« | Home | Categories | »

Chris Christie said he didn’t get any sun. Then, a newspaper showed him the beach photos

Posted on July 3rd, 2017 at 20:40 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on.”


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. I’ve got to be fair here. I think he did the world a favor by not letting anyone else be on the beach, directly subjected to his “beach bod”

  2. @Mudak: Quite right. It’s my own stupid fault for clicking on the link. Eww.

Some people really don’t like their kids all that much.

Posted on July 3rd, 2017 at 11:21 by John Sinteur in category: News


Write a comment

How Much Is a Dead Poor Person Worth to the Wealthy? $3 Million

Posted on July 3rd, 2017 at 11:17 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

The Congressional Budget Office scored the new Senate proposal and found it would leave 22 million more people without insurance over the next decade. That’s a low estimate of total impact because it doesn’t take into account how many insurance policies would be cut back, how many spending ceilings would again be permitted by states, how many preventative tests and services might no longer be available as “essential” benefits, how many deductibles would rise causing people to avoid treatment than spending money they might not have.

But, fine, start with the 22 million who won’t have insurance, taking the lower of the Senate and House numbers.

There is a cost in lives for a lack of healthcare. How many additional people die a year is up for some debate by experts. Numbers range from 18,000 to almost 45,000, and that’s at current population levels. But they agree that more people die when healthcare isn’t available.

So, assume the population won’t go up and that the estimated number who will die is on the low end of the spectrum. The repeal or delay of taxes is expected to be $541 billion over ten years, or an average $54.1 billion a year. Divide that by 18,000 and you get about $3 million a person. Each person will be allowed to die so that taxes can decrease and that the wealthiest can collectively retain that much money.

That may seem harsh or inflammatory, but it isn’t. This is an expression of what the United States historically has been and continues to be. As a country, we’re at a point of defining in a life-and-death way our ultimate preferences. The GOP, pushing an agenda, looks to reduce coverage for the poor as a way to lower taxes on the rich. A foreseeable byproduct of reducing coverage is the death of many who otherwise wouldn’t have died. What other conclusion is there but that each of those deaths is deemed acceptable because it enables $3 million more to be distributed among the wealthiest?


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. I still don’t get why rich Americans are too poor to pay higher taxes. Bunch of whiners.