The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Lathum]

Watching Biden dancing with his grandson while watching the concert is such a departure from the joyless corpse that was Trump.

[CrimsonFox]

really democrats need to just ignore the petulent republicans and just get shit done. I mean that's all reps do anyway is ignore then push through what they want

[CrimsonFox]

can we please just go a day without mentioning those asshats?

[tarcone]

Im riffing here so bear with me.

Free health care raises your taxes. Okay, I pay about 600 a month for my health care right now.
I get a UBI of 1000 a month plus free health care. As does EVERYONE. So I get 1000 a month, would that raise my taxes over 1000 a month? It does? okay, what about prescriptions? That os another 1500 a year. Okay, have my taxes been met?
Yes they have. What a shot show of a country. Save the middle class. They prop this damn country up.

[molson]

Universal health care would cost the government less then what they currently spend.

The U.S. government spends way more per capita now on healthcare than any other country, and it provides much less of a product than anyone else.

Universal healthcare is the fiscally conservative solution.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im riffing here so bear with me.

Free health care raises your taxes. Okay, I pay about 600 a month for my health care right now.
I get a UBI of 1000 a month plus free health care. As does EVERYONE. So I get 1000 a month, would that raise my taxes over 1000 a month? It does? okay, what about prescriptions? That os another 15000 a year. Okay, have my taxes been met?
Yes they have. What a shot show of a country. Save the middle class. They prop this damn country up.

Not smart enough to understand.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

A daily press briefing that wasn't unbridled lying. Nice change.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

And a hot red head. This is coming from a red head and not meant to be sexist, But, Damn.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Universal health care would cost the government less then what they currently spend.

The U.S. government spends way more per capita now on healthcare than any other country, and it provides much less of a product than anyone else.

Universal healthcare is the fiscally conservative solution.

ANd it would allow businesses to stop being in the healthcare business along with whatever they do. There's a lot of money spent on administering healthcare plans.

The big problem is that we'd have to figure out how to transition the tens of thousands of people that work in insurance.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not smart enough to understand.

Thn me and everyone else at 15%, problem solved and stupid people understand.

And if that doenst do it go for 20%,

This is the richest poor country in the world. Figure that out

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And a hot red head. This is coming from a red head and not meant to be sexist, But, Damn.

Commie sympathizer.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Commie sympathizer.

Or is it empathy? Maybe compassion?

[sterlingice]

I have one of those hats, too, from when I went to Russia. Not in pink, though. And I can't say I've worn it since I moved to Houston.

/tees one up/ I AM CLEARLY A COMMUNIST AND A RUSSIAN SPY

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Or is it empathy? Maybe compassion?

Er, pretty obvious it's your hormones.

[tarcone]

Why is it such a bad thing to tax everyone at 20%? Oh, the rich pay nore? Well shit yeah, they make more.
1000 a month gains 200 in taxes
a 1000000 a month gains 200000 in taxes.

Yeah, you are paying more, but tell me that $800,000 is worse than $800 a month to live on.

Communism? or reality?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CarterNMA

That's a HUGE Bible! A family heirloom, I hear. Wow.

The historic leather-bound Bible, which is five inches thick, has been a Biden family heirloom since at least 1893 Biden revealed last month that the dates of each of his swearing-in ceremonies are inscribed on the inside of the Bible

[CrimsonFox]

I want Geraldine Ferraro to meet with Kamala Harris!

[thesloppy]

I don't want to believe in the Illuminati, but some asshole gotta show up with a bible like that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I don't want to believe in the Illuminati, but some asshole gotta show up with a bible like that.

SI

[JPhillips]

That's thicker, but maybe a little smaller than our family's Bible, but we don't have the cool locks.

[molson]

I come from a family of Lutheran pastors, including my father, and somehow we never ended up with a family bible. I feel kind of cheated.

I think my father's prized spiritual possession is his death book, where he has recorded the dates of death of everyone he knew (including pets), since the 50s. We're emotionally distant New Englanders who don't talk about such things, but I'll write his name in it when the time comes, I think he'd like that.

[Lathum]

OAN reporting Biden’s Bible is binded in human skin.

[Ksyrup]

Somebody on Twitter said it was interesting that they brought the Cheesecake Factory menu to the inauguration.

[Ksyrup]

Also, I guess I'm oblivious to the TV side of all of this, so I had no clue stuff was going on last night and being televised. But I did see a clip of Tom Hanks this morning, and I don't know what exactly it is, but he's starting look like Bert from Sesame Street.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I don't want to believe in the Illuminati, but some asshole gotta show up with a bible like that.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Why is it such a bad thing to tax everyone at 20%? Oh, the rich pay nore? Well shit yeah, they make more.
1000 a month gains 200 in taxes
a 1000000 a month gains 200000 in taxes.

Yeah, you are paying more, but tell me that $800,000 is worse than $800 a month to live on.

The objection to flat taxes in general isn't the rich, but the poor and middle class - opposition has come from those who prefer that the rich pay more and the lower classes play less. It would also take a lot more than 20%; in the 90s when some in Congress were seriously considering a flat tax, 17% was the most common number. That's with a much smaller government at that time, no UBI, no universal health care, etc. It would take at least 25%, probably higher.

The other general opposition to the idea you've outlined would come on the basic premise of liberty; that handing over control of a large industry is a bad idea, people should be able to control their own lives & care, etc. UBI would also have a non-zero effect on the economy.

[Ksyrup]

So I guess we're expecting the Biden impeachment articles today? Marjorie Taylor Greene promised!

[miked]

How about taxing capital gains and interest at the same levels? If you make money, does it matter how the money is made? Or perhaps we could collect SSI on incomes over the current threshold. I believe those things would have support of like 95% in the country, but because our politicians are bought for by the 1%, it does not matter.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by miked

How about taxing capital gains and interest at the same levels? If you make money, does it matter how the money is made? Or perhaps we could collect SSI on incomes over the current threshold. I believe those things would have support of like 95% in the country, but because our politicians are bought for by the 1%, it does not matter.

And transition to a commodity tax as well, those that can afford to buy more. pay more.

There are multiple avenues to get to a better way and allow most everyone to thrive in relation to their income level.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The other general opposition to the idea you've outlined would come on the basic premise of liberty; that handing over control of a large industry is a bad idea, people should be able to control their own lives & care, etc.

I would argue that we need public control of the industry to insure liberty. As it currently stands individuals hardly have much say in the matter; you are insured by whomever your employer chooses or you get one or two ACA options to choose from. Also decoupling insurance from employment greatly increases the liberty to change jobs.

We are just fine with the government controlling institutions that are a much larger threat to individual liberties then health insurance, the military, police, courts, etc. And no one is more willing to infringe on liberties then for profit companies when they can do it for a profit. At least with government control the voters have some say.

[GrantDawg]

Dead on I.J.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

And transition to a commodity tax as well, those that can afford to buy more. pay more.

There are multiple avenues to get to a better way and allow most everyone to thrive in relation to their income level.

Eh, those are regressive taxes. Simple fix is to tax capital gains at income rates and remove the cap on social security. Also tax SS/Medicare on capital gains. Stop treating one form of income as better than another.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The other general opposition to the idea you've outlined would come on the basic premise of liberty; that handing over control of a large industry is a bad idea, people should be able to control their own lives & care, etc. UBI would also have a non-zero effect on the economy.

As mentioned, we have no problem with defense, transportation and law enforcement being turned over to the government. Everything from health care to our food supply are controlled by the government.

You look at our biggest industries like finance and banking. They are both propped up the government. Is there a large industry that isn't mostly controlled by the government at this point? Do people want it another way?

[JPhillips]

Seeing lots of this:

Biden: We shouldn't accept white supremacy.

Right: How dare he attack me personally.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Seeing lots of this:

Biden: We shouldn't accept white supremacy.

Right: How dare he attack me personally.

The GOP always knows how to rally the base behind a single cause and apparently they feel protecting white supremacy is what resonates with their voters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Seeing lots of this:

Biden: We shouldn't accept white supremacy.

Right: How dare he attack me personally.

Rand Paul sort of outed himself yesterday.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Pittsburg also follows the Paris accord: A year ago Trump's 'Pittsburgh not Paris' comment 'galvanized a response,' mayor says | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Cruz literally voted to silence the Pittsburgh voters! He joined Hawley in saying the people of Pittsburgh didn't deserve a vote for president.

So happy that USA has finally rejoined the Pittsburgh Agreement. Welcome back!

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 21, 2021

Well played Greta, well played

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Seeing lots of this:

Biden: We shouldn't accept white supremacy.

Right: How dare he attack me personally.

yeah whatever happened to them attacking homosexuality and abortion?
Are those fair game now?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As mentioned, we have no problem with defense, transportation and law enforcement being turned over to the government. Everything from health care to our food supply are controlled by the government.

You look at our biggest industries like finance and banking. They are both propped up the government. Is there a large industry that isn't mostly controlled by the government at this point? Do people want it another way?

It should be controlled by the government but it should not be obvious that it's controlled by the government, is what it sounds like to me at this point.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by I J Reilly

I would argue that we need public control of the industry to insure liberty. As it currently stands individuals hardly have much say in the matter; you are insured by whomever your employer chooses or you get one or two ACA options to choose from. Also decoupling insurance from employment greatly increases the liberty to change jobs.

This is another good example about how people of different perspectives aren't even really speaking the same language. I'm in favor of universal healthcare, but none of what you describe is a matter of liberty in the traditional, historical sense I was referring to. I.e., nothing about healthcare insurance affects in the slightest a person's liberty to change jobs. It makes a big difference in the convenience, cost, risk, etc. involved in doing so, but there's nothing stopping people from changing jobs anyway. Issues of liberty are issues of whether someone can be barred from doing something, as in the government telling you what you can say vis a vis freedom of speech, rights to vote, to own property, etc.

[CrimsonFox]

wow i love the new press secretary. So sharp

and fauci looks happy that he can complete a thought.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is another good example about how people of different perspectives aren't even really speaking the same language. I'm in favor of universal healthcare, but none of what you describe is a matter of liberty in the traditional, historical sense I was referring to. I.e., nothing about healthcare insurance affects in the slightest a person's liberty to change jobs. It makes a big difference in the convenience, cost, risk, etc. involved in doing so, but there's nothing stopping people from changing jobs anyway. Issues of liberty are issues of whether someone can be barred from doing something, as in the government telling you what you can say vis a vis freedom of speech, rights to vote, to own property, etc.

So if we use that minimalist definition of liberty, and what qualifies as an infringement of it, then I don’t really see how it applies to universal healthcare debate at all. Like you say, we aren’t speaking the same language here.

All I was really trying to say was that both public and private health care involve individuals accepting some limitations on their choices. At least with the public option, you have redress through the electoral process.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by whomario

So happy that USA has finally rejoined the Pittsburgh Agreement. Welcome back!
— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 21, 2021

Well played Greta, well played

Oh man, never read the comments /facepalm/

SI

[Edward64]

This post can be in 2 other threads but putting it here.

McConnell wants to delay the Senate trial till sometime Feb to "give defense more time".

This seems fair to me and I'm okay with that under the assumption the Senate will quickly confirm (or not) Biden's cabinet nominees in lieu of immediate trial. The trial can't help but distract some from Biden's message/priorities so I'm good with a short delay.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

So if we use that minimalist definition of liberty, and what qualifies as an infringement of it, then I don’t really see how it applies to universal healthcare debate at all. Like you say, we aren’t speaking the same language here.

Universal healthcare, under the Canadian/UK/whatever models usually discussed and suggested, i.e. government-run single-payer, involves people being required to go to the doctor for regular checkups whether they want to or not. It involves them being taxed for the program, limiting their economic liberty. Instead of them choosing what insurance to purchase, what doctors to utilize, etc. those aspects are controlled by whatever entity or agency is set up under the program. All of those are relevant aspects of liberty.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Universal healthcare, under the Canadian/UK/whatever models usually discussed and suggested, i.e. government-run single-payer, involves people being required to go to the doctor for regular checkups whether they want to or not. It involves them being taxed for the program, limiting their economic liberty. Instead of them choosing what insurance to purchase, what doctors to utilize, etc. those aspects are controlled by whatever entity or agency is set up under the program. All of those are relevant aspects of liberty.

Now we have gone full circle, this is what I was trying to say in my first post. All of the liberty infringements you name in the Canada/UK model exist in our current system, it’s just that a private insurance company is making the decisions instead of a government agency.

[GrantDawg]

And charging you way more. And have profit not your health as the focus.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Now we have gone full circle, this is what I was trying to say in my first post. All of the liberty infringements you name in the Canada/UK model exist in our current system, it’s just that a private insurance company is making the decisions instead of a government agency.

Right and instead you have the liberty to go to the doctor without being afraid you can't afford it. Or the liberty to not to have to worry about losing insurance if you get laid off. Positive liberty as opposed to negative liberty.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Universal healthcare, under the Canadian/UK/whatever models usually discussed and suggested, i.e. government-run single-payer, involves people being required to go to the doctor for regular checkups whether they want to or not. It involves them being taxed for the program, limiting their economic liberty. Instead of them choosing what insurance to purchase, what doctors to utilize, etc. those aspects are controlled by whatever entity or agency is set up under the program. All of those are relevant aspects of liberty.

Sincere question: have you attempted to purchase insurance or get a healthcare appointment with a specialist for yourself, child, or parent lately and what has that experience been like?

Where I live (high SES town of under 100,000 with two healthcare systems and a lot of private practices), there is a 3-12 month wait to get in to see most specialists, and those are often mid-level providers like nurse practitioners or physician assistants.

The choices for insurance are two state approved carriers that have a handful of coverage packages, the insurance provider your company contracts with and the handful of coverage packages they offer, or state provided Medicare or Medicaid with their standard coverages (if you make below a certain household income, are disabled, or 65 or over).

I work in healthcare and have a healthcare business. I spend a lot of time working with people and thinking about this stuff. Most of the folks that I interact with (providers and patients) do not feel like they have a whole lot of choice or “liberty” with the current system. Providers and patients have zero say in what procedures are approved, how much they are paid, how many visits or time allowed, etc. unless they each have the means to forego the current insurance structure and pay out of pocket.

I also think there is a whole argument to be made that there are ethical dilemmas between the collective good of your community/society and personal liberty. As a healthcare provider or facility, should you be forced to treat someone without the means to pay for treatment services? If you have no insurance or cannot pay up front, and come in with a broken bone or heart attack, can the healthcare provider have the liberty to say, “I don’t want to work for free - sorry.” What if you choose not to insure your child, and cannot afford to pay out of pocket, and they have a seizure or break a bone? Restaurants don’t have to feed people for free and clothing stores don’t have to clothe people for free, so why reset bones and relieve pain for kids for free? There is a pretty good argument that some public services (military, police, firefighters, roadworks, education) already infringe on personal liberties but are clearly a net benefit to societies.

[kingfc22]

Fox News really trying hard to oversell 150 people in Portland as worse than the Insurrection in the Capitol.

If they are shown to have broken the law in Portland, lock them up/punish them according to the law they broke.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The historic leather-bound Bible, which is five inches thick, has been a Biden family heirloom since at least 1893 Biden revealed last month that the dates of each of his swearing-in ceremonies are inscribed on the inside of the Bible

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's thicker, but maybe a little smaller than our family's Bible, but we don't have the cool locks.

It's not the length of your bible, it's the girth that matters.

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Now we have gone full circle, this is what I was trying to say in my first post. All of the liberty infringements you name in the Canada/UK model exist in our current system, it’s just that a private insurance company is making the decisions instead of a government agency.

Quoted you instead of 7 other posts I could have, but I'll say what I've always said - Universal Health Care requires younger, healthier, (often single) people in a community to subsidize costs for other people. It's probably worth it due to how much administrative waste there is these days, there is also social value if you have a cohesive slice of the population willing to share sacrifices, but even if we can agree on it you either need people paying enough of the cost for individual treatments they care about the price or an effective government oversight agency to make sure the government isn't getting gouged or asked for unnecessary procedures.