@AverageJoe1 saidI might point out, BTW, that while you and fellow cracker Mott don't care about where the money ends up, you at least are quibbling about where it comes from. If you don't think Democrats being willing to raise taxes on themselves to help the needy counts as "giving," then just say it.
@Soothfast
then soothefast steps in and discusses., and I quote, “where the donated money ends up is not yet clear.”!!!! Haha. He stoops to where it F’n ends up!!! Unbelievable!This is classic.
@Soothfast saidSorry, watching football with a few guys not very clean on my typing and dictating. You may be putting me on, that’s OK, but the issue is that Republicans give more money than do the Democrats. This is so simple that you cannot understand it, which is a trait, a thread, which runs through all of the liberals.
Your punctuation is getting worse, which means you're losing it.
What was your point, cracker, when bringing up charitable contributions in this thread?
You and the KING👑 have shifted to add several other items to the issue. Independents , where the money goes, voters, etc etc, and I am waiting for you to discuss your uncle‘s dog house.
@AverageJoe1 saidBUMP!
Easy, KING🤴…. I wrote a few clicks ago that you and Susie Ann when you are against the wall will come back with something totally off the wall, like maybe talk about your dog house in the backyard. I was being funny in my making a point. But darn if you don’t come back with a comment on “independents”!, which have nothing to do with the issue. So then I write back that n ...[text shortened]... tle slow on the uptake today. As I have said often these last month, you liberals are falling apart.
Warren Buffett (a democrat) is number one in donations to charity in our nation and, out of the top billionaires in our nation.
"Warren Buffett has a lifetime giving of $56.7 billion. The Berkshire Hathaway CEO giving focuses on health and poverty alleviation. The 93-year-old has a net worth of $131 billion.
Put that in your pipe and take a toke dumb arse [https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/billionaires-who-give-away-most-money-forbes].
We know you all love the "Democrat" Warren Buffett. 🙂 😀 😉
Child care centers in the deeply red state of Idaho are in crisis. Where are those donations, GOPers? Pay up!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/12/14/idaho-child-care-abortion-ban/
Child care gets little help in Idaho. A family-run center is buckling.
The federal funds that helped businesses like TLC stay afloat during the pandemic — with grants and pay boosts — had expired in 2023, cut off early by Idaho’s conservative legislature. But the staff still expected the higher salaries, which at around $14 an hour was not close to a living wage. Costs of insurance and supplies like plastic gloves and canned vegetables kept climbing. And parents were struggling even more to afford the care....
...McFarlane describes herself as conservative, skeptical of handouts. Even so, she was sometimes shocked by Idaho’s legislature. The lawmakers seemed to view child care — and helping working families afford it — as “left ideology,” she said, despite the presidential campaigns of both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris talking about the need for government solutions.
Pay up, mofos!
@Soothfast saidSee how y'all always miss it? Follow me here.
I might point out, BTW, that while you and fellow cracker Mott don't care about where the money ends up, you at least are quibbling about where it comes from. If you don't think Democrats being willing to raise taxes on themselves to help the needy counts as "giving," then just say it.
The subject is, who contributes most of the money. SO easy.
So since y'all lost the discussion, you start writing out of the blue,,,,,where does it go? We are not discussing that, Soothfast. But, For the record, I for one indeed am concerned how the money is spent.
Hope that clears that up. Why the trouble with staying on issue. How bout you write a thread on where the money goes??
@AverageJoe1 saidYou know what the sad thing is? You're not missing my point, you're missing your own point.
The subject is, who contributes most of the money. SO easy.
Go look up "contribute" in the dictionary. You're probably using one as a chock under your trailer.
@KingDavid403 saidThe issue is which party donates the most to charity....not which individuals. I guess I could scare up a Republican,,,,let's see, a rich one....hmmmmm,...Hey, I got it . Elon Musk, the world's richest man, is a Republican.
BUMP!
Warren Buffett (a democrat) is number one in donations to charity in our nation and, out of the top billionaires in our nation.
"Warren Buffett has a lifetime giving of $56.7 billion. The Berkshire Hathaway CEO giving focuses on health and poverty alleviation. The 93-year-old has a net worth of $131 billion.
Put that in your pipe and take a toke dumb arse [https ...[text shortened]... naires-who-give-away-most-money-forbes].
We know you all love the "Democrat" Warren Buffett. 🙂 😀 😉
Y'all have all really lost it today.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe issue is which party donates the most to charity.
The issue is which party donates the most to charity....not which individuals. I guess I could scare up a Republican,,,,let's see, a rich one....hmmmmm,...Hey, I got it . Elon Musk, the world's richest man, is a Republican.
Y'all have all really lost it today.
No, the issue in this thread is "UnitedHealthcare: Jackal Barkings vs. Reality"
@Soothfast saidYou see, here you go, as you are backed in a corner, trying to squeeze out an acceptable definition of contribute. I looked up a definition and it said "donate'.
You know what the sad thing is? You're not missing my point, you're missing your own point.
Go look up "contribute" in the dictionary. You're probably using one as a chock under your trailer.
You are giving me a headache.
YOu and KIING and Sue and somebody else in this thread are all in good company!!!
@KingDavid403 saidWith respect, we, including you, you silly goose, have been writing about which party gives rhe most to charity.
The issue is which party donates the most to charity.
No, the issue in this thread is "UnitedHealthcare: Jackal Barkings vs. Reality"
There has never been an issue on the forum that did not bring extraneous related issues. YOu can hardly complain, it seems to have been a good sidebar.
If you are upset , they would love to see you in the science Forum. SHouse hides out there a lot.
@Soothfast saidHey Mott, Soothfast is about to get in trouble with the KING, he is writing about childcare.
Child care centers in the deeply red state of Idaho are in crisis. Where are those donations, GOPers? Pay up!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/12/14/idaho-child-care-abortion-ban/Child care gets little help in Idaho. A family-run center is buckling.
The federal funds that helped businesses like TLC stay afloat during the pandemic — with ...[text shortened]... ald Trump and Kamala Harris talking about the need for government solutions.
Pay up, mofos!
@AverageJoe1 saidWith respect, we, including you, you silly goose, have been writing about which party gives rhe most to charity.
With respect, we, including you, you silly goose, have been writing about which party gives rhe most to charity.
There has never been an issue on the forum that did not bring extraneous related issues. YOu can hardly complain, it seems to have been a good sidebar.
If you are upset , they would love to see you in the science Forum. SHouse hides out there a lot.
No, I was challenging your off topic lie. You were just plain lying. Have another liar joe. lol... You spell at the same grade level you act.
THIS is a PM to Soothfast, sorry.
A sloppy post to highlight your great single payer. When I saw "Eliminate Choice" in the first sentence I stopped reading. YOU read it. Hell, next you libs will be choosing our wives for us..
Elimination of consumer choice of insurer and other benefits of competition. With an entire
population of consumers in the same insurance plan and private insurers prohibited as
alternatives, consumers who are dissatisfied with the new government system could not “vote
with their feet” and choose a new carrier. This could place significant pressure on the
government to meet consumer needs in aggregate (see earlier concerns regarding cost-
containment potential); however, it might make it more challenging for subgroups of consumers
to have their needs or preferences met. Similarly, some potentially beneficial elements of
competition and incentives would be lost; for example, differences in cost sharing would no
longer encourage patients to use more efficient providers and providers to be more efficient.
Continued struggles with health care spending growth and cost-containment strategies.
Though uniform national systems better control health care spending growth, they are not a
panacea, and by some measures, US spending growth (not spending levels) has been roughly
average over the last two or three decades.9 As in other countries with a universal system,
practical realities related to provider supply, demand for services, valuable technological
advances, responses among manufacturers, and concerns over sufficient incentives for ongoing
research and development of new treatments and technologies could frequently increase
health care prices and spending faster than general price inflation. The trade-offs can be
difficult, and they are not necessarily simplified by centralizing them in the government.
Likely persistent inequities in access. Those with high incomes would likely continue to pay out
of pocket to receive some care on terms they are more satisfied with than those of a uniform
government health care system. The more this occurs, the more constraints it would place on
supply in the government system. In other words, if more providers can support themselves on
private-paying patients.
the cost of services increases.
Elimination of consumer choice of insurer and other benefits of competition. With an entire
population of consumers in the same insurance plan and private insurers prohibited as
alternatives, consumers who are dissatisfied with the new government system could not “vote
with their feet” and choose a new carrier. This could place significant pressure on the
government to meet consumer needs in aggregate (see earlier concerns regarding cost-
containment potential); however, it might make it more challenging for subgroups of consumers
to have their needs or preferences met. Similarly, some potentially beneficial elements of
competition and incentives would be lost; for example, differences in cost sharing would no
longer encourage patients to use more efficient providers and providers to be more efficient.
Continued struggles with health care spending growth and cost-containment strategies.
Though uniform national systems better control health care spending growth, they are not a
panacea, and by some measures, US spending growth (not spending levels) has been roughly
average over the last two or three decades.9 As in other countries with a universal system,
practical realities related to provider supply, demand for services, valuable technological
advances, responses among manufacturers, and concerns over sufficient incentives for ongoing
research and development of new treatments and technologies could frequently increase
health care prices and spending faster than general price inflation. The trade-offs can be
difficult, and they are not necessarily simplified by centralizing them in the government.
Likely persistent inequities in access. Those with high incomes would likely continue to pay out
of pocket to receive some care on terms they are more satisfied with than those of a uniform
government health care system. The more this occurs, the more constraints it would place on
supply in the government system. In other words, if more providers can support themselves on
private-paying patients, few
@AverageJoe1 saidTell me, do you think charitable donations will help keep childcare centers in Idaho lastingly afloat?
Hey Mott, Soothfast is about to get in trouble with the KING, he is writing about childcare.
Charitable donations are laudable, but at the end of the day they are unpredictable and catch-as-catch-can. To run a day care requires leasing floor space, buying equipment and hiring employees, getting insurance. Those are locked-in expenses that one must plan for. Then you charge your customers for your services, except oh no: those customers can't afford to pay very much, and the shortfall for the business runs into the tens of thousands of dollars per year. Maybe the church down the road will help out with a couple grand now and then, but that's maybe, and it's not enough.
Now, in a "blue county," say, the taxes will be higher to help reliably fund those childcare centers. Reliably! The predominantly Democratic inhabitants of the county vote for the higher taxes, which translates into extra money being taken out of their wallets for services most of them will never use. It's tantamount to charity, as far as their bottom line goes, but they understand that many of the people flipping their burgers for them, or painting their house, or bagging their groceries won't be able to live in the county without access to a daycare for their children while they work. And because they work while living in the county, hey lookie: they pay taxes to that county and help keep the whole system humming.
You know what they call that system, Joe?
They call it "society."
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat "benefits of competition"? You mean the US private medical system's "competition"?
THIS is a PM to Soothfast, sorry.
A sloppy post to highlight your great single payer. When I saw "Eliminate Choice" in the first sentence I stopped reading. YOU read it. Hell, next you libs will be choosing our wives for us..
Elimination of consumer choice of insurer and other benefits of competition. With an entire
population of consumers in the same insurance ...[text shortened]... nt system. In other words, if more providers can support themselves on
private-paying patients, few
Have a look between chugs:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/oct/high-us-health-care-spending-where-is-it-all-going
The United States spends twice as much per person on health as peer nations. Current research points to higher prices as a driving factor, but less is known about how the dollars associated with higher U.S. prices and spending are distributed.
Fact is, there is absolutely nothing efficient about a privatized healthcare system whatsoever. Even before Obamacare came along Americans were paying more for healthcare than most anyone else in the civilized world, and getting less in return.
And by the way, a single-payer socialized healthcare system can be set up many ways. It can be set up to allow people a lot of choice in doctors. There is nothing against it whatsoever. And anyway, no matter which private insurer you might choose in our current system, you're going to be issued a booklet, or a web link, that tells you what doctors are "in-network," and thus you never have complete freedom to choose any doctor you want unless you're willing to pay through the nose. A single-payer system could be set up the same way: see any doctor you want, in any state in the union, but you might have to pay extra.