Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 92      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #61 
Mike c - I'll try one more time.  A paper was written about the Bedford Styvesant group of achools in New York.  At the end, the investigators added - "Solution - Blow the whole thing up and start over".  Now obviously (at least to me)  they didn't mean to do that literally.  They merely vented their frustration in their inability to find a solution to a problem they perceived.  Hyperbole, yes.  View of a situation and lack of a solution, yes. Humorous, to some.  Personal attack, no.  I hope that you and Rocklifter can see the parallel.  

 Exaggeration for effect is a part of communication (I saw a guy and he must have been nine feet tall), less effective when the speaker's face and body language don't accompany the words.  My wife and I have been married for 55 years and have had many, many breakfast conversations so we obviously know each other's personalities and methods of expression.  My response to what you and Rock find so offensive was to laugh at her creative humor. Also if I told her that I had written on line  what she said in private, she would be very angry at me (mea culpa); I know that she is more defensive than I and more able to understand that some folks interpret things literally which are meant at a different level of communication.  She is a wonderful woman, bright and articulate with a wry sense of humor.  She would never want to offend and from my perspective, didn't.                                                  

 I apologize for putting on line something that some good folks find offensive. I did not think they would take the statement so literally and personally, and thought they would see the frustration humor in the statement.  OK - next subject !!  I can't explain any better than this.          Frank

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #62 
JG  -  I didn't find it offensive.  I complemented you on a great partner.  Count me as not offended.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #63 
Mike - Thank you.  I am glad that you weren't offended. No offense was intended.     Frank
PS - Our type of humor - She tells me that everyone thinks she is a wonderful wife (I already know that).  I tell her that she should be because I picked her out of thousands of applicants for the  job.  She hits me on my right arm and pretends to be very angry.  If I were to describe the success of our relationship, it would be that we are kind and understanding to each other, and supportive as well.  From my point of view, I respect her and what and who she is.  I think she mostly feels the same way.  I cannot imagine life without her in it.

I shall write no more about my wife here. Old people do grow exceptionally close after so many years.  Those breakfast discussions are very precious, right up there with my crossword puzzle (another example of our wry  humor - there really is no comparison as we both treasure the conversations way beyond any comparison).      

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #64 
1)  The President asked an interesting question this morning and I'll change it up a bit.  We raised the debt limit several times during the last GOP Administration.  In another future GOP Administration, would it be right for a Democrat Congress to refuse to raise the debt limit unless the President agreed to their gun control bill?  How about if they wanted to repeal the Bush tax cuts for all making over $250,000?  Would it be fair to refuse to raise the debt limit until their bill was agreed to and signed?  Do you think debt limit increases should be held hostage to other legislation?

If the President continues to note the unfairness of this type of hostage governing, I think the public will quickly condemn this practice.


2)  I'm going to repeat my answer to my own question #10 in the first post...what should we do with young individuals who refuse to buy insurance only to show up seriously ill and requiring expensive medical treatment?  I think we have but three options...

a)  Treat him and force society to pay for his medical needs,

b)  Refuse him treatment,

c)  Mandate everyone carry some type of health insurance so society is not left to pay these bills in the future.  Self reliance should be required.

Since I don't want to pay his bills, and we would never want sick people to go untreated, mandating insurance is as good an idea as I could imagine.  I choose c.  Why am I wrong and what would you choose?  It's already been found allowable under our laws so this appears to resolve my concerns.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #65 
Owning guns doesn't raise the deficit.

there are no more bush tax cuts - they are all Obama tax cuts now.  If the Dems want to hold out on that issue, that is their prerogative.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #66 
Mike - One can consider "guns" as "military" and then apply that to federal spending.  NRA gun matters are small potatoes in the matter of federal debt.     

As for Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, that is part of what creates the here and now (for example the largest gap in history in our nation between rich and poor). Yes, that taxation was then and now is now, but part of the current problem is the actions of the federal government in the past. In all fairness, we cannot ignore that. One might ask what Congress and the Obama administration have done to curb that retreat from a graduated income tax. Created legal loopholes for the wealthy also deny our federal government of due income.     Frank

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #67 
The largest income gap in our nation's history has been created by wealthy stockholders seeing their portfolio value rise, and the rest of us schlubs having a hard time finding a job, or, the jobs that are available pay much less.  That's pretty easy to see.  It doesn't have very much to do with the Obama tax rates.

However, as I said, if the Dems want to hold up the budget process and force a showdown on higher tax rates, that is up to them to do if they so choose. 

There was a time, before Obama came into office, when I made decent money.  My accountant told me there were loopholes - that was a fiction.  That may not be true for the ultra wealthy, but I know in the $200-$400k bracket, it was most definitely the case that there not loopholes.

As for the guns comment, you totally lost me.  Dewey is talking about something like outlawing handguns or rifles, and you are talking about government spending on the military.  Those two things are not in any way related, hence my comment that you lost me.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #68 
mikec - If I understand you correctly, you can hold the debt limit hostage if the change you want is money related.  For example, would it be acceptable practice to refuse to raise our debt limit, in order to pay our bills, until the President agreed to eliminate the Dept of Education and Dept of Energy?  Is this an acceptable manner of governing in the US, in your opinion?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #69 
I still strongly believe the GOP cannot win a national election simply by telling the American people the other side is just a bunch of liars.  That's so yesterday.  I think they need to answer questions like these and let the American public know where they stand.  It's as simple as a-b-c.


What's the solution when young individuals, who refuse to buy insurance of their own, only to show up seriously ill and requiring expensive medical treatment in our hospitals with no ability to pay?  I think we have but three options unless the GOP can think of another.

a)  Treat him and force society to pay for his medical needs,

b)  Refuse him treatment,

c)  Mandate everyone carry some type of health insurance so society is not left to pay these bills in the future.  Self reliance should be required.

Since I don't want to pay his bills, and we would never want sick people to go untreated, mandating insurance is as good an idea as I could imagine.  My Party chooses "c". 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #70 
First - I think your first post is correct.  It is a fiscal bill, so the issues have to be fiscal related.  If it's an appropriate way to run the government is up to the voters to decide.

If they are taking a stand on a very unpopular law, that many believe will ruin their lives, then maybe it's a smart move.  If it's one that everyone loves, then it's a bad play.  Their job is to work for the people that put them there.  So, that's their call.

As for your hypothetical uninsured young man that shows up at the emergency room, that you bring up, over, and over, and over:

If this whole stupid health care were that simple, that would be a simple scenario.  You have picked an outlier scenario.

By saying that you choose C, you are saying that you support about 100 new taxes (OK - maybe 40 or 50, I don't know), exemptions for special interest groups that the POTUS favors, major employers dumping their employees onto the exchanges, and, eventually, a full government takeover of the health care system in this country.

I say no.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #71 
Sen. Rand Paul says Government is addicted to spending.  I say only when Republicans are running the show.  Bloomberg explains it clearly here

The GOP cannot win a national election simply by saying Democrats want to destroy the Country as we know it.  Instead, the GOP must explain to the American people why spending growth shrinks under Democrat Presidents and rises under Republican Presidents.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #72 
mikec - Thanks.  I think by choosing none of the above, the GOP is giving the American people no answers.  "I don't know" will not help win an election.  Some answers aren't perfect but they're better than no answer.  These problems are difficult ones to resolve which explains why the GOP didn't want to touch health care reform in the last Administration.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #73 
Dewey--Perhaps you could expound on the reasons why you find options A and B in your hypothetical unacceptable options. I think a little more definitive explanation is needed for me to fully understand your reasoning.
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #74 
softballfanatic - Hey there!  Those two are unacceptable to me because I don't want to pay for the care of others with my tax dollars, unless it's necessary for appropriate reasons.  Secondly, there is no way I could be in favor of letting them go untreated.  I'll donate my money before I go that route and then I'll go out and campaign for some kind of mandate law so it won't happen again. 

Health insurance is an area where people, who can afford it, need to be responsible by carrying it so as not to become a burden on the rest of us.  However, others may choose a different option than me and I'm suggesting if one wants to win votes, I think they need to have an answer.

Byw, if I understood pabar correctly, he went with a.  Nobody else has been willing to share a pick.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
softballfanatic - Hey there!  Those two are unacceptable to me because I don't want to pay for the care of others with my tax dollars, unless it's necessary for appropriate reasons.  Secondly, there is no way I could be in favor of letting them go untreated.  I'll donate my money before I go that route and then I'll go out and campaign for some kind of mandate law so it won't happen again. 

Health insurance is an area where people, who can afford it, need to be responsible by carrying it so as not to become a burden on the rest of us.  However, others may choose a different option than me and I'm suggesting if one wants to win votes, I think they need to have an answer.

Byw, if I understood pabar correctly, he went with a.  Nobody else has been willing to share a pick.


I agree with the highlighted part of your statement above. My question is if someone has the means and makes the free choice, we are still free to choose in this country right, not to purchase insurance and is otherwise not available for existing programs, why should we feel compelled to pay for his treatment? If people choose to not be responsible, in your mind or mine, should there not be repercussions? In my simple mind, I view this like the death penalty. If we don't bail them out and they suffer catastrophic consequences, death, maybe others will loearn. Just as if we actually enforced the death penalty, I believe it would be a deterrent. It is not so much, because it is not enforced at all or in a timely manner.

__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #76 
Dewey - my answer did not fit in any of your choices.  I said that person should be drained of all his assets first and then either a taxpayer funded pool or insurance company funded pool would have to cover the remainder.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #77 
softballfanatic - I understand your thoughts but I understand this Country too.  The American people, as well as me, are not about to let people suffer catastrophic consequences because they failed to be responsible.  However, like I said earlier, if the choice of the GOP is "b", they need to stand up and sell it.  I'm kind of thinking they know that's a loser too so they're trapped. 

I've said many times that in theory, the be responsible or suffer the consequences, makes a whole lot of sense.  However, in practical terms in our United States, some consequences are understandably unacceptable and goes a long way in explaining the birth of our social programs.  Why agonize over refusing treatment or not?  Imo, it's so much better to just obligate everyone to pitch in to cover their own concerns.  Finally, the GOP can't even begin to make a case one way or the other until they come out with a position.  (Does this mean you chose "b"?)

pabar - I don't think your answer is iniconsistent with "a".  At some point, society picks up the bill.  Maybe I should re-write it to say "treat him and then use tax dollars to pay all the cost that he can't afford."
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
softballfanatic - I understand your thoughts but I understand this Country too.  The American people, as well as me, are not about to let people suffer catastrophic consequences because they failed to be responsible.  However, like I said earlier, if the choice of the GOP is "b", they need to stand up and sell it.  I'm kind of thinking they know that's a loser too so they're trapped. 

I've said many times that in theory, the be responsible or suffer the consequences, makes a whole lot of sense.  However, in practical terms in our United States, some consequences are understandably unacceptable and goes a long way in explaining the birth of our social programs.  Why agonize over refusing treatment or not?  Imo, it's so much better to just obligate everyone to pitch in to cover their own concerns.  Finally, the GOP can't even begin to make a case one way or the other until they come out with a position.  (Does this mean you chose "b"?)

pabar - I don't think your answer is inconsistent with "a".  At some point, society picks up the bill.  Maybe I should re-write it to say "treat him and then use tax dollars to pay all the cost that he can't afford."


Then I ask at what point do people become responsible for their actions and accept the consequences. Let's say I pay off my mortgage and live in the Midwest. Tornado alley. Since I have no Mortgage holder, I choose to not have insurance on my home. My home gets wiped out by a tornado. A catastrophic loss. Should the government and taxpayers build me a new home and replace my possessions? At what point do those of who live in a free society and ostensibly have the right to choose, accept responsibility for our own decisions. And if we are going to take away the right to choose whether or not to have health insurance, is homeowners insurance next? What follows that? What then happens to our free society once we start allowing the government to mandate such things and forces us to buy something? I think we will no longer be a free society.

__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #79 
Dewey - society picks up some of the bill, not all of it.  How much depends on how much the individual had in the way of assets.

Softballfanatic asks a great question.  If we need to figure out how to deal with the person who won't buy insurance, why wouldn't that apply to all forms of insurance?  For that matter, what about the person who eats McDonald's three times a day and ends up weighing 600 pounds?  What is the government's or society's responsibility with regard to his inevitable medical problem that will cost a lot of money?  Where does it stop?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #80 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballfanatic
Then I ask at what point do people become responsible for their actions and accept the consequences.


softballfanatic - I would say hunger and sickness is where society generally steps in and is probably about as far as we'll go.  Maybe shelter to a point as well.  Nobody is going to build you a home but you might get some food and shelter subsidies unless you're earning too much money.  So to answer your question, no to requiring homeowners insurance.  Does not concern me.  The numbers willing to lose their home is so small that I see no financial threat to me.  In fact, health and old age security are the only areas I see where social programs help protect the rest of society from an unnecessary financial burden.  I can't think of any other mandates being considered.  You know full well this insurance mandate has been out there for decades.  If you know of anymore that you've heard proposed in the last several years, please tell us.  I think you're worrying about something that isn't out there. 

Now I'm answering a lot of your questions and, if I may, did you confirm your answer to be "b"?  If you don't want to answer personally, what do you think the GOP position is?

pabar - I think I answered your question above.  Many of these people running up ER bills live week to week and won't have assets to go after.  In any event, the amount is not the point.  I don't want my tax dollars to have to cover those who make enough to buy a policy of their own.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #81 
I wish I had the confidence in our legislators that you do. But right now I watched them pass a massive Health care law that was not supported by the people. Since its passage, its poularity has decreased while problems are cropping up around every corner! They continue to espouse gun control legislation that is all not supported. Colorado legislators were just recalled over this. Our legislators do not do what the public wants, they do what they want. THAT is why I am nervous! They will go wherever they want to go and that scares the piss out of me.

I could not and would not speak for the GOP. As far as myself, I could see myself accepting b. My feeling is the best way for maling people understand and change their bad habits is for them to experience or see other people experience the consequences of bad choices. As long as there is someone there to bail them out, there is no incentive to change. Now remember, your hypothetical is for a person of means who refuses to copmply.

__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballfanatic
Now remember, your hypothetical is for a person of means who refuses to comply.


softballfanatic - Thanks for sharing.  You are correct, I'm talking about somebody who had the means to purchase insurance.  Now let's look at those without means. 

Before I comment further, let me make this suggestion.  I get a quote for insurance from a provider.  Now if I tell them I plan to use the ER for all my medical needs and I don't plan on getting involved in any preventive care medicine or tests, the provider will probably come back and tell me, "well then, we want to increase your premium".  They understand I'll probably cost them more than the premiums collected.

Now my point here is related to poor people.  This, in a general way, describes their method of medical care.  The concern of the insurance company in my hypothetical convinces me that I will spend less tax dollars contributing to the poor getting insurance than I will spend contributing to their health care costs.  Again, it's in my financial interests to help the poor get insured and it makes me feel better knowing the poor can now afford preventive care and maybe avoid some serious illnesses.  Just another reason why I think Obamacare is going to help.
Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #83 
But then since the poor are unable to travel to secure proper identification for voting, it is logical to assume that they could not make use of the preventive care available to them for the same reason so you are throwing good money after bad. Perhaps the single thing the government is best at!
__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #84 
Oh no! Don't confuse liberals with logic. Hilarity might ensue.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #85 
in Blue - Perpetuating another urban myth?  Some of the most logical people I know are liberals but not the radicals that conservatives like to point out as liberals.  However, liberal logic runs into a brick wall, insults, and condescending "libtard" epithets when it meets the self appointed omniscient and omnipotent holders of all that is truth from the ancients, and you know who that is, the ones who refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong and who turn over responsibility for their lives to some absolute set of omnipotent principles established not through their intellect and experience  but by "those who have gone before" .  It's the truth that the adults in your youth demanded that you follow  to the letter and believe in and which some believe to be infallible.  Personally, I have seen excellent logic from both conservatives and liberals (I have also seen and heard idiotic rants from both the reactionary right and the radical left that leave reason aside and subscribe to raving emotionalism) , but I maintain that neither camp has a grasp on a complete truth that fits all time and all space.  Instead of lining up behind either "right" or "wrong", perhaps we, both conservatives and liberals, and especially moderates, should line up behind "validity".         Frank
PS - Cogito ergo sum. 

PSS - Bluedog - Don't bother.  There are a tremendous number of folks on our planet who refute your beliefs and follow such as the Quran blindly. They think that you are wrong at your first premise, and you think that they are wrong, and therein lies a real planetary problem.  What does logic tell you?

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #86 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballfanatic
But then since the poor are unable to travel to secure proper identification for voting, it is logical to assume that they could not make use of the preventive care available to them for the same reason so you are throwing good money after bad.


softballfanatic - I'm confident the majority of the poor are going to vote and I'm confident the majority of poor will take advantage of health insurance to improve the well being of their family.  Many of those who will find improved health are not even of voting age.  In any event, these laws you're talking about aren't anticipating stopping the majority of poor from voting, just some of the poor from voting.  It's the hope of some this will still make a difference.

PS:  I could be wrong but something inside of me says most of those who are supporting ID laws don't truly believe we have a significant amount of folks voting for their dead relative at the risk of arrest.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #87 
Those of us who support Voter ID laws are interested in not becoming a banana republic.  We don't want dead people voting, accidentally or otherwise.  We don't people voting twice, accidentally or otherwise.  We don't want illegal aliens voting, accidentally or otherwise.  We DO want everyone who is eligible to vote and wants to vote to have that opportunity.  That is why we encourage the ease with which IDs can be procured.

Freedom is such a difficult concept to wrap our heads around.  Conservatives believe that you should have the freedom to vote, drive, purchase alcohol, purchase firearms, enroll in the military, marry and do all sorts of other things.  It is not unreasonable in these situations to ask a person to prove that they are actually authorized to do those things.  We don't believe the government has the right to force you into a marketplace against your will.  We don't believe the government has the right to tell you to abandon your religious beliefs for the sake of a minority of the population.

Liberals, if I'm to understand what I read and hear, believe that everyone MUST purchase health insurance in some way but they don't believe you should have to prove who you are in order to cast a vote.  To me that's a strange juxtaposition of freedoms.
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,921
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Softballfanatic
But then since the poor are unable to travel to secure proper identification for voting, it is logical to assume that they could not make use of the preventive care available to them for the same reason so you are throwing good money after bad.


softballfanatic - I'm confident the majority of the poor are going to vote and I'm confident the majority of poor will take advantage of health insurance to improve the well being of their family.  Many of those who will find improved health are not even of voting age.  In any event, these laws you're talking about aren't anticipating stopping the majority of poor from voting, just some of the poor from voting.  It's the hope of some this will still make a difference.

PS:  I could be wrong but something inside of me says most of those who are supporting ID laws don't truly believe we have a significant amount of folks voting for their dead relative at the risk of arrest.


Again Dewey Incorrect. In Rockdale County Georgia. There was an investigation where voter fraud was prevalent and seemingly is all around the country. A Special investigator was called in to research the disturbing numbers of voters who turned up to be dead and or in capable of voting.
We can sit here and think happy happy joyful thoughts of how people are not capable of breaking voter laws but in actuality its very real. Why certain parties are against it shows me they are up to something.

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #89 
rocklifter - I searched and searched for any investigation in Rockdale County or any evidence that illegal voting was taking place.  I found nothing in all my searches.  I'll try some more later but I'm not convinced there are very many allegations out there nor do I think most of these allegations are true.

pabar - We believe a person must prove who they are in the registration process therefore, your statement, using ForeverInBlues standards, is a lie.  We do want people to prove who they are before they have a right to vote.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #90 
Dewey - settle down.  I prefaced with "if I'm to understand..."

However, the registration process and the actual vote are two different things.  Mistakes or fraud can happen during registration or during voting.  Besides, if you believe they should show proof of ID during registration, how can it possibly be difficult to do so while voting? 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.