DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Democratic lawmaker criticizes GOP's Kaepernick ad

Thanks for all the answers. I now know what I am. LOL

I took that test Swish posted awhile back. I was some kind of Liberal something or another. I forget the name that came after it.

I posted my idea of how to bring cost way down by making college courses available online. And I don't think I've ever pushed 'free' college although I wouldn't be opposed to an internet version of college being free because it could be done for little to no expense to taxpayers. But I don't expect physical schools to be free, neither does Bernie. He says 'tuition free', meaning you still pay for books, dorms, food, professors, etc. But out of state tuition increases and/or inflated education costs would have to be offset. That would result in taxpayer money being used.

This whole idea that I (or progressives) think that everything should be free is just slander from the opposition. Medicare for all would actually save those paying insurance premiums money and give them the same or better healthcare with zero out of pocket for deductible or premiums. Taxes would go up, but the tax increase would be less than the existing premiums and deductibles, much less. That's the idea anyway. But I'm not stuck on that either, I just think insurance needs to be affordable and available to everyone. Obamacare misses that mark if you ask me, it was like forcing people to have auto insurance. There was noting done to bring down costs at all.

But I get what you are saying, however I feel you are not listening when the left is talking about how it will work. Republicans usually start bellyaching because it's 'socialism' and then the gossip starts and the average person has no idea what they are saying 'no way' to, they just follow the herd!

Long story short, I get accused of being an extremist all the time because I pound on the trumpians for being trumpians. But I've been on this board for years and you've never heard me badmouth somebody for being republican before Trump, you've never heard me call for free everything like some of these guys say I do. I supported Bernie in 2016 because the changes he was talking about would help every day working people, the poor, the elderly, and the sick. Giving a lifting hand is not carrying people. I get so mad when that is called socialism in a derogatory way, especially when so called charitable christians are pointing those fingers at me. I don't believe in free rides in life, but I do think we are all in this together and our society works best when we look out for one and other versus always being about all 'me me me'.

I don't believe we will ever have a perfect country, but I think we can be much better than we are. Businesses should make profits but not profiteer. We should maintain the world's strongest military, but we spend (watse) way to much to keep the MIC going and in dark money. We should help people with a hand up, but not handouts. We should strive to lead the world, but stop policing the world. We lead the world in R&D spending then hand most of the technology off to for profit companies without so much as a dime in compensation! What? I could go on and on about how things in our current system are broken or just need some tweaks but to keep it short I think our government needs to be more about the people, the 90%, than about giving everything UP to the rich and corporations. That's not democracy or capitalism, that's oligarchy and corporate socialism.

I was just talking about this in a PM. I voted for Reagan, Bush, and Bush 2. I never voted for a dem POTUS until Obama, and then it was only because I was pissed at Bush 2 after the crash and wanted healthcare reforms for preexisting conditions. I voted for Obama the second term because I was furious about the tea party hate and bigotry, how the Senate GOP under McConnell was acting/obstructing. In 2016, I had enough of Obama and Hillary was promising the status quo when I decided to back Bernie. Bernie wanted meaningful change for the common man. He didn't run on hate or fear. And I never thought he would get everything he talked about through, but at least he started far enough to the left that compromise would mean meaningful change.

Then the DNC and HRC blatantly rigged the primaries, the GOP primaries were a clown show that the biggest buffoon in history won! I saw Trump for what he was/is before most. I wasn't voting for him or HRC after the crap show from both sides... regretfully I stayed home and missed the only POTUS election of my adult life. I would have voted for Hillary if I had it to do over again, but I thought if Trump won the dems deserved it at the time.

But I don't mind being the big target on the board. Y'all can call me extremist, socialist, commie, and whatever else helps you get through the day. I know who I am and what I think, so your opinions don't really bother me. I'll keep posting articles in this section that I think deserve discussion or show Trump for who he is, which Vers seems to hate. I'll keep giving the diehard Trumpians, bigots, nazis as much crap as the rules allow, occasionally more... And just wear my OCD labels y'all keep wanting to paint me with while promoting the values I believe in with that old OCD flare .

I wasn't talking about you as an individual. I was talking about the platform of the extreme left.

You didn't address some of those candidates mandating only government run healthcare while refusing to give people the choice to keep their current insurance.

I also don't feel that the average tax payer wants to be forced to foot the bill for a college education for others.

It's not that I'm adamantly opposed to some of those plans. But what I do realize is that you can't sell those type of programs to the average American voter.

I wasn't actually trying to label you per say. Just pointing out that if you plan to elect someone other than Trump, you have to go with a platform that can actually get you elected.

Well i will address this stuff right now then...

First, I think single payer healthcare is the only way to fix this and that would mean doing away with private insurance or finding private insurance another roll like privatized administration or supplemental policies of some sort. The reason I say this is that the cut the insurance companies take for being a middleman between you and your provider is a ridiculous 30% of every healthcare dollar! Social security runs about 8% or less to administer. So that one change alone would save 20% of every healthcare dollar spent in the US.

The second part is negotiating better prices with Big Pharma for meds, devices, supplies, etc. And medicare already does this for medicare! So that saves another big ass chunk of every dollar spent.

We also fund the majority of drug research in the world on the taxpayer dime and that investment is just written off while for profit companies use the developments to make drugs and devices. That needs to change. The taxpayers deserve a return on that investment in the form of a percentage of those patents IMHO. That return could also be used on healthcare.

The next part is teaching Americans when to go to which service provider. Like if you are throwing knives at an apple on you neighbors head while he holds your beer AND you accidently slice off his ear, then you go to the ER. If you have the sniffles at midnight or maybe even menstrual cramps you can preferable wait until office hours and see your regular doc OR if you won't last that long you can go to urgent care. You would be amazed by how much money is wasted with ER visits every year. For example: Family Doc visit $100, Urgent Care visit $200, ER visit $1500... at midnight most people go straight to the ER with anything. So education saves another big chunk.

The next part is reforming healthcare from a 'treat the symptoms' basis to a healthier 'prevention' model... Teach people how to live healthier more active lives and provide low cost services to assist them. Not all will change, but many will when they can go workout, swim, take a cooking class, etc. This is already practiced in many countries and it will damn near halve the remaining cost because people lose the bad habits that currently make them so sick.

Now I know change is hard for the right and center because it causes uncertainty and nobody wants to go from bad to worse. But saying you want better healthcare as long as nothing changes for you is not only counter productive, it's counter intuitive. What we have is beyond broke folks and it's only going to get worse. But I understand the desire for gradual change and so will the lawmakers. And no matter who gets elected, all of this has to go through congress to be passed and everyone will have to have a seat at the negotiating table for that to happen. So I'm pretty sure no matter who gets in we'll get something between what we have and what we need as a first step, most likely a public option in the current market along with some price negotiation and education.

So I really don't see the issue if you think about it in those terms, unless you just don't want anything to change.

None of the candidates are going to raise taxes on the average tax payer to pay for college. Most want either a small wall street transaction tax or a 1-2% tax on income above 2-20 million to pay for it, and the numbers crunch easily. A few also want to regulate the profiteering going on at some of these schools. Colleges will be fine with plenty of money to operate and kids will get educated. Education reform also includes k-12 funding in most candidates plans so that could even mean the end of school district taxes, at least we can hope.

As far as not being able to 'sell' these things to the average voter, well that's where we need to start demanding the truth and making these ass clowns work for us again. If they lie, throw them out. That might take a while considering where we are at this point, but I would fear the left conning or lying to me MUCH less than the right, right now. Just saying.

I don't worry about labels, we're cool and always will be. But in less than 24 hours somebody will say something about how far out in crazy leftfield socialist commie OCD is, book it. They just don't know what I know.

I actually agree that it would provide better care for less money. But why dictate a government plan if all that is true? If in fact what we both believe is true, the market would dictate that people would flock to this plan over time without it being mandated by the government. People aren't going to keep paying more for less. Nobody likes being bossed around and being told what they have to do. Even if sometimes it's good for them.



It's also being done with the military. Which means that in not only the example you provided, but the one I provided as well, shows a prime example as to why we don't need every American to be forced into signing up for national healthcare in order to be able to accomplish this under a government healthcare plan.



While I can't say I disagree with you, there is no need such legislation to make this possible has to be tied into a healthcare plan. This would fall under the category of funding and could be accomplished at any time.



I'm not sure as to who you believe isn't already aware of this. Many of the ER visits we see that are as you describe are people that are not insured and really have no other choice but go to an ER for treatment.



Once again, I'm not sure who you feel doesn't already know this. And I have no idea what that has to do with a government run healthcare system. People are simply creatures if habit and some new government program isn't going to change that.



A government healthcare system which we both agree there is a need for is change. Where we differ is you feel forcing people to make that change is a needed evil in all of this. While I see it as intrusive government that's not needed to accomplish the exact same goal.



So in the end, you think that the vast majority would support the changes I'm advocating but not the changes you are advocating. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.



This part of your post puzzles me just a bit. For years I've been saying all along that I'm for a government run healthcare system that cuts the profit from treating the sick. That it would be more efficient and that profiting from the sick and dying is wrong. So this is pretty much coming from left field.



If I were you, I'd look at all of the programs some on the extreme left promote. Warren is a good example. Now if we were speaking about education alone, maybe the math adds up. But when you add all of the government programs and expenses she's talking about in total, the math certainly doesn't add up.



When it comes to saying they should be honest or we should kick them out, surely you realize that's never going to happen, right?



And those on the far right will be labeled as well. It's just a part of the political climate we all live in. I don't like it any more than you do but as of now, the past and the foreseeable future, these labels are just a part of the political environment.

I didn't realize you were hung up on a 'mandate'. Who is saying that there will be a mandate on the campaign trail? Even Bernie has said we need a 'transition' to medicare for all. The only mandate I know of was Obamacare's penalty for not having insurance. Maybe I've missed it.

Sorry for the confusion in my post, I didn't expect you to break it down by paragraph. We both expect the same kind of change, I just didn't realize your question was about a mandate.

As far as the kicking them out, that's kind of what the progressives are doing, but I agree with you that it's not going to happen especially on the right.

Warrens programs all have different proposed funding. I'm not 100% sure where she is getting her education dollars from. And even if she gets in, only a fraction of her agenda will get done. That's just how it is, our government doesn't work to fix things for people, just for corps and the 1%. I guess bilking the 99% for the 1% is easier than trying to satisfy everybodies specific desires to move forward and stay in office. The 1% are all on the same page about taking more for themselves.

The good thing is that something like 80-90% of voters want some form of healthcare and education reform. So at least there is a consensus to start with.

Well Warren, the one with all the plans has dodged the question all together and Bernie wants to do away with private insurance all together. Here was his answer to the question....

2. Do you support Americans having the choice between a “public option” health care plan run by the government, and private health insurance?

No.

The question we face is whether we will guarantee health care as a human right. The only way to do that is to pass Bernie’s Medicare for All plan. The current system is completely dysfunctional, and in the current profit-driven health care system, we are at the mercy of the private insurance and pharmaceutical companies, whose greed dictates the cost of health care. The U.S. federal government has failed to rein in health care costs, which many of our peer nations have successfully done.

A public option or other buy-in plans fail to address the underlying problem in the U.S. health care system: corporate greed and profiteering off of the sick. The other proposals do not address skyrocketing prescription drug prices. They fail to simplify the current confusing and dysfunctional administrative system that makes up 17 percent of health care expenditures. Under Bernie’s Medicare for All plan, we slash administrative costs by relying on one payment and billing entity — the federal government — instead of hundreds.

I don't support keeping insurance middlemen either, BUT AGAIN there will be a transition. That transition will last as long as it takes to get everything in place which is a major overhaul that will take years... but that's all I really got for you bro. I'm in camp 'rip the bandaid off'.

"Literally Hitler"

welcomes in

"Literally Marx"

What a time to be alive.

If that crap is directed at me somehow, I missed your point. 'Literally Hitler' is some kind of thing online I see but the rest of this doesn't mean a thing to me. Apparently I missed the memo, fox talking point, GOPer circle smirk, or unicorn's ass you pulled it from so it's gibberish to me.

There's a big difference in ripping off a band aid and trying to mandate that people have no choice. It's a losing proposition and it would be hard for me to support a candidate that takes away that choice from Americans.

You're going to be throwing away a lot of votes with such extremist policies.

The policies are not 'extremist', they are progressive. Republicans call them extremist as a dog whistle, you're better than that. And there is a difference between extreme and 'extremist' thanks to terrorist being called extremist for years. When you use that word in this context, that's the message you are spreading. You might as well be on Trump's cabinet.

The failure of our healthcare system is and extreme situation. Extreme situations require extreme measures. Tear the bandaid off. The transition will take a long time.

Taking away people's choice of healthcare and forcing them into a government run healthcare program is the most extreme way of dealing with it. That's extremist.

I don't care who says it and you are right that it is often used inappropriately. But not in this case.

You calling dems/dem policies extremist or radical is part of the problem. Period. It's fine if you think they are too much too fast or even if they go too far for your comfort zone. But I don't think we should infight with GOPer slurs.

And wants to take away your healthcare? Doing away with insurance companies selling healthcare policies and switching to single payer is the same as taking one card out of your wallet and replacing it with another. You'll still have coverage, the same of better. You'll still go to the same doctors. You'll still get the same drugs. You just won't pay as much... What is extreme about changing payment methods?

The English language is not a slur. Words have meaning.

When one takes the most extreme view on resolving an issue, it's an extremist viewpoint. I use the exact same wording to some GOP policies. I see that as seeing things the way they are.

If you find that offensive at least I'm an equal opportunity offender.

I think you really need to understand something. A policy that falls somewhere in the middle in a centrist policy. Any policy that goes to the far end of either spectrum is an extremist policy.

You can Google the definition of extremist if you like. Never mind. I'll help you out with that.......

Extremism means, literally, "the quality or state of being extreme" or "the advocacy of extreme measures or views". ... Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far-left politics or far-right politics.....

The party who rounded up experts to put up a big fight that TECHNICALLY, ICE detention centers could be called "Concentration Camps"... while pretending they didn't understand the cultural significance of that semantics change... shouldn't lecture people on nuance in language to try to make a point.

I just find it odd that he has never objected to labeling far right policies as extremist but when someone does it to a Democrat it suddenly becomes, "GOPer slurs".

Bernie is on MSNBC talking about this right now. There will be a 4 year transition period. Year one extends coverage to cover medical, dental, optical, prescriptions, and lowers the current age requirement to 55. Second year lowers the age to 45. Third lowers age to 35. Fourth it will be available to all. You will be able to enroll at anytime during those years if your age allows you to be covered.

AND (the big and) you will be guaranteed by law the right of Freedom of Choice, meaning you will have the right to choose your healthcare provider. No networks.

I also didn't hear one word about forcing people to enroll. That's probably because you will want to since your going to be taxed for it.

The notion that "both sides do it", in this case it applies. Both sides use semantics and nuance of language to make things seem better or worse depending on their agenda... Go through every issue and each side uses different terms to describe it based on their perspective and the image and influence they hope to invoke..

Abortion = reproductive health
Common sense gun laws = gun control
Detention centers = concentration camps
universal healthcare = socialized medicine

Saw this and thought it was almost exactly reflecting this post I made.

I don't necessarily find it offensive, I'm pointing out that it's been weaponized for propaganda usage! But you do you. I've only recently become aware of how it's being used against us to divide us, that's all I'm saying.

GOPers are putting up abortion bills to lock up the mothers and doctors for 25-life, and I don't hear them calling each other radical or extremist over that crap. I will call the other side those things but not my side since I know what they are doing. Trump uses that crap all the time.

So he wants take four years until the program is established enough to take away your choice. And we already know everyone will have to be on it.

How is every American going to have healthcare if they aren't enrolled in the program?

So if you are not a Nazi (socialist being implied) or a commie, you are a cuck? This has 4chan or Russia all over it. Thanks for sharing.

It's literally you, of course you'd get mad. lol

Insurance companies will still be selling insurance until it's available for all. I assume private insurance might be available after but I can't imagine they'll be selling the same policies we have today. Probably some sort of supplementals like Aflac. 4 years is a long transition and test period. And Bernie's plan is the most 'extreme'. The others pitching universal, single payer, medicare for all are based on his for the most part.

I'm having a really hard time reconciling those two statements in the same post...

The GOP are using those two words to fight the far left and progressive agenda. I've used them too when I think something is going to far. But I was in a discussion about those particular labels a week or so ago and had that pointed out to me. Moderate republicans are not calling the border stuff, the abortion stuff, or anything else from Trump's alt-right agenda extremist or radical. They call the progressives those things.

I will have no issue returning the favor to the right.

You're ridiculous. What's me? Have I called you a cuck? Calling you a centrist is not bad. Calling you a right winger is not bad. BUT you don't like me calling you a Trumpian when you show support for Trump's agenda and policies! So you want to make me out like I'm the bad guy. lol

If you want to be neutral be neutral, but when you speak out about what you are for and against you choose your side. The fence is not a side. Center left/right is a side. Moderate (or middle) left/right is a side. Far left/right is a side. Backing Trump is a side.

Now go back to your hole.

Actually they're not. Some of the others are for allowing people to choose their plan. That's why you have not seen me confront many of the plans by Democratic candidates and only take issue with those that allow no such choice.

Pick your plan on single payer, universal, or medicare for all? That makes no sense. Are you sure your not talking about Obamacare reform? Obamacare let's you pick your plan... if you can afford them or qualify for free/discounted plans. I bet you are thinking public option plans. That makes sense too.

It's odd. We already had the debate that only a couple of the current democrats running for the nomination will not give the public the option to pick their own insurance. The vast majority of them will allow it.

Now you're trying to say they won't? This has already been established and they aren't promoting Obamacare.

This is because whenever anyone disagrees with his alt left self, he labels them as a white supremacist nazi trumpian.

It doesnt really matter where you exist on the political spectrum, its where you get assigned, if you dare disagree with a socialist.

Actually Eve, we both agree that some type of "socialist policies" need exist to one degree or another. Be it healthcare or the revamping of higher education policies. I mean those to the far right consider any type of regulations to correct the market are socialism.

But I certainly see your point. For some it's an all or nothing sum. No room for middle ground or a common sense approach that actually represents a view that most Americans could back and agree upon to one degree or the other.

Not all of them are for medicare for all. Biden wants to reform Obamacare. Others want to do a public option in the free market. Most of the progressives are taking Bernie's plan but making tweaks. That's all I know for sure.

Don't forget my labelling them as Libertarians. Or Trumpertarians.

I haven't attacked anyone for liking a middle ground healthcare plan from a candidate. I just think single payer or medicare for all is the only way to fix the issues we have with healthcare.

I am guilty for calling turds turds though. And Trumpians Trumpians. But calling somebody a centrist, moderate, progressive, alt-right, conservative, or liberal who takes those positions is not a slight in any way. Unless you are pretending to be something you are not, then I guess it could be embarrassing to have it pointed out.

Being called a socialist, extremist, or radical left as a derogatory term for being progressive is a slight.

"I don't attack anyone for liking middle ground BUT DON'T YOU DARE DEFEND ANYTHING I DON'T LIKE YOU ALT RIGHT NAZI!"

Notice how that works with right wing extremist as well?

Extremist don't know how extreme they are even when being pointed out.

You finally get me!

Youre proud of that?