Scott Betts wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: In a country where the average voter can't name the VP This is false. As recently as 2011, 71% of Americans were correctly able to name the Vice President. Yet, the article you linked to says that 70% of the population doesn't know what the Constitution is.
Scott Betts wrote:
you're arguing against the idea that Americans should not represent themselves. But given your opinion of the average American's intelligence, wouldn't it be dangerous to have them self-represent (participate directly in the legislative process)?
We've created this giant beast of a federal government which requires professionals to understand. Further, those professionals must specialize in different areas of the federal government. To make things worse, Americans who don't live in the coastal states feel like the federal government is some far-off thing disconnected from their lives (disconneccted because the people who represent them, know nothing about them because they've never walked in their foot steps). Those Americans feel that trying to influence the federal government is like spitting into the ocean. So, they just look at that beast and shake their heads in frustration/confusion.
A smaller government which is nearby and made of people just like the American voter (ex. a governor who is a farmer in a farming state) will be more connected to that voter. The American voter will be better able to understand and engage in that government (because it is less complex, smaller, and more relevant).
So, yes, I do believe that elevating the 9th and 10th amendments will improve our country drastically and help the average American connect more with their government.
thejeff wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics? If you can show me a plan that works, I'll be happy - too happy for words. Everyone who gets X signatures to wind up on the ballot gets $Y and Z1 TV time, Z2 Radio time etc.
Anyone violating the rules goes to jail for life.
No other politicking on TV or Radio are allowed outside of public access.
Personal contributions must be in kind and are limited to $Q value, not counting volunteered time.
Violators go to jail for life.
Rough, but its a solid core. So, where's your plan that _works_? The above is just "Krensky dreams of being a fascist" which won't go over in the US. What do mean by works? Would work if it was implemented?
Or Would work and could get through Congress and survive a challenge in the current Supreme Court?
If you mean the latter, then nothing will work of course. By "works", I mean "will be embraced and supported by the average American voter".
Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: The names and organization changes, but it's the same group. If we ignore the fact that they are different in every way (ex. Whigs had a different platform than either Democrats or Republicans do), then, yes, they are the same group - the same way that if we ignore that a metal chair and an orange are different in every way, then they are the same. The Whigs split over slavery. The Northern anti-slavery branch essentially became the Republican party. The Southern Whigs, after the Civil War, dominated the southern Democrats.
thejeff wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: The names and organization changes, but it's the same group. If we ignore the fact that they are different in every way (ex. Whigs had a different platform than either Democrats or Republicans do), then, yes, they are the same group - the same way that if we ignore that a metal chair and an orange are different in every way, then they are the same. The Whigs split over slavery. The Northern anti-slavery branch essentially became the Republican party. The Southern Whigs, after the Civil War, dominated the southern Democrats.
In the same way that australopithecus evolved into homo sapien. But, no one would argue that australopithecus and homo sapien are the same thing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Australopithecus, homo sapiens, all you pinkskins suck.
Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics? If you can show me a plan that works, I'll be happy - too happy for words. Everyone who gets X signatures to wind up on the ballot gets $Y and Z1 TV time, Z2 Radio time etc.
Anyone violating the rules goes to jail for life.
No other politicking on TV or Radio are allowed outside of public access.
Personal contributions must be in kind and are limited to $Q value, not counting volunteered time.
Violators go to jail for life.
Rough, but its a solid core. So, where's your plan that _works_? The above is just "Krensky dreams of being a fascist" which won't go over in the US. Fascism has always been popular with large swaths of the population as long as you don't call it fascism.
Of course, nothing about that proposal is fascist in any way shape or form so I have no idea what you're talking about. It's significantly less fascist than what we have now. Its not even authoritarian. Other then thee meaningful punishments for corrupting the political process it's fairly similar to rules in other western democracies that allow only public campaign funding.
Justin Rocket wrote: We've created this giant beast of a federal government which requires professionals to understand. Further, those professionals must specialize in different areas of the federal government. To make things worse, Americans who don't live in the coastal states feel like the federal government is some far-off thing disconnected from their lives (disconneccted because the people who represent them, know nothing about them because they've never walked in their foot steps). Those Americans feel that trying to influence the federal government is like spitting into the ocean. So, they just look at that beast and shake their heads in frustration/confusion. People in the middle of the country don't typically feel that was in my experience. Those that do typically have been convinced of that by the far right in order to manipulate their vote. Technocracy work far better in every conceivable measure then anarchy.
Justin Rocket wrote: A smaller government which is nearby and made of people just like the American voter (ex. a governor who is a farmer in a farming state) will be more connected to that voter. The American voter will be better able to understand and engage in that government (because it is less complex, smaller, and more relevant).
So, yes, I do believe that elevating the 9th and 10th amendments will improve our country drastically and help the average American connect more with their government.
Or you could move to the libertarian paradise of Somolia.
Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: The names and organization changes, but it's the same group. If we ignore the fact that they are different in every way (ex. Whigs had a different platform than either Democrats or Republicans do), then, yes, they are the same group - the same way that if we ignore that a metal chair and an orange are different in every way, then they are the same. Because it's the same people who believe the same things and have the same agendas and goals.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Australopithecus, homo sapiens, all you pinkskins suck. Quiet gobo, Hominidae are talking here.
Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: The names and organization changes, but it's the same group. If we ignore the fact that they are different in every way (ex. Whigs had a different platform than either Democrats or Republicans do), then, yes, they are the same group - the same way that if we ignore that a metal chair and an orange are different in every way, then they are the same. The Whigs split over slavery. The Northern anti-slavery branch essentially became the Republican party. The Southern Whigs, after the Civil War, dominated the southern Democrats.
In the same way that australopithecus evolved into homo sapien. But, no one would argue that australopithecus and homo sapien are the same thing. The southern transformation was a little slower, but the new Republican Party really was just the northern anti-slavery whigs under a new name. It was the same people.
Which isn't to say that parties don't change, but they often do so while retaining the same name and a name change doesn't guarantee anything. The modern Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. The modern Democratic party are not the Dixiecrats of the pre-Civil Rights era.
Justin Rocket wrote:
We've created this giant beast of a federal government which requires professionals to understand. Further, those professionals must specialize in different areas of the federal government. To make things worse, Americans who don't live in the coastal states feel like the federal government is some far-off thing disconnected from their lives (disconneccted because the people who represent them, know nothing about them because they've never walked in their foot steps). Those Americans feel that trying to influence the federal government is like spitting into the ocean. So, they just look at that beast and shake their heads in frustration/confusion.
A smaller government which is nearby and made of people just like the American voter (ex. a governor who is a farmer in a farming state) will be more connected to that voter. The American voter will be better able to understand and engage in that government (because it is less complex, smaller, and more relevant).
I'm having trouble understanding your "coastal states/farming states" thing here.
The governor of a farming state is actually elected by the people of that farming state, whether he's a farmer himself or not. Their representatives are also elected by the people of that state, not forced upon them by the coastal states. If anything, the people of the more sparsely populated rural states have more influence due to the structure of the Senate than people in more urban states do.
If the people who don't live in coastal states are electing representatives who "know nothing about them because they've never walked in their foot steps" isn't that their own responsibility, not to be blamed on the federal government?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A smaller government which is nearby is great in theory, and might actually work in smaller states. It breaks down the further West you go, however, since the states are larger, more geographically diverse, and often encompass vast areas of sparse population. Local government in Albuquerque, for instance, is likely to be vastly different than local government in the rocky lands outside of Las Cruces.
And then you have a nation that goes more than two thousand miles side to side and well over 1500 top to bottom.
Justin Rocket wrote: We've created this giant beast of a federal government which requires professionals to understand. You're the one who just pointed out that 70% of Americans don't know what the Constitution is. If they can't get their heads around the Constitution, what is it that makes you think that the problem is that the government is too big?
Quote: Further, those professionals must specialize in different areas of the federal government. To make things worse, Americans who don't live in the coastal states feel like the federal government is some far-off thing disconnected from their lives (disconneccted because the people who represent them, know nothing about them because they've never walked in their foot steps). Because there are no poor people in coastal states.
Honestly, I have precious little sympathy for the flyover state voters you're talking about, here.
Quote: Those Americans feel that trying to influence the federal government is like spitting into the ocean. So, they just look at that beast and shake their heads in frustration/confusion. And this is why. There are plenty of people who take the necessary time (and it's not much) to understand the basics of how the government operates. I don't have sympathy for people who see the institutions that govern them and decide they'd rather be frustrated and confused than take the time to understand them.
Quote: A smaller government which is nearby and made of people just like the American voter (ex. a governor who is a farmer in a farming state) will be more connected to that voter. The American voter will be better able to understand and engage in that government (because it is less complex, smaller, and more relevant). You mean like their municipal, county, or state governments? The Federal government isn't going anywhere, and the days of "small government" are long gone. I very much doubt that they're ever coming back.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: A smaller government which is nearby and made of people just like the American voter (ex. a governor who is a farmer in a farming state) will be more connected to that voter. The American voter will be better able to understand and engage in that government (because it is less complex, smaller, and more relevant). I'm sorry, but if the time for this ever existed and isn't just part of some mythologized past its over. Even the governor of Wyoming is a third generation politician with time in Washington.
Some touchey feely kumbaya "connection" to the voter isn't what I'm looking for out of the government, I want them to be able to do the things that are too big for smaller units of government to do alone.
Quote: So, yes, I do believe that elevating the 9th and 10th amendments will improve our country drastically and help the average American connect more with their government. I do not believe in states rights. I believe in peoples rights. Historically the states have sucked at enforcing them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: A smaller government which is nearby and made of people just like the American voter (ex. a governor who is a farmer in a farming state) will be more connected to that voter. The American voter will be better able to understand and engage in that government (because it is less complex, smaller, and more relevant). I'm sorry, but if the time for this ever existed and isn't just part of some mythologized past its over. Even the governor of Wyoming is a third generation politician with time in Washington.
Some touchey feely kumbaya "connection" to the voter isn't what I'm looking for out of the government, I want them to be able to do the things that are too big for smaller units of government to do alone.
Quote: So, yes, I do believe that elevating the 9th and 10th amendments will improve our country drastically and help the average American connect more with their government. I do not believe in states rights. I believe in peoples rights. Historically the states have sucked at enforcing them.
Very much this. The rights part, but also the "too big" part.
There are economies of scale, which always seem to be understood when it comes to big business, but ignored when talking about government.
To bring this back to health care, big insurance pools are better. Government can create that better on a federal or state level, than on a local one where a small pocket of unhealthy people could break the market.
Also, larger governments can spread resources around more evenly. Whether that's on a federal/state scale or a town/state one. State funding, for example, helps out local education keeping poor towns from falling even further behind because they have less to spend on educating their residents. Similarly on the federal scale, the richer states help keep up services in the poorer ones.
Perhaps oddly, this money tends to flow from the coastal states to the flyover ones. And from the blue ones to the red ones.
Scott Betts wrote:
You're the one who just pointed out that 70% of Americans don't know what the Constitution is. If they can't get their heads around the Constitution, what is it that makes you think that the problem is that the government is too big?
Hell, the people in office don't know what the Constitution is. Obama, for example, said Quote: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted." which is, of course, wrong. The Constitution, in the 9th and 10th and elsewhere, states what the Federal government must do for people.
Quote:
Because there are no poor people in coastal states.
wtf?? When did I even insinuate that?
Quote:
Honestly, I have precious little sympathy for the flyover state voters you're talking about, here.
The fact that the coastal people have little sympathy has a lot to do with why we're in this mess.
Quote:
And this is why. There are plenty of people who take the necessary time (and it's not much) to understand the basics of how the government operates. I don't have sympathy for people who see the institutions that govern them and decide they'd rather be frustrated and confused than take the time to understand them.
First off, there's been no evidence that the 70% are concentrated in the farm states. The 70% might be concentrated in the coastal states. Secondly, its foolish to play a game in good faith when you know the game is rigged against you. You're asking the farm states to play such a game.
Quote: like their municipal, county, or state governments? The Federal government isn't going anywhere, and the days of "small government" are long gone. I very much doubt that they're ever coming back. You may be right and, if so, we know what has killed the United States - the same thing that killed the golden ages of Rome, England, Peru, the Tang Dynasty, etc. - the central government got too big.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: Secondly, its foolish to play a game in good faith when you know the game is rigged against you. You're asking the farm states to play such a game. How is the game rigged against them? They still get to elect representatives from their own states. They still vote for the president.
Other than that they have less population, but that's hardly rigged against them. That's the point of democracy.
And even there, the game is rigged for them if anything. They get the same representation in the Senate as other, much larger states.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: Hell, the people in office don't know what the Constitution is. Obama, for example, said ... which is, of course, wrong. The Constitution, in the 9th and 10th and elsewhere, states what the Federal government must do for people. You conveniently left off the word "generally", which precedes that quotation in its context and turns it from objectionable to sensible. I'm sure you didn't do that on purpose, because that would have been intellectually dishonest of you.
More importantly, though, you literally just tried to tell us that a Harvard Law Review editor and 12-year Constitutional Law professor at the 4th most prestigious law school in the country doesn't understand what the Constitution fundamentally contains. That man has forgotten more about Constitutional Law than you could ever hope to learn.
Quote: The fact that the coastal people have little sympathy has a lot to do with why we're in this mess. I'm sure the people living in flyover states love to tell themselves we're responsible for all of their woes. It's incredible how their proud mantra of personal responsibility dies at their own doorstep.
Quote: First off, there's been no evidence that the 70% are concentrated in the farm states. The 70% might be concentrated in the coastal states. Secondly, its foolish to play a game in good faith when you know the game is rigged against you. You're asking the farm states to play such a game. As others have pointed out, people living in flyover states actually receive proportionally more representation in the legislature than people living in coastal states.
So, no.
Quote: You may be right and, if so, we know what has killed the United States - the same thing that killed the golden ages of Rome, England, Peru, the Tang Dynasty, etc. - the central government got too big. People have been saying this about the United States literally for centuries. Congratulations. You have joined the ranks of the perpetually wrong.
Um, Rome did not fall from a bureaucracy. Rome died due to a multitude of causes, including but not limited to: imperial corruption, hiring German mercenaries rather than hire imperial soldiers, devaluation of currency, ongoing conflicts abroad, and invasion by foreign powers. And only the western half of the empire "fell" (actually, Odoacer, the German who conquered it, simply took over, but maintained all the standing infrastructure and traditions such as the baths, roads, and taxation). The empire continued in the eastern portion for another 1000 years, and the Catholic church rose to assume the power vacuum in many cases.
Or, more poignantly, the roman business model was buy a military to take over peoples stuff so we can afford to buy a military to take over peoples stuff so we can afford a military to...
That isn't sustainable once you run out of places to invade.
Hint: for the first 100 years, what consumed 90% of the federal budget?
Seth Parsons wrote: Um, Rome did not fall from a bureaucracy. Rome died due to a multitude of causes, including but not limited to: imperial corruption, hiring German mercenaries rather than hire imperial soldiers, devaluation of currency, ongoing conflicts abroad, and invasion by foreign powers. And only the western half of the empire "fell" (actually, Odoacer, the German who conquered it, simply took over, but maintained all the standing infrastructure and traditions such as the baths, roads, and taxation). The empire continued in the eastern portion for another 1000 years, and the Catholic church rose to assume the power vacuum in many cases. Ayup.
Rome didn't fall, it just changed.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Fighting Indians Aww nuts. I had my money on really tight pants.
meatrace wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Fighting Indians Aww nuts. I had my money on really tight pants. And growing muttonchop sideburns!
not sure if THIS has been linked here yet or not but I found it interesting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: not sure if THIS has been linked here yet or not but I found it interesting. I don't know, free alien health exams did sound like a good idea.
I think the liberal amount of probing alien doctors use might put some people off.
Considering the amount of money wasted on unnecessary colonoscopies performed in outpatient surgery centers by over qualified doctors...
Evidence points to bring on our new alien medical providers.
Back Alley Colonoscopies (TM)
meatrace wrote: Back Alley Colonoscopies (TM) Or done by your GP in his office every few decades once your're old enough rather than every three months by a GI surgeon.
Little-Known ACA Feature Allows Govt. to Seize Medicaid Recipients' Assets
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all!
And communism!
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Little-Known ACA Feature Allows Govt. to Seize Medicaid Recipients' Assets Linkbait title aside, this isn't a feature of the ACA at all, and is instead an already-existing Medicaid rule from a 1993 law. It's not new, but it's the sort of thing you're unlikely to ever hear about before talking to a lawyer or accountant about your will or other end of life issues. Here's some more on it. It's a pretty terrible rule, but it doesn't have very much to do with the ACA at all.
[Reads the Factcheck page and grumbles]
Alright, linkbait title aside...
"Since the poor have been largely invisible to the mainstream media until recently, many could be excused for not knowing that states have been able to seize the estate assets of Medicaid recipients upon death. Now, in addition to doing nothing to address the problem of bankruptcy due to medical debt, the ACA, through Medicaid expansion, has increased the pool of resources that can be repossessed by state authorities to help defer the costs of the program. Granted, there are exceptions to the practice when there is a surviving spouse or minor children involved but there should be little surprise that some are now steering clear of enrollment."
Reading through the Factcheck article, we find that as late as 2007 the feds threatened to cut off funding to Michigan if they didn't create a Medicaid Estate Recovery Program. I find it hard to believe that Liz Fowler, Max Baucus and the other Pharmastooges authors of the bill were unaware of this when they crafted the ACA.
ASiB wrote: It's not new, but it's the sort of thing you're unlikely to ever hear about before talking to a lawyer or accountant about your will or other end of life issues Or your parents'. Or, in my case, your grandparents'. My mother and her siblings were able to get the house out of her name in time, but her not inconsiderable (she was a chief nurse at a city hospital) life savings are all gone. Not that I bemoan the loss of my inheiritance, but my parents are now realizing that they are going to have to keep working into their seventies. My aunts and uncles are pretty much in the same boat.
Linkbait title aside, and after reading ASiB's Factcheck link, I feel confident that the answer still is:
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all!
The only change to Medicaid estate recovery is that more people will be on Medicaid, the vast majority of whom aren't going to have any noticeable estates to recover. Because the expanded eligibility is among those just above the poverty level, most of whom aren't going to own homes or have large bankaccounts - because they're poor.
The idea that this makes things worse than they were is just fearmongering.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I guess I'd believe you more if my own family weren't full of bus drivers, bank tellers, nurses and school employees who aren't doing very well economically and still own their own homes.
Poor people don't have large bank accounts or homes, and yet California can recoup $54 million in one fiscal year (2003) through Medicaid Estate Recovery, says Factcheck, with links to an AARP report.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I guess I'd believe you more if my own family weren't full of bus drivers, bank tellers, nurses and school employees who aren't doing very well economically and still own their own homes. Are they on Medicaid? Even the expanded version?
Edit: If so, is that a bad thing? Would it be better for them not to have Medicaid and need to see the home up front to cover the medical expenses?
Mind you, I completely agree that we need a better health care system in this country. The ACA is just a patch on a broken system, but I'm still hardpressed to see how it's making things worse.
And the Medicaid expansion is the part closest to free government healthcare.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Poor people don't have large bank accounts or homes, and yet California can recoup $54 million in one fiscal year (2003) through Medicaid Estate Recovery, says Factcheck, with links to an AARP report. Medicaid pays for long-term nursing home care for all but the richest old people who need it. Medicare only covers short stays. That's expensive and I'd assume that's where most of the estate recovery comes in.
Not from the expansion linked to the ACA.
I couldn't say. I don't see them often, and it's not the type of thing we would talk about. Pride and all that.
--Grandmother--retired chief nurse of city hospital, hid house, didn't hide life savings, presently diagnosed with severe dementia, living in state hospital;
--Parents--Own home; mommy in the school system, daddy was laid off from Digital way back when, currently stocks shelves at Marshall's; not on Medicaid because my mommy's job's got a f##&ing union and they have a Cadillac plan. At least for now;
--Uncle and Aunt #1--Own home; former unionized city power worker forced back to work as a school bus driver; his wife was forced back to work as a school bus monitor; I think they're on Medicare, but I couldn't say;
--Uncle and Aunt #2--Own home; also a former Digital employee, currently retired; ekes by because his wife is considerably younger and still works; have no idea how they get their insurance;
--Cousin and Ex-Husband--Owns home; bank teller, divorced her husband, former unionized envelope factory worker, when he developed terminal health condition so that he could enroll in some welfare program. Don't know which one. Still live together.
thejeff wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Poor people don't have large bank accounts or homes, and yet California can recoup $54 million in one fiscal year (2003) through Medicaid Estate Recovery, says Factcheck, with links to an AARP report. Medicaid pays for long-term nursing home care for all but the richest old people who need it. Medicare only covers short stays. That's expensive and I'd assume that's where most of the estate recovery comes in.
Not from the expansion linked to the ACA. How could it be when the report is from years before the ACA?
thejeff wrote: The only change to Medicaid estate recovery is that more people will be on Medicaid, the vast majority of whom aren't going to have any noticeable estates to recover. Because the expanded eligibility is among those just above the poverty level, most of whom aren't going to own homes or have large bankaccounts - because they're poor.
The idea that this makes things worse than they were is just fearmongering.
So, after reading the Factcheck page, I learn that the dupes at Alternet picked it up from a Seattle Times article from the end of last year.
The Alternet folks slapped the Linkbait title on (EDIT: a different) piece that was originally entitled The Real Illness Plaguing U.S. Healthcare: Inequality
I will admit that I fell victim to left-wing scare-mongering, but only if you admit that this is, at least, higher quality scare-mongering than we usually see on these boards. At the same time, I would ask you to read the piece with the original headline and see if you still want to argue.
Medicaid for All! Without that bullshiznit Estate Recovery Program!
\= Comrade Anklebiter wrote: thejeff wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Poor people don't have large bank accounts or homes, and yet California can recoup $54 million in one fiscal year (2003) through Medicaid Estate Recovery, says Factcheck, with links to an AARP report. Medicaid pays for long-term nursing home care for all but the richest old people who need it. Medicare only covers short stays. That's expensive and I'd assume that's where most of the estate recovery comes in.
Not from the expansion linked to the ACA. How could it be when the report is from years before the ACA? Obviously, but I suspect it's not even from the same part of Medicaid. One part provides coverage for the poor. That was expanded to allow a higher income eligibility.
The other covers long-term care, which mostly is older people whose normal medical expenses are met by Medicare. Since anyone's income will be stretched by nursing home care, almost everyone qualifies for Medicare if they're in long term care - despite what income or wealth they might have had before. I suspect that's where the vast majority of the estate recovery comes in.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: thejeff wrote: The only change to Medicaid estate recovery is that more people will be on Medicaid, the vast majority of whom aren't going to have any noticeable estates to recover. Because the expanded eligibility is among those just above the poverty level, most of whom aren't going to own homes or have large bankaccounts - because they're poor.
The idea that this makes things worse than they were is just fearmongering.
So, after reading the Factcheck page, I learn that the dupes at Alternet picked it up from a Seattle Times article from the end of last year.
The Alternet folks slapped the Linkbait title on the piece that was originally entitled The Real Illness Plaguing U.S. Healthcare: Inequality
I will admit that I fell victim to left-wing scare-mongering, but only if you admit that this is, at least, higher quality scare-mongering than we usually see on these boards. At the same time, I would ask you to read the piece with the original headline and see if you still want to argue.
Meidcaid for All! Without that bullshiznit Estate Recovery Program! Yes. That would be better.
But opposing Medicaid expansion on these grounds is nonsense.
At what point have I ever said I opposed Medicaid expansion?
I'll post more about this later, but in the meantime remember that the laws for this vary considerably from state to state, do personal anecdotes are even less likely than usual to be relevant.
A Man In Black wrote: I'll post more about this later, but in the meantime remember that the laws for this vary considerably from state to state, do personal anecdotes are even less likely than usual to be relevant. Whatever, Stooge!!! I'm talkin' 'bout my grammie!!!!
Vive le Galt!!!!!
[Sobs; turns face upwards]
O workers revolution, where art thou?
Well, on a sad note, my grammie died last night.
No tears, though. [Sobs] Ninety-six years old, she beat the Depression, she helped beat Hitler, she beat my philandering, degenerate gambling grandfather, less praiseworthy, she also beat the shiznit out of her kids, but, uh, what do you expect from goblins?
Most importantly, as a lifelong despiser of leeches and takers, she died before her bank accounts ran out. Even in the depths of deepest dementia, I knew, my grandmother would never tolerate living on welfare.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sorry to hear of your loss Comrade
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
