Governing through Reason
Democrat Hochul Prevails in NY-26 Special Election
Hochul: Pals Around with Muslims, Has Funny Name, Doesn’t Live in Her District
Much will be made of tonight’s result in New York’s 26th Congressional District, but in the end, it’s just another special election with results specific to that district and the needs and voting patterns of that particular constituency.
Before tonight’s election, New York’s 26th District had a Cook Political Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of R+6, indicating a Republican-leaning district.
Erie County Clerk Kathleen “Kathy” Hochul is now the Representative-elect for the 26th Congressional District of the State of New York. Oddly, Hochul does not even live in the district she represents, and therefore could not vote for herself.
Photographed Shirtless Lee
The seat was opened when its former occupant, Republican Chris Lee, abruptly resigned after it was revealed he had sent a shirtless photo to a woman who was not his wife.
At this writing, with 607⁄627 precincts in, Hochul has 48,530 votes (47%), Republican Jane Corwin has 43,836 (43%), and potential spoiler and perennial grumpy old man candidate Jack Davis, running on the Tea Party line, is at 9,495 (9%). Green Party Candidate Ian Murphy received 1,130 votes (1%). It looks like Davis voters had little impact on the outcome of the election, since it was not clear whether Davis would drain votes from Hochul or Corwin but probably didn’t pull more than 3⁄4 of his votes from either.
These results are in good alignment with the polls, as reported by Michael Weiss earlier. The Siena College poll had Hochul at 42%, Corwin at 38%, and Davis at 12%. In the contemporaneous Public Policy Polling data, Hochul was at 44%, Corwin at 38%, and Davis at 13%.
Tellingly, the voters polled by PPP held a 51%/37% favorable/unfavorable view of Hochul. Views of Corwin were negative, at 34/52, and even more so for Davis, at 23⁄62. Under those circumstances, it was clearly hard for Corwin to gain much traction with the 13% of voters who had not yet made up their mind about her in the PPP poll. (President Obama has a 42% approve, 51% disapprove rating in the same population, so this is not a particularly Democrat-friendly group.)
About a fifth of the voters in the Siena College poll named Medicare as the most important issue affecting their voting preference.
While pundits on both sides will try to make much of this, my read of the numbers says that Hochul was simply better liked by the voters than Corwin.
It appears that as predicted by Nate Silver, many of Davis’ voters abandoned his hopeless campaign at the last minute.
Related articles
- NY23 Redux? (logarchism.com)
- New York 26 Looks to Have Gone Democratic (538refugees.wordpress.com)
- Preview of NY26 Special Election (logarchism.com)
- Democrat Hochul Wins NY-26, Spelling Doom for Republican Plans to Kill Medicare (slog.thestranger.com)
- Democrat Kathy Hochul wins upstate NY race — Reuters (news.google.com)
- Democrat Hochul wins closely watched N.Y. election (marketwatch.com)
- Hochul Wins in NY-26: Dems Claim a Medicare Scalp as GOP Points to Special Circumstances (swampland.time.com)
- Voters Head to the Polls in NY-26 Special Election (themoderatevoice.com)
- “New York Special Election Has Kathy Hochul Facing Off Against Jane Corwin” and related posts (huffingtonpost.com)
- Is NY-26 Really Just A Referendum On Medicare? The Mainstream Media Seems To Think So (mediaite.com)
-
#102 written by rgbact 1 year ago
DC–
Insurance companies are in the trust business. Would a company like Aetna be able to garner massive amounts of clients and be in business for 100+ years if it never paid claims? Not likely. Any bad publicity kills peoples trust in Aetna–so they wouldn’t do that. What they don’t pay is massive amounts of fradulent claims—like Medicare does.
If you actually think the only reason that meat packers don’t sell rotten meat is the govt—then I think further economic debate may be pointless as you clearly despise free will and free enterprise.
-
#103 written by mclever 1 year ago
@rgbact
What if the question wasn’t about whether they could sell rotten meat, but whether or not those meat-packing companies could use cozy “partnership deals” that favor factory farms over smaller businesses thus limiting competition and artificially inflating prices for the consumer?
-
#104 written by shortchain 1 year ago
rgbact,
Odd that you should mention Aetna. The worst time I was ever screwed on medical insurance was by Aetna. They pre-approved a claim, and then, when I had the procedure, they after-the-fact refused to pay it, claiming that they hadn’t approved all the claims. This was a sinus operation — but the surgeon found that a part of the problem was a deviated septum, which he corrected part-way while he was in there.
Aetna makes its money by offering cheap, sub-standard insurance that companies can purchase for their lower-level employees, who then don’t discover that they’ve been screwed until after they’ve had the insurance.
Sure, you can say “don’t work for a company that insures with Aetna” — but then you go to work somewhere and, to save money, the company switches to Aetna — and what is your choice worth then?
-
#105 written by rgbact 1 year ago
-
#106 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#107 written by shiloh 1 year ago
-
Grog, I agree with Max @ 7:22 this morning
Gator, you still have not answered. Yes or no. Is it a good idea for the government to force meat packers to refrain from selling rotten meat?
Let me ask it another way, since you have proven incapable of answering that simple question.
It is illegal for meat packers to sell rotten meat to consumers. There is a government regulation that says it’s illegal. The government will impose fines, or worse, if the meat packers break this law. Now, I’m not claiming whether this law is the only way to prevent the sale of rotten meat. I’m not asking you if there is another way. I’m asking whether you think it is a good idea for the government to regulate the meat packing industry in this way.
Simple question. Stop evading.
-
-
rgbact,
Insurance companies are in the trust business.
Yes, insofar as they need to have people believe that they will pay out in order to collect premiums. Some more history for you to read (but it sounds like you won’t)…look into what happened with insurance payouts in late April of 1906.
Meanwhile, since 60% of health insurance customers in the United States don’t actually choose their providers, the insurance companies don’t have to gain the trust of most of their direct customers.
Any bad publicity kills peoples trust in Aetna
Not true at all. Aetna is one of the lowest-rated health insurance companies in the country. But it doesn’t matter, because the people they insure don’t really have a choice.
What they don’t pay is massive amounts of fradulent claims—like Medicare does.
More homework for you. Find out the percent of Aetna’s and Medicare’s claims that are fraudulent. I already know the answer, but your statement suggests you don’t.
If you actually think the only reason that meat packers don’t sell rotten meat is the govt—then I think further economic debate may be pointless as you clearly despise free will and free enterprise.
Are you familiar with The Jungle?
-
rgbact
Would a company like Aetna be able to garner massive amounts of clients and be in business for 100+ years if it never paid claims?I didn’t say they “never” paid claims. I said they lose money when they pay claims, and that their profits depend on finding ways to not pay claims. This is the whole point of an insurance company — they take in money, and seek to pay out less than they take in. They produce no other product, so they have no production costs or raw material costs like a manufacturing company does. They get higher profits when less money goes out; they even give bonuses to employees who find ways to avoid paying claims.
A car company does not give bonuses to employees who avoid making cars.
Of course insurance companies have to pay some claims. They are merely in the business of paying as few as possible.
What they don’t pay is massive amounts of fradulent claims—like Medicare does.
I trust you will now present the statistics on the “massive amounts” of fraudulent Medicare claims. It is larger or smaller than the percentage that insurance companies take in overhead? (Hint: smaller. Way smaller.)
If you actually think the only reason that meat packers don’t sell rotten meat is the govt
Find where I said “only reason”. I didn’t. I merely asked if government regulations that prevent the sale of rotten meat are a good idea. What do you think? Yes or no?
-
#112 written by Gator 1 year ago
DC
Re: meat packers — not evading. It is a stupid question that deserves no response.
Evil was my word, you said that they are in the business to cheat and deny consumers. If this is true, would you not characterize that as evil? I would. You suggest that they intentionally deny life saving care to clients as a matter of policy. Do you not consider this evil? Please clarify. These are the actual charges you leveled. I assigned the alleged behaviour the evil tag. Do you disagree? Or are you back pedaling from your scurrilous comments regarding their abusive and fraudulent policies?
-
#113 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#114 written by Gator 1 year ago
DC you don’t seem to know much about the insurance business. Insurers take in money and INVEST IT to generate more revenue. They do not have a dollar in dollar out (less costs) model. They also have reinsurance options to mitigate their exposure. They negotiate bulk purchasing from health care providers. They all offer better costs for in network services. They have a number of ways that they lower costs. And they provide the services as specified in their contracts just like every other business must. You really are blinded by partisanship.
Why haven’t you answered my question about your hospital costs? You run from the heart of the issue by playing games with semantics. Answer my questions.
Do those people deserve to lose their jobs?
How much did you pay as opposed to your insurer for the last hospital stay? -
Gator
Re: meat packers – not evading. It is a stupid question that deserves no response.Not, it’s not. I’m making a series of points about the value of government regulation of industry. This should be a simple matter. Is this particular regulation a good idea or not?
Again, I accept your apology for lying about my use of the word “evil”, and I thank you for admitting you made that up. I’ll consider responding to your other points after you answer my question about regulations on selling rotten meat, because there’s a useful conversation to be had about the value of government regulation.
-
#116 written by Gator 1 year ago
DC you are being childish. It is a stupid question whose answer is self evident and you are being too petty to just let it go. What are you 12? Of course the govt. should insure a safe food supply.
Now answer my question… Do those people deserve to lose their jobs? Do you have the gall to say that sacrificing a million or two million fellow Americans jobs is ok with you? That you think that would be a good thing because it would mean the system you advocate had been adopted? You answer my question, because unlike yours it isn’t stupid, it is valid and cogent. Because DC, NO ONE ADVOCATED ENDING MEAT INSPECTIONS, BUT YOU HAVE ADVOCATED DOING AWAY WITH THOSE JOBS. So while your question is ridiculous and off point, mine is not. Answer it.
-
Gator,
Do those people deserve to lose their jobs?
Deserve? Does anyone who is doing what their employer asks “deserve” to be laid off? No, but it happens all the time. But people’s jobs appear and disappear all the time when circumstances change. Certainly, a good chunk of them would be picked up by the agency handling the government program.
But is it the government’s role to protect people’s jobs, even if they are hurting others in the process? If, for example, making a policy change results in laying off 5,000 workers who were each making $50,000/year, but creates 10,000 new jobs at $50,000/year each…or creates 5,000 new jobs at $60,000/year…is that something that government should consider?
-
#118 written by mclever 1 year ago
Gator,
Considering that hospital stays and medical treatments are protected private concerns, I don’t think badgering DC for that information is productive. He’s under no obligation to share it with you, not even as part of a debate. That’s a cheap shot at him, and I think you know that.
Instead of demanding private details of one person’s experiences (as if that anecdotal evidence would actually prove anything), aren’t you really suggesting that the plentiful and varied claims of the millions of people who have suffered when their insurance company either didn’t pay as expected or dropped the coverage as soon as they got sick are all lies?
They’re not.
I’ve had my share of issues with health insurance coverage, though I won’t go into the particulars, but suffice it to say that without the new PPACA laws I wouldn’t be able to get health coverage on the individual market. I know, because I tried to get new coverage when my previous insurer dropped me after a visit to the emergency room for a sports-related injury. More than 20 different insurance plans declined my application on the basis of “pre-existing conditions.” When I had to tell my doctor’s office that I no longer could get insurance, the doctor’s immediate reaction was, “Why not? You’re healthy!”
If you’ve got a job (or retirement benefits) from a big company that offers a premium health benefits package, then it’s really easy to sit there and say, “Just let the free market work its magic.” But for those who’ve actually suffered the depredations of that “free” market, it’s plain that substantial regulation is required to prevent the insurance industry from taking advantage of its captive customer base.
Refusing to cover people with “pre-existing conditions” is one way that insurers have discriminated. Should the electric company be able to decline service to a paying customer simply because they have a “pre-existing condition” of having once used a lot of electricity for a weekend six years ago? But with health insurers, it’s worse than that, because they’re declining coverage to the people who need it most, those with their lives on the line because they need ongoing treatment.
Dropping people as soon as they are injured or sick is another way that insurers have shirked their responsibilities to their customers. Annual and life-time caps is another. “Pre-approving” a procedure and then weaseling out of paying on a technicality is yet another. It’s to the benefit of the insurer’s bottom line to avoid paying claims, so they have often jumped through incredible (arguably immoral) hoops for that reason.
These are the sorts of problems that result when a private, for-profit company is in the business of providing a product that really should be more of a community service. Michael’s earlier mention of the issues with private fire-fighting companies is a good example of why some types of “business”–especially those that pertain to maintaining the basic lives and well-being of citizens–are really better off as a public service rather than a for-profit business.
-
#119 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
Gator,
What a effing STUPID question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do those people deserve to lose their jobs? Do you have the gall to say that sacrificing a million or two million fellow Americans jobs is ok with you?
If two million Americans are participating in a industry that is feeding rotten meat to 300 million Americans?
Yes. Hell, YES! Unequivocally, HELL YES!
Two million Americans versus 300 million? You’d be a damned fool to say otherwise. Are you a damned fool?
Would you be so stupid to think that those two million couldn’t smell that rotten meat?
Would you be so stupid to think that those two million were not sacrificing their principles, their honor, their very right to call themselves American while selling rotten meat to the other 298 million?
Are you a damned fool? Because only a damned fool would support, even rhetorically, the poisoning of all Americans by 2⁄3 of one percent and think that to be a fair trade off.
Not only should they lose their jobs, but the officers of the company and every manager down to the floor supervisor should be convicted for endangerment and murder where deaths occurred!
If Ford told it’s employees not to hook up the brake lines on it’s cars, AND THE EMPLOYEES simply did as they were told, would they deserve to lose their jobs?
HELL YES!!!!!!!!
Or perhaps some damned fool might thing otherwise. Would that be you?
-
#120 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Oh great–Max is here to let us know he has an opinion on something.
Gator–
The answer to your question is the insurance jobs would only matter if they were unionized. Then they would be protected no matter how much of a waste they were. Liberals would then be fighting for their rights to screw over the taxpayer and get fat raises. But…they’re not in a AFL-CIO union.….so all those little old lady claims processors can eat dirt.
-
-
#122 written by Gator 1 year ago
Michael, aside from the fact that everything you said is supposition and “what if”, it doesn’t follow from a logic standpoint. If the number of employees and the costs of those employees is HIGHER (as per your examples) then WHY would we be switching delivery systems. Ergo the only logical reason for switching would be cost savings which would necessarily mean less jobs, less cost, greater efficiency. A reduction in positions and in gross compensation. Higher levels of unemployment.
And this: “But is it the government’s role to protect people’s jobs, even if they are hurting others in the process?”REALLY!?! This is a road you want to travel down?! REALLY!?!?! Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa!
mclever, I have never worked for a corporation or had a job that included insurance. The only time in my life I worked for other people were cash jobs in bars and clubs when I was young and single. I had health insurance for a few years in the 90s when my better half was at AT&T/Bell. Other than that I have never been insured other than by buying an individual policy, as I have now. $10K deductible. $300 a month for nothing… except it’s not. It is to protect my assets. I pay for my own vaccinations and flu visits to the Dr. and such. It is essentially catastrophic coverage and it suits me fine. And if I have a serious medical issue it will cover me.
And mclever, I wasn’t asking DC for personal info, simply a : the total was 32K — I paid 3K the insurance co paid 29K. Simple comparison of costs. It is not a cheap shot at him and I think YOU know that. It would however, blow up his argument and make him look foolish. You guys don’t like when I do that to you, huh? -
#123 written by Gator 1 year ago
-
#124 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
The answer to your question is the insurance jobs would only matter if they were unionized.
Oh great — rgb is here to give some totally irrelevant, ideologically driven, silly and unsupported opinion that has NO basis in fact.
So typical. So predictable. So unoriginal.
That reminds me. Some on the right are so unimaginative as to not to be able to see the analogy. So for you poor souls:
Substitute: “health insurance company” for “Ford”, and,
“change coverage ex poste facto” for ” not to hook up the brake lines”.
Hopefully, we won’t have to come back and explain what “analogy” means.
-
Gator,
If the number of employees and the costs of those employees is HIGHER (as per your examples) then WHY would we be switching delivery systems.
In the supposition I laid out, I was talking about a scenario under which an industry shift would occur (say, from petroleum to nuclear). The point was that there are all sorts of considerations, and perhaps the question of whether a specific set of employees gets laid off is outside the scope of consideration.
This is a road you want to travel down?!
Sure. Just because I’m to the left of most Republicans doesn’t mean that I believe in Communism.
As for your health insurance example…
And if I have a serious medical issue it will cover me.
Speaking from personal experience, yes it will. And then you will be dropped at the next renewal. And then you’ll be uninsured. Or, at least, that’s how it worked before the ACA.
-
#126 written by rgbact 1 year ago
-
-
#128 written by Gator 1 year ago
Allow me to apologize. I shouldn’t have called Max, Captain Dementia. That lowers the level of dialogue. I should have said “I don’t speak to craven cowards suffering from senile dementia.” That shows the proper respect for the suffering of those afflicted with this pernicious disease. Again, I apologize for my lapse.
-
#129 written by shiloh 1 year ago
-
#130 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
Gator,
Please, no need to apologize. We fully understand your lack of conceptual awareness in the abstract. Unless it is as demonstrable as a Gator loss to the Seminoles.
Perhaps a couple of doses of strong drink will help you forget the pain, because I know you’re really no damned fool.
Best.
-
#131 written by GROG 1 year ago
Gator: WTF are you yammering on about Captain Dementia?
Allow me to apologize. I shouldn’t have called Max, Captain Dementia.I should have said “I don’t speak to craven cowards suffering from senile dementia.”
So when Max aka Captain Dementia says.….
All demonstrations of; his obfuscation, lack of depth and inconsistency; intentional or not, leading to, shall we say, poor debate style..….
.…..perhaps I should just smile, pat him on the head, and be on my way.
@DC,
Since you said you “agree with Max” in his criticism of me, which includes my inconsistincies, and you refused to answer me earlier, I will ask you again to please explain, using my quotes, where I’ve been inconsistent on this thread.
Thank you.
.
-
#132 written by mclever 1 year ago
@rgbact
It’s so sweet that you think “guaranteed renewable” really meant anything to health insurance companies (pre-PPACA). It’s sweet, like antifreeze.
Speaking from personal experience, there are ways to get around such “guarantees.” Despite being a loyal (and lucrative) customer who always paid my premiums on time while only seeing the doctor rarely, I was dropped shortly after I got a minor injury that unfortunately required a trip to the emergency room.
“We’re restructuring our policies and your current coverage will no longer be available,” the form-letter said when my next renewal came around.
If I wanted to continue getting health care coverage, then I needed to re-apply. When I got that letter, I naively thought it would be like car insurance, where I could just apply for a similar policy and keep going. Wrong. My re-application for nearly identical insurance at the same company that had been providing my continuous coverage for six years was rejected. So, I started shopping around for better rates and plans. Rejected, rejected, rejected. I tried to get one of those “catastrophic” plans like what Gator has, and I was rejected for that, too. I was forced to go without insurance, despite my relative good health and willingness to pay a reasonable premium.
Sorry, but after all of the health care debates that our country endured over the past couple of years, your ignorance about the actual business practices of the private insurance industry is appalling.
-
#133 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
GROG,
I’m sorry if my litany of your ACTUAL quotes confused you. (Guess that falls under the Fey/Gingrich school of using one’s own statements)
But my question was referring to:
Hey GROG, try this: Answer the question, in depth and detail as you understand it, then at the end of the comment pose YOUR question in return. As you do it now, getting detailed answers from you is like extracting molars from avians. You use your false laments to obfuscate the central issue.Try it and you will be pleasantly surprised at how your comments are received going forward, I’ll wager.
I’m sure one as wise as yourself has the ability to change one’s style.
But you see not need to change, you have no ground on which to stand and play the lachrymose victim.
Best.
-
#134 written by GROG 1 year ago
Max,
When the debate style of any number of commenters goes something like this, it’s difficult to take you and your lectures seriously…A commenter posts something other than a progressive opinion:
1) Make a false accusation with nothing to back it up
2) Misrepresent the non progressive commenter
3) If the non progressive points out that he/she has been misrepresented or falsely accused — immediately accuse him/her of playing the victim card
4) Bombard him with questions that have nothing to do with his non progressive statementThen if he/she asks a question, lecture him/her on proper debate style.
Hilarious.Btw, I stand by every statement I made that you copied and pasted. You’re free to explain why, for example, you don’t consider the Coast Guard a naval fleet.
-
#135 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#136 written by Gator 1 year ago
Max I am going to make a very brief exception to my stated objective of not engaging your cowardly ass, for the sole pupose of demonstrating your futility in trying to best me in anything. You are incapable. As an example, your juvenile attempt to arouse my “Gator pride” by your childish Seminole jibes would be ever so much more effective if my SECOND daughter weren’t currently residing in Tallhassee and attending (wait for it) FSU! Bwaaaahaaaahaaa! Moron! LMAO! I have a THIRD child, a son, who will most likely attend UCF so that won’t work either! LOL!
-
#137 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
Because we have a Navy. The Constitution says “Navy”.
It says: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;”It says, “Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
It does not say “Coast Guard”, just as it does not say “Air Force”. The Coast Guard operates interior to the country, and the Air Force is responsible for air and space.
But,
when you add some creativity to the basic Constitution and redefine and rationalize to generate something that is SIMPLY NOT THERE, you have already committed the act for which you criticize all those activists.
By your original argument, it should have required an Amendment, as happened with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War, recognizing the changed situation of the defense of air and space, to create the Air Force. The same for the Coast Guard for any activity other than interstate commerce or when it is subservient to the Navy. Telling me the kind of life vest I must buy and have on my yacht is extra to either of those.
It’s always the same thing, only different.
-
Gator
Of course the govt. should insure a safe food supply.There, that didn’t hurt too much, did it?
Good. We are agreed that at least some government regulation is desirable. The only question is, how much and in what areas? We can then proceed to the effects of a given proposed regulation.
What are the effects of allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance, until age 26? One effect is that more people will be able to afford college. Another is that more people age 21–26 will remain healthier. Fewer parents will go into bankruptcy paying their children’s medical bills. More healthy people will be covered by insurance, which means there will be more people paying in, which means there will be more money available for the people who need it.
I’ll let someone else list any downsides. The only one I’ve heard so far is this amorphous idea of fostering “dependency,” which doesn’t sound like either a realistic concern or an actual problem — rather like imagining there is widespread voter fraud to justify the use of voter ID cards, when the real intent is to suppress voter turnout.
I think we should debate proposed regulations on their merits and on their intent, as long as we’ve agreed that at least some regulation is both necessary and desirable.
-
#139 written by Gator 1 year ago
DC I notice you didn’t answer my questions. Can’t blame you. There is no answer that won’t make you look foolish or demented as other opinions on here demonstrate. Run away little fellow. Or man up and answer MY questions. Do those people deserve to lose their jobs? Are you in favor of a proposal that will result in a million(s) losing their jobs? Do you support that? Answer the question. These are real people with real jobs. Answer.
-
Grog,
It seemed inconsistent to me that you would view a law that allows parents to keep their children on their insurance as encouraging “dependency”– that you would complain we should be more independent and self-reliant — while at the same time defending the right of parents to leave fortunes to their grown children — thus allowing them to remain completely without self-reliance. To me, those positions seem inconsistent.
-
#142 written by Gator 1 year ago
BTW DC I have another question for you. You have been adamant that I actually say that not allowing rotten meat to be sold was a good idea. I said early on that it was a stupid question because the answer was self evident. So either you aren’t bright enough to understand what I meant by self evident, in which case you are really a little slow, or conversely, you understood exactly what I meant and were just so petty that you wanted a concession to ‘prove your point’. So my question is — which is it? Are you really not very bright or are you childish and petty? Just curious. And if it is that you really are a little slow, please accept my apologies for pointing it out.
-
#143 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
-
#144 written by GROG 1 year ago
Max, you’re just wrong.
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” It’s one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
DC,
Again, I may strongly disagree with things people do, but I will even more strongly defend their right to do it. There is nothing inconsistent about that. -
@Max
go ahead and answer the little guy, he’ll pout for days until you do.True enough. We don’t want a pouting gator.
Do the people in the insurance industry “deserve” to lose their jobs? Some of them, I suppose — the ones who are aware of the predatory nature of their industry, and choose to remain there anyway.
It’s like the people who work as accountants for the mob. They don’t actually steal anything or kill anyone, but they support the enterprise that does. When the mob leader is put in jail and the organization falls apart, do the accountants “deserve” to lose their jobs? Do the children of the accountants “deserve” to have their parents out of work? Tough questions.
Fortunately, creating a universal single-payer system will create more jobs than it eliminates — most of them needing the same skills. The same sorts of accounting, office work, etc. will still be needed, to provide coverage for perhaps two hundred million people. Of course, those would now be government jobs, which conservatives love to hate.
Conservatives love to eliminate government jobs. Do the people in government jobs deserve to lose their jobs? Do their children deserve to starve? To paraphrase you, Gator — It’s a real question. We’re talking about real people.
-
#148 written by shiloh 1 year ago
-
#149 written by Gator 1 year ago
You guys are great! Just wind you up and watch you go! You’re like an amalgam of crappy ‘70s little boys games… the brains of Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robot, missing a heart like an old Operation set and the junk of a Ken doll. Take your pills, change your Depends and toddle on off to bed now fellas.
Liberals! LMAO!
-
#150 written by maxakabirdpilot 1 year ago
GREAT retort, Gator! Just fantastic! A winning argument in ANY arena!
Was just watching an episode of Swamp People. Man, did they each have a boatload of dead Gators. You’d think that, after a while, them gators would be smart enough not to go after that chicken neck on that cable.
Sadly, not the case. Guess just not advanced enough to be able to differentiate, to extrapolate and to keep out of the bottom of that swamper’s boat.
Reminds me of GOP Congressmen, Senators and Governors.
Did I mention what a fine retort you gave. One of the most intellectual I’ve heard from the Right in quite a while!
Now I know just how snide this comment is. How childish. But I enjoy a good race.
Even to the bottom.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Hey DC one more quick question for you. Since you seem to like to make blanket statements about what the insurance industry her FAILS to provide, you must have some firsthand experience. So here is my question… The last time that you or anyone in your family went to the hospital and was admitted, how much did you or they pay and how much did your insurance company pay? Please be specific.