|
LGD posted:Nah, he addresses all the salient points in the Cobb article. Were there any you feel he missed? He also might (or might not) be mad* about being called "tone deaf," but he actually addresses that accusation directly and constructs a cogent argument about why accusations of tone-deafness are beside the point. First of all, I know that, which is pretty obvious from the 90% of my post that you didn't quote. Second, I don't even know what you're on about in that second sentence. The subheader on his article is pretty clearly arguing that the protestors and the New Yorker writer don't properly appreciate how important dudes writing for the Atlantic are to their cause, which I think is pretty silly. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 12, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Another big problem with a state-based single payer system, which Colorado will also face, is that your healthcare plan benefit is considered income, but is excluded from federal income tax if it's paid for in certain ways, one of which is to take it out of payroll. That's why the Vermont plan relied on a payroll tax: it was the only way to make it so that there wouldn't be a federal income tax hike for all the plan's recipients. This creates an obvious political problem. What's the political problem, that people would rather pay healthcare premiums than tax?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What's the political problem, that people would rather pay healthcare premiums than tax? Yup, especially because the premiums are often "hidden" from people because they're taken out of the paycheck. The tax would be as well, obviously, but people see "new 11.5% payroll tax" and don't like it.`
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What's the political problem, that people would rather pay healthcare premiums than tax? Yup. Besides the kneejerk opposition to taxes a lot of people here have, I think a lot of folks think that they'll pay more in taxes than they are in premiums, which is kind of absurd but there it is. Or they're convinced that hospitals in countries with socialized medicine look like Civil War surgery tents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:Yup. Besides the kneejerk opposition to taxes a lot of people here have, I think a lot of folks think that they'll pay more in taxes than they are in premiums, which is kind of absurd but there it is. Actually, most people think it's a waiting room where you get an appointment for several months later or a doctor comes by and marks you with a red X on your forehead for the pneumatic hammer cause your too costly to treat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yup, especially because the premiums are often "hidden" from people because they're taken out of the paycheck. The tax would be as well, obviously, but people see "new 11.5% payroll tax" and don't like it.` I don't think it's impossible to overcome seeing money taken from one area on your paycheck and sliding it to another, all the while while not reducing your actual paycheck. "New taxes" sucks, "no more healthcare premiums" isn't something to sneeze at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/howard-university-braces-for-attack-after-chilling-racist-threat-its-not-murder-if-theyre-black/ So this is just going to keep building and building till a significant number of black students/people are murdered explicitly with race as a motivator isn't it? Oh wait, Dylan Roof. I don't even know what this poo poo is building up to but it ain't good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Actually, most people think it's a waiting room where you get an appointment for several months later or a doctor comes by and marks you with a red X on your forehead for the pneumatic hammer cause your too costly to treat. They're not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What's the political problem, that people would rather pay healthcare premiums than tax? Yeah, this topic came up in the Denver thread and someone was complaining about how his yearly rate would be something like $2700 more and how because of this his yearly premium would be more than his current max out of pocket. However, if I could pay %3 of my salary a year and never have to worry about getting hosed by insurance or bankrupted by healthcare costs, and it happens to help all of my neighbors avoid it too and maybe in the long run bring the pricing of healthcare in this country back into alignment with reality, sign me the gently caress up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Dave Brat's philosophy is, uh, confusing.quote:Was that a protest vote? You sounded relatively positive about Paul Ryan. I’m positive on all people. Only in D.C. do you find the idea that if you vote for one person, you dislike the other person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
this is the best part: quote:What have you learned by watching the Republican primary race? We promised the American people a whole host of items: not raising the debt ceiling, lowering taxes, getting rid of Obamacare, reducing deficits, strengthening the military, etc. Right now some folks are saying that the Freedom Caucus is unrealistic. But how can we be unrealistic when we’re just trying to hold firm to our talking points? edit, no this is: quote:I do want to reflect your principles accurately. It sounds as if you don’t see people as neatly divided into conservatives and liberals as the press does. If there is one thing that unites both parties up here, it’s money. My principle that cuts across all of that is representing the will of the people. And I’m called a hard-right conservative for some reason for being with Adam Smith, a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher. Is he hard right? evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
quote:It could be that your talking points are unrealistic. You shouldn’t pledge things to America that are unrealistic. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:First of all, I know that, which is pretty obvious from the 90% of my post that you didn't quote. Second, I don't even know what you're on about in that second sentence. The subheader on his article is pretty clearly arguing that the protestors and the New Yorker writer don't properly appreciate how important dudes writing for the Atlantic are to their cause, which I think is pretty silly. I didn't quote the rest of your post because I'm at work, and I didn't have time to get into the whole post- if I hosed up it was by responding in part rather than waiting, but that portion was just so lol-worthy I couldn't help myself. And no, he's pretty clearly talking about civil libertarians who take free speech seriously as a subject. That's why he repeatedly talks about the ACLU, that's why he touches on others who share the same fundamental ends but disagree on means and "contested assumptions." He's simultaneously responding to an attack that is very clearly directed towards free speech as an ideology as well as towards him personally. You're using the personal stuff to discount the defense of the ideology as being purely a matter of insufficient deference to his position/ego, which is a pretty obviously unfair interpretation of what he's writing. I mean look at that last sentence you wrote- do you really expect anyone to buy that the main thrust of his article was that the loving New Yorker doesn't properly appreciate the importance of liberal white writers, or the importance of the Atlantic to advancing its (the New Yorker's) ideological cause? That is laughable on its face. I could go into further detail, but your other points on the article are equally distorted, and ultimately it's just not worth unpacking because the criticisms are so off base that correcting them all is a waste of time, vs. just getting anyone who would give the article a fair minded hearing to read it. But just as an example this quote:Similarly, he decries "policing" of Halloween costumes as if trying to make people aware that wearing blackface is insensitive and lovely is really some kind of aggressive act of oppression. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Greatbacon posted:Yeah, this topic came up in the Denver thread and someone was complaining about how his yearly rate would be something like $2700 more and how because of this his yearly premium would be more than his current max out of pocket. $2,700 a year MORE? $2,700 is 3% of a $90k salary, and considering that my healthcare premiums are about $3,400/yr for myself only, I'm guessing that dude is earning over $180-200k to be able to say that. That's a fuckload of money in Colorado and probably shouldn't be used as a yardstick for anything. Again, to put that in perspective, I earn around $90k (meaning I earn more than the vast majority of wage earners) and even I would be saving money. How the gently caress can you not get behind that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
I think he's stating it weirdly, but the segment you quoted isn't really all that confusing, I think. Is it really so contradictory to think that human nature is to sin and also to love people. I personally have no affiliation with Calvinism, but I see the ugliness of human nature every day when I read the news, but I still try to give everyone I meet the benefit of the doubt and treat them with love and respect, though I sometimes fail at that e: gently caress Dave Brat tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Would block-granting that money require legislation? Because, if so.... Yep. In a perfect world, the House would say "Hey okay cool idea! This saves Medicare some money in administrative fees and your residents have already paid into it anyway!" And then I look at our esteemed Representatives and sigh. Greatbacon posted:Yeah, this topic came up in the Denver thread and someone was complaining about how his yearly rate would be something like $2700 more and how because of this his yearly premium would be more than his current max out of pocket. The sticker shock is going to make this...an uphill battle, to say the least. From the budget report: quote:At these projected rates of growth, the CHSP tax rates would need to be increased each year to accommodate health care cost growth. Keep in mind Colorado currently has a state income tax of 4.6%. It's literally more than tripling. I don't know if they've come up with something more palatable or what, but I can't see that getting any traction. Of course this actually saves people money for households with incomes under $100k but TAXES.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yep. In a perfect world, the House would say "Hey okay cool idea! This saves Medicare some money in administrative fees and your residents have already paid into it anyway!" Again, "literally more than tripling" would still mean I'm paying about the same as healthcare premiums, and that's for a single man earning $90k with zero deductions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yep. In a perfect world, the House would say "Hey okay cool idea! This saves Medicare some money in administrative fees and your residents have already paid into it anyway!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Again, "literally more than tripling" would still mean I'm paying about the same as healthcare premiums, and that's for a single man earning $90k with zero deductions. Doesn't matter. Taxes tripling is going to make people instinctively oppose it no matter how much you try to argue that it actually saves them money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Your state is taking the initiative in diverging from federal law in order to better fit the needs of its populace? gently caress you, your state doesn't have that right - A Republican, probably No, they'd pass a law that said sure, that sounds like a great idea, in fact all states get to block grant their medicaid funds on anything, down with obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Doesn't matter. Taxes tripling is going to make people instinctively oppose it no matter how much you try to argue that it actually saves them money. I think it does matter. A good message would be "your paycheck won't change, period."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Democrats? Good at messaging? heh
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Democrats? Good at messaging? heh Have any Democrats picked this up? That'd be news to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think it does matter. A good message would be "your paycheck won't change, period." If you like your paycheck, you can keep your paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No, they'd pass a law that said sure, that sounds like a great idea, in fact all states get to block grant their medicaid funds on anything, down with obamacare. Anytime you have to say "Now hold on, let me explain!" you've lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If you like your paycheck, you can keep your paycheck. Yes, we could use what worked last time, sure. And people are very used to their healthcare premiums rising over time already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think it does matter. A good message would be "your paycheck won't change, period." Nope. Not least because it's not always true so when the media says "who's right" the Republicans will be right and you will be "well, it depends". The Republican argument will be clear, concice, and easy to show: "look, this is the current tax rate, this is the proposed tax rate, that is XXX DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR POCKET", while you have to go "well, thats true, but if you bear with me lets do some math..." Everyone in D&D constantly thinks they're a messaging genius because all Democrats have to do is just say what convinces you. It's never that simple. People constantly, constantly, constantly post about their silver bullet message and complain that the reason Democrats lose is they used the wrong message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Is it only health or are they trying to cover vision and dental? If they're including those other two that aren't normally covered I could see it being more appealing. Mouth problems are especially bad for your health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nope. Not least because it's not always true so when the media says "who's right" the Republicans will be right and you will be "well, it depends". The Republican argument will be clear, concice, and easy to show: "look, this is the current tax rate, this is the proposed tax rate, that is XXX DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR POCKET", while you have to go "well, thats true, but if you bear with me lets do some math..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nope. Not least because it's not always true so when the media says "who's right" the Republicans will be right and you will be "well, it depends". The Republican argument will be clear, concice, and easy to show: "look, this is the current tax rate, this is the proposed tax rate, that is XXX DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR POCKET", while you have to go "well, thats true, but if you bear with me lets do some math..." I disagree, because if there's anything people hate as much as taxes, it's healthcare premiums. "XXX DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR POCKET" could be countered by "XXX DOLLARS IN YOUR POCKET, AND gently caress YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY TOO". I'm no messaging genius, but you aren't either. And again, how is this a "Democrat" thing? Which Democrats in Colorado are currently supporting this measure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
^^ State Sen Irene Aguilarquote:"Colorado deserves a better option, and now they can vote on one," said state Sen. Irene Aguilar, D-Denver, a medical doctor who has championed universal health care. "Health care costs continue to rise every year, hurting Coloradans' chances to get ahead. It's time we get the insurance industry out of the driver's seat and put families in charge of their health care." Democrats are bad at messaging because nuance and fact are critical to complex, society-wide proposals that take time to explain and comprehend. Republicans aren't because aside from outright lying and distortion, it's much easier to say "YOUR TAXES ARE TRIPLING" than "Your taxes are going up, but if you look at the cost savings and security of not having healthcare tied to your employment y-" ex post facho fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Democrats are bad at messaging because nuance and fact are critical to complex, society-wide proposals that take time to explain and comprehend. Exactly, or as Karl Rove put it: Karl Rove posted:Guys like you are in what we call the reality-based community, who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
More Mizzou hijinks:quote:Katie Kull, an editor of the Columbia Missourian, tweeted a statement from the school saying that Janna Basler, the Director of Greek Life, was on leave and being investigated for her part in confronting Tim Tai as he tried to take pictures. That's five people so far (if I'm counting right) that have either resigned or have been removed from their position. e: removed as it doesn't relate BetterToRuleInHell fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No, they'd pass a law that said sure, that sounds like a great idea, in fact all states get to block grant their medicaid funds on anything, down with obamacare. Right. Plus a state blocking you from using Medicare -- an actual federal entitlement you've paid into -- and saying you have to use something else instead is a bad road to go down despite Colorado's intentions. In fact I'm not even really sure that's legal. cheese eats mouse posted:Is it only health or are they trying to cover vision and dental? If they're including those other two that aren't normally covered I could see it being more appealing. Mouth problems are especially bad for your health. It's full coverage. Comprehensive dental for kids and preventive/restorative/surgical for adults. No deductible. It's actually pretty much the best insurance I've ever seen. Oh, and they specifically excluded chiropractic care from coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
That's likely also the reason Republicans use fear so much to promote their agendas. Enough ontological argument that <bad thing will happen> and ANY DAY NOW, IT WILL HAPPEN starts to resonate with people who already feel unsafe, without realizing that it's the policies of Republicans that have created that sense of fear and uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:^^ State Sen Irene Aguilar One state Senator doesn't really make this "a Democratic proposal" IMO. Most Democratic politicians don't support UHC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
The Republican rhetoric of prophesying doom also feeds into the Christian Nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:More Mizzou hijinks: The second link is from Claremont McKenna. I'm an asian person who went to Mizzou and black people were the least likely to gently caress with you for being Asian. Also the Colorado single payer proposal is going to die without the federal employer health insurance tax exclusion being reversed. If employer paid insurance became taxable just like almost every other form of compensation you'd watch companies start pushing for single payer almost immediately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Bernie Sander may soon have his past come back to haunt him like Carson -- -url=http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-classmates-say-man-in-civil-rights-sit-in-photo-isnt-him/]iconic photo of Sanders at a sit in civil rights protest may not be Sanders[/url]:quote:Sanders and his campaign have contended that the man standing up with a book in his right hand is the Democratic presidential candidate, and the University of Chicago archives still label it as such. But four of his former classmates told TIME Magazine that Sanders does not actually appear in the photo. Picture in question: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
I'm not sure what you're arguing? It's not like Cory Gardner or Mike Coffman are suddenly going to see the light and say "oh, yeah, let's throw our support behind this". The only way something like this will pass is with an extremely concerted effort with laser-focused, clear, 3rd-grade-reading-level messaging that actually gets people in Douglas, El Paso and Weld counties to stop and think how it could actually be a really loving good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:18
|
|