leh-nerd skin-erd

You really have to hand it to HRC--in spite of years of embarrassment at the hands of her husband, the deaths under mysterious circumstances of some friends and associates, vast right wing conspiracies, bimbo eruptions, the apparent spontaneous and occasional loss of the use of her arms and legs while on the campaign trail, the heartache that comes with being labelled as careless and reckless with national secrets by her friends, and everything else she dealt with, she always managed to position herself as an utterly unlikable and completely unsympathetic figure.

Hmm. Interesting...maybe we see some fireworks yet.

I'm absolutely ok with a criminal referral where appropriate, a plea deal if it makes sense, a vindication after all the evidence is heard and considered (though I worry about a DC jury being objective should it come to that), and/or jail time if the charges fit. As usual with these people, I don't believe that "no one is above the law" (quite the opposite in fact), but perhaps with a new sheriff in town we can get some of this nefarious conduct out in the daylight. @The Frankish Reich what say you?

Who needs Russians when you have liberal revolutionaries?

Good Lord, what drivel.

I think it’s exactly what we should be talking about. You and some of the other slumber bunnies got turned around on what’s legal and what’s not during the Obama years, waking up only when you didn’t like the target, apathetic when your guy was calling the shots. Interestingly, I gave it a chance to percolate a bit, assuming it was way-overblown political bs but standard political fare. As time went on it was pretty obvious in real time that it was BS, and that evolved into allegations of political surveillance and malfeasance, fisa manipulation on the part of Obama, Biden, Brennan et al. That happened, and I’m 100% in the corner of: Bringing criminal charges against anyone in the orbit of wrongdoing that can be pursued; For those beyond the long arm of the often alligator-armed justice system, publish every fact, innuendo or suspicion for public consumption, and proceed in civil court where possible; Where immunity is involved, tell the story regardless. While I think you’re being duped again looking for big names to be released with credible evidence of wrongdoing, at least I can understand how you get there. Y’all liberals are a complicated bunch.

Spoiler alert for those who haven't watched but may want to--don't read this! I watched most of it and thought it was pretty well done. Interesting deep dive into the guy, his relationships and song-writing process. With respect to the fine people comment, I think given his background and family history, anything remotely akin to positive commentary about certain groups will cause an immediate visceral reaction. He's a tortured soul in some respects---father was abusive and emotionally distant, he was devoted to his mother but she was apparently bi-polar, he reconnects with his father later in life, finds he has a brother he knows nothing about and who his father seems to care about, and fails to find any meaningful connection with his father before the father passes away. Working backwards...he's abandoned, his father was directly impacted and emotionally scarred by the rise of nazism, his grandparents were successful business owners in Nuremberg before fleeing the country only to have their factor used to create garments for concentration camps, and he visited the graves of family members killed during Hitler's reign of terror. Words matter, as does interpretation esp when deep emotion is involved. Besides, he don't care what we say, this is his life.

Every day, more of revealed about the Obama/Biden manipulation of American people with respect to Russia and beyond. That there was criminal activity is a foregone conclusion, and certainly at a minimum they ran a propaganda campaign for the ages. Of course they can accuse the Dems of wrongdoing, and they should.

That’s the point through, Ned—if it’s going to come out, it’s got to start somewhere so they deal. It’s the ugly part of the business. As far as scumbaggery goes, that’s the human condition. Crosses every barrier—religious, political, ethnic etc.

I get you here, but this is hardly unprecedented. Whitey Bolger. Sammy the Bull. Hendry Hill. Etc. You’ll recall, too, that DOJ /FBI was all about trying to flip associates and attempting to wear down individuals in the Russia/other in an effort to pursue Trump, something pretty standard in that arena. The question is…is it better to get the big fishes or settle for one smallerish fish.

Crazy glue, obviously.

Frank is 100% committed to being spectacularly wrong when he's wrong. He goes full jazz hands!

Also a board requirement, I think.

It’s not just that it will work, I think it’s a board requirement.

I think most sensible people that have a concern recognize a certain grift-like tendency with the liberals trying to “save the planet” by taxing people to death, while noting a complete disregard for personal practices that would actually contribute to the planet-saving objectives they preach for everyone else. Follow the money, Tibsy.

You should check the tax(es) on alcohol and compare it to the tax on Wonder Bread and Milk at Wegmans. If you pay extra for a concierge shoppers at either location, ask them for the downlow. I’m suggesting what you’re already doing. Beyond that, part of the argument deals with health care as a human right, and last I checked, there was not an Affordable Whiskey Boozin Alchy Act. You say you want and support X, but seem to actually favor X minus U. That’s what’s a bit ridiculous to me. Anyway. It was just an exercise, and everyone gets a seat at the table in a “Let’s Talk with Leh-nerd” sit down. Appreciate your feedback. You’re a good sport sometimes.

🧐

As would this one. Folks availing themselves of the elite level services are asked/compelled to contribute at a higher proportionate level than those who cannot afford such extravagances. It’s quite progressive. I’m not suggesting a country club surcharged to fund health care, it’s literally in the same family of services. You’ve got a lot yet to give but don’t seem to want to participate. I’ll put you down for “you’ll miss it”.

It wasn't my suggestion, it was a conversation with Red that lead to this discussion. I was just taking it through to its natural conclusion based on our conversation. Let's see that through. Much of your discussion deals with you...how things impact you...how you earned what you did...how you paid what you did...and what you want to do moving forward. Over the last two posts, you've talked about what you did in the past, and frankly that's irrelevant to the future. Thank you, of course, though as you were contributing so were the collective we--each doing our part--but beyond that we need to deal with the now. You should stop thinking "I" and focus on "We". Assuming you're 65 or so, the SS actuarial charts suggest a typical male is expected to live another 17.4 years. Beyond that, you've been financially successful, seem to be in good health and so it's reasonable to assume your actual results will vary. Let's assume 25 years for Doc Ferg. Between the upfront costs (Red suggests 15% of your income as tax), let's say $25k, the $720 from you, the $720 from the Doc the numbers add up very quickly--like a million-two. Would you miss it, Fergs?

Ironically, I have seen you complain about tax breaks for the rich in the big bill, and then acknowledge you aren't willing to anything beyond the minimum for the greater good unless mandated by law. This would be one of those compulsory requirements from you (the rich) to help those less fortunate. You paid at the highest rate over your working life because you were economically privileged, and in this case, the money came directly from the people we're looking to protect with the new program. There are some (let's call them socialists) who might feel your wealth was stolen from those in need of your services, but I don't see it that way. You studied, worked, produced and offered a service people wanted and needed, no diff than an electrician, plumber or bridge welder. You should pay more because you can, as evidenced by your fancy concierge doctor arrangement. The subscription payment (and revenue to the doctor) obviously fall outside the traditional model, and the opportunity cost is substantial when considering the blossoming popularity of boutique medicine with high net worth Americans. I do not imagine it would be much-Would you be comfortable paying the $80 per month for service, plus a $60/month surcharge matched by your fancy concierge doctor? That's literally $2/day each. Maybe don't think of it as "paying more", consider it "contributing at a higher level".

Agreed. This is simply human nature. I agree they won’t stop it, but the govt can certainly develop a surcharge or tax on the service to level the playing field. Reddog suggested that partakers in elite-level-access services pay a health insurance tax (15% of income as a suggestion) prior/along with whatever the law they want to do. If the goal is to level the playing field and fair share the deal, that makes sense.

I’ll start with the end in mind and work backwards…I agree that the current model is inefficient (and a reminder, it’s exactly what the govt planned it to be), and to be completely candid have no idea if it’s over-priced or not. Who can tell? It’s a highly regulated industry with generations of political fingerprints all over it, the well-intentioned, the apathetic and monetarily influenced alike. Much is made of ins cos lobbying, but let’s be fair and acknowledge the medical industry (docs, hospitals, clinics, phlebotomists, device manufacturers et al) is dollars deep in directing and controlling and virtually all want as large a slice of the pie as they can get. My preferred options would be a continuation of the govt-private industry model with an eye toward sensible regulation, sensible cost-control and all stakeholders thriving especially patients. My biggest issue with the govt model is that politicians seek political answers to math problems time and time again. Back when ACA was being pimped, substantial hubbub arose over coverage for “pre-existing conditions”. While there were abuses in the regulatory side (quick reminder, the state/federal government established the rules to follow there), there were many individuals who actively and intentionally forewent health insurance to save premium, only to seek it out when they needed it. That’s sad, but avoidable on a personal level. Bottom line, all these programs can work if the math is right, but the math never works out to free (and I understand that’s not your suggestion here). So, govt-private alliance, the bureaucrats working out sensible rules and guidelines, sensible cost controls for routine procedures, private companies seeking out new and efficient ways to offer services on a national level. Healthier people should earn better premiums, higher risk individuals should expect a higher commensurate premium with limitations on premium changes once a health issue occurs. As always, a safety net should be in place with tight regulation and stiff penalties for those who abuse the system.

Yes, I agree that cost has increased and also that this was the outcome planned by Obama and the architects of the ACA, at least for most working Americans. We do that now…those who contribute help fund those that don’t. Those that are in good health subsidize those that aren’t. Private subsidizes Medicaid and Medicare. I appreciate the guess at 15%, but you’re suggesting 15% on top of federal and state income tax already in existence, plus all the other tax we pay already? Property…sakes…excise etc? Ah, ok. A wealthy guy like Fergie kicks in his full 15%, but then funds his concierge service over and above. Interesting. I think that putting removing the private CO’s from the market is an absolute recipe for disaster, and would result in substantially higher costs and drastically reduced options….but if you’re going down ragtag path, I’d agree with this with maybe an additional surcharge on the concierge service. Maybe like a grand , two or three above and beyond.

Many lawyers don’t care about “those with nothing to hide” and make a career out of winning as priority #1. It’s the reason attorneys suggest keeping your mouth shut and not cooperating as the best course of action. Anyway, thanks for chatting. ✌️

I really have no idea how what I said is spin, it seems pretty factual to me. But, on we go!