2020 Election

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
The proposal is for a public option to be included with the offerings private for profit insurance companies place on the insurance exchanges. If you DON"T WANT THAT OPTION YOU DON"T HAVE TO PURCHASE IT. Not what is it about that proposal you don't understand? Then again if you can't AFFORD the premiums private insurers want for their insurance products and the public option is the one and only plan you can afford you're not fooling anybody because if you were in that position you would take the public option because it sure as hell would be better than nothing at all.
You're deflecting, we were talking about social security lol.

Settle down fren, you're going to give yourself a heart attack and the government death panel might decide to let you die.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
The proposal is for a public option to be included with the offerings private for profit insurance companies place on the insurance exchanges. If you DON"T WANT THAT OPTION YOU DON"T HAVE TO PURCHASE IT. Not what is it about that proposal you don't understand? Then again if you can't AFFORD the premiums private insurers want for their insurance products and the public option is the one and only plan you can afford you're not fooling anybody because if you were in that position you would take the public option because it sure as hell would be better than nothing at all.
I got a bridge for sale if you are gullible interested.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
You're deflecting, we were talking about social security lol.

Settle down fren, you're going to give yourself a heart attack and the government death panel might decide to let you die.
You're the one carping about FICA taxes which together supports both. Sure you people's simplistic solutions would work fine if you could leave out all the complex and difficult issues that surrounds the problem. Trouble is you can't especially if you're in a position of leadership.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
I got a bridge for sale if you are gullible interested.
Send me your details because in my state private developers are replacing structurally deficient bridges and then lease them back to the state . A practice that results in a bridge getting replaced faster than it would for the state transportation department to acquire the appropriations to replace it themselves.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Sure you people's simplistic solutions would work fine if you could leave out all the complex and difficult issues that surrounds the problem. Trouble is you can't especially if you're in a position of leadership.
I never said it would be simple. You can't discuss this without making things up. Says a lot.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
You're confused.
I never mentioned FICA.
We were discussing social security, you're just trying to muddy the waters.
I rarely agree with a word either of you say but you might like to look at post 322, it's yours.

I can't figure out what you clowns are arguing about, but carry on.

I love leftists eating their own.

FICA by the way, deals explicitly with the "funding" of "social security."
 

Brownslave688

You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Quit your jobs, problem solved.
CE9358A1-393B-4317-BE37-78A07288D22B.gif
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
Send me your details because in my state private developers are replacing structurally deficient bridges and then lease them back to the state . A practice that results in a bridge getting replaced faster than it would for the state transportation department to acquire the appropriations to replace it themselves.
Sounds like one of my workarounds to bypass UPS bureaucracy!
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
You keep trying to narrow the discussion by ignoring important factors and conditions that make the problems so complex and difficult .
We're talking about social security and you went off the rails on a health insurance rant.

If talking about the topic is "narrowing the discussion", then so be it.
 
Top