Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - HUGE SCANDAL!!!!

[acidhead]

[Buzz_Light_Year]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:44 PM, Aquila King said:

I admire your optimism. As for me, I see any hope of victory as more as a mobilization effort rather than an attempt of winning people over to the cause. The nation is too polarized, and to be a conservative in today's world is to be a radical, brainwashed by Fox News or Alex Jones, etc.

It's an uphill battle and may take some time, but slowly but surely I believe we'll get to where we need to be. 

Conservatives can only hope.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Buzz_Light_Year

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, acidhead said:

Should have put horns on it, so it was a Bull, and she's getting bullsh...

Eyes are too small I think. Not the cow....

Edited February 16, 2019 by DieChecker

[F3SS]

4 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Conservatives can only hope.

What that theyll be booed and hissed into the dark pages of history books and put into future handbooks of what not to do in future governments? Yes, we can hope.

[Einsteinium]

On 2/15/2019 at 1:21 AM, DieChecker said:

Not only that, but the CBO says even if we did tax the 1% at 70%, it isn't going to pay even 50% of Medicare for All, or the Green New Deal, much less both.

Could we tax the rich more? Sure. Is it going to solve a single problem, other then make some graphs look less... "inequal"? Nope.

Of course not. But take away the cost of private insurance funded by companies and employees and transfer all that money to medicare and boom, medicare for all is almost fully funded, the tax on the rich fills in the little leftover after that shift happens.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

Of course not. But take away the cost of private insurance funded by companies and employees and transfer all that money to medicare and boom, medicare for all is almost fully funded, the tax on the rich fills in the little leftover after that shift happens.

I was reading about this, how many businesses pay part of the insurance that the insured never sees. I can imagine that working, but so far I'm not sure if there is a good parallel to compare to. In government that is. Do businesses pay part of Medicare for employees? Or are all current Medicare recipients unemployed/disabled/retired? 

Still even with that isn't the estimates in the trillions per year? That's going to be roughly 8 to 10 thousand per year per person? My company probably pays almost that much, for my family, but I have really good insurance, and the company pays most of it. I don't want to even imagine a family if 4 paying 30k in tax each year. 

Price seems pretty high. They're going to HAVE to cut something somewhere, and I imagine it will be profits, and wages of medical industry personnel. Something the medical industry will have a screaming fit over.

[+DieChecker]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Still even with that isn't the estimates in the trillions per year? That's going to be roughly 8 to 10 thousand per year per person? My company probably pays almost that much, for my family, but I have really good insurance, and the company pays most of it. I don't want to even imagine a family if 4 paying 30k in tax each year. 

Some research suggests that the Bernie version will cost 33 trillion over 10 years. So lets use 3.3 trillion per year. Also research suggests that employers pay about 82% of all premiums. So assuming 325 million people that's roughly 10k each. So for a family of 4 that's 40k. Research again showed current spending is about at 10k per person, so effectively spending would roughly the same. So now we need to see if business will agree to keep spending that 80% on everyone. If not then this will fail.

And, according to the guy who figured 33 trillion, that's the far lower number, not the probable number, or average expected number. He said probably 50% higher, to 100% higher would be about correct. 

[Einsteinium]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Some research suggests that the Bernie version will cost 33 trillion over 10 years. So lets use 3.3 trillion per year. Also research suggests that employers pay about 82% of all premiums. So assuming 325 million people that's roughly 10k each. So for a family of 4 that's 40k. Research again showed current spending is about at 10k per person, so effectively spending would roughly the same. So now we need to see if business will agree to keep spending that 80% on everyone. If not then this will fail.

And, according to the guy who figured 33 trillion, that's the far lower number, not the probable number, or average expected number. He said probably 50% higher, to 100% higher would be about correct. 

Lots to figure out, but insurance companies are for profit as well, so they are making money from companies and individuals that fatten their own pockets considerably without any of that profit going towards actual health care costs. So how much profit do they take off the top? 10%? Less or more? That goes away with a medicare for all model.

Other countries do this, we can do it too if we are smart.

Yes I get that we will have waiting lists for some things, but is that worse than people just not being able for afford care and not going to get care? Because that is the reason why we do not have waiting lists.

 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Some research suggests that the Bernie version will cost 33 trillion over 10 years. So lets use 3.3 trillion per year. Also research suggests that employers pay about 82% of all premiums. So assuming 325 million people that's roughly 10k each. So for a family of 4 that's 40k. Research again showed current spending is about at 10k per person, so effectively spending would roughly the same. 

Firstly, citations. 

Secondly, how do you explain that plenty of countries manage exactly what you say is impossible? 

[+susieice]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Some research suggests that the Bernie version will cost 33 trillion over 10 years. So lets use 3.3 trillion per year. Also research suggests that employers pay about 82% of all premiums. So assuming 325 million people that's roughly 10k each. So for a family of 4 that's 40k. Research again showed current spending is about at 10k per person, so effectively spending would roughly the same. So now we need to see if business will agree to keep spending that 80% on everyone. If not then this will fail.

And, according to the guy who figured 33 trillion, that's the far lower number, not the probable number, or average expected number. He said probably 50% higher, to 100% higher would be about correct. 

Now if you are disabled, you have to wait 2 years for medicare. Didn't used to be like that. Also, if you are on medicare, you pay a monthly premium that goes up every year. You also need a supplemental because medicare doesn't cover a lot. So you still need private insurance coverage.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Einsteinium said:

Lots to figure out, but insurance companies are for profit as well, so they are making money from companies and individuals that fatten their own pockets considerably without any of that profit going towards actual health care costs. So how much profit do they take off the top? 10%? Less or more? That goes away with a medicare for all model.

Other countries do this, we can do it too if we are smart.

Yes I get that we will have waiting lists for some things, but is that worse than people just not being able for afford care and not going to get care? Because that is the reason why we do not have waiting lists.

I  think we will not get there by just reassigning who pays the bills.  The medical and pharmaceutical "Industries" and they are industries will have to be subjected to the pressures of competition and accountability too. Automation may help more as well. Maybe getting less for more every year is not a good outcome for American citizens expecting good health care.

[Einsteinium]

19 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I  think we will not get there by just reassigning who pays the bills.  The medical and pharmaceutical "Industries" and they are industries will have to be subjected to the pressures of competition and accountability too. Automation may help more as well. Maybe getting less for more every year is not a good outcome for American citizens expecting good health care.

I agree, right now our system is not set up for competition and is basically a state sanctioned private oligopoly. It is super inefficient and is set up to primarily benefit insurance companies and drug companies and not the individuals who need care.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Some research suggests that the Bernie version will cost 33 trillion over 10 years. So lets use 3.3 trillion per year. Also research suggests that employers pay about 82% of all premiums. So assuming 325 million people that's roughly 10k each. So for a family of 4 that's 40k. Research again showed current spending is about at 10k per person, so effectively spending would roughly the same. So now we need to see if business will agree to keep spending that 80% on everyone. If not then this will fail.

A federal tax on legalized pot would offset any shortcomings very easily and i think all dem candidates have said they're for it.

My hope is that Trump will steal that election issue from them by pushing his GOP to sign off on the the 420 bill.

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, Setton said:

Firstly, citations. 

Secondly, how do you explain that plenty of countries manage exactly what you say is impossible? 

Shrugs..... 

I've heard that nurses in England, for example, make about 30 thousand pounds a year, on average. But my mother in law who has like 30 years of nursing makes like 150 dollars a year. So I expect there is pay disparity. I can maybe look it up on salary sites.

Short of it is, other nations pay less, stretch more, cover less, and ration to some degree.

[Einsteinium]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Shrugs..... 

I've heard that nurses in England, for example, make about 30 thousand pounds a year, on average. But my mother in law who has like 30 years of nursing makes like 150 dollars a year. So I expect there is pay disparity. I can maybe look it up on salary sites.

Short of it is, other nations pay less, stretch more, cover less, and ration to some degree.

We also cover less and ration, we just do it by ability to pay. If you can pay, you can get the care you want when you want, if you can't, well then you are screwed. It is one way to ration care I guess, in my opinion it is not a just way.

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

A federal tax on legalized pot would offset any shortcomings very easily and i think all dem candidates have said they're for it.

My hope is that Trump will steal that election issue from them by pushing his GOP to sign off on the the 420 bill.

Pot. Seriously? We legalized pot here in Oregon and it's been a none entity issue. Few shops have stayed open, and those just barely. The "crop" of pot grown last year was enough for 10 years of demand. Prices are through the floor. Demand is weak. And the taxes raised are a token amount compared to the lottery money brought in.

I'll go double check all that, as it is from memory.

[Einsteinium]

24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Pot. Seriously? We legalized pot here in Oregon and it's been a none entity issue. Few shops have stayed open, and those just barely. The "crop" of pot grown last year was enough for 10 years of demand. Prices are through the floor. Demand is weak. And the taxes raised are a token amount compared to the lottery money brought in.

I'll go double check all that, as it is from memory.

Well Colorado is experiencing a huge boom from legal marijuana. Too bad it is lot legal nationally, because then your overproduction in Oregon could be bought elsewhere where demand is high. Instead, your overproduction of pot is flooding black markets around the country which means no tax dollars.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Shrugs..... 

I've heard that nurses in England, for example, make about 30 thousand pounds a year, on average. But my mother in law who has like 30 years of nursing makes like 150 dollars a year. So I expect there is pay disparity. I can maybe look it up on salary sites.

Short of it is, other nations pay less, stretch more, cover less, and ration to some degree.

Absolutely there is a pay disparity, unless you look at private hospitals (although I hope for the sake of your mother in law that's a typo!). But cover less? We cover everything for everyone. 

The question is, do you want decent health care for everyone and the option to pay for better if you want to or exceptional health care for the wealthy and inadequate for the rest?

If the second, obviously that's your choice, along with the rest of the electorate, and on your conscience. 

[Farmer77]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Pot. Seriously? We legalized pot here in Oregon and it's been a none entity issue. Few shops have stayed open, and those just barely. The "crop" of pot grown last year was enough for 10 years of demand. Prices are through the floor. Demand is weak. And the taxes raised are a token amount compared to the lottery money brought in.

I'll go double check all that, as it is from memory.

Dude in 18 months (the first of full legalization if i recall correctly) the state collected 108.6 million dollars in tax revenue. Thats in OREGON where the entire southern half of the state is one giant pot farm. Can you imagine the tax revenue from a place like Indiana where the average citizen has to use the dispensary system?

Extrapolate that revenue across 50 states plus 3 territories and it could go a very long way to filling any holes in the budget.

 

Quote

The checks are in the mail.

That's the message the Oregon Department of Revenue sent Friday when it announced it will pay out $85 million in marijuana taxes for schools, public health, police and local governments by next week.

The payouts represent the first distributions of state marijuana tax revenues since Oregon opened its legal recreational cannabis market.

Oregon collected a total of $108.6 million in state and local taxes between Jan. 4, 2016, and Aug. 31, 2017. T

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Farmer77

[Tatetopa]

Funny, I heard AOC on the news talking about getting lobbyists and corruption out of politics.  My God, what an air-headed conservative.  I thought she was a Democrat. That will never work in the real world.

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Funny, I heard AOC on the news talking about getting lobbyists and corruption out of politics.  My God, what an air-headed conservative.  I thought she was a Democrat. That will never work in the real world.

did she say "Drain the swamp"? If so, she's got my vote.

[+DieChecker]

23 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

Well Colorado is experiencing a huge boom from legal marijuana. Too bad it is lot legal nationally, because then your overproduction in Oregon could be bought elsewhere where demand is high. Instead, your overproduction of pot is flooding black markets around the country which means no tax dollars.

It also means a lot of the yearly licenses were not renewed, so most of the legal Grow Operations went out of business. Probably they'll have to just destroy their remaining inventory. Or claim that all of it is for "personal" use.

[+DieChecker]

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Dude in 18 months (the first of full legalization if i recall correctly) the state collected 108.6 million dollars in tax revenue. Thats in OREGON where the entire southern half of the state is one giant pot farm. Can you imagine the tax revenue from a place like Indiana where the average citizen has to use the dispensary system?

Extrapolate that revenue across 50 states plus 3 territories and it could go a very long way to filling any holes in the budget.

 

 

https://www.oregon.gov/transparency/docs/2018/2017_-_2019_Legislative_Adopted_Budget/Chart_2_-_2017-2019_Leg._AdoptBudget_Tot-by Source_-_March_2018.pdf

1.1 Billion dollar for 2 years from the Lottery, which is 1.5% of the budget. So even if tax collects 150 million over 2 years, that would be about 0.1% of the Budget. That would be 150 million out of 75.7 billion spent.

https://www.oregon.gov/transparency/docs/2018/2017_-_2019_Legislative_Adopted_Budget/Chart_1_-_2017-2019_Leg_ AdoptBudget_Tot-by Fund-March_2018.pdf

So if we applied that to JUST K-12 education (8.2 billion over 2 years) it would increase their spending by about 1.5%. 

That's NOT going to solve any of the funding shortcomings of anywhere on anything, IMHO.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/04/18/oregon-grew-more-cannabis-than-customers-can-smoke-now-shops-and-farmers-are-left-with-mountains-of-unwanted-bud/

The sad story of Oregon's pot industry. 

Quote

That means Oregon farmers have grown three times what their clientele can smoke in a year.

Yet state documents show the number of Oregon weed farmers is poised to double this summer—without much regard to whether there's demand to fill.

The result? Prices are dropping to unprecedented lows in auction houses and on dispensary counters across the state.

...

But it has left growers and sellers with a high-cost product that's a financial loser. And a new feeling has descended on the once-confident Oregon cannabis industry: panic.

"The business has been up and down and up and down," says Don Morse, who closed his Human Collective II dispensary in Southwest Portland four months ago. "But in a lot of ways it has just been down and down for dispensaries."

This month, WW spoke to two dozen people across Oregon's cannabis industry. They describe a bleak scene: Small businesses laying off employees and shrinking operations. Farms shuttering. People losing their life's savings are unable to declare bankruptcy because marijuana is still a federally scheduled narcotic.

...

Mom-and-pop farms are accepting low-ball offers to sell to out-of-state investors, and what was once a diverse—and local—market is increasingly owned by a few big players. And frantic growers face an even greater temptation to illegally leak excess grass across state lines—and into the cross hairs of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Justice Department.

...

"The prices are so low," she wrote, "and without hustling all day, hoping to find the odd shop with an empty jar, it doesn't seem to move at any price."

Cordell has a rare level of visibility for a cannabis grower. Her Oregon City farm, Oregon Girl Gardens, received glowing profiles from Dope Magazine and Oregon Leaf. She has 12 years of experience in the medical marijuana system, a plot of family land in Clackamas County, and branding as one of the state's leaders in organic and women-led cannabis horticulture.

She fears she'll be out of business by the end of the year.

...

Duyck sent 60 pounds of pot to the auction block in December. He had adjusted his expectations downward: He hoped to see something in the ballpark of $400 a pound.

It sold for $100 a pound.

"The price per pound that it costs us to raise this product is significantly higher than the hundred dollars a pound," says Duyck. (A little light math points to a $250-per-unit production cost.) "Currently, we're operating at a $15,000-per-month loss," Duyck says.

If prices don't improve soon, Duyck says he won't be able to justify renewing his OLCC license for another year.

...

"When you're the little guy buying the product from wholesalers, you can't afford to compete," he says. "There's only so far you can lower the price. There's too much of everything and too many people in the industry."

So Morse closed his shop: "We paid our creditors and that was that. That was the end of it."

Despite losing his business, Morse stands behind Oregon's light touch when it comes to regulating the industry.

"It's just commercialism at its finest," he says. "Let the best survive. That's just the way it goes in capitalism. That's just the way it goes."

 

[acidhead]

The gift that keeps giving...

 

[ian hacktorp]

Quote

There’s a reason a large of Congresswomen are former scouts!

Simple typo.  She meant to type: "large oaf Congresswomen".

And with no term limits, there is certainly more than a few of those.