Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 106: Miner Threat

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
red sox 777 06/26/17 2:57:03 PM #301:	Not_an_Owl posted... Kenri posted... I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage. Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying. There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881844529] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote> I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage.</quote> Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying.</quote> There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 06/26/17 3:00:05 PM #302:	red sox 777 posted... Not_an_Owl posted... Kenri posted... I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage. Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying. There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet. Who said you weren't paying for it? --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:881844724] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote> I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage.</quote> Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying.</quote> There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet.</quote> Who said you weren't paying for it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 06/26/17 3:01:01 PM #303:	Not_an_Owl posted... Kenri posted... I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage. Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying. I dunno man to me this is like saying that a guy's nice because he buys you dinner even if later he beats the shit out of you. The former doesn't really make up for the latter. ~~Sorry, are we still talking about Johnny Depp?~~ --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:881844780] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote> I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage.</quote> Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying.</quote> I dunno man to me this is like saying that a guy's nice because he buys you dinner even if later he beats the shit out of you. The former doesn't really make up for the latter. Sorry, are we still talking about Johnny Depp?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:01:03 PM #304:	Corrik posted... red sox 777 posted... What if you apply to a lot of jobs but just don't get hired? Part of the work requirement is applying for jobs and doing public service work while on welfare. To my knowledge. Well, I think it's just really hard to make this have teeth without also screwing over people who are earnestly trying to find work. If someone does not want to work, it's not hard to apply for jobs in such a way as to ensure you will not be hired. On the other hand, someone earnestly trying might not get hired for a lot of reasons, like being bad at interviews, lacking skills, etc. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881844784] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>What if you apply to a lot of jobs but just don't get hired?</quote> Part of the work requirement is applying for jobs and doing public service work while on welfare. To my knowledge.</quote> Well, I think it's just really hard to make this have teeth without also screwing over people who are earnestly trying to find work. If someone does not want to work, it's not hard to apply for jobs in such a way as to ensure you will not be hired. On the other hand, someone earnestly trying might not get hired for a lot of reasons, like being bad at interviews, lacking skills, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BowserCuffs 06/26/17 3:01:28 PM #305:	Capitalism only works if a 35-40 hour work week guarantees a living wage. And not just a wage on which to barely subsist, but a wage which can provide quality of life. This way, people are spending money on more than just food, medicine, and shelter, they're also spending it on luxury goods. This makes the market move forward and helps people be more self-sufficient. Any company which relies on paying its workers subliving wages admits implicitly that it is an economic failure. Unfortunately, we've decided to reward economic failures because they more or less bribe politicians to argue to support them using corporate welfare. You can claim Democrats are trying to keep people on welfare all you want, but Democrats aren't the ones that made the maximum wage to qualify for welfare so low that people actually have to avoid making too much money or else they can't afford their necessities - and Democrats are the ones arguing for a wage that would ultimately take more people off of welfare than Republicans trying to simply boot them off. The welfare queen is largely a myth and the only successful one was a woman who stole identities to do it. And to break the stereotype, she was white. --- Everyone's best is different. You can't always be the best, but you can always do your best. <cite>BowserCuffs posted [p:881844814] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>Capitalism only works if a 35-40 hour work week guarantees a living wage. And not just a wage on which to barely subsist, but a wage which can provide quality of life. This way, people are spending money on more than just food, medicine, and shelter, they're also spending it on luxury goods. This makes the market move forward and helps people be more self-sufficient. Any company which relies on paying its workers subliving wages admits implicitly that it is an economic failure. Unfortunately, we've decided to reward economic failures because they more or less bribe politicians to argue to support them using corporate welfare. You can claim Democrats are trying to keep people on welfare all you want, but Democrats aren't the ones that made the maximum wage to qualify for welfare so low that people actually have to avoid making too much money or else they can't afford their necessities - and Democrats are the ones arguing for a wage that would ultimately take more people off of welfare than Republicans trying to simply boot them off. The welfare queen is largely a myth and the only successful one was a woman who stole identities to do it. And to break the stereotype, she was white.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:01:53 PM #306:	Not_an_Owl posted... red sox 777 posted... Not_an_Owl posted... Kenri posted... I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage. Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying. There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet. Who said you weren't paying for it? It said I have $200 in the bank. I'm not paying for the 500k because I can't. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881844833] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote> I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage.</quote> Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying.</quote> There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet.</quote> Who said you weren't paying for it?</quote> It said I have $200 in the bank. I'm not paying for the 500k because I can't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 06/26/17 3:03:48 PM #307:	red sox 777 posted... Not_an_Owl posted... red sox 777 posted... Not_an_Owl posted... Kenri posted... I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage. Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying. There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet. Who said you weren't paying for it? It said I have $200 in the bank. I'm not paying for the 500k because I can't. Well then you're not getting those $500k treatments until you take out loans, charge it to a credit card, make a deal with a loan shark, etc. So enjoy your death, I guess. --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:881844933] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote> I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage.</quote> Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying.</quote> There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet.</quote> Who said you weren't paying for it?</quote> It said I have $200 in the bank. I'm not paying for the 500k because I can't.</quote> Well then you're not getting those $500k treatments until you take out loans, charge it to a credit card, make a deal with a loan shark, etc. So enjoy your death, I guess.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Regaro 06/26/17 3:03:58 PM #308:	Not_an_Owl posted... The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. Correct. Unfortunately, lots of assholes (typically those with more money and generally well-off) tend to try to force the idea that you do have such a choice with health care among many, many other things, and they wield what influence they have to that end --- Congratulations to BKSheikah, winner of the BYIG Guru Contest <cite>Regaro posted [p:881844945] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote>The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. </quote> Correct. Unfortunately, lots of assholes (typically those with more money and generally well-off) tend to try to force the idea that you do have such a choice with health care among many, many other things, and they wield what influence they have to that end</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:09:48 PM #309:	Not_an_Owl posted... red sox 777 posted... Not_an_Owl posted... red sox 777 posted... Not_an_Owl posted... Kenri posted... I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage. Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying. There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet. Who said you weren't paying for it? It said I have $200 in the bank. I'm not paying for the 500k because I can't. Well then you're not getting those $500k treatments until you take out loans, charge it to a credit card, make a deal with a loan shark, etc. So enjoy your death, I guess. I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881845297] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote> I forgot for a second that capitalism is inherently garbage.</quote> Capitalism is an excellent system for certain purposes. Take cars, for instance - now is probably the best time it's ever been to be buying a car, because you have a huge amount of choices and the only limiting factors are your budget and your needs in a car. Need lots of passenger room? There's a variety of minivans out there. Need to carry around lots of messy cargo? Go for one of the dozens of pickup trucks on the market. On a tight budget but still need transportation independent of any other schedule? There are entire companies dedicated to making affordable cars. Have a bigger budget and want to splurge? Go for a BMW, Lexus, or any other luxury automaker. And if you just want to go fast, there are plenty of sports cars out there just waiting for you to spend your money on. The problem with capitalism is that it assumes everyone always has a choice in how they spend their money, and when it comes to things like health care that's just not the case. If you have $200 in the bank and no insurance, get sick, and are told your only options are a $500,000 course of treatments or death, you're going to take the expensive treatments even though you can't afford them because the alternative is fucking dying.</quote> There's a big disconnect here. If you have $200 and are given the opportunity to receive $500k of treatments, without ever paying for it, Trump would likely classify that as winning. Losing is when you have to fork over the $200 that's your life savings even though you aren't sick yet.</quote> Who said you weren't paying for it?</quote> It said I have $200 in the bank. I'm not paying for the 500k because I can't.</quote> Well then you're not getting those $500k treatments until you take out loans, charge it to a credit card, make a deal with a loan shark, etc. So enjoy your death, I guess.</quote> I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 06/26/17 3:12:08 PM #310:	red sox 777 posted... I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover. You realize you're arguing in favor of literal theft, right? --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:881845429] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover.</quote> You realize you're arguing in favor of literal theft, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:14:17 PM #311:	Not_an_Owl posted... red sox 777 posted... I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover. You realize you're arguing in favor of literal theft, right? Not_an_Owl posted... red sox 777 posted... I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover. You realize you're arguing in favor of literal theft, right? I'm describing the current situation in the US for emergency care. It's definitely not theft (legally). And am thankful that neither party is heartless enough to propose changing this. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881845561] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover.</quote> You realize you're arguing in favor of literal theft, right?</quote> <cite>Not_an_Owl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, I guess it's possible that I will make a lot of money in the future but I think it's fair to say, based on the hypothetical, that I won't make 500k in savings anytime in the foreseeable future. Not too many people with $200 to their name make 500k in a few years. So I won't qualify for the loans and will just charge it to the hospital. If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover.</quote> You realize you're arguing in favor of literal theft, right?</quote> I'm describing the current situation in the US for emergency care. It's definitely not theft (legally). And am thankful that neither party is heartless enough to propose changing this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 06/26/17 3:14:51 PM #312:	Also, apropos of nothing: http://deadspin.com/the-progressive-liberal-is-maybe-the-perfect-wrestlin-1796426671 --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:881845595] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>Also, apropos of nothing: http://deadspin.com/the-progressive-liberal-is-maybe-the-perfect-wrestlin-1796426671</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/26/17 3:18:02 PM #313:	BowserCuffs posted... Capitalism only works if a 35-40 hour work week guarantees a living wage. And not just a wage on which to barely subsist, but a wage which can provide quality of life. This way, people are spending money on more than just food, medicine, and shelter, they're also spending it on luxury goods. This makes the market move forward and helps people be more self-sufficient. Any company which relies on paying its workers subliving wages admits implicitly that it is an economic failure. Unfortunately, we've decided to reward economic failures because they more or less bribe politicians to argue to support them using corporate welfare. You can claim Democrats are trying to keep people on welfare all you want, but Democrats aren't the ones that made the maximum wage to qualify for welfare so low that people actually have to avoid making too much money or else they can't afford their necessities - and Democrats are the ones arguing for a wage that would ultimately take more people off of welfare than Republicans trying to simply boot them off. The welfare queen is largely a myth and the only successful one was a woman who stole identities to do it. And to break the stereotype, she was white. It should be noted its actually really bad for the health of our economy that more and more people only can afford the bare bones. The death spiral of once decent spots in West Virginia or other appalachian spots goes like this: Oh hey a coal mine which employs thousands of people and pays them all like 80k a year which is not only great for them but really props up a neato service economy which is big and can take risks and afford to pay its people. Oh shit the coal mine downsized. To make up for it lets open some wal marts and shit by giving those corporations tax breaks to be here. Oh shit the mine is closed. All we have now is wal mart and fast food. All the other businesses have to shut down because no one can afford things. So no more car dealerships or neat ideas. Of course that puts more people out of work and frankly the wal mart and mcdonalds and gas stations dont need THAT many people. After all no one who works at mcdonalds full time can afford a new car. Or really much at all beyond necessities. time passes In fact even our walmart is now thinking of closing - our only value is that we happen to be a place where people live along route 19 and thus people might stop here to get a burger and some gas on their way to somewhere else. so its easy to see how these places would be desperate for the mines to open back up - for these little towns to come back from the dead. For literally anyone in the town to make more than 12 bucks an hour as the manager of the McDonalds. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:881845773] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>BowserCuffs posted...</cite> <quote>Capitalism only works if a 35-40 hour work week guarantees a living wage. And not just a wage on which to barely subsist, but a wage which can provide quality of life. This way, people are spending money on more than just food, medicine, and shelter, they're also spending it on luxury goods. This makes the market move forward and helps people be more self-sufficient. Any company which relies on paying its workers subliving wages admits implicitly that it is an economic failure. Unfortunately, we've decided to reward economic failures because they more or less bribe politicians to argue to support them using corporate welfare. You can claim Democrats are trying to keep people on welfare all you want, but Democrats aren't the ones that made the maximum wage to qualify for welfare so low that people actually have to avoid making too much money or else they can't afford their necessities - and Democrats are the ones arguing for a wage that would ultimately take more people off of welfare than Republicans trying to simply boot them off. The welfare queen is largely a myth and the only successful one was a woman who stole identities to do it. And to break the stereotype, she was white.</quote> It should be noted its actually really bad for the health of our economy that more and more people only can afford the bare bones. The death spiral of once decent spots in West Virginia or other appalachian spots goes like this: Oh hey a coal mine which employs thousands of people and pays them all like 80k a year which is not only great for them but really props up a neato service economy which is big and can take risks and afford to pay its people. Oh shit the coal mine downsized. To make up for it lets open some wal marts and shit by giving those corporations tax breaks to be here. Oh shit the mine is closed. All we have now is wal mart and fast food. All the other businesses have to shut down because no one can afford things. So no more car dealerships or neat ideas. Of course that puts more people out of work and frankly the wal mart and mcdonalds and gas stations dont need THAT many people. After all no one who works at mcdonalds full time can afford a new car. Or really much at all beyond necessities. time passes In fact even our walmart is now thinking of closing - our only value is that we happen to be a place where people live along route 19 and thus people might stop here to get a burger and some gas on their way to somewhere else. so its easy to see how these places would be desperate for the mines to open back up - for these little towns to come back from the dead. For literally anyone in the town to make more than 12 bucks an hour as the manager of the McDonalds.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 06/26/17 3:18:22 PM #314:	red sox 777 posted... If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover. Having $200 in the bank doesn't mean you have no assets?? Or future income for them to garnish? --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:881845792] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover.</quote> Having $200 in the bank doesn't mean you have no assets?? Or future income for them to garnish?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Not_an_Owl 06/26/17 3:19:30 PM #315:	red sox 777 posted... I'm describing the current situation in the US for emergency care. It's definitely not theft (legally). And am thankful that neither party is heartless enough to propose changing this. Wait, you want those doctors and nurses and hospital staff to work for free? What are you, some sort of damn Commie? --- Besides, marijuana is far more harmful than steroids. - BlitzBomb I headbang to Bruckner. <cite>Not_an_Owl posted [p:881845854] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm describing the current situation in the US for emergency care. It's definitely not theft (legally). And am thankful that neither party is heartless enough to propose changing this.</quote> Wait, you want those doctors and nurses and hospital staff to work for free? What are you, some sort of damn Commie?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:22:04 PM #316:	Kenri posted... red sox 777 posted... If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover. Having $200 in the bank doesn't mean you have no assets?? Or future income for them to garnish? Technically no, but I think it's a fair assumption. If I own a mansion or something and just keep $200 in the bank, I would have just bought insurance in the first place cuz it would have been a good deal for me. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881846014] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>If they want to sue me for the $200 I have, they are welcome to spend more in attorney's fees to file the paperwork than the amount they will recover.</quote> Having $200 in the bank doesn't mean you have no assets?? Or future income for them to garnish?</quote> Technically no, but I think it's a fair assumption. If I own a mansion or something and just keep $200 in the bank, I would have just bought insurance in the first place cuz it would have been a good deal for me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/26/17 3:24:02 PM #317:	red sox 777 posted... Corrik posted... red sox 777 posted... What if you apply to a lot of jobs but just don't get hired? Part of the work requirement is applying for jobs and doing public service work while on welfare. To my knowledge. Well, I think it's just really hard to make this have teeth without also screwing over people who are earnestly trying to find work. If someone does not want to work, it's not hard to apply for jobs in such a way as to ensure you will not be hired. On the other hand, someone earnestly trying might not get hired for a lot of reasons, like being bad at interviews, lacking skills, etc. Why would someone want to work public service for welfare when they can work for a wage? That's the thinking. That someone may want to get oaid to just sit around and do shit... but if they have to do even some work to get the welfare they willl rather just go get their own job anyways. It also helps somewhat eliminate working under the table on welfare as it creates less hours you can be working that job due to your public service requirement. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:881846132] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>What if you apply to a lot of jobs but just don't get hired?</quote> Part of the work requirement is applying for jobs and doing public service work while on welfare. To my knowledge.</quote> Well, I think it's just really hard to make this have teeth without also screwing over people who are earnestly trying to find work. If someone does not want to work, it's not hard to apply for jobs in such a way as to ensure you will not be hired. On the other hand, someone earnestly trying might not get hired for a lot of reasons, like being bad at interviews, lacking skills, etc.</quote> Why would someone want to work public service for welfare when they can work for a wage? That's the thinking. That someone may want to get oaid to just sit around and do shit... but if they have to do even some work to get the welfare they willl rather just go get their own job anyways. It also helps somewhat eliminate working under the table on welfare as it creates less hours you can be working that job due to your public service requirement.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/26/17 3:26:34 PM #318:	LordoftheMorons posted... Corrik posted... LordoftheMorons posted... Jakyl25 posted... https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/879326984794517507 This is the sort of compassion towards those being hurt by Obamacare that won an election. I have never hated anybody as much as I hate this garbage excuse for a human. Welcome to board 8 liberals. Yeah sorry that I hate someone for wanting the entire health insurance market to crash because of pure spite (and who has some ability to make it so by refusing to make cost sharing payments; him making statements like this directly leads to insurers raising premiums or pulling out of markets). The market is gonna crash and has been spiraling to crash. Insurers are losing too much money so keep dropping out. Why the system needs scrapped. The republicans may in fact be playing a long con here in the silly.politics where they keep trying to scrap it. Dems keep blocking it. Then it crashes and repubs say see what the dems did. And it pins on them. It is a dangerous game on either side. Both sides know it doesn't work. Dems cant just block it. They need another idea at least on what to do with it. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:881846273] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/879326984794517507 This is the sort of compassion towards those being hurt by Obamacare that won an election.</quote> I have never hated anybody as much as I hate this garbage excuse for a human.</quote> Welcome to board 8 liberals.</quote> Yeah sorry that I hate someone for wanting the entire health insurance market to crash because of pure spite (and who has some ability to make it so by refusing to make cost sharing payments; him making statements like this directly leads to insurers raising premiums or pulling out of markets).</quote> The market is gonna crash and has been spiraling to crash. Insurers are losing too much money so keep dropping out. Why the system needs scrapped. The republicans may in fact be playing a long con here in the silly.politics where they keep trying to scrap it. Dems keep blocking it. Then it crashes and repubs say see what the dems did. And it pins on them. It is a dangerous game on either side. Both sides know it doesn't work. Dems cant just block it. They need another idea at least on what to do with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/26/17 3:31:22 PM #319:	Dems have offered to work with the Republicans on a good faith, bipartisan solution to improve Obamacare and stabilize the markets. They wouldn't go for it. (At least the leadership wouldn't; I don't doubt there's at least a few Republican Congresspeople who would be willing to do so if allowed to, but McConnell and Ryan are not in that group). The Dems are obviously not going to sign on to any sort of straight up repeal, though; why on earth would they? --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:881846562] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>Dems have offered to work with the Republicans on a good faith, bipartisan solution to improve Obamacare and stabilize the markets. They wouldn't go for it. (At least the leadership wouldn't; I don't doubt there's at least a few Republican Congresspeople who would be willing to do so if allowed to, but McConnell and Ryan are not in that group). The Dems are obviously not going to sign on to any sort of straight up repeal, though; why on earth would they?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/26/17 3:34:21 PM #321:	And by the way, the market had more or less stabilized after last year's premium increases. It certainly wasn't great, but it wasn't in a death spiral, either. What made things start to fall apart again was the massive amount of uncertainty introduced by the Obamacare repeal effort and Trump's equivocation on whether or not he would continue to pay the CSRs. --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:881846747] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>And by the way, the market had more or less stabilized after last year's premium increases. It certainly wasn't great, but it wasn't in a death spiral, either. What made things start to fall apart again was the massive amount of uncertainty introduced by the Obamacare repeal effort and Trump's equivocation on whether or not he would continue to pay the CSRs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:35:27 PM #322:	LordoftheMorons posted... Dems have offered to work with the Republicans on a good faith, bipartisan solution to improve Obamacare and stabilize the markets. They wouldn't go for it. (At least the leadership wouldn't; I don't doubt there's at least a few Republican Congresspeople who would be willing to do so if allowed to, but McConnell and Ryan are not in that group). The Dems are obviously not going to sign on to any sort of straight up repeal, though; why on earth would they? What ideas have Democrats proposed? --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881846794] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Dems have offered to work with the Republicans on a good faith, bipartisan solution to improve Obamacare and stabilize the markets. They wouldn't go for it. (At least the leadership wouldn't; I don't doubt there's at least a few Republican Congresspeople who would be willing to do so if allowed to, but McConnell and Ryan are not in that group). The Dems are obviously not going to sign on to any sort of straight up repeal, though; why on earth would they?</quote> What ideas have Democrats proposed?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/26/17 3:36:18 PM #323:	The Democrats do have the actual centrist fix here. The GOP plan does legitimately nothing to fix the core problem - sick people cost a lot of money these days. With all the changes the young and healthy just simply wont have coverage - theres not really any incentive to be on the plans especially if they dont cover a whole lot which seems to be the republican answer (but covering childbirth and mental care isnt the big money loser; its people in their 40s with cancer; people in their 50s on Dialysis ). And without young healthy people in the pools this enters its death spiral faster. Defunding Medicaire only helps to speed it up because you get more stress put onto the system overall. Nothing being proposed in this GOP plan is going to lower premiums, deductibles or the price of healthcare for much of anyone. There are only 2 options really - help prop up the insurance industry by putting more high risk people (the poor and the elderly) on public rolls and allowing the insurance market to serve a less risk filled and expensive population (this was the clinton plan) or to go full single payer(the Bernie plan). and to be clear Trump actually ran on "free or at least affordable health care for everyone, no exceptions" so even in your argument that people actually want this Trump really stands as a strong counterargument. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:881846854] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>The Democrats do have the actual centrist fix here. The GOP plan does legitimately nothing to fix the core problem - sick people cost a lot of money these days. With all the changes the young and healthy just simply wont have coverage - theres not really any incentive to be on the plans especially if they dont cover a whole lot which seems to be the republican answer (but covering childbirth and mental care isnt the big money loser; its people in their 40s with cancer; people in their 50s on Dialysis ). And without young healthy people in the pools this enters its death spiral faster. Defunding Medicaire only helps to speed it up because you get more stress put onto the system overall. Nothing being proposed in this GOP plan is going to lower premiums, deductibles or the price of healthcare for much of anyone. There are only 2 options really - help prop up the insurance industry by putting more high risk people (the poor and the elderly) on public rolls and allowing the insurance market to serve a less risk filled and expensive population (this was the clinton plan) or to go full single payer(the Bernie plan). and to be clear Trump actually ran on "free or at least affordable health care for everyone, no exceptions" so even in your argument that people actually want this Trump really stands as a strong counterargument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 06/26/17 3:39:15 PM #324:	red sox 777 posted... Technically no, but I think it's a fair assumption. If I own a mansion or something and just keep $200 in the bank, I would have just bought insurance in the first place cuz it would have been a good deal for me. Who said mansion? Plenty of people own a car or a modest home or just have possessions that are worth a little something and still can't afford insurance in an open market without subsidies, much less afford the insane medical debt you can accrue even WITH insurance. --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:881847028] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Technically no, but I think it's a fair assumption. If I own a mansion or something and just keep $200 in the bank, I would have just bought insurance in the first place cuz it would have been a good deal for me.</quote> Who said mansion? Plenty of people own a car or a modest home or just have possessions that are worth a little something and still can't afford insurance in an open market without subsidies, much less afford the insane medical debt you can accrue even WITH insurance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 3:49:00 PM #325:	Kenri posted... red sox 777 posted... Technically no, but I think it's a fair assumption. If I own a mansion or something and just keep $200 in the bank, I would have just bought insurance in the first place cuz it would have been a good deal for me. Who said mansion? Plenty of people own a car or a modest home or just have possessions that are worth a little something and still can't afford insurance in an open market without subsidies, much less afford the insane medical debt you can accrue even WITH insurance. There's an asset point at which a person will have a difficult decision to make between buying insurance or not, which is the same for all insurance products. People around this level are losing, if we adopt Trump terminology. What is this level under Obamacare? Probably starts off with at the line where the unsubsidized portion of health insurance premiums are equal to the penalty for not being insured, and continues a good amount past the line at which you get no subsidies. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881847579] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Technically no, but I think it's a fair assumption. If I own a mansion or something and just keep $200 in the bank, I would have just bought insurance in the first place cuz it would have been a good deal for me.</quote> Who said mansion? Plenty of people own a car or a modest home or just have possessions that are worth a little something and still can't afford insurance in an open market without subsidies, much less afford the insane medical debt you can accrue even WITH insurance.</quote> There's an asset point at which a person will have a difficult decision to make between buying insurance or not, which is the same for all insurance products. People around this level are losing, if we adopt Trump terminology. What is this level under Obamacare? Probably starts off with at the line where the unsubsidized portion of health insurance premiums are equal to the penalty for not being insured, and continues a good amount past the line at which you get no subsidies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
trdl23 06/26/17 3:50:20 PM #326:	I'm kind of shocked that we seem to be having an actual debate here. This is a nice departure from the norm. --- E come vivo? Vivo! <cite>trdl23 posted [p:881847670] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>I'm kind of shocked that we seem to be having an actual debate here. This is a nice departure from the norm.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/26/17 4:11:22 PM #327:	red sox 777 posted... What ideas have Democrats proposed? Increasing subsidies, guaranteeing the CSRs, removing the medical device tax off the top of my head The Republicans officially giving up on repealing Obamacare would also likely lead to more states expanding Medicaid which would also help. --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:881848938] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>What ideas have Democrats proposed?</quote> Increasing subsidies, guaranteeing the CSRs, removing the medical device tax off the top of my head The Republicans officially giving up on repealing Obamacare would also likely lead to more states expanding Medicaid which would also help.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 4:18:46 PM #328:	LordoftheMorons posted... red sox 777 posted... What ideas have Democrats proposed? Increasing subsidies, guaranteeing the CSRs, removing the medical device tax off the top of my head The Republicans officially giving up on repealing Obamacare would also likely lead to more states expanding Medicaid which would also help. Different Republicans have different priorities of course, but the only 2 things on which they have a consensus are: 1. The individual mandate is bad. 2. "Obamacare" must be repealed. What Obamacare repeal means has already proven to be totally nebulous, except that it must include #1. This is a situation where a bipartisan deal should be possible if both sides didn't have such negative views of the other side's intentions. Increasing subsidies can effectively eliminate the need for the mandate. Of course, the very existence of the mandate is a tacit admission that the subsidies are not and never have been enough. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881849330] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>What ideas have Democrats proposed?</quote> Increasing subsidies, guaranteeing the CSRs, removing the medical device tax off the top of my head The Republicans officially giving up on repealing Obamacare would also likely lead to more states expanding Medicaid which would also help.</quote> Different Republicans have different priorities of course, but the only 2 things on which they have a consensus are: 1. The individual mandate is bad. 2. "Obamacare" must be repealed. What Obamacare repeal means has already proven to be totally nebulous, except that it must include #1. This is a situation where a bipartisan deal should be possible if both sides didn't have such negative views of the other side's intentions. Increasing subsidies can effectively eliminate the need for the mandate. Of course, the very existence of the mandate is a tacit admission that the subsidies are not and never have been enough.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
woodman 06/26/17 4:21:02 PM #329:	red sox 777 posted... 1. The individual mandate is bad. The individual mandate is pretty important though --- NFUN nice <cite>woodman posted [p:881849465] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>1. The individual mandate is bad.</quote> The individual mandate is pretty important though</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Mana Sword 06/26/17 4:23:26 PM #330:	CBO score is out for the Senate bill. https://twitter.com/AP/status/879434118601334784 BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP. Well, they're getting better. 1 million at a time. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/Gylgamesh501.png <cite>The Mana Sword posted [p:881849608] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>CBO score is out for the Senate bill. https://twitter.com/AP/status/879434118601334784 BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP. Well, they're getting better. 1 million at a time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BowserCuffs 06/26/17 4:45:32 PM #331:	My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How the FUCK is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that? --- Everyone's best is different. You can't always be the best, but you can always do your best. <cite>BowserCuffs posted [p:881850984] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How the FUCK is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 4:56:42 PM #332:	BowserCuffs posted... My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that? That should make it easier, not harder. For the price of taking Obama's/the Democrats' name off, you can negotiate with people who don't want very much and probably get most of what you want in actual policies. Of course, should said policies succeed, Republicans will take credit for it and probably win the next election. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881851622] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>BowserCuffs posted...</cite> <quote>My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that?</quote> That should make it easier, not harder. For the price of taking Obama's/the Democrats' name off, you can negotiate with people who don't want very much and probably get most of what you want in actual policies. Of course, should said policies succeed, Republicans will take credit for it and probably win the next election.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mega Mana 06/26/17 4:57:43 PM #333:	The Mana Sword posted... BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP. 22 million more? So did they go 1 million less, or is it now 45 million total? --- "In my headcanon, some staffer saw Trump pull out his phone and start typing so they just Terry Tate Office Linebacker'd him out of his shoes." - FFD <cite>Mega Mana posted [p:881851678] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Mana Sword posted...</cite> <quote>BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP.</quote> 22 million more? So did they go 1 million less, or is it now 45 million total?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BowserCuffs 06/26/17 4:59:23 PM #335:	red sox 777 posted... BowserCuffs posted... My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that? That should make it easier, not harder. For the price of taking Obama's/the Democrats' name off, you can negotiate with people who don't want very much and probably get most of what you want in actual policies. Of course, should said policies succeed, Republicans will take credit for it and probably win the next election. If you actually believe this will work then I don't know what to tell you. --- Everyone's best is different. You can't always be the best, but you can always do your best. <cite>BowserCuffs posted [p:881851772] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BowserCuffs posted...</cite> <quote>My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that?</quote> That should make it easier, not harder. For the price of taking Obama's/the Democrats' name off, you can negotiate with people who don't want very much and probably get most of what you want in actual policies. Of course, should said policies succeed, Republicans will take credit for it and probably win the next election.</quote> If you actually believe this will work then I don't know what to tell you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/26/17 5:02:26 PM #336:	Mega Mana posted... The Mana Sword posted... BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP. 22 million more? So did they go 1 million less, or is it now 45 million total? 1 million less BowserCuffs posted... My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How the FUCK is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that? This was actually where I at one time naively hoped Trump would be an asset. Because yeah McConnell has from day 1 been the "I just hate Obama" guy. And Ryan is like a heartless snake with bad ideas. But Trump had run on some pretty populist ideas on healthcare and it had been my hope that he would be able to bully congress into something halfway decent if not good. That hes been just a guy promising to rubber stamp the McConnell agenda (while somewhat hilariously undermining said agenda with his incompetence and constant stream of scandals) is by far the biggest disappointment of the Trump presidency. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:881851955] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mega Mana posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Mana Sword posted...</cite> <quote>BREAKING: Congressional Budget Office sees 22 million more uninsured by 2026 under Senate health bill in latest hurdle for GOP.</quote> 22 million more? So did they go 1 million less, or is it now 45 million total?</quote> 1 million less <cite>BowserCuffs posted...</cite> <quote>My problem is that the Republicans have promised to ensure Obama has no legacy. This isn't even a question of what's good for America, they literally care more about erasing the last presidency, both good and bad, than they care about America. How the FUCK is anyone supposed to reach a compromise with that?</quote> This was actually where I at one time naively hoped Trump would be an asset. Because yeah McConnell has from day 1 been the "I just hate Obama" guy. And Ryan is like a heartless snake with bad ideas. But Trump had run on some pretty populist ideas on healthcare and it had been my hope that he would be able to bully congress into something halfway decent if not good. That hes been just a guy promising to rubber stamp the McConnell agenda (while somewhat hilariously undermining said agenda with his incompetence and constant stream of scandals) is by far the biggest disappointment of the Trump presidency.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 06/26/17 5:11:58 PM #337:	red sox 777 posted... There's an asset point at which a person will have a difficult decision to make between buying insurance or not, which is the same for all insurance products. People around this level are losing, if we adopt Trump terminology. What is this level under Obamacare? Probably starts off with at the line where the unsubsidized portion of health insurance premiums are equal to the penalty for not being insured, and continues a good amount past the line at which you get no subsidies. Aren't some insurance products mandatory? Like car insurance? So like, no it's not the same as all of them. And I would think the line would be somewhat higher than the penalty because the penalty cost gets you nothing while you get a useful product out of paying the same amount for insurance. How much higher it would have to be would depend on the person though. The difficult decision you're describing also doesn't get any easier without Obamacare (quite the opposite). And I'm not sure why we're even talking insurance now -- we were talking emergency care without insurance before, and I only brought in insurance to say even that doesn't solve the problems with the insane debt from said emergency care. The only way I can think of that what you're saying now is relevant is if you're just, like, admitting that you're fine with people potentially losing everything they have because they happened to get sick in a country of shit-tier health care, as long as it was their own "choice" (and I use heavy, HEAVY scare quotes there). --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:881852526] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>There's an asset point at which a person will have a difficult decision to make between buying insurance or not, which is the same for all insurance products. People around this level are losing, if we adopt Trump terminology. What is this level under Obamacare? Probably starts off with at the line where the unsubsidized portion of health insurance premiums are equal to the penalty for not being insured, and continues a good amount past the line at which you get no subsidies.</quote> Aren't some insurance products mandatory? Like car insurance? So like, no it's not the same as all of them. And I would think the line would be somewhat higher than the penalty because the penalty cost gets you nothing while you get a useful product out of paying the same amount for insurance. How much higher it would have to be would depend on the person though. The difficult decision you're describing also doesn't get any easier without Obamacare (quite the opposite). And I'm not sure why we're even talking insurance now -- we were talking emergency care without insurance before, and I only brought in insurance to say even that doesn't solve the problems with the insane debt from said emergency care. The only way I can think of that what you're saying now is relevant is if you're just, like, admitting that you're fine with people potentially losing everything they have because they happened to get sick in a country of shit-tier health care, as long as it was their own "choice" (and I use heavy, HEAVY scare quotes there).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/26/17 5:24:23 PM #338:	A chart of who is on medicaid and thus at risk --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:881853239] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote> A chart of who is on medicaid and thus at risk</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 5:24:38 PM #339:	Kenri posted... red sox 777 posted... There's an asset point at which a person will have a difficult decision to make between buying insurance or not, which is the same for all insurance products. People around this level are losing, if we adopt Trump terminology. What is this level under Obamacare? Probably starts off with at the line where the unsubsidized portion of health insurance premiums are equal to the penalty for not being insured, and continues a good amount past the line at which you get no subsidies. Aren't some insurance products mandatory? Like car insurance? So like, no it's not the same as all of them. And I would think the line would be somewhat higher than the penalty because the penalty cost gets you nothing while you get a useful product out of paying the same amount for insurance. How much higher it would have to be would depend on the person though. The difficult decision you're describing also doesn't get any easier without Obamacare (quite the opposite). And I'm not sure why we're even talking insurance now -- we were talking emergency care without insurance before, and I only brought in insurance to say even that doesn't solve the problems with the insane debt from said emergency care. The only way I can think of that what you're saying now is relevant is if you're just, like, admitting that you're fine with people potentially losing everything they have because they happened to get sick in a country of shit-tier health care, as long as it was their own "choice" (and I use heavy, HEAVY scare quotes there). The median American household has net worth of around 100k IIRC. Health insurance costs, let's say, $10,000 a year for a median household. So, if your family goes 10 years without needing a lot of health costs, you can be twice as wealthy if you don't buy insurance. For that kind of money, it may be worth the risk. Because you're only really risking the 100k you have, and the amount you would intend to save in the future to pay to protect your credit.....it matters little whether you "owe" 50k or 500k after that. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881853247] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kenri posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>There's an asset point at which a person will have a difficult decision to make between buying insurance or not, which is the same for all insurance products. People around this level are losing, if we adopt Trump terminology. What is this level under Obamacare? Probably starts off with at the line where the unsubsidized portion of health insurance premiums are equal to the penalty for not being insured, and continues a good amount past the line at which you get no subsidies.</quote> Aren't some insurance products mandatory? Like car insurance? So like, no it's not the same as all of them. And I would think the line would be somewhat higher than the penalty because the penalty cost gets you nothing while you get a useful product out of paying the same amount for insurance. How much higher it would have to be would depend on the person though. The difficult decision you're describing also doesn't get any easier without Obamacare (quite the opposite). And I'm not sure why we're even talking insurance now -- we were talking emergency care without insurance before, and I only brought in insurance to say even that doesn't solve the problems with the insane debt from said emergency care. The only way I can think of that what you're saying now is relevant is if you're just, like, admitting that you're fine with people potentially losing everything they have because they happened to get sick in a country of shit-tier health care, as long as it was their own "choice" (and I use heavy, HEAVY scare quotes there).</quote> The median American household has net worth of around 100k IIRC. Health insurance costs, let's say, $10,000 a year for a median household. So, if your family goes 10 years without needing a lot of health costs, you can be twice as wealthy if you don't buy insurance. For that kind of money, it may be worth the risk. Because you're only really risking the 100k you have, and the amount you would intend to save in the future to pay to protect your credit.....it matters little whether you "owe" 50k or 500k after that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 06/26/17 5:34:14 PM #340:	red sox 777 posted... The median American household has net worth of around 100k IIRC. Health insurance costs, let's say, $10,000 a year for a median household. So, if your family goes 10 years without needing a lot of health costs, you can be twice as wealthy if you don't buy insurance. For that kind of money, it may be worth the risk. Because you're only really risking the 100k you have, and the amount you would intend to save in the future to pay to protect your credit.....it matters little whether you "owe" 50k or 500k after that. there's a lot of assumptions and questionable math in here to start with, if we're assuming the average household is worth 100k and incurs a 500k emergency debt then they can be on the hook for, uh, at least $100k, and possibly $500k, and possibly more than $500k because of interest so like, that's a big difference from where we started, with paying $200 for $500k worth of services. now we're at "if they want to sue me for the well over $100k they can possibly recover, uh, guess i'm boned then" --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:881853731] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>The median American household has net worth of around 100k IIRC. Health insurance costs, let's say, $10,000 a year for a median household. So, if your family goes 10 years without needing a lot of health costs, you can be twice as wealthy if you don't buy insurance. For that kind of money, it may be worth the risk. Because you're only really risking the 100k you have, and the amount you would intend to save in the future to pay to protect your credit.....it matters little whether you "owe" 50k or 500k after that.</quote> there's a lot of assumptions and questionable math in here to start with, if we're assuming the average household is worth 100k and incurs a 500k emergency debt then they can be on the hook for, uh, at least $100k, and possibly $500k, and possibly more than $500k because of interest so like, that's a big difference from where we started, with paying $200 for $500k worth of services. now we're at "if they want to sue me for the well over $100k they can possibly recover, uh, guess i'm boned then"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/26/17 5:42:21 PM #341:	Well yeah, I was saying that the person with $200 is "winning" and has no incentive to buy insurance. The person with 100k will probably buy insurance, but if he doesn't, I understand that choice. If he chooses not to buy it and loses, I'm fine with it costing him 100k and then some - 100k was the amount of the unpaid health insurance premiums remember! --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881854177] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>Well yeah, I was saying that the person with $200 is "winning" and has no incentive to buy insurance. The person with 100k will probably buy insurance, but if he doesn't, I understand that choice. If he chooses not to buy it and loses, I'm fine with it costing him 100k and then some - 100k was the amount of the unpaid health insurance premiums remember!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kenri 06/26/17 5:51:20 PM #342:	red sox 777 posted... Well yeah, I was saying that the person with $200 is "winning" and has no incentive to buy insurance. Post #314 ~~it's easy to remember because it's the pi number~~ --- Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else. <cite>Kenri posted [p:881854669] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Well yeah, I was saying that the person with $200 is "winning" and has no incentive to buy insurance.</quote> Post #314 it's easy to remember because it's the pi number</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/26/17 5:54:26 PM #343:	http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/26/533973916/after-decline-of-steel-and-coal-ohio-fears-health-care-jobs-are-next This is exactly the sort of thing i was talking about earlier. These places have nothing and the situation is only going to get worse as the population that still lives there continues to contract. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:881854859] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/26/533973916/after-decline-of-steel-and-coal-ohio-fears-health-care-jobs-are-next This is exactly the sort of thing i was talking about earlier. These places have nothing and the situation is only going to get worse as the population that still lives there continues to contract.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/26/17 6:07:35 PM #344:	Re: minimum wage: this and similar issues are some of the big things worrying me about the current leftward push of the Democratic Party, namely what I see as a shift towards emotion rather than evidence driving policy. Sometimes these align (such as opposing AHCA/BCRA), but other times they don't as in a $15 national minimum wage. I'm for an increase in the minimum wage, but only to the extent that it actually helps low income workers; $15 nationally is crazy, but Hillary was pilloried for going for $12 nationally + $15 where it made sense. I'm sure people advocating $15 typically are coming from a place of honestly wanting to help people, but if it ends up just costing a ton of jobs without increasing that many peoples' income then the intentions don't really matter. --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:881855581] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>Re: minimum wage: this and similar issues are some of the big things worrying me about the current leftward push of the Democratic Party, namely what I see as a shift towards emotion rather than evidence driving policy. Sometimes these align (such as opposing AHCA/BCRA), but other times they don't as in a $15 national minimum wage. I'm for an increase in the minimum wage, but only to the extent that it actually helps low income workers; $15 nationally is crazy, but Hillary was pilloried for going for $12 nationally + $15 where it made sense. I'm sure people advocating $15 typically are coming from a place of honestly wanting to help people, but if it ends up just costing a ton of jobs without increasing that many peoples' income then the intentions don't really matter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/26/17 6:10:01 PM #345:	The problem is that we cant have the debate over nuance when there is literally almosy no consensus at all --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:881855726] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>The problem is that we cant have the debate over nuance when there is literally almosy no consensus at all</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reg 06/26/17 6:10:54 PM #346:	LordoftheMorons posted... I'm for an increase in the minimum wage, but only to the extent that it actually helps low income workers; $15 nationally is crazy, but Hillary was pilloried for going for $12 nationally + $15 where it made sense. I'm sure people advocating $15 typically are coming from a place of honestly wanting to help people, but if it ends up just costing a ton of jobs without increasing that many peoples' income then the intentions don't really matter. I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing. --- Congratulations to BKSheikah, winner of the BYIG Guru Contest <cite>Reg posted [p:881855787] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>I'm for an increase in the minimum wage, but only to the extent that it actually helps low income workers; $15 nationally is crazy, but Hillary was pilloried for going for $12 nationally + $15 where it made sense. I'm sure people advocating $15 typically are coming from a place of honestly wanting to help people, but if it ends up just costing a ton of jobs without increasing that many peoples' income then the intentions don't really matter.</quote> I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 06/26/17 6:16:54 PM #347:	https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/879442858792558592 Gonna be really awkward when you still vote for it, McCain. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:881856191] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/879442858792558592 Gonna be really awkward when you still vote for it, McCain.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/26/17 6:29:26 PM #348:	Reg posted... I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing. I guess It just seems really weird to me in principle to start from a negotiating position that you wouldn't actually want. --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:881857001] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote>I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing.</quote> I guess It just seems really weird to me in principle to start from a negotiating position that you wouldn't actually want.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BowserCuffs 06/26/17 6:32:01 PM #349:	LordoftheMorons posted... Reg posted... I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing. I guess It just seems really weird to me in principle to start from a negotiating position that you wouldn't actually want. Actually, it's one of the best ways to get what you want. An example in ReBoot is that one female character's bust size (it's been so long that I can't remember her name. Enzo's older sister). In order to get what they want, they actually went with something double the size so they could negoatiate down to that "reasonable" size, where if they had started from that, they wouldn't have been able to get it. --- Everyone's best is different. You can't always be the best, but you can always do your best. <cite>BowserCuffs posted [p:881857170] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote>I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing.</quote> I guess It just seems really weird to me in principle to start from a negotiating position that you wouldn't actually want.</quote> Actually, it's one of the best ways to get what you want. An example in ReBoot is that one female character's bust size (it's been so long that I can't remember her name. Enzo's older sister). In order to get what they want, they actually went with something double the size so they could negoatiate down to that "reasonable" size, where if they had started from that, they wouldn't have been able to get it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525 06/26/17 6:32:45 PM #350:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG_s2PCH_c I like when John does these type of shows. --- TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues. <cite>TheRock1525 posted [p:881857227] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG_s2PCH_c I like when John does these type of shows.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SupremeZero 06/26/17 6:34:07 PM #351:	LordoftheMorons posted... Reg posted... I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing. I guess It just seems really weird to me in principle to start from a negotiating position that you wouldn't actually want. Er. Have you never negotiated ever or something? --- There's always hope for better things in life. But you can't let anything, friend, lover,God himself,be your hope. You have to be your own hope <cite>SupremeZero posted [p:881857320] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Reg posted...</cite> <quote>I'm like 95% sure that this came from the negotiating tactic mentality, and people disliked Hillary's idea/praised Bernie because Hillary was starting negotiations at the point she actually wanted, while Bernie would probably get negotiated down to around what Hillary was proposing.</quote> I guess It just seems really weird to me in principle to start from a negotiating position that you wouldn't actually want.</quote> Er. Have you never negotiated ever or something?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/26/17 6:35:11 PM #352:	BowserCuffs posted... Actually, it's one of the best ways to get what you want. An example in ReBoot is that one female character's bust size (it's been so long that I can't remember her name. Enzo's older sister). In order to get what they want, they actually went with something double the size so they could negoatiate down to that "reasonable" size, where if they had started from that, they wouldn't have been able to get it. I mean I get the principle in general; if you were trying to get funding for a program there's really no downside to asking for more than you actually need and then negotiating. But here if you got less resistance than expected and ended up at $13 or something you might end up doing the opposite of what you wanted to do (help workers), whereas $10 might have helped them a lot. --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:881857395] in Politics C... [t:75498517]...</cite> <quote><cite>BowserCuffs posted...</cite> <quote> Actually, it's one of the best ways to get what you want. An example in ReBoot is that one female character's bust size (it's been so long that I can't remember her name. Enzo's older sister). In order to get what they want, they actually went with something double the size so they could negoatiate down to that "reasonable" size, where if they had started from that, they wouldn't have been able to get it.</quote> I mean I get the principle in general; if you were trying to get funding for a program there's really no downside to asking for more than you actually need and then negotiating. But here if you got less resistance than expected and ended up at $13 or something you might end up doing the opposite of what you wanted to do (help workers), whereas $10 might have helped them a lot.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 106: Miner Threat (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 106: Miner Threat