you flutter to the beck and call of conservative snowflake talk radio's daily distraction talking points.

Focus.



May want to do some more reading. I know that's hard, but dig a little deeper. Paving the way for the opportunity is not like achieving it-something that should be clear now given how often we've been through this drill.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...91dd830fb041a74e75e3a/?utm_term=.c9cc6b31ef11
Oh, and even if you get a tax bill written (far from assured), the idea that you can talk about it and say fiscal conservatism at the same time is rather amusing.

Anytime you want to come to school, offer still stands-except now I'm teaching, not taking but whatever. This is kind of like that Constitutional convo you wanted to have, till you got called on it. Lemme know.
r-
Ray

I think the biggest thing I took away from this was that you're teaching now. No matter what knowledge you have it doesn't incorporate real-world experience. Makes a lot more sense. Either way I was referring to post Sub Prime bust regulation. I assure you my sources are just fine Ray. Get out, deal, interact with big businesses of all kinds and you may get a better perspective. Our private sector is 10 fold better at dealing.

Your an intellectual Ray, a person with all the answers. This mentality has plagued the democratic party since inception. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Is this who you're teaching, Ray?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ctz_dHfYfb8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
brian you do understand its not a republican versus democrat thing right? its corporate/financial industries against us all.
videos like that are so easy to make. americans are ignorant...borderline stupid. you could easily reverse that scenario and good ol boys would do the same thing.

you, like the liberals you despise, really don't formulate your own opinion. you find news sources that affirm your ideologies and base opinions from their guidance. almost all your posts sound extremely monolithic...why do you whole heatedly agree with everything trump does/says?

do you honestly think liberals would denounce another liberal even if they know what they're hearing doesn't sound right? does a true conservative ever argue anything rush limbaugh says?

honestly those videos don't expose anything any reasonable i.q.'d person already knows. most americans are omegas. the powers that be have done a very good job removing alphas. like i've said a million times...uninformed consumers making irrational decisions/uninformed constituents making irrational votes.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
its corporate/financial industries against us all.

The big bad corporate world is not out to get you I assure you Mike.

I think I've formulated my own opinion pretty well Mike, what's yours since your so quick to judge, throw down.

Healthcare insurance is a disaster created by greed and made worse by the ACA. I believe what I've been saying will work from my business background. To tout I'm going along to get along shows a lack of attention on your part. To my knowledge Rand is the only Republican to tout this same structure. The rest would find problems with it I'm sure.
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
The big bad corporate world is not out to get you I assure you Mike....

Healthcare insurance is a disaster created by greed and made worse by the ACA.

unregulated capitalism=greed. who controls most of the money? you, me, or multi-conglomerate corporations? if greed created the healthcare disaster, who is to blame? you, me, or giant corporations?

how exactly are giant corporations not the root cause?
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
my opinion on what? i live by a very very simple rule. give 110% for the person standing next to you, they do the same, and everyone succeeds. if someone is weaker, lacks the ability or the aptitude you carry some extra weight. if someone is hindering the process you remove them.

my motivation is sustainable existence not money. native americans had a very sustainable existence until whitey showed up with currency. what happens when you can't control somebody with money? religion?

who's polluting our water, air, and soil? who created a system where we vilify those who can't financially afford basic necessities?
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
Which approach is best prepared to lower costs? Single-payer IMHO. The pharma/health-care establishment, from top to bottom, needs to be told to fuck off with their insane prices. A single large entity wields the most leverage and is best prepared to do this.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Which approach is best prepared to lower costs? Single-payer IMHO. The pharma/health-care establishment, from top to bottom, needs to be told to fuck off with their insane prices. A single large entity wields the most leverage and is best prepared to do this.

You stand a great chance of reduced quality of care. Willing to take that gamble?
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
I'm willing to try either one. Both are ripe with risks, but we need to do something. What we're doing doesn't work. It must address costs though.
 

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
I think the biggest thing I took away from this was that you're teaching now. No matter what knowledge you have it doesn't incorporate real-world experience. Makes a lot more sense. Either way I was referring to post Sub Prime bust regulation. I assure you my sources are just fine Ray. Get out, deal, interact with big businesses of all kinds and you may get a better perspective. Our private sector is 10 fold better at dealing.

Your an intellectual Ray, a person with all the answers. This mentality has plagued the democratic party since inception. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Is this who you're teaching, Ray?

Stretching again Brian. Yes, I do some teaching-as a side gig, to give back. That's not the day job. Just the constant pursuit of knowledge and sharing it, you know? That you mock it or deride it...well that speaks volumes about you.

My sources are pretty good too-the conversation I referenced, from last year, was at JP Morgan in the executive conference room with Jamie Dimon's folks as well as a few other places in that area. So I think they may have a good idea about what's gone on since the subprime failure. Does that count as a big business? You know, b/c I'm just an intellectual...

As to which one of us has been in the real world; we've had this conversation before. Vacation in Western Europe doesn't count cupcake.
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
That you mock it or deride it...well that speaks volumes about you.

It takes one to know one Ray. :D

I just give you a hard time a vise versa. I was once in the world of academia, no more.

Bottom line,

We have tried full corporate control, no dice. Big money, big inflation, big gouging, I know you would agree Ray.

We've tried the ACA with subsidies and everything else, no dice. 300%-480% increase in 2016. The WAPO tried to hammer the Corporate Group plans for a 5% increase if you can believe that. What nerve? Time for a middle of the road plan?

Before you go to Single payer (not middle road) you're taking choice and control out of our hands. Many don't want that and it's a HUGE point, you must agree? On top of that you would be demanding everyone buy insurance. What gives Ray?
 
Last edited:

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
It takes one to know one Ray. :D

I just give you a hard time a vise versa. I was once in the world of academia, no more.

Bottom line,

We have tried full corporate control, no dice. Big money, big inflation, big gouging, I know you would agree Ray.

We've tried the ACA with subsidies and everything else, no dice. 300%-480% increase in 2016. The WAPO tied to hammer the Corporate Group plans for a 5% increase if you can believe that. What nerve? Time for a middle of the road plan?

Before you go to Single payer (not middle road) you're taking choice and control out of our hands. Many don't want that and it's a HUGE point, you must agree? On top of that you would be demanding everyone buy insurance. What gives Ray?

It is good to give people a hard time. Too many in this world are pussies.

Taking choice away is absolutely a huge point; that's what makes this hard.
My comments all along have pointed out that reality. You know what is underwhelming? The intellectual effort put forth by a group that has espoused, for years, a better solution.

Yet they (your party) don't have a solution. Don't even have the earnest beginnings of one. How is that responsible to the American people? All the while they undermined what the Dems did at every chance, some states even willfully doing so despite knowing the detriment it might cause their citizenry.*

Does that make the Dems right for railroading it through back in the day?

No. It does not.

But that day is past, here we are-and the EO isn't a law, nor a replacement for one. A corporate scheme may be a band aid-but in the end like any number of other things one wonders if you realize that inevitably this is going to lead you down a path.

To tie this back to how this thread started though, what's worse is the subtance of governance-the hard conversations and the bipartisan compromises to allow democracy to function, those are sidelined in favor of the distraction of the week right now. The sideshow is the main effort. Be it NFL players kneeling to distract from the substance or any number of other things (I'm not starting on the Gold Star thing, both sides there have culpabiity), the example you threw out regarding Uranium. Tell me WTF that has to do as a serious issue of discussion right now. Honestly? You want tax cuts? Immigration policy? A wall? An actual budget? Repeal/replace? Does that serve any value to that effort at all?

It does not. It is a deliberate distraction to cover the absence of substance, at least that is what the evidence points towards b/c, as you note, tick-tock...it's almost mid term season and what is there to show?

Not a damn thing of actual substance.

So I return back to the constant refrain-one that would be happy with fiscal conservatism (since what we've got right now is some hybrid dysfunction of social conservatism/populism).

Govern.

*I still submit to you the GOP I grew up with is dead, it left during the Bush 43 administration but really died with Newt and what happened in the 90's. You like to think I'm a Dem, I'd point out I haven't changed all that much in how I view all this, the GOP has just gone so far out to right field it is unrecognizeable now. So if Matt can say he didn't vote for Trump (and still defend him) then recognize that I'm not an actual Dem. I'm just someone who thinks the populist wing of the GOP is full of absolute shit, is intellectually shallow, and many of them are-to be frank-pussies calling folks libtards and cucks on the other side. Neither is right, but one could be more wrong.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Since you haven't answered, I'll ask again. And "competition" isn't an answer. Like "cut waste" isn't an answer to how to balance the budget.

You act like these magical group plans will cut costs.

They've been in existence forever (BC\BS). Why has my insurance gone from $50/mo with $15 copays in 1997 to $170\mo and a $6000 deductible today?

How are these plans going to cut the cost of insuring from ~$12k\family to $4k?

What business model is hiding in the shadows to unlock this savings?
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
It is good to give people a hard time. Too many in this world are pussies.

Taking choice away is absolutely a huge point; that's what makes this hard.
My comments all along have pointed out that reality. You know what is underwhelming? The intellectual effort put forth by a group that has espoused, for years, a better solution.

Yet they (your party) don't have a solution. Don't even have the earnest beginnings of one. How is that responsible to the American people? All the while they undermined what the Dems did at every chance, some states even willfully doing so despite knowing the detriment it might cause their citizenry.*

Does that make the Dems right for railroading it through back in the day?

No. It does not.

But that day is past, here we are-and the EO isn't a law, nor a replacement for one. A corporate scheme may be a band aid-but in the end like any number of other things one wonders if you realize that inevitably this is going to lead you down a path.

To tie this back to how this thread started though, what's worse is the subtance of governance-the hard conversations and the bipartisan compromises to allow democracy to function, those are sidelined in favor of the distraction of the week right now. The sideshow is the main effort. Be it NFL players kneeling to distract from the substance or any number of other things (I'm not starting on the Gold Star thing, both sides there have culpabiity), the example you threw out regarding Uranium. Tell me WTF that has to do as a serious issue of discussion right now. Honestly? You want tax cuts? Immigration policy? A wall? An actual budget? Repeal/replace? Does that serve any value to that effort at all?

It does not. It is a deliberate distraction to cover the absence of substance, at least that is what the evidence points towards b/c, as you note, tick-tock...it's almost mid term season and what is there to show?

Not a damn thing of actual substance.

So I return back to the constant refrain-one that would be happy with fiscal conservatism (since what we've got right now is some hybrid dysfunction of social conservatism/populism).

Govern.

*I still submit to you the GOP I grew up with is dead, it left during the Bush 43 administration but really died with Newt and what happened in the 90's. You like to think I'm a Dem, I'd point out I haven't changed all that much in how I view all this, the GOP has just gone so far out to right field it is unrecognizeable now. So if Matt can say he didn't vote for Trump (and still defend him) then recognize that I'm not an actual Dem. I'm just someone who thinks the populist wing of the GOP is full of absolute shit, is intellectually shallow, and many of them are-to be frank-pussies calling folks libtards and cucks on the other side. Neither is right, but one could be more wrong.

Ray, I get all this, you've said it time and time again, especially over on the Trump thread. I ask what plan you'd put forward? What I've mentioned is that there are power in numbers. Insurance companies grant affordable Gold Standard plans to large corporations. Why? I'd say it's two fold. Leverage in very large numbers and the high end executives are under the same plan, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's what Scott doesn't understand and hopefully he'll read this. Now, again, without digging into who/what/when and why, what would be your plan? Think middle road. If it's single payer no need to waste my time with a grandiose explanation on how it's the only way forward. I don't think you will ever see single payer in America during our lives, the high court would most certainly strike it down. The only reason we have the ACA is because the penalty the IRS enforces was branded as a tax. Good luck with single payer and eventually forcing every American to buy insurance. It simply won't happen.

I'll go back to my original statement. If we're going to have one insurance option and no private options I'm all in. However, Trump, congressmen, senators and every other bureaucrat inside the beltway better be on the same identical plan. I don't think that's a lot to ask, do you Ray? Good for the Goose?
 

1920SF

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
2,705
1
NoVA
Ray, I get all this, you've said it time and time again, especially over on the Trump thread. I ask what plan you'd put forward? What I've mentioned is that there are power in numbers. Insurance companies grant affordable Gold Standard plans to large corporations. Why? I'd say it's two fold. Leverage in very large numbers and the high end executives are under the same plan, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's what Scott doesn't understand and hopefully he'll read this. Now, again, without digging into who/what/when and why, what would be your plan? Think middle road. If it's single payer no need to waste my time with a grandiose explanation on how it's the only way forward. I don't think you will ever see single payer in America during our lives, the high court would most certainly strike it down. The only reason we have the ACA is because the penalty the IRS enforces was branded as a tax. Good luck with single payer and eventually forcing every American to buy insurance. It simply won't happen.

I'll go back to my original statement. If we're going to have one insurance option and no private options I'm all in. However, Trump, congressmen, senators and every other bureaucrat inside the beltway better be on the same identical plan. I don't think that's a lot to ask, do you Ray? Good for the Goose?

Already noted that's a great idea. Would be a great example of actual leadership.
 

cptyarderho

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
2,904
0
Va
Wondering why. A model like we have for car insurance is not the norm. You have to carry some form of it, it is not subsidized by any govt entity and the companies clearly profit and fight for customers. I know it is late but what am I missing here? Auto repair is not like being a doctor, etc, but from an actuarial standpoint the concept is the same?
 

cptyarderho

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
2,904
0
Va
WTF. Disco web just logged me into my old account.
That was locked in 2008.

Some voodoo shit right there.
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
Wondering why. A model like we have for car insurance is not the norm. You have to carry some form of it, it is not subsidized by any govt entity and the companies clearly profit and fight for customers. I know it is late but what am I missing here? Auto repair is not like being a doctor, etc, but from an actuarial standpoint the concept is the same?

How many people, do you know, would spend 6-8 years in university then work long hours for $30 per hour?

Service industry business model is low profit high volume. Pay employees just enough they won't quit.

Personally I don't want the cheapest proctologist, I want the best.,,,having big thick fingers doesn't hurt.

somehow we need to get the profit out of healthcare.
 

robertf

Well-known member
Jan 22, 2006
4,778
354
-
Wondering why. A model like we have for car insurance is not the norm. You have to carry some form of it, it is not subsidized by any govt entity and the companies clearly profit and fight for customers. I know it is late but what am I missing here? Auto repair is not like being a doctor, etc, but from an actuarial standpoint the concept is the same?

Not the same thing

You dont have to drive

You do have to live
 

brian4d

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2007
6,499
67
High Point, NC
Wondering why. A model like we have for car insurance is not the norm. You have to carry some form of it, it is not subsidized by any govt entity and the companies clearly profit and fight for customers. I know it is late but what am I missing here? Auto repair is not like being a doctor, etc, but from an actuarial standpoint the concept is the same?

On the surface I'd say one major difference is that car insurance companies fight with each other on who's flipping the bill. Healthcare there's no doubt, a lot of the time. Meaning, you must utilize the insurance in a no-fault situation.