Jump to content

David C. Murray

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David C. Murray

  1. The head of the ACLU was on Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC last night. It's been pretty clear from the beginning that President Obama has no stomach for prosecuting these criminals, so he suggested that they be pardoned instead. Since one cannot be pardoned unless one is guilty of a crime, pardoning them would forever label them as the criminals they are. That's what President Carter did to the draft evaders, what Ford did to Nixon, what Reagan did to the Iran-Contra conspirators, what Bush the Lesser did to Scooter Libby, and what the others (Bush and Clinton) did, as well.
  2. . . . a woman after my own heart. At the urging of Abbie Hoffman never to trust anyone older than thirty, I stayed thirty for years. When he resurfaced, admonishing us never to trust anyone younger than thirty, there I was, perfectly positioned. It only had to change when I became eligible first for Social Security and then for Medicare, but that's it. Like Jessica, I just keep celebrating number sixty-five over and over and over again.
  3. Very well. I stand corrected. I would add, however, that if those illegal aliens who worked and contributed to the system not benefit as provided by law, they have hardly benefitted disproportionately. It would be interesting to know, your relatives aside, how many illegal aliens who contribute to the system do actually benefit from it. That is, how many work the required number of quarters. I don't know . . .
  4. Okay, so what you're saying is that an illegal alien could, prior to 2004, request and be issued a U.S. Social Security number, right? And, with that, and the cooperation of an employer who did not check their legal status, they could obtain employment in the U.S. and pay the taxes legally owed. Then subsequently, they could apply for the Social Security benefits which their withholding had contributed to just as if they were legal U.S. citizens. I guess I'm not seeing any great harm in this. They paid in according to the law; now they benefit, again according to the law. That "the governm
  5. Where have you read this, Colin? And . . . assuming you're correct, wherein lies the injustice in someone who qualifies for a program to which s/he contributes benefitting from it? Too, "paving the way" isn't quite the same as ushering them in wholesale. As a young child, my father taught me never to yell "Ouch!" until I was hurt.
  6. Indeed, Ron, when some of the eleven million estimated illegal aliens become citizens, they will be eligible for the benefits that any other native or naturalized citizens enjoy. Where you get a number of 20 million continues to elude me, but so does a lot of what you write. In the meantime, those illegal aliens' employers do, in fact, withhold taxes and that should increase as some five million, not twenty, qualify to be excluded from deportation and obtain legal work permits. Until they become citizens, however, their interests are not represented in the halls of Congress or the state le
  7. Ron, you wrote, ". . . With the evolving NEW direction of Amnesty for ILLEGAL ALIENS it looks like we may see a dramatic increase in enrolments by up to 20,000,000. I do wonder at what rate they will be charged. And why not. . ." Well, the "why not" is because the Affordable Care Act specifically prohibits the enrollment of illegal aliens. That's why not. So your son's and grandchildren's taxes at work are safe from those awful illegal aliens. That's illegal aliens, by the way, who contribute to the tax base and Social Security with no hope, ever, of benefitting from it, but your son and
  8. Ahem! There are 752 pages of registered users on this forum. How large a bar can you reserve in Tamarindo?
  9. I neglected to mention, Ron, that I hate lamb and liver but love anchovies on my pizza. And if I don't change my socks every couple of weeks well, you know . . . Now, that, coupled with #47, should be good for at least 1,500 hastily chosen and awkwardly assembled words. Rant on.
  10. Ron, you've missed the most salient points in your list of my shortcomings. Not only am I overweight, but I'm even older than I look. Thank you, however, for an entirely new rant. I knew we could count on you. And Jessica, I have no sense of humor. Sorry. (Ron, you should add that to the list.)
  11. So, Ron, the point of all this is really Your disdain for politicians in general, right? If yes, why not just come out and say so, although I fail to see how your hatred of them relates to moving back to the U.S. due to health care expenses.
  12. So, Dana, what you're saying is that, once again, we are confusung one thing for another, apples for oysters, right? Oh, well, the point is merely to have a good rant and in that we have succeeded admirably.
  13. Well, you make a compelling argument. It's interesting about your credit cards. Ours were recently replaced, too, and they came as "correspondence" in a #10 envelope with no tracking number and went to Aerocasillas' P.O. Box address which is the only address we've ever given our banks.
  14. Uh, would AT&T not simply send the new SIM to your Aerocasillas address directly?
  15. If the others are correct, that this "natural" pool would be something through which flows a natural source of water, then I'd advise you to have that water source tested before you commit to construction. Not all the free-flowing streams and rivers in Costa Rica are clean and pure, and some that originate on Volcan Poas (and maybe from sources near other volcanos, too) are very acidic.
  16. I like simple, too. When we go to the States, I buy a prepaid AT&T card from the AT&T Store. It has, of course, a limited number of minutes, but you can add to that online if you wish. They also offer a "voice plus data" prepaid plan that's been useful when we were beyond any Wi-Fi coverage. Trying to sort out the details of the various plans and providers gave me a major headache. Maybe the AT&T deal isn't the best, but it's tolerable and it's a known quantity now.
  17. None of the foregoing has anything to do with ObamaCare or your confused objections to it. Discussion over.
  18. 1) It was the Bush Administration and their supporters in Congress who drafted, amended and enacted Medicare Part D. That law does, indeed, prohibit price negotiation within the Medicare Part D system, but you've asserted that (paraphrasing) it's illegal for a government agency to require price negotiations or volume discounts. Unless and until you can name one (just one) other federal law that contains such a proscription, you will remain wrong. 2) I would never suggest that Republicans are more responsive to human needs than Democrats. What I will say, with respect to Medicare Part D, is
  19. Don Ron, you wrote, " I am a bit confused, and thus delayed in response, by your most recent POST #31 where you state " you have to have your facts right" . I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING POLITICS, WHAT THE HELL DO FACTS HAVE TO DO WITH POLITICS ????? The facts "have to do with [it]" once the political process is complete. Once the law (ObamaCare, in this case) becomes the law of the land, politics ceases to be relevant. Then (and, sadly, only then) are we confronted with the actual, verifiable truth of the matter.
  20. I'm easy to lick in an argument, but you have to have your facts right. If not, whose fault is that?
  21. Friend Ron, once again you're off base a little. First, it was the Bush Administration, with strong support from Congressional Republicans, who passed Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit). It was the Bush Administration and their supporters in Congress (maybe Senator Kennedy but hardly on his initiative alone) who included the "no price negotiation" provision in Medicare Part D. It is not (absolutely NOT) ". . . ILLEGAL for a government agency . . to require Pricing . . or Volume discounting". In fact, every State's Medicaid program does exactly that. They, not the drug com
  22. You're right, Ron, I'm not going to leave this alone. So, did you go home and take your pill? And did it help? Is this the improved version?? If yes, what were you like before? <set shudder = off>
  23. Ron, harking back to the 1970s, it's been an established fact that about a quarter of one's lifetime medical expenses (in the U.S., that is), on average, are incurred during the last month of life. That is easily attributable to physciians' heroic attempts to prolong patients' lives and to patients' and families' reluctance to acknowledge the obvious. The costs associated with intensive hospital care, the absurd costs of cancer and other drugs which appear to have limited long-term benefits, etc all add to those costs. What I still want to know is when and where President Obama said that
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.