Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

CURRENT EVENTS July 6 - *

nycfan said:


Operation Wetback?



Because tariffs I assume? At least he was a one-term President by choice/keeping a campaign promise to only serve one term, but he also died soon after leaving office … but Polk was a pretty successful POTUS overall.
Click to expand...

Word salad leaves me unfulfilled.
 
UNCatTech said:
Ok, so your just here to hear yourself talk.

Why even mention an issue if you have no ideas of how to resolve the issue. That's stupid.
Click to expand...
The claim by Superrific was that MORE people on Medicaid was a good thing. Our goal should be getting people OFF the government dole and ensuring that only those who need help are on it. We shouldn't be looking to increase it.
UNCatTech said:
Why does nationalized Healthcare work for so many other countries? Yet you maga types fight every attempt made in the US?
Click to expand...
Because we pay for the military to protect, which allows them to use their money on healthcare.
UNCatTech said:
You must own insurance stocks, you sound like a shrill for the medical industry.
Click to expand...
I'm not.
UNCatTech said:
Ultimately we need a solution, your bitching about people recirculation medical care isn't helping anything. If you have a shit you would actually offer a solution that addresses the issue and doesn't kill people. Your solution of kicking people off Medicare isn't doing either.
Click to expand...
Again, the claim by Superrific was that MORE people on Medicaid was a good thing. That's what I was responding to.
 
ZenMode said:
Again, the claim by Superrific was that MORE people on Medicaid was a good thing.
Click to expand...
This is not some weird idiosyncratic claim. It's the considered view of the vast majority of health policy experts in the country. It's why they expanded Medicaid in the first place, dumbass.

All you are demonstrating is a complete ignorance of how Medicaid functions in our society. Argument over. I refuse to stoop to your level. Check that, I couldn't do it even if I took three stupid pills and walked down a couple of flights of stairs.
 
ZenMode said:
Just to be clear, the national debt WILL eventually become unmanageable but we can't do anything about it because making changes to be fiscally responsible, like increasing taxes and decreasing spending, won't work because Wikipedia has something called "Paradox of Thrift"?

Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is basic Keynesian economics. It's not a wikipedia page. Not going to argue with you about concepts you should have learned before you were old enough to drink. Your view is what caused the Great Depression; mine is what ended the Great Depression. Fuck off.
 
UNCatTech said:
So, again I ask, what is your solution and how will it impact the economy?

I believe people such as yourself, and other rich magas, would just assume to do away with all forms of social support and let the people suffer, but I also believe that leads ultimately to outcomes that you don't want either. So, what is your solution?
Click to expand...
Hope this wasn't aimed at me. don't think so.
 
superrific said:
This is not some weird idiosyncratic claim. It's the considered view of the vast majority of health policy experts in the country. It's why they expanded Medicaid in the first place, dumbass.

All you are demonstrating is a complete ignorance of how Medicaid functions in our society. Argument over. I refuse to stoop to your level. Check that, I couldn't do it even if I took three stupid pills and walked down a couple of flights of stairs.
Click to expand...
In a vacuum, yes, it may be good from a medical perspective. That's not what I'm talking about, which is why I referenced the debt.
 
superrific said:
This is basic Keynesian economics. It's not a wikipedia page. Not going to argue with you about concepts you should have learned before you were old enough to drink. Your view is what caused the Great Depression; mine is what ended the Great Depression. Fuck off.
Click to expand...
So, again, what is YOUR solution for the debt if making changes to decrease government spending isn't one of them?
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
This is not some weird idiosyncratic claim. It's the considered view of the vast majority of health policy experts in the country. It's why they expanded Medicaid in the first place, dumbass.

All you are demonstrating is a complete ignorance of how Medicaid functions in our society. Argument over. I refuse to stoop to your level. Check that, I couldn't do it even if I took three stupid pills and walked down a couple of flights of stairs.
Click to expand...
It's because he only sees one variable. He's missing so many other variables. Like the fact that a healthy, secure population is more productive.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not blaming Medicaid alone. All of the government handouts contribute to the economic ruin.

The fix is a comprehensive transformation of the government, but increasing handouts is not going to help and is not a "good" thing.
Click to expand...
You should be punched square in the mouth every time you use the word "handout". That would definitely be a good thing.
 
ZenMode said:
So, again, what is YOUR solution for the debt if making changes to decrease government spending isn't one of them?
Click to expand...
1. Automatic stabilizers that also increase health and welfare should be the last resort, not the first one.
2. If you have to cut automatic stabilizers, don't do it at the outset of a recession.
3. I know this is going to sound radical . . . but raising taxes is a much better solution to the fiscal imbalance for a number of reasons. Most GOP tax expenditures are comically inefficient from a cost-benefit analysis. Not all, but most.
4. Don't expand ICE. Cut it back dramatically. We are literally pouring money down the drain with these deportations.
 
UNCatTech said:
It's because he only sees one variable.
Click to expand...
I don't, which is why I said "The fix is a comprehensive transformation of the government....."
UNCatTech said:
He's missing so many other variables. Like the fact that a healthy, secure population is more productive.
Click to expand...
Which is fine and we should make sure that ALL people who NEED help are getting it. We shouldn't strive to get as many people as possible on the government handout programs.

This seems to be the view of far too many liberals - the view that getting more and more people on government programs is a good thing. Like it's a success to have put more and more tax payer money into these programs and get more and more people dependent on the government. That is the opposite of how it should be.
 
ZenMode said:
Which is fine and we should make sure that ALL people who NEED help are getting it. We shouldn't strive to get as many people as possible on the government handout programs.

This seems to be the view of far too many liberals - the view that getting more and more people on government programs is a good thing. Like it's a success to have put more and more tax payer money into these programs and get more and more people dependent on the government. That is the opposite of how it should be.
Click to expand...
Medicaid isn't a government handout program. I don't think it's a good thing for more people to be on food stamps or AFDC. Medicaid is just how we deliver health care in this country, and cutting it makes the health care worse and more expensive for all of us. More people on Medicaid means more people have health insurance.

Long ago the American people decided they wanted universal health care. Obama and the Dems gave them 90% of that (then the Supreme Court took away another 15%). Medicaid was part of that plan.

Now, if your opposition is to universal health care, fine. That's at least an honest position. It's a bad one politically, but whatever. Be honest about what you want or don't want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top