dark-chocolate
@dark-chocolate.bsky.social
People who saw non-trivial premium increases under Obamacare invariably didn't have real insurance w/ robust coverage before.
It's super obvious costs would plummet. We pay 38% more per capita for healthcare for 60-64 yr. olds vs. 65-69 yr. olds (should be reversed).
www.kff.org/medicare/hea....
It's super obvious costs would plummet. We pay 38% more per capita for healthcare for 60-64 yr. olds vs. 65-69 yr. olds (should be reversed).
www.kff.org/medicare/hea....
December 3, 2025 at 11:30 PM
People who saw non-trivial premium increases under Obamacare invariably didn't have real insurance w/ robust coverage before.
It's super obvious costs would plummet. We pay 38% more per capita for healthcare for 60-64 yr. olds vs. 65-69 yr. olds (should be reversed).
www.kff.org/medicare/hea....
It's super obvious costs would plummet. We pay 38% more per capita for healthcare for 60-64 yr. olds vs. 65-69 yr. olds (should be reversed).
www.kff.org/medicare/hea....
Maybe mocked isn't the right word, but you seem incredulous that when you present very specific problems and then present a solution, I expect you to think for a moment about how the solution addresses those specific problems and have answers about that. Or else move on to different solutions.
December 1, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Maybe mocked isn't the right word, but you seem incredulous that when you present very specific problems and then present a solution, I expect you to think for a moment about how the solution addresses those specific problems and have answers about that. Or else move on to different solutions.
December 1, 2025 at 6:05 AM
You didn't bother to check the calendar date?
Nov 24 2025.
If you start from there then it's *7* days
Nov 24 2025.
If you start from there then it's *7* days
November 30, 2025 at 9:43 PM
You didn't bother to check the calendar date?
Nov 24 2025.
If you start from there then it's *7* days
Nov 24 2025.
If you start from there then it's *7* days
You first offered $90k as that cost.
Later you wrote that $100k is not much these days.
These figures are higher than per capita GDP.
You fail to see how this is mathematically impossible magical thinking?
Later you wrote that $100k is not much these days.
These figures are higher than per capita GDP.
You fail to see how this is mathematically impossible magical thinking?
November 30, 2025 at 8:55 PM
You first offered $90k as that cost.
Later you wrote that $100k is not much these days.
These figures are higher than per capita GDP.
You fail to see how this is mathematically impossible magical thinking?
Later you wrote that $100k is not much these days.
These figures are higher than per capita GDP.
You fail to see how this is mathematically impossible magical thinking?
You didn't explain anything. I referenced the NYC pilot twice and you just ignored that and repeated the same irrelevant & demonstrable falsehoods.
November 30, 2025 at 7:28 PM
You didn't explain anything. I referenced the NYC pilot twice and you just ignored that and repeated the same irrelevant & demonstrable falsehoods.
Are you searching for "30% rule housing cost"?
Are you in St. Louis?
10 out of the first 10 refer to gross income.
Are you in St. Louis?
10 out of the first 10 refer to gross income.
November 30, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Are you searching for "30% rule housing cost"?
Are you in St. Louis?
10 out of the first 10 refer to gross income.
Are you in St. Louis?
10 out of the first 10 refer to gross income.
Excuse me, $21k
November 29, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Excuse me, $21k
Your proposal(s) are hard to pin down. Forcing a biz to issue more stock is arguably a govt taking.
But I also pointed out several other problems & your response was to "nationalize part of the market, dollar for dollar with private investors".
That's inarguably a govt taking.
But I also pointed out several other problems & your response was to "nationalize part of the market, dollar for dollar with private investors".
That's inarguably a govt taking.
November 29, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Your proposal(s) are hard to pin down. Forcing a biz to issue more stock is arguably a govt taking.
But I also pointed out several other problems & your response was to "nationalize part of the market, dollar for dollar with private investors".
That's inarguably a govt taking.
But I also pointed out several other problems & your response was to "nationalize part of the market, dollar for dollar with private investors".
That's inarguably a govt taking.
You made a statement about something that could be measured:
"you have to drive longer distances just to access fresh food"
... and it's been measured, and shown to be false.
"you have to drive longer distances just to access fresh food"
... and it's been measured, and shown to be false.
November 27, 2025 at 11:16 PM
You made a statement about something that could be measured:
"you have to drive longer distances just to access fresh food"
... and it's been measured, and shown to be false.
"you have to drive longer distances just to access fresh food"
... and it's been measured, and shown to be false.
The first part is not accurate.
Real wages were stagnant until Clinton's second term.
The bottom lost ground & didn't recover until ~2014.
It's correct the 1% owns >30% of wealth. The top 0.1% owns almost half of that.
www.visualcapitalist.com/growth-in-re...
Real wages were stagnant until Clinton's second term.
The bottom lost ground & didn't recover until ~2014.
It's correct the 1% owns >30% of wealth. The top 0.1% owns almost half of that.
www.visualcapitalist.com/growth-in-re...
November 25, 2025 at 3:04 PM
The first part is not accurate.
Real wages were stagnant until Clinton's second term.
The bottom lost ground & didn't recover until ~2014.
It's correct the 1% owns >30% of wealth. The top 0.1% owns almost half of that.
www.visualcapitalist.com/growth-in-re...
Real wages were stagnant until Clinton's second term.
The bottom lost ground & didn't recover until ~2014.
It's correct the 1% owns >30% of wealth. The top 0.1% owns almost half of that.
www.visualcapitalist.com/growth-in-re...
You can put on your glasses or mouseover the data points to see the exact figures. Or maybe you are doing a bit?
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOV...
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOV...
November 24, 2025 at 5:11 PM
You can put on your glasses or mouseover the data points to see the exact figures. Or maybe you are doing a bit?
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOV...
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOV...
Whether you accept it or not, the fact is it was reduced.
Refusing to acknowledge facts & reality is how we got Trump.
economics.td.com/us-household...
Refusing to acknowledge facts & reality is how we got Trump.
economics.td.com/us-household...
November 24, 2025 at 1:39 PM
Whether you accept it or not, the fact is it was reduced.
Refusing to acknowledge facts & reality is how we got Trump.
economics.td.com/us-household...
Refusing to acknowledge facts & reality is how we got Trump.
economics.td.com/us-household...
Did you read that? I don't think you apply those lessons...
It cautions against politicians & political operatives pushing details (like a 54 pg bill) or acting like control freaks.
Hire influencers & media people. Keep it simple. "try things knowing that most of them will fail"
It cautions against politicians & political operatives pushing details (like a 54 pg bill) or acting like control freaks.
Hire influencers & media people. Keep it simple. "try things knowing that most of them will fail"
November 18, 2025 at 10:14 PM
Did you read that? I don't think you apply those lessons...
It cautions against politicians & political operatives pushing details (like a 54 pg bill) or acting like control freaks.
Hire influencers & media people. Keep it simple. "try things knowing that most of them will fail"
It cautions against politicians & political operatives pushing details (like a 54 pg bill) or acting like control freaks.
Hire influencers & media people. Keep it simple. "try things knowing that most of them will fail"
So then why are they also giving it to Gender Infinity Inc, LA LGBT, Natl Ctr for Transgender Equality, ACLU, The Bail Project, nature conservancies, separation of church & state groups, Animal Justice League etc?
And putting pro-DEI statements on their website?
shellfoundation.org/about-shellf...
And putting pro-DEI statements on their website?
shellfoundation.org/about-shellf...
November 18, 2025 at 3:30 AM
So then why are they also giving it to Gender Infinity Inc, LA LGBT, Natl Ctr for Transgender Equality, ACLU, The Bail Project, nature conservancies, separation of church & state groups, Animal Justice League etc?
And putting pro-DEI statements on their website?
shellfoundation.org/about-shellf...
And putting pro-DEI statements on their website?
shellfoundation.org/about-shellf...
You are unable to separate your personal preferences from objective reality. She won Independents too.
November 13, 2025 at 4:38 PM
You are unable to separate your personal preferences from objective reality. She won Independents too.
9 point difference
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
November 13, 2025 at 3:39 PM
9 point difference
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
(a) You can't ignore the conservative anti-Trump voters who would stay home or vote 3rd party if Harris moved left.
(b) As I already shared, nonvoters overall preferred Trump. If every single eligible voter voted, Trump's margin would be slightly bigger.
www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u...
(b) As I already shared, nonvoters overall preferred Trump. If every single eligible voter voted, Trump's margin would be slightly bigger.
www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u...
November 13, 2025 at 3:28 PM
(a) You can't ignore the conservative anti-Trump voters who would stay home or vote 3rd party if Harris moved left.
(b) As I already shared, nonvoters overall preferred Trump. If every single eligible voter voted, Trump's margin would be slightly bigger.
www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u...
(b) As I already shared, nonvoters overall preferred Trump. If every single eligible voter voted, Trump's margin would be slightly bigger.
www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u...
And nonetheless Harris still lost more voters who thought she was too pro-Palestine than too pro-Israel
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
November 13, 2025 at 8:58 AM
And nonetheless Harris still lost more voters who thought she was too pro-Palestine than too pro-Israel
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
blueprint-research.com/polling/why-...
You've been arguing all this time without even looking at the data? Even after I linked it?
November 13, 2025 at 7:04 AM
You've been arguing all this time without even looking at the data? Even after I linked it?
You contradict yourself. You just wrote the opposite.
And it's voters in the bracket around the median income who swung the most toward Trump and I already showed real median income went up.
And it's voters in the bracket around the median income who swung the most toward Trump and I already showed real median income went up.
November 13, 2025 at 6:13 AM
You contradict yourself. You just wrote the opposite.
And it's voters in the bracket around the median income who swung the most toward Trump and I already showed real median income went up.
And it's voters in the bracket around the median income who swung the most toward Trump and I already showed real median income went up.
0-30k voted for Harris.
30k-50k voted exactly the same as 50k to 99k, but 50k to 99k was the bigger swing vs. 2020.
Your point? How does all that (non-white voters & 50k to 99k voters swinging the most) square with your explanation?
30k-50k voted exactly the same as 50k to 99k, but 50k to 99k was the bigger swing vs. 2020.
Your point? How does all that (non-white voters & 50k to 99k voters swinging the most) square with your explanation?
November 13, 2025 at 5:47 AM
0-30k voted for Harris.
30k-50k voted exactly the same as 50k to 99k, but 50k to 99k was the bigger swing vs. 2020.
Your point? How does all that (non-white voters & 50k to 99k voters swinging the most) square with your explanation?
30k-50k voted exactly the same as 50k to 99k, but 50k to 99k was the bigger swing vs. 2020.
Your point? How does all that (non-white voters & 50k to 99k voters swinging the most) square with your explanation?
November 11, 2025 at 11:56 PM
You can't keep your story straight.
This you? Stating "that's the stuff"?
Now you change your mind & decide it's "owners", i.e. the stock shareholders of incorporated businesses. Obviously they aren't earning wages for holding stock. Duh.
This you? Stating "that's the stuff"?
Now you change your mind & decide it's "owners", i.e. the stock shareholders of incorporated businesses. Obviously they aren't earning wages for holding stock. Duh.
November 11, 2025 at 4:55 AM
You can't keep your story straight.
This you? Stating "that's the stuff"?
Now you change your mind & decide it's "owners", i.e. the stock shareholders of incorporated businesses. Obviously they aren't earning wages for holding stock. Duh.
This you? Stating "that's the stuff"?
Now you change your mind & decide it's "owners", i.e. the stock shareholders of incorporated businesses. Obviously they aren't earning wages for holding stock. Duh.