Socialized Health Care- Nuts and Bolts Discussion

[Scouts Honor]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

If they were promised a pension when they were hired, they get the pension. You cant hire somebody with a promise of compensation and then renig several years later. 

so you like what bush did.

even my very liberal parents hate what bush did to the USPS

[wrestlingguy]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

Those are actually the reasons why they need to increase their fees. There's nothing stopping the federal govt from doing that. It boils down to the fact that the wingers control all 3 branches of govt and between the pedo-controlled PRC and Congress, the USPS isn't being given the authority to do that. 

I know you aren't saying the USPS is just now a problem in the last two years. You have a knack for blaming everything on the GOP. The USPS has been unprofitable for 20 years.

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

so you like what bush did.

even my very liberal parents hate what bush did to the USPS

How can you justify promising somebody a certain pension as part of their compensation package and then taking it away from them after they've earned that (delayed) compensation? 

i can tell you who. A typical, morally bankrupt winger. 

If you don't like their pension, then don't offer it, but you'll probably have to offer higher wages to make up for it. You're not going to get people to work for much if any lower wages than they already do, unless you want to hire bums off the streets and have a sky-high turnover rate. 

But don't promise a pension and then take it away years down the road. That's typically illegal, but if not, morally bankrupt. 

[red viking]

Just now, wrestlingguy said:

I know you aren't saying the USPS is just now a problem in the last two years. You have a knack for blaming everything on the GOP. The USPS has been unprofitable for 20 years.

It's gotten a lot worse after COVID. Dems may have played a part in it, but either way, they simply need to raise their fees. It's not complicated. They have had limited authority to do that, so yes, I'm blaming politicians and the political PRC instead of the USPS themselves. 

[wrestlingguy]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

How can you justify promising somebody a certain pension as part of their compensation package and then taking it away from them after they've earned that (delayed) compensation? 

i can tell you who. A typical, morally bankrupt winger. 

If you don't like their pension, then don't offer it, but you'll probably have to offer higher wages to make up for it. You're not going to get people to work for much if any lower wages than they already do, unless you want to hire bums off the streets and have a sky-high turnover rate. 

But don't promise a pension and then take it away years down the road. That's typically illegal, but if not, morally bankrupt. 

I agree, but aren't you always saying we should get rid of social security? That's the same argument.

[JimmySpeaks]

9 minutes ago, red viking said:

Those are actually the reasons why they need to increase their fees. There's nothing stopping the federal govt from doing that. It boils down to the fact that the wingers control all 3 branches of govt and between the pedo-controlled PRC and Congress, the USPS isn't being given the authority to do that. 

It's a wonderful life when your political party can force an agency to get by on very limited funding while mandating they continue to perform the status quo services and then also blame them they can't balance their budget. But the dumb wingers will drink whatever Kool Aid their propaganda machine feeds them. 

It hasn’t turned a profit since?????????? You’re a  

2006. But but but trumps fault.  

Edited Wednesday at 08:13 PM by JimmySpeaks

[red viking]

Just now, wrestlingguy said:

I agree, but aren't you always saying we should get rid of social security? That's the same argument.

Not necessarily. I've actually said I prefer raising the SS taxes. If not, then cut the expenses as a last resort. I'd cut social security to rich people that don't need it first and foremost. I just want us to get rid of deficit that we have. 

I DEFINITELY never said get rid of social security completely. Not even close. 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It hasn’t turned a profit since?????????? You’re a  

The politicians and political entities are forcing them to run a deficit. It's that simple. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, red viking said:

The politicians and political entities are forcing them to run a deficit. It's that simple. 

2006 was the last time it turned a profit  nobody needs mail six days a week. It’s mostly junk anyways.  Cut it in half and save billions. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:15 PM by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

 

I DEFINITELY never said get rid of social security completely. Not even close. 

Screen shot.  

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

2006 was the last time it turned a profit  nobody needs mail six days a week. It’s mostly junk anyways.  Cut it in half and save billions. 

Sure. the 6-day per week mandate isn't within their control either though, so blame the politicians; not USPS. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, red viking said:

Sure. the 6-day per week mandate isn't within their control either though, so blame the politicians; not USPS. 

I never said it was sooooooooo

and you blamed it all on the republicans having control of the house, senate and Oval Office which is complete stupidity 

[red viking]

6 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I never said it was sooooooooo

and you blamed it all on the republicans having control of the house, senate and Oval Office which is complete stupidity 

that's who controls those entities right now. Welcome to reality. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

that's who controls those entities right now. Welcome to reality. 

Yet they had nothing to do with setting the parameters sooooo 

[red viking]

13 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Yet they had nothing to do with setting the parameters sooooo 

They can make the changed right now but refuse to. Its that simple. 

[JimmySpeaks]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

They can make the changed right now but refuse to. Its that simple. 

Dems controlled all three for two years too remember?  It’s that simple. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:59 PM by JimmySpeaks

[red viking]

38 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Dems controlled all three for two years too remember?  It’s that simple. 

Their deficit has gone up though in the past 2 years. Partially due to trumpflation. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, red viking said:

Their deficit has gone up though in the past 2 years. Partially due to trumpflation. 

If only Biden had fixed it when he had the chance huh? 

[red viking]

Just now, JimmySpeaks said:

If only Biden had fixed it when he had the chance huh? 

Sure. Problem wasnt as bad back then though. The pedo needs to fix it but hiding the epstein files is more important. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

Sure. Problem wasnt as bad back then though. The pedo needs to fix it but hiding the epstein files is more important. 

He needs to cut the post office in half. Save billions 

[JimmySpeaks]

5 hours ago, red viking said:

How can you justify promising somebody a certain pension as part of their compensation package and then taking it away from them after they've earned that (delayed) compensation? 

i can tell you who. A typical, morally bankrupt winger. 

If you don't like their pension, then don't offer it, but you'll probably have to offer higher wages to make up for it. You're not going to get people to work for much if any lower wages than they already do, unless you want to hire bums off the streets and have a sky-high turnover rate. 

But don't promise a pension and then take it away years down the road. That's typically illegal, but if not, morally bankrupt. 

This is ok but giving money to farmers isn’t.  Unbelievable 

[Doublehalf]

11 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

This is ok but giving money to farmers isn’t.  Unbelievable 

I think objectively there is an inherent difference in giving money to farmers that are struggling because of 1) their choice to be in that industry and 2) the policy and choices that an administration makes that ultimately has an impact on various industries. 
 

In the example of nurses getting pensions, that is agreed upon at the time of hiring and often times negotiated with between unions and health systems. 
 

Farmers didn't sign an agreement with the government that stated "if we go to war and make policy decision that put you near bankruptcy, we'll give you money"

If you're for farmers getting bailouts, you're for the banks getting bailouts... if you're for all of that and not for all Americans getting access to healthcare than that is hard thing to square...

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Doublehalf said:

I think objectively there is an inherent difference in giving money to farmers that are struggling because of 1) their choice to be in that industry and 2) the policy and choices that an administration makes that ultimately has an impact on various industries. 
 

In the example of nurses getting pensions, that is agreed upon at the time of hiring and often times negotiated with between unions and health systems. 
 

Farmers didn't sign an agreement with the government that stated "if we go to war and make policy decision that put you near bankruptcy, we'll give you money"

If you're for farmers getting bailouts, you're for the banks getting bailouts... if you're for all of that and not for all Americans getting access to healthcare than that is hard thing to square...

Now you’re getting my point.  Cant have it both ways. 

[red viking]

11 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

He needs to cut the post office in half. Save billions 

He needs to gut the military by 90%, like the fat bloated pig it is. 

[JimmySpeaks]

8 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I think objectively there is an inherent difference in giving money to farmers that are struggling because of 1) their choice to be in that industry and 2) the policy and choices that an administration makes that ultimately has an impact on various industries. 
 

In the example of nurses getting pensions, that is agreed upon at the time of hiring and often times negotiated with between unions and health systems. 
 

Farmers didn't sign an agreement with the government that stated "if we go to war and make policy decision that put you near bankruptcy, we'll give you money"

If you're for farmers getting bailouts, you're for the banks getting bailouts... if you're for all of that and not for all Americans getting access to healthcare than that is hard thing to square...

Pensions for people have a history of having to be bailed out because they’ve been mismanaged. Shouldn’t be the taxpayers responsibility to fix. 

Edited 19 hours ago by JimmySpeaks