wutthewut

LOL are you kidding? In 1913 there were .004 percent the amount of cars there are today, and they looked like this Further, your claim isn't even true. My apologies, 1909 technically. Previously in 1861, a 3% tax was put in place by Abe Lincoln to fund the civil war, then repealed in 1871

On why healthcare is not a right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4TZMPmbuw

Only so far as to be able to condescend or jeeringly dismiss anyone who tries to take the bait. I'll let you in on the reality of this situation. I don't say this to insult you, and I'm also not trying to convince you - just offering some information for you to understand if you so desire. You've already worn out your welcome and failed to take advantage of the possibility at a good first impression. You've sealed your fate, so to speak. Plenty of others like you have come and gone, and many of them would say the reason for the 'gone' part is because they didn't agree with the group think echo chamber, or because of hypocritical double standards, or whatever, but that's all self-justifications after the fact. The reality is that they, like you, are simply not welcome because you're not enjoyable to converse with. A whole lot of us are still around here because we get something positive, kind, and informational out of our exchanges. You lack all rapport and respect, and only offer thinly veiled rudeness and snark. If you don't mind me throwing knives a bit, this comes from someone who has been berated heavily for his own views on this board. Good synopsis, LoMS! Again, if anyone could point to any specific instances of my apparent wrongdoing, I'm interested. I haven't "worn out my welcome" because I'm rude. I've not once meant anything of ill intent in any of my posts. I've "worn out my welcome" because I represent a libertarian/conservative point of view that people don't like hearing for some reason. Apparently if you want to preserve people's liberty that makes you a bad person in the liberal fantasy land that is HuskerBoard's Democratic party platform rah-rah forum titled "Politics & Religion" Wrong..... Being someone who is probably the most pro business person on this board, I can attest that I disagree with lots of people on this board often with no problem. The issue with your posts are that they seem to be echoing propaganda talking points without much real data to back them up. The few links I've provided on this board (I normally don't for lack of time) have been criticized for being "biased" Meanwhile, articles from Vox seem to be good to go around here 🙄

To preserve life, liberty, and property. That's it. Prior to 1913, there was no federal income tax. Yet somehow we still had roads. I wonder how that happened...

Only so far as to be able to condescend or jeeringly dismiss anyone who tries to take the bait. I'll let you in on the reality of this situation. I don't say this to insult you, and I'm also not trying to convince you - just offering some information for you to understand if you so desire. You've already worn out your welcome and failed to take advantage of the possibility at a good first impression. You've sealed your fate, so to speak. Plenty of others like you have come and gone, and many of them would say the reason for the 'gone' part is because they didn't agree with the group think echo chamber, or because of hypocritical double standards, or whatever, but that's all self-justifications after the fact. The reality is that they, like you, are simply not welcome because you're not enjoyable to converse with. A whole lot of us are still around here because we get something positive, kind, and informational out of our exchanges. You lack all rapport and respect, and only offer thinly veiled rudeness and snark. If you don't mind me throwing knives a bit, this comes from someone who has been berated heavily for his own views on this board. Good synopsis, LoMS! Again, if anyone could point to any specific instances of my apparent wrongdoing, I'm interested. I haven't "worn out my welcome" because I'm rude. I've not once meant anything of ill intent in any of my posts. I've "worn out my welcome" because I represent a libertarian/conservative point of view that people don't like hearing for some reason. Apparently if you want to preserve people's liberty that makes you a bad person in the liberal fantasy land that is HuskerBoard's Democratic party platform rah-rah forum titled "Politics & Religion"

You're all missing the point. Not once did I say that we shouldn't take care of those who are less fortunate. Using your own money, time, and resources to do so is probably the greatest thing a person can do. However, offering other people's money via the government is morally corrupt no matter how you slice it.

Maybe I just misunderstood this, my bad: "You're going to have to figure out how to comport yourself on this fan board, or your stay won't be long." No idea who Georgia Husker is. Sounds like a cool guy LOL

The drinking age question is difficult mostly because a lack of data on what the event would be if the drinking age is changed. My personal opinion is that as an 18 year old you are legally considered an adult in our country. 18 year olds can go to eat and should be able to buy alcohol if they choose. The biggest issue with that is that you'd have high school seniors of drinking age, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to move it to 19 instead.

That's because it's not a human right. It's not only a product/service, it's a luxury. Even California couldn't pass socialized medicine because it was going to more than double their state budget. And offering other people's money to pay for things (at gunpoint) is not compassionate. It's morally reprehensible.

Isn't it crazy how consumers can select coverage based on their individual needs? What a concept...

You threatened to ban me for having a different point of view and nothing else. Censorship by definition. FYI I didn't come here to stir the pot. I joined and started posting in this section to represent a point of view that was not previously represented. So I'll continue to do so because it's sorely needed.

I appreciate the hyperbole.

Scale matters. Please explain... You gonna claim with a straight face that the amount or extent to which Obama "lied" about healthcare (or could even articulate his positions or knowledge about ti) is proportional to that of Trump? Considering EVERYTHING Obama told us about the ACA was a lie and he knew it... Yes. And that's not extremely debatable...

Holy censorship... I'm legitimately asking what I've typed that's not allowed and you aren't able to point it out. So I'll carry on...

If my house crumbles from an earthquake and that's not covered in my policy, then what? I guess we'd better socialize home owners insurance also.

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically? This is a classic misunderstanding of healthcare. Lasik was forced to drop in price because of supply and demand: when the price was high fewer people got Lasik and as the cost went down the demand went up. But a very key point is that people could get glasses or contacts instead of Lasik. People had the choice to NOT get Lasik. Now think about how that applies to the rest of healthcare. How do people not get treatment for a heart attack? Or cancer? Or liver disease, stroke, high blood pressure? And think about how that is effected by the value of getting well. How much would you pay to save your own life? Or your mom? Or your kid? This completely breaks the concept of a "free" market. That's why healthcare will continue to get worse under libertarian/conservative "free" market economic systems - the fundamental assumptions of those systems don't hold. Thank you for the response. You're absolutely correct that there are more variables that come into play in regards to healthcare. Absolutely. Here's the issue, continuing with the metaphor: If I'm an 18 year old who has been in 3 car accidents, obviously my insurer would look at me as a high risk driver, and my insurance premium is going to be astronomical. When I'm a more risky driver to insure, that cost doesn't get transferred across the car insurance market. And it shouldn't. But with Obamacare, that's precisely what happens, plus added taxes and subsidies. The morality of providing free healthcare for all is in the right place, but the practicality isn't there. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the truth. As far as covering people with pre existing conditions, I've always been a firm believer in charity. There are an abundance of people, organizations, and charity groups in this world who have the means to help and are looking for ways to help. Probably most importantly, we should always be leery about handing total control (and in most cases, even partial control) to the government. Using a specific example of that in regards to healthcare, all you have to do is look at the Gard family in London and what they've had to go through. You're still not seeing that health is different from virtually all other activities. In your car insurance example, you can still choose not to have car insurance - take the bus, taxi, limo, friends, carpool. You don't have a choice about having health because the only alternative is death. Not driving is super inconvenient but not life-threatening. Your practicality argument is obviously wrong, as every other modern nation has healthcare for it's citizens as a right. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's actual happening all over the world today and has been for decades. I absolutely agree that we should be leery of handing over control to the government, and whatever we do with healthcare going forward, we should make sure there are checks and balances. But you should also realize that handing over control to corporations isn't any less dangerous than the government. We can vote to change any power or authority given to the government, but we have no power over the insurance companies. If you actually look at it, we have MUCH more actual control over corporations. Politicians will do what they're lobbied to do no matter what the voters want. If you want a prime example, just look at the Obamacare ordeal right now in the Senate. The 2 reasons Trump was actually elected had to do with 2 key issues of actual substance: the Supreme Court & repealing Obamacare. The citizens have made it abundantly clear they're fed up with the ACA but these politicians in the GOP apparently don't get it. On the other hand, with the free market, businesses provide products and services that people willingly purchase out of their own free will. If businesses put out a product or service that people don't like, another entrepreneur will jump in and provide a better product or service, many times at a better price. Voting with your wallet WILL ALWAYS be more effective than voting in the ballot booth, because you're voting for (in most cases) the biggest liars and scumbags the country has to offer. Only bad things happen when those people are given too much power. Again, I'll bring this one up. Which nation has the led the world by a large margin in medical advancements over the past 100 years? America. Why? Because of incentive. People in general achieve because of incentive. People might not like that most of the time the incentive is profit, but that's reality. if profits are the main concern and incentive for insurance providers....wouldn't they want to get rid of the people who cost more to provide coverage for? are we as a country going to say only healthy people who can contribute through work are worth trying to keep alive? nazi germany took that attitude in the mid 30's and started exterminating through euthinasia programs the mentally ill and terminally ill as they were a "drain on society" hey...there is no profit or incentive in keeping the sick and poor alive...right? HAHAHAHA and we've gotten the first Nazi comparison. I knew it'd get thrown out inaccurately eventually. How about this: Hitler was a socialist. He despised capitalism. And going to socialized medicine would give the government the power to fulfill the EXACT scenario that you just laid out. What do people have against freedom?

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically? This is a classic misunderstanding of healthcare. Lasik was forced to drop in price because of supply and demand: when the price was high fewer people got Lasik and as the cost went down the demand went up. But a very key point is that people could get glasses or contacts instead of Lasik. People had the choice to NOT get Lasik. Now think about how that applies to the rest of healthcare. How do people not get treatment for a heart attack? Or cancer? Or liver disease, stroke, high blood pressure? And think about how that is effected by the value of getting well. How much would you pay to save your own life? Or your mom? Or your kid? This completely breaks the concept of a "free" market. That's why healthcare will continue to get worse under libertarian/conservative "free" market economic systems - the fundamental assumptions of those systems don't hold. Thank you for the response. You're absolutely correct that there are more variables that come into play in regards to healthcare. Absolutely. Here's the issue, continuing with the metaphor: If I'm an 18 year old who has been in 3 car accidents, obviously my insurer would look at me as a high risk driver, and my insurance premium is going to be astronomical. When I'm a more risky driver to insure, that cost doesn't get transferred across the car insurance market. And it shouldn't. But with Obamacare, that's precisely what happens, plus added taxes and subsidies. The morality of providing free healthcare for all is in the right place, but the practicality isn't there. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the truth. As far as covering people with pre existing conditions, I've always been a firm believer in charity. There are an abundance of people, organizations, and charity groups in this world who have the means to help and are looking for ways to help. Probably most importantly, we should always be leery about handing total control (and in most cases, even partial control) to the government. Using a specific example of that in regards to healthcare, all you have to do is look at the Gard family in London and what they've had to go through. You're still not seeing that health is different from virtually all other activities. In your car insurance example, you can still choose not to have car insurance - take the bus, taxi, limo, friends, carpool. You don't have a choice about having health because the only alternative is death. Not driving is super inconvenient but not life-threatening. Your practicality argument is obviously wrong, as every other modern nation has healthcare for it's citizens as a right. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's actual happening all over the world today and has been for decades. I absolutely agree that we should be leery of handing over control to the government, and whatever we do with healthcare going forward, we should make sure there are checks and balances. But you should also realize that handing over control to corporations isn't any less dangerous than the government. We can vote to change any power or authority given to the government, but we have no power over the insurance companies. If you actually look at it, we have MUCH more actual control over corporations. Politicians will do what they're lobbied to do no matter what the voters want. If you want a prime example, just look at the Obamacare ordeal right now in the Senate. The 2 reasons Trump was actually elected had to do with 2 key issues of actual substance: the Supreme Court & repealing Obamacare. The citizens have made it abundantly clear they're fed up with the ACA but these politicians in the GOP apparently don't get it. On the other hand, with the free market, businesses provide products and services that people willingly purchase out of their own free will. If businesses put out a product or service that people don't like, another entrepreneur will jump in and provide a better product or service, many times at a better price. Voting with your wallet WILL ALWAYS be more effective than voting in the ballot booth, because you're voting for (in most cases) the biggest liars and scumbags the country has to offer. Only bad things happen when those people are given too much power. Again, I'll bring this one up. Which nation has the led the world by a large margin in medical advancements over the past 100 years? America. Why? Because of incentive. People in general achieve because of incentive. People might not like that most of the time the incentive is profit, but that's reality.

I don't think it's the discourse it's the tone.Gosh I'm a big meanie face... One that continues to prove my point with every post. I'm open to listening. Can you please tell me anything that I've typed on this board that's too offensive for you to handle?

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically? This is a classic misunderstanding of healthcare. Lasik was forced to drop in price because of supply and demand: when the price was high fewer people got Lasik and as the cost went down the demand went up. But a very key point is that people could get glasses or contacts instead of Lasik. People had the choice to NOT get Lasik. Now think about how that applies to the rest of healthcare. How do people not get treatment for a heart attack? Or cancer? Or liver disease, stroke, high blood pressure? And think about how that is effected by the value of getting well. How much would you pay to save your own life? Or your mom? Or your kid? This completely breaks the concept of a "free" market. That's why healthcare will continue to get worse under libertarian/conservative "free" market economic systems - the fundamental assumptions of those systems don't hold. Thank you for the response. You're absolutely correct that there are more variables that come into play in regards to healthcare. Absolutely. Here's the issue, continuing with the metaphor: If I'm an 18 year old who has been in 3 car accidents, obviously my insurer would look at me as a high risk driver, and my insurance premium is going to be astronomical. When I'm a more risky driver to insure, that cost doesn't get transferred across the car insurance market. And it shouldn't. But with Obamacare, that's precisely what happens, plus added taxes and subsidies. The morality of providing free healthcare for all is in the right place, but the practicality isn't there. I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the truth. As far as covering people with pre existing conditions, I've always been a firm believer in charity. There are an abundance of people, organizations, and charity groups in this world who have the means to help and are looking for ways to help. Probably most importantly, we should always be leery about handing total control (and in most cases, even partial control) to the government. Using a specific example of that in regards to healthcare, all you have to do is look at the Gard family in London and what they've had to go through.

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically? how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to.It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost... what you want is health care with no insurance to mess up the free market?Does your car insurance mess up the free market of the auto repair industry? In the fact that they require a person to go to a certified body shop with their approval, instead of some random joe, and the auto-insurance decides how much they will pay for repairs or if they will repair the car at all, yes they do. Have you every been involved in an accident? Their is nothing involved in the process that makes a person feel like they are in control. You are at the mercy of the auto-insurance companies. Both your's and the other person's involved in the wreck. I'd advise you to explore the free market for a better insurer. I've had nothing but good experiences with insurance claims. Granted, I've never totaled a vehicle and had to go through that, but I've had one occasion where we were awarded more money to make the repair than it actually cost.

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically? how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to.It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost... what you want is health care with no insurance to mess up the free market? Does your car insurance mess up the free market of the auto repair industry?

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically? how is that relatable? does lasik have to do twice as much as it used to like insurance does now? there used to be exclusions to what was covered and lifetime limits on your coverage for insurance that obama put an end to. It's a low regulated medical procedure. That's how it's relatable. It's recent and glaring proof of the free market system at work. Competition in the marketplace drives prices down. For some reason that gets lost...

To give a relatable example: When Lasik eye surgery first emerged, it was extremely expensive. Today, it's a few thousand dollars. Why did the price fall so drastically?

😂😂😂 Propaganda... Marxist say what? 😂

If you're saying that a free market model with minimal necessary regulations would best serve the people, I agree with you 😉