Want a bigger penis?
Enlarge it At Home
Using Just Your Hands!

Stay Hard as Steel!!!

Tired of ads
on this site?

Male Multiple Orgasm
Discover your full Abilities!

NOT TRUMP............NOT EVER TRUMP

Discussion Forum on Show It Off

Page #4

Pages:  #1   #2   #3   #4   #5  

Started by #601496 [Ignore] 07,Jan,20 17:42
The elections are coming (Nov. 3, 2020). By the tittle you'll guess whom i WONT vote for, but that got me thinking. Who would I vote for? And why? That gave me an idea. Why not ask whom you'll vote for and why? You can come back and change your choice as many times as you like. Republicans can substitute some other Republican for Trump. Hopefully he will be gone forever by that time. It would be nice if you identify your political party (Ex: I'm R or I'm D) Lets see who gets it right on Nov 4.

New Comment       Rating: 0  


Comments:
By #601496 07,Jan,20 21:29
I like Bloomberg. I like what he says about socialized medicine
By kebmo [Ignore] 09,Jan,20 11:03 other posts 
I will never understand why Americans don't want Medicare for everyone. I don't get the concept of selling your house for medical procedures.
I GLADLY pay more taxes for Medicare. A friend of mine just passed from breast cancer and she had the best possible care and paid nothing out of pocket for it.
I can go to any hospital and see any doctor in my home province of Alberta for any legitimate procedure and never pay out of pocket. If I'm elsewhere in Canada there's more paperwork but Alberta Health Care will pay.
By #601496 09,Jan,20 11:13
Keb, I don't either. The old argument that your wait time to see a doctor is too long doesn't wash. I have 3 specialists I go to every year. All three give me appointments a minimum of 3 months into the future. They get the same payment than a regular private insurer pays. So, why not? Charlie is on Medicare. I'm on private insurance. Both are handled by Blue Cross Blue Shield. The website is the same. the codes are similar. The contact phones are the same. The forms are the same. So what, except for billing purposes and government paperwork, is the difference?
By kebmo [Ignore] 09,Jan,20 21:35 other posts 
Just to clarify, if I see a specialist my doctor's office makes the appointment then the specialist calls me with a time and date. Alberta Health does not cover dental, prescriptions, glasses and some other things but if I had a heart attack it would cost me nothing except the medications I would take AFTER I leave the hospital.
I have never filled out any paperwork for payment purposes.
By #588327 09,Jan,20 23:57
How are we going to pay for it ? Have you seen some of the number ? They say it will cost 34-52 trillion over 10 years. We have already spent 22 trillion more then we collect in taxes so far. So you must see the big problem we have.

Here is some simple math say national heath care is 4 trillion a year, from what I could find their are 155 million working people in the USA.

That's $25,806 per year in new taxes. Who has that kind of money. If anyone has different number let's hear them
By kebmo [Ignore] 10,Jan,20 00:28 other posts 
Then how come every other western country can do it but the US can't? Who is "they" that you quote this number from?
It is estimated that the province of Alberta spent $5,100 per Albertan on health care in 2018.
only registered users can see external links
No hospitals in Canada are designed to make a profit as apposed to American hospitals.
By #588327 10,Jan,20 07:10
The people that want national heath care in USA don't know how much it will cost. They just like the idea. Elizabeth Warren cwho is pushing for it can't even tell us how much it will cost. The numbers are all over the place.

One reason we can't do so easy vs other countries we spend our money on other thing. The biggest would be our military. If USA want to keep be the super power of the world it cost money. Trump just said we sent 2 trillion more on the military. Their is part of our national health care money.

Doctors in the USA have to make a profit to pay for the medical school and the hospitals have to make a profit and the insurance companies have to make a profit. We have a lot of illegal citizens in the USA. If they go to hospital, we have to pay for them if they don't have health insurance.
By kebmo [Ignore] 10,Jan,20 14:08 other posts 
Petro635 you didn't answer my question.

Who is "they" that said it would cost $34-52T?

There are many examples in the Western World of how to pay for universal healthcare. It can be done.
By #588327 10,Jan,20 17:50
They, are the people trying to find a number as to how much it will cost since the person say how good it will be won't saor can't give number because it to complicated to figure out. Yes is possible if we want to pay for it. All we have to do is cut spending on something else or raise taxes.
By kebmo [Ignore] 10,Jan,20 23:49 other posts 
Canada taxes the hell out of cigarettes and alcohol because “they” are high users of health care.
I doubt that your number is correct.

added after 54 minutes...…….

If the US population of 372M had healthcare for the same price as Alberta's per capita of $5,100 per year it would cost about $1.9T. Even if you double that it would still be less than $4T, nowhere near the $34-52T that "they" say.
By #588327 11,Jan,20 09:03
You can listen to this story or read it. I just played the audio. Elizabeth Warren is running for President and her numbers are 54 trillion to fund national heath care. But we are already pay for heath insurance today. So it would be 20.5 trillion more in taxes over 10 years. So an extra 2 trillion every year over what we are paying in taxes already. All we need to now is how many people in USA are actually working and paying taxes. Then we can just see how much more everyones will have to pay.

only registered users can see external links
By #601496 11,Jan,20 09:25
See my post below
By #601496 10,Jan,20 09:23
Medicare is costing the government about 600 billion a year. Three plus trillion more is not that much more. You say 155 million working people would shoulder the debt. Didn't you forget business taxes? How about the fact that Trumpo cut taxes for big business. How about that famous tax cut to all workers that was not supposed to raise the national debt? The U.S. is entering new debt levels more than a year after Trump signed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that decreased the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. The legislation also gave most U.S. taxpayers at least a small break, although the largest benefits went to the wealthiest Americans
A tax cut of $1.5 trillion plus the crumbs for the average taxpayer. Simple math, friend.
BTW, Medicare is paid by the following
Medicare is financed by two trust funds: the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund and the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund. The HI trust fund finances Medicare Part A and collects its income primarily through a payroll tax on U.S. workers and employers. The SMI trust fund, which supports both Part B and Part D, receives most of its income from the federal government’s general fund because premiums only cover about one-quarter of this fund’s costs. Part C, on the other hand, is paid for through both the HI and SMI trust funds and collects its income from a combination of the general fund, payroll taxes, premiums paid by beneficiaries, and out-of-pocket charges.
These trust funds were specifically established to pay for Medicare. Medicare for all would include the rest of the population. I would gladly vote to cut our military spending to help out. Your Trumpo ran on promises to get us out of these forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are still waiting. In the meantime he cuts corporate taxes. Smart.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes

I THOUGHT I WOULD POST THIS SEPARATE AS IT"S IMPORTANT.

The U.S. government's public debt is now more than $22 trillion — the highest it has ever been. The Treasury Department data comes as tax revenue has fallen and federal spending continues to rise. The new debt level reflects {{{{{{{a rise of more than $2 trillion from the day President Trump took office in 2017.Feb 13, 2019}}}}}}
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes

And last but not least. This country is rich with wealth. We are a country of the people, by the people and for the people. Yet, many of it's citizens are willing to have our population suffer hunger and pestilence in the name of the almighty dollar. I say, "Quit bitching about our social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance and Socialized Medicine. Find a way to pay for it instead of being SO NEGATIVE."
By phart [Ignore] 10,Jan,20 09:41 other posts 
Ok,I ask,give us some ideas how to pay for it.That won't take away the incentive for investers to continue investing,like not being able to profit from their investments. A way to pay for it that won't rob the average workers paycheck any more than it already is,again,taking away incentives to work.
Just asking for actuall ideas here.Politicians pushing for this cradle to grave can't explain how to pay for it,and I can understand why,they are dumbass puppets of the Soros and liberal wealthy people that hide their money in foriegn lands.
By #601496 10,Jan,20 10:00
The controversial Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed by President Donald Trump in December 2017, lowered the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, among other cuts. That’s partly to blame for giving corporations an easier way out of paying taxes, said Matthew Gardner, an ITEP senior fellow and lead author of the report. The new corporate tax rate “lowers the bar for the amount of tax avoidance it takes to get you down to zero,” he said.


TRUMP’S TAX CUTS: THE RICH GET RICHER
Published — April 11, 2019
YOU PAID TAXES. THESE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T.
Amazon.com Inc.’s U.S. profits before taxes were $10.8 billion in 2018, made by shipping everything from women’s cocktail dresses to toilet paper. But unlike its millions of customers, the company paid no taxes in the United States last year and said it was owed $129 million. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

About twice as many of the largest U.S. companies reported they didn’t owe taxes in 2018 compared with previous years, a partial result of the 2017 Trump tax law, according to a report.

You paid taxes. These corporations didn’t.
Introduction
‘I don’t see that being fair’
We pay all required taxes
Profits: Half a billion. Refund: $342M
Kathryn Kranhold
Kathryn Kranhold

Contributing Reporter
This story was published in partnership with NBC News.

INTRODUCTION
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates betrayals of public trust. Sign up to receive our stories.

Taxpayers are scrambling to make last-minute payments due to the Internal Revenue Service in just four days, but many of the country’s largest publicly-held corporations are doing better: They’ve reported they owe absolutely nothing on the billions of dollars in profits they earned last year.

At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero, on income earned on U.S. operations, according to an analysis released today by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect.

Among them are household names like technology giant Amazon.com Inc. and entertainment streaming service Netflix Inc., in addition to global oil giant Chevron Corp., pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly & Co., and farming and commercial equipment manufacturer Deere & Co.

The identified companies were “able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income,” according to the ITEP report, which was released today. “Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year.” To compile the list, ITEP analyzed the 2018 financial filings of the country’s largest 560 publicly-held companies.

The following is a list of the country’s largest publicly-held profitable corporations that paid no federal income taxes in 2018 on billions in U.S. income, according to ITEP analysis of 560 companies. ITEP reports U.S. income before federal taxes, and takes into consideration paid state and local taxes, which could reduce or increase U.S. income. The report does not look at total tax provision, a number that could include foreign taxes and deferred taxes. All figures, except for tax rate, are in millions.
The identified companies were “able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income,” according to the ITEP report, which was released today. “Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year.” To compile the list, ITEP analyzed the 2018 financial filings of the country’s largest 560 publicly-held companies.


I say, "Remove all loopholes from corporate income taxes. Bring the rate back to 35%. Have all recipients of Medicare for All pay a modest monthly amount except for hardship situations. Regulate medical procedures (price equality) and open medication to generics and out of country meds and regulate costs of development and profit.
By phart [Ignore] 10,Jan,20 13:16 other posts 
regulating cost reduces quality of care.Your care would be reduced to minimum to reduce pain.I am willing to bet hip surgery on someone over 65 would be reduced or eliminated for example. Why fix a old person when you can fix a tax payer would be the idea behind it.Not saying it would happen but regulating cost,regulates profit and doctors don't like to work for nothing,can't pay thier college debts and oh my gosh,might have to drive a chevy. After a while people would see doctors not living any better than trash truck drivers and would not bother going to medical school.
Not saying I don't agree at all with what you are saying.
As far as mdicine,if there is a way to make sure it is quality and we would be getting what we are paying for,I am all for getting it from the cheapest source.It would reduce cost alot because it would prompt competition.

It is also my understanding that insurance is territorial. I would say fix that to open up competition as well.THere are ways to reduce cost,but gouging our industry and investors and high end tax payers can backfire.
By #601496 10,Jan,20 13:36
Regulated costs doesn't have to be a bad thing. A doctor should expect to be paid well for a procedure. I meant that a procedure should costs the same in Alaska as in Florida. No one wants a doctor to drive a chevy. I just think that driving a Lamborghini is a bit too much. You also forget that life goes on. What does it mean? It means that 12 months after an adjustment like this,it'll be business as usual but under new rules.Medicare was established in the Johnson administration. Did it stop the world? No.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes

One more thing. Charlie takes Eliquist because he has atrial fibrillation. Without insurace he would have to pay $480 for a month's supply (60). With insurance it's $ 43. Charlie has family in Argentina. The same medication costs about $6. We are getting ripped off.
By #588327 10,Jan,20 18:03
I think you forgetting something about Corporate taxes. All they will do is pass the price onto the product they sell. So you will pay for that tax.

Another thing corporation can move. If the tax is to hight they can just move to another country and now you don't get any taxes. You can't force people to do something just because YOU want something for free. You can go and help but food for anyone you think needs help. You can give your money to anyone that needs help. You can do lots of things to help people yourself. If you can figure out how to pay for national heath care and it's reasonable he might go with your idea.
By #601496 10,Jan,20 18:40
It's not free. Taxes, my taxes and yours and corporations taxes are paying. Right now Medicare pays about 80% of medical cost. The other 20 is your responsibility. That's why they have part C. You pay $130 a month out of your retirement pay and it works like private insurance. Something similar can be instituted. After all, isn't private insurance provided by your employer costing you two or three times as much?. Going back to corporate taxes. If the corporation raises it's prices, it's not automatic that customers Will buy their products. Competition will out a costly product. It's all give and take. How about if a corporation moves out of the country, we double it's import duties. They won't be competitive. They won't want to loose this market. You forget that companies are here to sell their wares, not play the tax game.
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes

And your argument is flawed. After all, aren't we, now, paying for the taxes a corporation pays today? A few hundred thousand dollars more divided by a million customers is less than a buck.
By #588327 10,Jan,20 22:51
I don't think your average American would vote for national heath care. The government never get the correct numbers on the real cost of stuff. Here is old story about Elizabeth Warren plan. They are saying 54 trillion dollars over 10 years and we would need 20 trillion in new taxes to make it work.

only registered users can see external links

We can't even pay the 21 trillion national debt currently. How are we going to pay for an extra 20 trillion for national heath care ? If we could or would pay down the current national debt I would say it's possible. We as Americans don't want to even balance the budget yet.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 07:13
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The national debt is like a mortgage on your home. You owe hundreds of thousands but you pay a small monthly portion. You still can buy a car, go on vacation, and go out to dinner. You can tax your employer every year (ask for a raise) for an increase. Americans are not the only ones that carry a deficit. Blame Congress (Republican controlled most of the time) for not passing a law that requires a balanced budget. Look at this.

Beginning with the 1998 budget year, during his second term, the federal government ran a yearly budget surplus through FY 2001. During the Clinton administration, there was an official surplus of $419 billion during fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Also, National Health Care does not have to be voted on. Congress can pass one or more bills to create it. The voters did not vote for Social Security, Medicare, or Obama Care.

It can be done. There'll have to be some adjustments. The insurance companies will have to be included as they are the most knowledgeable. Assurances will have to be made to healthcare providers that they wouldn't be financially hurt. But, when everything is said and done, can anyone really be against warrantied affordable health care for all?
By #588327 11,Jan,20 08:41
If we were actually paying down the national debt a little bit every year, just like a mortgage. I would agree with you. We could then say let's all pay more and have national heath care. If the number of 20 trillion more in taxes is correct for 10. It pretty simple math. 20 trillion by 155 million. That's $129,000 more in taxes over 10 years for each person or $12,900 per year

If you have different numbers put them on here. Can you afford to pay your share of the 20 trillion, $12,900 that's what it will cost this year in more taxes.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 09:21
Baby, these are some numbers from the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
only registered users can see external links

How Much Will Medicare for All Cost?
FEB 27, 2019 | HEALTH CARE

Senator Sanders's 2017 legislation would cost the federal government $27.7 trillion through 2028 assuming steep provider cuts and $32.1 trillion assuming no provider cuts (these estimates, like most others, assume immediate implementation).Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.

The totals also do not represent debt impact, which would depend not only on the cost to the federal government but also on any funds the government might choose to raise through premiums, taxes, or both. For example, Senator Sanders's campaign plan included roughly $11 trillion of tax increases, which could fund more than one-third of Medicare for All.


IN PARTICULAR I WANT YOU TO NOTE THIS SENTENCE:
"expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade"

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT YOUR NUMBERS BUT I SUSPECT YOU GOT THE HEADLINE ONLY AND YOU MADE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT MAKING AN IN DEPTH RESEARCH.
By #588327 11,Jan,20 11:35
It says 28-32 trillion

Did you see were it says the number would be an INCREASE COST to federal government


Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.
By #588327 11,Jan,20 11:42
Did you forget to include this part of the info from same website. TRIPlING PAYROLL TAXES or MORE THEN DOUBLING ALL OTHER TAXES

While any new revenue would in part be replacing current premiums, identifying pay-fors still remains a challenge. Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.

Supporters of Medicare for All should work to identify new revenue, premiums, and/or spending cuts to finance new federal costs or else scale back their proposal if they are unable to identify sufficient funding.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 12:01
Petro, I gave you all I've got. You still want to put your own spin on it. Ok. You are right and a bunch of economists are wrong. When we get socialized meds, make sure you opt out. We know you don't have those thousands of dollars to pay for your healthcare. I sincerely hope you have a very, very healthy life. Bye.
By #588327 11,Jan,20 13:13
Those are from the same website you got your info from. You keep posting all the negatives Trump stiff. For some reason you don't think you could wrong also. So just like last time, you can vote your opinion and that all. So let see who the people vote for again. It like you don't want to see the info other people show you. If you want answer a simple question just say how you are going to pay you share of the cost. Don't try and put it off on corporations. You want national heath care . You better be willing to pay for it.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 13:15
Last I checked the IRS takes 14% less deductions from my payroll check. If it changes I'll rethink it.
By #588327 11,Jan,20 19:20
It will changes if you want national heath care. They will have to triple your current rate.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 19:31
Petro, I don't believe that.
By #588327 11,Jan,20 21:18
I'm not sure why you don't believe it. It's on the Committee for a Responsible Federal Government website.

only registered users can see external links
By #601496 11,Jan,20 21:18
Fake news
By admin [Ignore] 11,Jan,20 12:14 other posts 
Good point. Most of people do not realize that most of technologies and drugs that are used today in government subsidized medicare systems all over the world were actually developed for profits in USA.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 12:55
So true
By phart [Ignore] 12,Jan,20 09:29 other posts 
To think that government run health care and the national debt are seperate is wrong.All taxes and social security goes into the governments bottomless pitt of money to waste.
The politcians pay for their states piss ant testicale museums and bridges and your health care all out of the same pot of public money.So health care would run up the national debt.
IF you owe a house payment,and that bank goes tits up,they expect their money in full. So it is not impossiable for other countrys to want their money.
By #601496 12,Jan,20 10:03
First, everything the federal government or any government down to a city government pays for, they do so with tax money collected, but, there are quirks. Today's Social Security payouts are funded by the payroll deductions of TODAY'S PAYCHECKS. The money you pay b4 retirement went to pay retirees checks at that time.
If the bank repos your house they have the local sheriff to throw you out of your house. How many countries you think would dare go to war with us over a monetary debt?--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutesSecond. If your Congressman votes for too much PORK, vote him out. We are, supposedly, a democracy even though Trumpo wants us to call him "EL SUPREMO"


By #601496 12,Jan,20 07:47
While I like Blumberg, I'm not totally ready to vote for him. Besides the economy (it's the money, stupid), health care is my biggest concern. We know Trumpo's plan (pay for it, deadbeat). I wanted to see how the other candidates stood on it. Joe Biden could be the Democrats choice so I checked him out. This is as of July.
Democratic front-runner Joe Biden on Monday unveiled a health plan that’s intended to preserve the most popular parts of Obamacare — from Medicaid expansion to protections for patients with preexisting conditions — and build on them with a new government-run public insurance option.

Biden would also empower Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, allow the importation of prescription drugs from abroad and extend tax credits to help tens of millions of Americans buy lower-priced health insurance.


The plan — which the campaign says will cost $750 billion over a decade, to be paid for by reversing some of the Trump administration’s tax cuts — is less transformative than the “Medicare for All” proposal advanced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and supported by some other Democrats, which would effectively do away with private insurance and shift all Americans to government-run health coverage.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes

I always thought that building on Obama-Care was the best way to go. Fixing the problems and expanding coverage makes sense. It's also less expensive. Let's see how the other candidates refute the numbers.
By #551147 12,Jan,20 07:57
Now you wanna tell me and many many other's what kind of insurance we should have... What are you, a fucking commie? How about me telling you to go live in a tent and ride a bicycle to any and everywhere you want to go. How about that! What! Don't like being told what you SHOULD do or have? Me either! I happen to like my/our insurance and you NOR anyone else should be allowed to dictate what I or anyone else should or shouldn't have (within reason), PERIOD!
By #601496 12,Jan,20 08:02
Wife didn't give you any last night? Sheesh!
--------------------------------------- added after 27 minutes

Regardless, if you have insurance through your employer, you are part of the Obama-Care system. Almost all candidates have stated they would support the option for a person to keep their private insurance. Let me ask you, "If you get laid off or get fired or your employer closes, how would you afford to get health insurance for you and your family today? You and like minded people always think about yourself. You make it personal,but you don't take into account the less fortunate. People who are out of work or working for an employer who won't pay a portion of health insurance. You are lucky not to have to think about that so how about thinking about these fellow citizens?
BTW. It's personal for me. My youngest son works for a small(17 employees) but very successfully IT firm. He makes good money and gets good treatment but his boss, the owner, refuses to pay for insurance. My son can only afford insurance for him. My daughter-in-law and my grandkids are un-insured. So, baby, I'm not dictating to you what insurance to buy. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you were dying outside an ER and refused treatment because of insurance issues, but I like to take some responsibility for the betterment of my fellow citizens. That equates to loving my country.
By phart [Ignore] 12,Jan,20 08:24 other posts 
I am really going to piss some folks off but I have read and heard so much about health care I am just going to speak my mind. Politely of course.

Health insurance.
WHy is it so exspensive?HUm,could it be that it is expected to pay for things not life saving? Like for example,a couple decides to have 3 kids and insurance has 3 more people to pay for? Something that was NOT a accident,not needed,nor anyone's elses responsiablity.1 child covered, the rest are the parents responseabilty.
And while i am at it,let the parents cover ALL education cost from preschool thru college for child 2 thru infinity.I bet parents would think twice about spitting out 6 kids if THEY had to bear the cost instead of the whole damn country.Just think,the money wasted on education, could be spent to help those with serious medical issues without being a burden to anyone.

Insurance should not be expected to cover child birth,abortion or birth control.Keep your legs shut and your zippers closed.
Insurance should not cover cost of sex changes. Be happy with your plumbing or pay to change it yourself.

Smoke,you are on your own.
Drink,you are on your own.
Do drugs,you are on your own.
Your bad habits are NOT the rest of the worlds problems,they are YOURS and YOURS alone.So pay for it.

I could go on.And I understand there has to be meeting in the middle on things.I am just giving you the extreme end of my feelings on this subject.I don't feel my ideas are any more radical than the idea of health care for all,deadbeats included.

I lost my 80-20 coverage,it is now 70-30 and my copays are double thanks that asshat Obama and his big idea. Why should I loose coverage so some dope head gets his treatment paid for ,for the 27th time? It aint working,so ditch the bastard to the curb.And yes,I do personaly know a man,would have been in my graduating class,that has been to drug rehab,at government exspense at least 27 times.prison twice and so on.
He aint your problem,nor mine,but we spend on him anyway.Anytime a fellow will put a gun to his mothers head to get her diamond ring that his dead father put on her finger just he could pawn it to get drugs,does not need nor deserave public help,he deserves a kick to the curb.Next time the bastard od's, maby it will be his last.
By #601496 12,Jan,20 08:48
Phart, you got screwed. I don't know how or why. By the same token, my husband, Charlie, was given disability 15 yrs ago. He has what you call the 80-20 coverage (Medicare A&B). His Medicare part C costs him $130 per month. I still work, but, I retired early at 62. I still have my employer insurance. Everyone complains about healthcare but no one wants anything done about it.
Phart, If you pay for medical insurance, why shouldn't you be able to claim as many births or other visits to the hospital? Why not get coverage for boob enhancements? When many countries in the world, many our enemies, pay completely for education including college, why should this country be second best? And the dopehead, let him die?
With all due respect, and believe me I'm very sorry for your situation, I believe you are so bitter you want others to suffer your suffering.
By phart [Ignore] 12,Jan,20 09:11 other posts 
No no,I want others to understand that biasing the system to cover those that DONT work,never worked and so on to get help,at the exspense of those that have tried to take responsiablity for themselves is WRONG.
Paying for health insurance, lets se you pay 130 a month.that is,1560 a year,62,400 for 40 years coverage.
Average heart attack cost what?,lets see ,let me copy and paste this.

"Heart attack hospitalizations cost a median $53,384 and strokes cost $31,218, according to the study. ... Neither study factored in additional costs following hospitalization, such as loss of productivity from missing work or ongoing medical care and drugs, "
You know far better than I do those figures are small.But that is what was handy from google. So your roughly 64,000 dollar investment would barely cover 1 heart attack.Granted,your employer is paying some towards it as well.BUT still, unless the intrest rate is high,the insurance company is not making alot of money.
BUT the insurance company, is not just spending money to cover your work- stress related heart attack,it is also having to pay for little 12 year old Johny's hormones because he woke up last week thinking he was a girl.It is also having to pay for some idiot od'ing on drugs ruining his kidneys and liver.
Insurance companys could easly declare bank ruptcy and leave us all hanging at that rate.

I say get the medicine from where ever is cheapest.
Don't the pro abortion people say,"My body my choice" Let's borrow that missinformed idea a minute and apply it somewhere it makes sense.
Fine,your body,choose to buy medicine where you want to.


The dopehead I spoke of,,if that thievin' bastard od's,and falls over in the woods behind the shed his brother lets him sleep in,well,he created his own fate.I doubt the buzzards would eat him,he is so full of impuritys the maggots and ants would probably barricade themselves away from him.His body is probably so pickled it would lay in state to be found a 1000 years from now prompting a rewrite of history as they knew it.
By #601496 12,Jan,20 09:56
But, Phart, that's the nature of insurance. A small portion of the population would get a heart attack per year. Insurance works that way. Everyone pays for you today. Tomorrow it might be me or your Aunt Frumpy. The dopehead is there due to other social program, but, like it or not, he has to be helped. You say the insurance company makes small profits but they diversify. The premiums they take in got to finance other projects that bring in huge profits.


By #601496 11,Jan,20 18:50
Australia is burning. The people and the fauna and flora are dying.
Australian rescue group helps animals pushed out …: only registered users can see external links

If you can help, do so


By #601496 09,Jan,20 10:58
In 2016 I swore to anyone that would listen that this joke of a president, Trumpo, would not be elected. I said that nobody in their right mind would vote for him. I GUESS THIS COUNTRY IS FULL OF CRAZIES.
By #551147 11,Jan,20 16:41
YOU'RE a prime example sorry to tell you...
By #601496 11,Jan,20 16:46
You are not sorry. You are just expressing that nursery rime, "Sticks and stones may hurt my bones but names will never hurt me."
You must be one of the "crazies" I mentioned.


By #597069 10,Jan,20 08:19
I thought SYC / SYD was a place to get to know people who love sex and the human body. This is not a political platform to discuss politics. Do it on twitter or Facebook
By #601496 10,Jan,20 09:06
Or, here's a novel idea, go to another thread. Or, as you've done, blacklist me and then you can keep looking at your precious dick collection.
By phart [Ignore] 10,Jan,20 20:31 other posts 
We are all over 18 and can talk about what ever the heck the administrator of this site lets us.
Move along to another thread and enjoy life to the fullest.No need to get your drawers in a wad over 1 thread or another.
Besides,have you ever tried to discuss politics on craigslist community or whereever? Bunch of assholes that can't get along 4 minutes.
This bunch can talk it out,argue,blacklist,cuss whatever,and still get along to a point. There honestly seems to be more intelligence here than on other platforms.
By #601496 10,Jan,20 22:00
By kebmo [Ignore] 11,Jan,20 01:06 other posts 
Why Buck, are you telling us what we can and can not discuss here? OK we'll all abide by your rules. Sorry.
By #551147 11,Jan,20 01:53
Isn't that the liberal way? It's their way or no way... STFU and do as I say! I'm pretty sure he's just acting normally.
By #601496 11,Jan,20 08:33
Really? What do you make of:
The Laura Ingraham Show
The Rush Limbaugh Show
The Sean Hannity Show
The Mark Levin Show
The Savage Nation
The Lars Larson Show
The Alex Jones Show
The Ben Shapiro Show
The Buck Sexton Show

All good "liberals"
By #601496 11,Jan,20 08:35
KEBMO,The h.ell we will. First, this is an open forum. It's a thread I started. Buck can kiss my money maker. You say what you want to say, not what someone else says.


New Comment   Go to top

Pages:  #1   #2   #3   #4   #5  



Show It Off