Liberal Forum

WillFranklin » 06 Sep 2019 8:26 pm » wrote:
I do it when you miss a point, then continue to argue like you know about health care.

Now see, these disabled workers lose their dual coverage when they turn 65 if they keep working.

I want them to be able to keep making at least the same amount of money (adjusted) they made when they were 64 and still maintain their dual coverage.

Yeah, well, I was being silly in my response, since to be very frank with you, your strictly delineated field of activism strikes me as - I wanna put this nicely - a bit oddball.

I mean, world peace, danny thomas' kiddie horse spittle, universal coverage - these are causes I can get a visceral charge from. Dual coverage for disabled workers above 65 is just... Idunno... not something that I can think of a slogan for?

65 - still alive - need dual coverage and that's no jive?

Hell, "We're here, we're queer, and we're not going shopping" has a better ring. I could see myself getting behind that - "**** you, JC Penney - I'm boycottin' with the fairies! You shouldn't have done... whatever!" But getting excited over "65 - still alive - need dual coverage and that's no jive?" Not while going home and rubbing one out is still an option.

Still, I wish you well in this particular assault on the Grail, Knight that goes shoog. I mean, everyone needs a raison d'etre, right?