Trumpcare

[Gerry]

 

Wait, you mean you have to be a citizen?!? Why... Those right-wing fascist Nazi racist Danes!!! Don't they know that the whole world is allowed to come to their country, stay forever, and get all the free services they want???

Nobody is saying this kind of crap but you.  Yes different countries have regulations, rules, as to who is "one of us".   When you are one of us, then you can get the goodies.

 

Those right-wing fascist Nazi racist Danes!!!

Where the fuck do you get this from?  WWII?

 

since your State "led the way on healthcare," I assume it is now a healthcare utopia?

Well, it is a whole lot better here than in other states that rejected the Medicaid enhancements in the ACA.  Yeah know those Red states that are willing to accept negative HC outcomes in the name of some kind of demented sense of "freedom" from big brother. Those Red state that want to force all of us to live as they see fit.

 

If, no when, the ACA is repealed, Massachusetts will be facing major issues, at least in the short term.  State laws were changed as a part of the ACA.   The state will not get the federal monies that went into Medicaid and reduced the level of uninsured to 2.5%.  The state will revise HC laws in this future, and I am certain that HC outcomes will still be better in Massachusetts than in most states.

 

If we vote to withhold sending some of our taxes to DC and authorize the expenditure of those funds on our vision for HC,  will you and yours be fine with that?  Hell, lets just go to a state based Universal HC system and keep all those local tax dollars in state.  Are you with us?  Or will you support the theft of our monies by "the feds" so they can spend our OPM as they see fit in other states?

 

you believe in an imaginary candy-coated totalitarianism in which an unrestricted & all-powerful central government wields unlimited authority to take as much as it wants and to use whatever force is necessary to impose your will on everyone else.

Huh?  I'm a Bernie baby?  I'm a socialist?  Or did you just roll that over into a Communist?  Find me any place where I suggested the "use of force" to accomplish any goal.  We already live in a society where governmental concerns do not align well with perhaps 50% of its citizenry.  I have never suggested any form of "totalitarianism in which an unrestricted & all-powerful central government".  Making up shit out of your personal delusions of what other people might want to do is a problem Brian.

 

your will on everyone else

YES!  YES!  It is Gerry against the world!   I'll storm the capitol, rip up the constitution and establish the land of the true believer, singular!  You do know you are projecting this out of your personal problem with the notion of what freedom is.

 

you have demonstrated that you reject the concept of freedom and the democratic process, and that you are contemptuous of the principle of rule of law and of the US Constitution.

Brian I have never said this nor do I believe this.  So for the first time I will accuse you of lying about what I have said, how I would accomplish what I might like to see done.  All of your prevarication, as well as your uncomely argumentation,  brings into question your noesis.  I understand that there are distinctions in our understanding of "for the greater good", but must we devolve into calumny.

 

Honestly, Gerry, it has become hard to take you seriously on political or economic topics.

HAA!  I laugh at you my Brian.  You never took my politics nor my economic polemics as serious.  Does this mean we cannot share a glass of wine?  Or is that whine?

Edited April 10, 2017 by Gerry

[Brian]

Nobody is saying this kind of crap but you. Yes different countries have regulations, rules, as to who is "one of us". When you are one of us, then you can get the goodies.

Where the fuck do you get this from? WWII?

Well, it is a whole lot better here than in other states that rejected the Medicaid enhancements in the ACA. Yeah know those Red states that are willing to accept negative HC outcomes in the name of some kind of demented sense of "freedom" from big brother. Those Red state that want to force all of us to live as they see fit.

 

If, no when, the ACA is repealed, Massachusetts will be facing major issues, at least in the short term. State laws were changed as a part of the ACA. The state will not get the federal monies that went into Medicaid and reduced the level of uninsured to 2.5%. The state will revise HC laws in this future, and I am certain that HC outcomes will still be better in Massachusetts than in most states.

 

If we vote to withhold sending some of our taxes to DC and authorize the expenditure of those funds on our vision for HC, will you and yours be fine with that? Hell, lets just go to a state based Universal HC system and keep all those local tax dollars in state. Are you with us? Or will you support the theft of our monies by "the feds" so they can spend our OPM as they see fit in other states?

Huh? I'm a Bernie baby? I'm a socialist? Or did you just roll that over into a Communist? Find me any place where I suggested the "use of force" to accomplish any goal. We already live in a society where governmental concerns do not align well with perhaps 50% of its citizenry. I have never suggested any form of "totalitarianism in which an unrestricted & all-powerful central government". Making up shit out of your personal delusions of what other people might want to do is a problem Brian.

 

YES! YES! It is Gerry against the world! I'll storm the capitol, rip up the constitution and establish the land of the true believer, singular! You do know you are projecting this out of your personal problem with the notion of what freedom is.

 

Brian I have never said this nor do I believe this. So for the first time I will accuse you of lying about what I have said, how I would accomplish what I might like to see done. All of your prevarication, as well as your uncomely argumentation, brings into question your noesis. I understand that there are distinctions in our understanding of "for the greater good", but must we devolve into calumny.

HAA! I laugh at you my Brian. You never took my politics nor my economic polemics as serious. Does this mean we cannot share a glass of wine? Or is that whine?

You were the one who introduced "by any means necessary" into our conversation, remember? I just take you at your word.

 

Absolutely! I'd gladly raise a glass with you any time. Just because your ideology is 170-year-old fraudulent philosophy doesn't make you a bad person.

 

 

BTW, are you familiar with what Marx explained the distinction between communism and socialism to be?

[Brian]

Nobody is saying this kind of crap but you. Yes different countries have regulations, rules, as to who is "one of us". When you are one of us, then you can get the goodies.

Where the fuck do you get this from? WWII?

Well, it is a whole lot better here than in other states that rejected the Medicaid enhancements in the ACA. Yeah know those Red states that are willing to accept negative HC outcomes in the name of some kind of demented sense of "freedom" from big brother. Those Red state that want to force all of us to live as they see fit.

 

If, no when, the ACA is repealed, Massachusetts will be facing major issues, at least in the short term. State laws were changed as a part of the ACA. The state will not get the federal monies that went into Medicaid and reduced the level of uninsured to 2.5%. The state will revise HC laws in this future, and I am certain that HC outcomes will still be better in Massachusetts than in most states.

 

If we vote to withhold sending some of our taxes to DC and authorize the expenditure of those funds on our vision for HC, will you and yours be fine with that? Hell, lets just go to a state based Universal HC system and keep all those local tax dollars in state. Are you with us? Or will you support the theft of our monies by "the feds" so they can spend our OPM as they see fit in other states?

Huh? I'm a Bernie baby? I'm a socialist? Or did you just roll that over into a Communist? Find me any place where I suggested the "use of force" to accomplish any goal. We already live in a society where governmental concerns do not align well with perhaps 50% of its citizenry. I have never suggested any form of "totalitarianism in which an unrestricted & all-powerful central government". Making up shit out of your personal delusions of what other people might want to do is a problem Brian.

 

YES! YES! It is Gerry against the world! I'll storm the capitol, rip up the constitution and establish the land of the true believer, singular! You do know you are projecting this out of your personal problem with the notion of what freedom is.

 

Brian I have never said this nor do I believe this. So for the first time I will accuse you of lying about what I have said, how I would accomplish what I might like to see done. All of your prevarication, as well as your uncomely argumentation, brings into question your noesis. I understand that there are distinctions in our understanding of "for the greater good", but must we devolve into calumny.

HAA! I laugh at you my Brian. You never took my politics nor my economic polemics as serious. Does this mean we cannot share a glass of wine? Or is that whine?

I'll walk you through your statements step by step to demonstrate that what I claim is exactly what you believe, if you really want me to. I honestly don't think you have truly thought through what the ramifications of your beliefs are. I find this is fairly common among "Progressives" who like to consider themselves as "for" goodness and kindness and kittens and puppies, and anyone who challenges the disconnection between their stated objectives & the outcomes of the methodologies they promote is necessarily "against" all those positive ideals.

 

Central planning or nihilism.

 

<shrug>

[Gerry]

I'll walk you through your statements step by step to demonstrate that what I claim is exactly what you believe, if you really want me to. I honestly don't think you have truly thought through what the ramifications of your beliefs are. I find this is fairly common among "Progressives" who like to consider themselves as "for" goodness and kindness and kittens and puppies, and anyone who challenges the disconnection between their stated objectives & the outcomes of the methodologies they promote is necessarily "against" all those positive ideals.

 

Central planning or nihilism.

 

<shrug>

I must note that you deleted the quote with your words.  Since I am leaving shortly for the pleasure of a root canal, I will post a specific set of questions, using your words, to research.

 

Since we have this one right here, can you find any place where I talk about the welfare  of " "for" goodness and kindness and kittens and puppies".  Remember, it has to be an example of my words not your twisted transmutation of thoughts that disturb you.  Find me my Kittens and puppies moment.

 

I'll list the rest of your assignment in a message this evening.

 

If an American Universal HC system were made into law, it will happen by traditional methods.  Both the House and the Senate would pass said legislation and the President would sign it into law.  If this was funded by increased taxation on the top 15%, and especially on the top 5%, it would be done so by traditional democratic means.  The with that pool of OPM, we could move forward with what we the people see as just.

 

In Washington, for any expenditure, it is always about OPM.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Gerry

[Brian]

I must note that you deleted the quote with your words.  Since I am leaving shortly for the pleasure of a root canal, I will post a specific set of questions, using your words, to research.

 

Since we have this one right here, can you find any place where I talk about the welfare  of " "for" goodness and kindness and kittens and puppies".  Remember, it has to be an example of my words not your twisted transmutation of thoughts that disturb you.  Find me my Kittens and puppies moment.

 

I'll list the rest of your assignment in a message this evening.

 

If an American Universal HC system were made into law, it will happen by traditional methods.  Both the House and the Senate would pass said legislation and the President would sign it into law.  If this was funded by increased taxation on the top 15%, and especially on the top 5%, it would be done so by traditional democratic means.  The with that pool of OPM, we could move forward with what we the people see as just.

 

In Washington, for any expenditure, it is always about OPM.

I deleted nothing, Gerry.

 

I also didn't put quotes around any of those things, you may have noticed. Are you now saying that you are NOT "for goodness and kindness and kittens and puppies"???

 

O.

M.

G.

 

 

In thread after thread, post after post (PM after PM) you smugly assert that you stand for justice and fairness and compassion yet you align yourself with a philosophy dependent on "by any means necessary" -- one which explicitly rejects the concepts of individual sovereignty and the democratic process while simultaneously claiming to be the champion of those same principles. Until you can see the hypocrisy inherent in the belief system you have embraced, you can never see the hypocrisy in the belief system you have created.

 

I'll continue popping balloons as long as you continue to float them in my direction because I have taken off those colored glasses and can clearly see the balloons are not carrying rose petals.

 

I can explain it to you, Gerry, but I can't understand it for you.

 

Look at the way the ACA was enacted. First, it was a pack of lies. Second, it is inherently unconstitutional (the SCOTUS got around that by literally rewriting part of the law when it should have rejected it). Third, it wasn't done by traditional means (a bill which had passed the House was entirely gutted and rewritten by the Senate and then sent back to the House for "reconciliation"). Fourth, we know that it was designed to crash the private healthcare system (Obama said so) and, following Cloward & Piven, leave only "single payer" as an option. The entire thing was fraudulent in concept & execution and was designed to bring about a desired outcome by any means necessary, regardless of the human suffering it caused in the process. This is a monstrous abuse and it is hard to imagine how giving these same folks more money and more power and more authority is suddenly going to turn them into a bunch of angels.

[Gerry]

You were the one who introduced "by any means necessary" into our conversation, remember? I just take you at your word.

 

Absolutely! I'd gladly raise a glass with you any time. Just because your ideology is 170-year-old fraudulent philosophy doesn't make you a bad person.

 

 

BTW, are you familiar with what Marx explained the distinction between communism and socialism to be?

Can you place this into context, extended content.  I would implement UHC "by any means necessary", but there was never any suggestion of over throwing the Government.  I have said I would favor a Con-Con to restructure American authority so as to make it more local and responsive to the social and political views of a given region.  I will go bak to out PM to review this part of our conversations.

 

 

Just because your ideology is 170-year-old fraudulent philosophy

Which ideology would that be?  Have you read the younger Marx?  Before he got swept up in Lenin's grand scheme, he said some interesting thing.  If you can find his essay on marriage and divorce it might humor you.

 

Oh, BTW,  Did the software remove all those small quote I used for you words?  If so let me publicly apologize for the slight that you intentionally removed them.  I think I just noticed the same software "flaw" in another post.  Again I am sorry for that rebuff.

[Gerry]

Brian!  We all know that the only good cat is a flat cat.

[Gerry]

 

one which explicitly rejects the concepts of individual sovereignty and the democratic process

 

I have never said this.  I am out the door for my afternoon pleasures.  talk to you tonight.

[Brian]

Can you place this into context, extended content.  I would implement UHC "by any means necessary", but there was never any suggestion of over throwing the Government.  I have said I would favor a Con-Con to restructure American authority so as to make it more local and responsive to the social and political views of a given region.  I will go bak to out PM to review this part of our conversations.

 

Which ideology would that be?  Have you read the younger Marx?  Before he got swept up in Lenin's grand scheme, he said some interesting thing.  If you can find his essay on marriage and divorce it might humor you.

 

Oh, BTW,  Did the software remove all those small quote I used for you words?  If so let me publicly apologize for the slight that you intentionally removed them.  I think I just noticed the same software "flaw" in another post.  Again I am sorry for that rebuff.

"Before he got swept up in Lenin's grand scheme"?!?

 

Ummm...

 

You do know that Lenin was only 12 when Marx died, right? It is hard to imagine the convoluted reasoning needed to invent a mechanism (time travel, maybe?) by which Lenin would have had much influence on Marx, especially considering they lived about 2,000 miles apart during Lenin's childhood.

 

<sigh>

Edited April 10, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

Can you place this into context, extended content. I would implement UHC "by any means necessary", but there was never any suggestion of over throwing the Government. I have said I would favor a Con-Con to restructure American authority so as to make it more local and responsive to the social and political views of a given region. I will go bak to out PM to review this part of our conversations.

 

Which ideology would that be? Have you read the younger Marx? Before he got swept up in Lenin's grand scheme, he said some interesting thing. If you can find his essay on marriage and divorce it might humor you.

 

Oh, BTW, Did the software remove all those small quote I used for you words? If so let me publicly apologize for the slight that you intentionally removed them. I think I just noticed the same software "flaw" in another post. Again I am sorry for that rebuff.

Just to make sure I got this straight -- you don't always reject the democratic process, only on issues you think are really important?

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

I have never said this. I am out the door for my afternoon pleasures. talk to you tonight.

Excellent! So you emphatically embrace the concepts of individual sovereignty and the democratic process? I'll take you at your word. How do you rationalize that in juxtaposition with that "by any means necessary" crap?

 

Are you also a Constitutionalist or is that a bridge too far?

[Gerry]

"Before he got swept up in Lenin's grand scheme"?!?

 

Ummm...

 

You do know that Lenin was only 12 when Marx died, right? It is hard to imagine the convoluted reasoning needed to invent a mechanism (time travel, maybe?) by which Lenin would have had much influence on Marx, especially considering they lived about 2,000 miles apart during Lenin's childhood.

 

<sigh>

Actually no, I had forgot time limes and was out the door.  Did not reflect on this.  Let me revise that to before he stepped off into his economic prescriptions, there was a book from 50 years ago that had philosophical essays of the young Marx.

 

So, do you feel better now that ya got me?   Just got back... I am going to review some stuff.  TTFN.

 

Oh, and this may inform you as to level of interest in Communism.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Gerry

[Gerry]

Excellent! So you emphatically embrace the concepts of individual sovereignty and the democratic process? I'll take you at your word. How do you rationalize that in juxtaposition with that "by any means necessary" crap?

 

Are you also a Constitutionalist or is that a bridge too far?

Constitutionalist is a "He said....  She said..." kind of term.  What one person says the  constitution means and what is allowed by it is not the same as what another might say.

 

"by any means necessary"    Again I have not reviewed the context, and I will, but let's pretend I had George Soros or Bill Gates kind of "fuck you" money and I wanted to get this done .....  Well......

 

Do it the normal way, buy it.  Use the media, pay off elected officials with campaign contributions, do opposition research on the foibles and moral imperfections of Senators and Congressmen, see what their kids were into, what their wives did in their spare time, what escort services they employed,  etc.....  You know everything that goes on in politics every day of the week.  This would be a place to start.

 

Basically, spend billions to get the job done on my terms.  Please do not whine that this is not the way of the world in DC today.  You get what you pay for.  You get your 50% + 1 votes "by any means necessary".

[Gerry]

"individual sovereignty" ?  What the hell is that?  Where do find some of it?

 

"belief system you have embraced"   What belief system Brian?

 

Did your predecessors grant the authority? We can talk, for instance, about whether maintaining a navy is done at the proper scale or whether the USPS is structured properly but those are powers your State's voters approved with a two-thirds majority to be delegated to the Federal government. If you think the postal service is something which should be removed from the Federal government, there is a clearly defined process for making such a change which has been employed dozens of times before. There's also a clearly defined process for making such a change if Congress is unwilling to participate, but that one hasn't been used -- yet...

This rant is a bit unhinged, perhaps.  USPS?  Navy?  How about you toss in an AMTRAK and a PBS too.

[Gerry]

Unfortunately, I think you are right here, Gerry.

 

I anticipate a Convention of States within the next few years.

IMNHO, bottom line here is we see many of the same problems in large central government.  You can call it a constitutional republic, but can you say that it meets the needs of the citizens  it claims to serve.  This HC spat is not the worst of our problems.

[Brian]

"individual sovereignty" ?  What the hell is that?  Where do find some of it?

 

"belief system you have embraced"   What belief system Brian?

 

This rant is a bit unhinged, perhaps.  USPS?  Navy?  How about you toss in an AMTRAK and a PBS too.

You struggle with the concept of individual sovereignty? Try looking the words up individuallyseparately and then stick them together, OK?

 

You tell me, Gerry. It is painfully clear but I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth...

 

Neither of those (AMTRAK & PBS) is a power granted to the central government, Gerry. Need me to provide that list again?

[Brian]

Constitutionalist is a "He said....  She said..." kind of term.  What one person says the  constitution means and what is allowed by it is not the same as what another might say.

 

"by any means necessary"    Again I have not reviewed the context, and I will, but let's pretend I had George Soros or Bill Gates kind of "fuck you" money and I wanted to get this done .....  Well......

 

Do it the normal way, buy it.  Use the media, pay off elected officials with campaign contributions, do opposition research on the foibles and moral imperfections of Senators and Congressmen, see what their kids were into, what their wives did in their spare time, what escort services they employed,  etc.....  You know everything that goes on in politics every day of the week.  This would be a place to start.

 

Basically, spend billions to get the job done on my terms.  Please do not whine that this is not the way of the world in DC today.  You get what you pay for.  You get your 50% + 1 votes "by any means necessary".

"Constitutionalist" is not a "he said, she said" kind of term, Gerry. There is very little ambiguity in the Constitution and those few areas which weren't crystal-clear were hashed out ad nauseum in either The Federalist Papers or in the ratifying conventions of the several States. The States, remember, were each sovereign nations reluctant to yield that sovereignty to another central government. Each at the time was involved in the crafting of the document and then each had it put before their voters for ratification.

 

Oh, so now you are endorsing political corruption & cronyism??? I am disappointed.

[Gerry]

Bullshit.

 

You are making the claim that the only reason people don't want Washington to completely take over the healthcare delivery system is because those people love to see others go bankrupt and die in the streets. It is central planning or nihilism??? Really?!? Oh, and not just nihilism but gleeful and malicious contempt for fellow man?

 

That argument is so ridiculous that it really doesn't need to be countered, but merely highlighted for the absurdity it is.

 

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea what percentage of the US population is currently receiving medical benefits from Medicare, Medicaid or the VA?

15% in Medicare and going up every day my people are alive.  16% in Medicaid, and still not enough.  Just over 2% in the VA.  There may be some over lap in service provider.

 

So the number you are looking for is just about one-third.

[Brian]

Actually no, I had forgot time limes and was out the door.  Did not reflect on this.  Let me revise that to before he stepped off into his economic prescriptions, there was a book from 50 years ago that had philosophical essays of the young Marx.

 

So, do you feel better now that ya got me?   Just got back... I am going to review some stuff.  TTFN.

 

Oh, and this may inform you as to level of interest in Communism.

I don't take the time to debunk Progressive bullshit here as a game of "Gotcha!", Gerry. I think it a matter of integrity; bullshit unchallenged becomes bullshit accepted. There are some "Progressives" who genuinely understand the fraudulent nature of their ideology and spread the bullshit to lure the "useful innocents" into a perfumed steaming pile but the majority of "Progressives" think the cover story smells nice and they are happy to wear nose plugs from then on, as they continue to spread it. I find that challenging the purveyors of said bullshit while they are spreading it is the fastest way to determine which category they fall into. Additionally, there are some people who recognize bullshit when they smell it but haven't taken the time to do the research needed to properly label it. I have taken that time so I take a few minutes from time to time to label a few piles...

[Gerry]

 

Just to make sure I got this straight -- you don't always reject the democratic process, only on issues you think are really important?

I did not say I rejected it for any issue.  Some times you win and sometimes you do not.

[Gerry]

 

Fourth, we know that it was designed to crash the private healthcare system (Obama said so) and, following Cloward & Piven, leave only "single payer" as an option.

May we please kill the deviant beast of the for profit health care system!

[Brian]

15% in Medicare and going up every day my people are alive.  16% in Medicaid, and still not enough.  Just over 2% in the VA.  There may be some over lap in service provider.

 

So the number you are looking for is just about one-third.

I rarely ask questions in political or economic threads for which I don't already know the answer.

 

Oh, and those are 2015 numbers.

 

So a third (higher now but we'll stick with that) are already in Federally managed and funded healthcare programs, and the government currently funds nearly two-thirds of all healthcare (that's been previously established -- I didn't ask you to find it). It is quite easy to demonstrate that most of the current problems in US healthcare are either directly or indirectly linked to government involvement. You claim (the collective "Progressive" "you") the US healthcare system is among the worst in the world but somehow expanding that 1/3 & 2/3 to 100% is magically going to fix things??? Been to a VA hospital lately, Gerry, or to a clinic which primarily serves Medicaid patients? Sure that's really the model you want to force on people?

[Gerry]

 

The entire thing was fraudulent in concept & execution and was designed to bring about a desired outcome by any means necessary, regardless of the human suffering it caused in the process. This is a monstrous abuse and it is hard to imagine how giving these same folks more money and more power and more authority is suddenly going to turn them into a bunch of angels.

Ah  "desired outcome by any means necessary"  yes contextually what I would say.  Get the law passed using the tools of a Democratic Republic.  Your personal feelings aside, I was almost happy with the ACA.  If a bunch of Democratic Senators could have been "persuaded" to be team players we might be that much closer to UHC.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Gerry

[Gerry]

Brian!  We all know that the only good cat is a flat cat.

Actually these days you do not see many flat cats.  Outdoor cats are now Coyote treats.

[Brian]

I did not say I rejected it for any issue.  Some times you win and sometimes you do not.

You have said you reject it on the matter of healthcare. Universal healthcare in the US "by any means necessary." Now you are trying to say that you really didn't mean any means but you've made it clear that corruption and coercion are things you find perfectly acceptable if it accomplishes your objective -- "the ends justify the means"?

 

I've already told you that the proper (legal & ethical) approach is to submit a constitutional amendment for ratification, whereby 34 of the fifty States (a 2/3rds majority) approve extending to the central government the power to manage healthcare. Short of that, the voters of the individual States may choose to (typically by amending their own Constitutions) authorize their State governments to manage healthcare within those boundaries. You OK with that?

Edited April 10, 2017 by Brian