Democratic Debate

[Althea]

I am one of the ACCOUNTANTS for my employer, dumbass... I know full well how much my employer pays for the health insurance plan they offer us, and I know full well how much my share of that cost is. My employer is very generous and pays a large share of that cost.

I also do my own tax returns, dumbass... I don't get any "tax credit".

You pay your portion of the premium with pre tax dollars.

Some accountant you are. It's better than a tax credit. It never shows up as income in the first place.

And...your employer avoids FICA payments on the portion he pays.

But do tell us how you're special, and Medicare for all would be different from you getting the taxpayer to pay for your current coverage.

 

[Althea]

what the fuck makes you think ANYONE would believe a word you say here idiot


YOU LIE NON STOP


YOU HAVE NO GOOD REPUTATION FOR US TO TRUST IN

Now pretending to be an accountant.

 

[gfm7175]

You pay your portion of the premium with pre tax dollars.

Some accountant you are. It's better than a tax credit. It never shows up as income in the first place.

And...your employer avoids FICA payments on the portion he pays.

But do tell us how you're special, and Medicare for all would be different from you getting the taxpayer to pay for your current coverage.

Depends, and none of that is the taxpayer paying for my coverage.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Such as my employer... They pay a very generous share of the health care plan costs...

Too bad they don't just pay that money to you instead. If my idea were enacted they would increase your take-home.

So, you're attempting to shift my employer's healthcare plan expense over to the employee's paychecks. Okay.

Zackly.

There is no such thing as "free healthcare".

Once it is paid for up front there is no copay at the time of service. From the endpoint of the user, it is free.

Paradox. Irrational argumentation.

[1] Healthcare is FREE.
[2] Taxes will be raised to pay for healthcare.

Which is it?

I've made my position clear. I am not interested in playing semantics.

Even a small tax hike would result in a net loss for me.

Not if your paycheck is increased by more than the tax hike. In that case it would be a net gain for you. But it is troubling that all your thinking about is yourself. I am trying to solve the problems of the nation and you are only concerned about you. Do you have any patriotism at all? Any calling to consider what is best for America?

Price controls never work.

What kind of system do you think you current insurance operates under? I hope you don't think it is a free and competitive market. How does a free market even exist for health care? It's not like if you're unconscious and in need of immediate medical attention that you are in any position to compare prices. And even if you were, how would you do that? Which hospitals publish their prices for procedures? Broken arm - X dollars, appendix out - Y dollars, heart attack treatment - Z dollars. Maybe they have an electronic sign out front: Special today only: gunshot wound to the thigh, only $33,000 non complicated, with bone impact $99,000. Have your ambulance come here, or make note and keep it in your pocket in case of being found unconscious.

The 'insurance that you are happy with and you want to keep?' It's price-controlled!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm,

It may not be rocket science, but it IS price controls. Price controls never work. They ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS lead to shortages... Every single time... Yet, people keep acting as if price controls are a good thing...


Wrong. Both employer and employee will now be taxed more as individuals to pay for "free" healthcare.

Employers lose out since their individual taxes increase, and employees lose out since their "fatter paychecks" just get transferred, and then some, to the federal government.

You do know that the federal government is our friend, right? Without it, the USA would not exist. I hope you do love this country. I cannot imagine how you might expect it to exist if government-hater succeed in debilitating the federal government to the point of ineffectiveness. We need a large and strong central government if we wish to have a large and strong country.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm,

Hello PoliTalker,

You do know that the federal government is our friend, right?

An entity that uses force/compulsion in an attempt to control my thoughts/actions is my FRIEND?! Yeah, that's no friend of mine...

The Constitution, if followed, is a really great thing. It allows for self-governance. The federal government does not have the power to control people's thoughts/actions. However, Liberals hate the document for that very reason. They wish to control others; they wish to compel others to live exactly as they do, opposed to the "live and let live" mindset of self-governance.

Without it, the USA would not exist.

Okay, but that doesn't automatically make the federal government a "friend". That sounds like when people argue that one must 'phileo/storge love' their parents because, without them, one wouldn't exist.

No, parents shouldn't be loved by that child simply because they birthed that child. Instead, parents should be 'phileo/storge loved' as a result of their virtues. Without those virtues, there can be no love. That is similar to the federal government. If it is not acting virtuously, then there can be no 'phileo love' for it. Compulsion is not virtuous. The government does not have my best interests at heart. The government is not my friend.

I hope you do love this country.

I'm not the one ignoring the Constitution and attempting to destroy it...

I cannot imagine how you might expect it to exist if government-hater succeed in debilitating the federal government to the point of ineffectiveness.

I just want the US Constitution to be followed.

We need a large and strong central government if we wish to have a large and strong country.

Not at all. You wish to be ruled, rather than rule yourself. You wish to be a slave, rather than be a free man.

The federal government created by the States through the Constitution was a very small and very limited federal government. That is what I support. I don't wish to be a slave to an overreaching and compulsory federal government. I wish to be a free man. I wish to govern myself as I see fit, that (for me) being under God.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm,

Hello PoliTalker,

An entity that uses force/compulsion in an attempt to control my thoughts/actions is my FRIEND?! Yeah, that's no friend of mine...

You're talking about our own self-government that we created ourselves. The government we directed to maintain our country. It is a country that is dear to most of us.

The Constitution, if followed, is a really great thing. It allows for self-governance.

But this is not your friend?

The federal government does not have the power to control people's thoughts/actions.

That doesn't prevent President Trump from using it for that purpose.

However, Liberals hate the document for that very reason. They wish to control others; they wish to compel others to live exactly as they do, opposed to the "live and let live" mindset of self-governance.

Nonsense. Liberals never say they hate the Constitution. And they never say they want to force others to live exactly as they do. That's just made up nonsense. A conservative myth. A baseless claim. It is something that only conservatives say.

I'm not the one ignoring the Constitution and attempting to destroy it...

That would be Donald Trump ignoring it, (but gladly I don't think he can destroy it.)

I just want the US Constitution to be followed.

And so do the people you claim without basis 'want to destroy it.' The real difference is that we interpret the document differently. What is not immediately clear is why you have to make up things about the other side which simply are not true. How can you be right when so much of what you argue simply is not so? It's not logical.

Not at all. You wish to be ruled, rather than rule yourself. You wish to be a slave, rather than be a free man.

If those things about me were true I would have said them myself. I have never said those things. They are not true. Total whiff on your part. The mighty lunging swing, with the huge huffing sound of a strong exhale, followed by leaning body, hand over eyebrows of searching eyes, peering far above and down the fairway, hoping to catch sight of a soaring ball, surely outdistancing all others ... and where is it? Oh. ... Still sitting on the tee.

Whoops!

Try again.

You can't even discuss my point that "We need a large and strong central government if we wish to have a large and strong country" without making things up and trying to make it about me personally. It is only logical that a large and strong country needs a large and strong government. How would it be possible to have a large and strong country with a small and weak government? Hunh? Why don't you explain that instead of trying to make it about me? The very fact that you had to resort to a personal attack instead of logic and reasoning indicates that your argument is false, fake, and phony.

The federal government created by the States through the Constitution was a very small and very limited federal government. That is what I support. I don't wish to be a slave to an overreaching and compulsory federal government. I wish to be a free man. I wish to govern myself as I see fit, that (for me) being under God.

Every part of the federal government conforms to the powers granted in the Constitution. If it did not, SURELY some small government conservative would have already brought the case to the highest court in the land and had that part of the government not 'delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States' eliminated. We depend on you conservatives for this. Why have conservatives been unable to fulfill this basic tenet of that philosophy? (I think I know. - The government is in conformance with the Constitution.)

But, of course, if you feel there is some overlooked part of the federal government which is not in conformance you are free to bring such a case. What do you have in mind?

 

[LV426]

Sure...but they only hire so many human resources staff. And most of the time, they're looking for a master's degree. Is that also free under this plan?

Well, no, actually...the sociology, anthropology, and psych majors are people they would bring into their Advertising, Development, and Marketing divisions. Human Resources is its own degree program.

Yes, those degrees would also form the basis of advanced degrees, and those degree programs should also be free if they're offered through public colleges, and the applicants can get admitted based on their academic record. By offering advanced degree programs for free, you force private institutions to lower their fees to compete for students. I like to use Med School as a good example for why State College programs should be free; one of the major deterrents to those who want to be doctors and nurses is the prohibitively high costs associated with advanced schooling for them. If there was no longer a debt burden that came with attending med School, because the program is free in State schools, I think we'd see more students entering that profession. We are going to need health care professionals anyway if we get M4A.

That should already be instilled from more than a decade of public school, though. Maybe the problem is the level of achievement that is evident in today's high school grads?

Well, mental development for young adults usually doesn't finish until your mid-20's, anyway. And yes, public schools should instill this in you, but that education and training (if you want to call it that) needs to continue through the whole of brain development, not cutting it off with 5-8 years of development left. Otherwise, you end up with arrested development.

But yes...moving out of the house and experiencing college has myriad benefits. I just question whether or not it's a worthwhile investment from the taxpayer, when the money could create public sector jobs for many who exit high school?

Well, I think that is solved with the Green New Deal, which is funded by taxing polluters and businesses. A different revenue stream.

 

[LV426]

Under Sanders' '16 plan, self employed people are both the employee, and employer. We pay it all. More than likely, it would be treated like FICA. The tax is paid on the net business income, and then Fed income taxes are computed.

Right, but as someone self-employed, on top of paying the taxes you pay now you also have to pay for your own health insurance.

So net-net, if you didn't have to pay for health insurance, wouldn't M4A put you ahead, even if you have to pay those taxes?

 

[LV426]

Because the pool of taxpayer money goes first to an inflated tuition payment. I'm assuming that the greater expense...housing...isn't covered under this program. So...the student still exits college with huge debt.

Tuition always costs more than housing...and a fully-funded public college and university could probably also offer no- or low-cost housing options. It's just a matter of how much funding you put into it. As for the inflated tuition payment, what are you talking about?

Assuming they leave debt free...the taxpayer overpaid for the tuition.

If there is no tuition, because the schools are free, then what are you talking about?

Then, the student has to find employment as most grads do. What about this program makes that any easier? That's why I favor trade schools. You cannot outsource plumbing/electrical/mechanical work.

We already have trade schools, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. You absolutely cannot get a decent paying job today without a college degree. You just can't. And Trade School jobs don't pay that much either, and the top of the range of wages for those jobs is still below the national median income. The median income nationally is $61,000. The median income for plumbers is $53,000.

So you want to push people into careers where there isn't room for growth or advancement, where there's no way to reach higher income brackets.

So basically, "don't be ambitious" is your career advice.

If a low income student wants to study medicine/law/engineering etc, then this program would make sense. For most, it doesn't.

If you didn't have to pay $400 a month because of student loans, what would you instead spend that money on?

 

[CFM]

Right, but as someone self-employed, on top of paying the taxes you pay now you also have to pay for your own health insurance.

So net-net, if you didn't have to pay for health insurance, wouldn't M4A put you ahead, even if you have to pay those taxes?

You sitting on your ass playing with yourself isn't considered being employed, boy.

 

[CFM]

Tuition always costs more than housing...and a fully-funded public college and university could probably also offer no- or low-cost housing options. It's just a matter of how much funding you put into it. As for the inflated tuition payment, what are you talking about?




If there is no tuition, because the schools are free, then what are you talking about?




We already have trade schools, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. You absolutely cannot get a decent paying job today without a college degree. You just can't. And Trade School jobs don't pay that much either, and the top of the range of wages for those jobs is still below the national median income. The median income nationally is $61,000. The median income for plumbers is $53,000.

So you want to push people into careers where there isn't room for growth or advancement, where there's no way to reach higher income brackets.

So basically, "don't be ambitious" is your career advice.




If you didn't have to pay $400 a month because of student loans, what would you instead spend that money on?

I didn't have to pay $400/month on students loans. Neither did my wife and neither did our children. That's what happens when you earn scholarships.

If you took on the debt, pay it you lazy motherfucker.

 

[LV426]

I don't care what others say. A liberal arts degree is worthless. So are quite a few others, but you don't click links. Perhaps we should spend more money on public education, so students don't exit high school illiterate?

Just because you can't quantify the usefulness of a college degree doesn't mean your subjective judgment is the standard.

Fact is, no matter what degree you have when you graduate, the simple fact that you have a degree immediately makes it more likely you will find a job. The stats are clear...the more educated you are, the better your job prospects and the higher your lifetime earnings.

Those with a Bachelor's Degree (any type of Bachelor's degree, just so long as it's a Bachelor's) see a 2.7% unemployment rate and their weekly median earnings are $1,100.

Compare that to...Associates Degree (what Trade Schools offer)...3.6% unemployment but a massive drop in weekly earnings below the median. The drop in weekly earnings between Bachelor's and Associates is 29%.

So people with Associates Degrees see higher unemployment, and lower weekly earnings than those with Bachelor's degrees.

Now these are stats from 2017, but I think they're probably still true today.

 

[LV426]

Providers get paid a fraction of what they charge the insurance companies.

Ah, but the "charge" is worked out between the provider and insurer so that the provider gets a profit despite getting a "fractional reimbursement" of the total cost.

So...they'll say that a cast for a broken arm costs $1,000 because the true cost is $500, and the insurer and provider have colluded on a 90% reimbursement rate, which would mean the provider incurs a cost of $500 to do a cast on someone's arm, but the insurer is reimbursing them at $900, so the provider makes $400 in profit.

That's what they do. So they're setting artificially high costs because they want to profit.

Still, everything you reference can be achieved by a public option to start.

So what happens if everyone decides they want the public option because they realize it makes no difference who reimburses your doctor for the care they provide you, after they provide it? Medicare for All. So why bother trying to work within what is obviously a corrupt system? Why not just abolish private insurance on day 1? After all, what we're talking about is the mechanism by which your doctor is reimbursed for the care they've already given you....it's not germane to your health care who does that. And in the current system, your choice of provider is restricted to those in your network.

Why does it matter who reimburses your provider after you get your health care?

However...remember when HMOs were all the rage? They actually made it better for doctors to deny service. This is a tough balancing act.

Well, it's not that tough if you're not being forced to balance the business interests of both parties at the table. There is no incentive for the provider or insurer to lower health care costs becuase doing so would mean both make less money. So if you take the profit motive out by removing insurance companies, you enter into an actual negotiation between the provider (who is primarily concerned with profit) and the single payer (who is solely concerned with costs). Right now, the "negotiation" between the two is figuring out how both can profit at your expense. That's why we spend at least double what every other modern, first world nation does on health care per captia.

 

[LV426]

Yep, we already have free gov't public education ... and politicians have been promising to fix it for 50 years.

The problem is that free education stops at age 18, but brain development continues through age 25.

So if you don't go to college, where your critical thinking, analytical, and other intangible skills are honed and trained, you enter the workforce behind all those other people who have those skills.

So basically, you're arresting your own development by not going to college.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm,

Hello Poli,

You're talking about our own self-government that we created ourselves. The government we directed to maintain our country. It is a country that is dear to most of us.

Yes, I'm talking about the federal government created through the US Constitution by the States.

But this is not your friend?

Initially?? (ie, the limited "do what you will" 'under the US Constitution' being that it was) Yes.
Currently?? (ie, the mammoth and compulsory "do what I will" 'over the US Constitution' being that it has become) No.

That doesn't prevent President Trump from using it for that purpose.

True. But it doesn't prevent ANY President from using it for that purpose, though, so let's not just focus on "Orange Man Bad". That's why the scope/power of the federal government should be very limited, so that it can't be used for that purpose by ANYONE. Instead, let each State/person govern themselves, as originally intended. Why do you wish for an all powerful federal government to rule over you?? Can you not rule over yourself??

Nonsense. Liberals never say they hate the Constitution.

I'm not gonna attempt digging up a quote outright stating "I hate the Constitution", but when Liberals are against so much of the document (as I will outline in further detail below), those actions speak louder than words regarding their true feelings about the document.

And they never say they want to force others to live exactly as they do. That's just made up nonsense. A conservative myth. A baseless claim. It is something that only conservatives say.

No, this is stuff which Liberals have outright stated in their individual platforms and on debate stages and such... Here are some examples:

SPEECH: Liberals are currently attempting to compel people to speak as they wish them to speak. NYC wants to fine people up to $250K for daring to utter the words "illegal alien", for example. This seems to extend to whatever they deem "hate speech". They also wish to shut down opposing speech. This is being attempted by social media platforms as well as "protesters" (ie, disrupters) at opposing political events. Specific examples include changes that YouTube has made to their algorithms so that a search for "Steven Crowder Change My Mind" does not bring up ANY videos from his own channel until one scrolls down for a good long while, meanwhile a search for "The Young Turks" INSTANTLY shows numerous videos from their own channel. Another example is "protesters" (ie, disrupters) at a Ben Shapiro event a good while back who purposely pulled the fire alarms as an attempt to shut down the event. You don't see Conservatives pulling any of this shit. Conservatives are fine with opposing speech and speech of any type. It is LIBERALS who wish to compel others to speak as they speak.

RELIGION: Liberals (such as Beto O'Rourke) are currently attempting to "punish" (via the US tax code) churches which do not accept alphabet soup marriages (ie, only accept "traditional" marriage). That is an attempt to compel those churches to believe as THEY believe regarding what constitutes a marriage.

RELIGION #2: Liberals are currently attempting to implement the Church of Global Warming as a State religion. They are attempting to force people from using carbon based fuels, force people to drive electric vehicles, force people to stop eating meat, force people to stop using plastic bags/straws/etc..., and etc...

To conclude, Liberals hate the 1st Amendment.

GUNS: Liberals are openly saying that they are going to take away your AR-15s, AK-47s, etc... Some try to word it nicer, by claiming they are "buying them back". Either way, it is confiscation. They don't want people to own guns, so they are attempting to compel others to live like they do by confiscating their guns...

To conclude, Liberals hate the 2nd Amendment.

I could type up numerous paragraphs of examples about various other articles and amendments to the Constitution, but I think this should suffice as a few examples...

That would be Donald Trump ignoring it, (but gladly I don't think he can destroy it.)

Inversion Fallacy. LIBERALS are doing so, not Trump.

How is Trump destroying it? I've given you numerous examples (see above) of how Liberals are destroying it...

And so do the people you claim without basis 'want to destroy it.'

WRONG. They don't wish to follow it (see above for examples). There IS basis for that claim (see above for examples).

The real difference is that we interpret the document differently. What is not immediately clear is why you have to make up things about the other side which simply are not true. How can you be right when so much of what you argue simply is not so? It's not logical.

The document doesn't need to be interpreted. It is written in plain English. It says what it says.

If those things about me were true I would have said them myself.

If it was true that I really did rape that woman, then I would have said so myself..... Okay, Bill... If you say so...

I have never said those things.

Never claimed you did.

They are not true.

Yes, they are.

Total whiff on your part. The mighty lunging swing, with the huge huffing sound of a strong exhale, followed by leaning body, hand over eyebrows of searching eyes, peering far above and down the fairway, hoping to catch sight of a soaring ball, surely outdistancing all others ... and where is it? Oh. ... Still sitting on the tee.

Whoops!

Try again.

Cute, but doesn't change the truth.

You can't even discuss my point that "We need a large and strong central government if we wish to have a large and strong country" without making things up and trying to make it about me personally. It is only logical that a large and strong country needs a large and strong government.

No, it's not.

How would it be possible to have a large and strong country with a small and weak government? Hunh? Why don't you explain that instead of trying to make it about me? The very fact that you had to resort to a personal attack instead of logic and reasoning indicates that your argument is false, fake, and phony.

Capitalism.

Every part of the federal government conforms to the powers granted in the Constitution.

Not even close.

If it did not, SURELY some small government conservative would have already brought the case to the highest court in the land and had that part of the government not 'delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States' eliminated. We depend on you conservatives for this. Why have conservatives been unable to fulfill this basic tenet of that philosophy? (I think I know. - The government is in conformance with the Constitution.)

No, it's not.

But, of course, if you feel there is some overlooked part of the federal government which is not in conformance you are free to bring such a case. What do you have in mind?

To list a few examples: The EPA, FDA, FAA, and NUMEROUS other federal government agencies, as well as the current House of Representatives (led by Nancy Pelosi).

 

[Althea]

Right, but as someone self-employed, on top of paying the taxes you pay now you also have to pay for your own health insurance.

So net-net, if you didn't have to pay for health insurance, wouldn't M4A put you ahead, even if you have to pay those taxes?

Depending on the ceiling for the tax, it would be a wash for many. I'm more in favor of a public option, coupled with a re funding of ACA, which brought rates down considerably for the two or so years it was in existence.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Bullshit. trump killed the soy bean market, and is now providing his own brand of Socialism to get votes.

has anyone pointed out to you that soy prices are higher right now than the were for the entire year of 2015?.......

https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data

 

[LV426]

Depending on the ceiling for the tax, it would be a wash for many. I'm more in favor of a public option, coupled with a re funding of ACA, which brought rates down considerably for the two or so years it was in existence.

But the problem of private insurance companies colluding to set artificially high costs remains. Plus, what happens if everyone chooses the Public Option? What would have been the point of introducing it alongside private plans? What does the Public Option do any differently than Aetna?

 

[Bill]

free health care
free pre-school
free child care
free college
wealth tax
wealth inequality tax
student debt forgiveness

a few I forget

IMHO the biggest threat facing the USA/west/Pax America is the economic imperialism of the Chinese Communist Party.....

Since that was not going to be of interest during the debate I didn't bother watching/listening...........