Health Care Is A Right Not a Privilege!

[Luddly Neddite]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

how frikken civilized is a nation that aborts 55million babies
you people are a joke. everyone is treated at an emergency...the only ones left to die it seems is OUR VETS. And that's the health care you so generous people want to put on all our backs

Yeah.

Abortion is brand new and no other "civilized nation" aborts unwanted pregnancies.

Grow the fuck up and mind your own business.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

While health care is a right (paid for by taxes) in many other countries, its not a right in the US.

Even though we pay very high taxes, it goes to our incredibly bloated and outdated military. That's the same bloated and outdated military the right wants to spend more of our taxes on.

No other civilized nation lets its citizens die rather than provide medical care to them.

how frikken civilized is a nation that aborts 55million babies
you people are a joke. everyone is treated at an emergency...the only ones left to die it seems is OUR VETS. And that's the health care you so generous people want to put on all our backs

You are quickly becoming my favorite poster. No heart emote. Oh well <3

I just put things as they are, no bs, sugar or honey in between.
as for the rest of your judgement, whatever

No Stephanie. The nasty bile you spew is just the opposite.

You live on welfare and hate those who get govt assistance. You hate vets and have said you think they're lazy bums.

You're welcome to your hypocrisy but really, you're one of the most unhappy and post bitter posters here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting words, coming from a welfare queen. Its not a stupid line: taxpayers DO pay for those who do not pay their own way - like you.

Its true that you pay PART of your Medicare premium but those who work for a living pay for most of what you get. Bottom line, hon, is that you are the person you say you hate.

As for waste, of course we could cut it substantially.

We, in the US believe we can waste and throw away damn near anything. We're stupid that way. Once its out of our sight, it simply ceases to exist. Spend a month recycling everything you can and you'll see what I mean.

Obviously, medical waste has certain different requirements and needs but that doesn't mean we have to throw away without giving it any thought.

If we stopped doing that, we would not have to pay $10 for a Tylenol.

Huh? Why is it, people like you always have to be a scummy jerks. Didn't you have parents that taught you how to be decent?

Yes, Medicare is socialized system. That's why it's going broke. Medicare can't work, and at some point will in fact fail, or the quality of care will drastically be cut. This is unavoidable, just as it has been throughout Europe.

And, no it has nothing to do with Tylenol costing $10. That has to do with health care regulations, that require the Tylenol at hospitals be administered by a Registered Nurse, and that the Tylenol come individually wrapped, instead of in bulk containers.

Government regulations are what has driven up costs, not a lack of recycling or some such leftard nonsense. Good grief.

How is Medicare "socialist"?

Before you answer, you might want to know that the recipients pay for it. Yes, even though she's too stupid to understand it, stupid steph pays for her own medicare.

That's why its called an "entitlement". People are ENTITLED to it. Get it?

You don't have much knowledge about how things work. You and stupid stef make a great pair.

 

[MeBelle]

No Stephanie. The nasty bile you spew is just the opposite.

You live on welfare and hate those who get govt assistance. You hate vets and have said you think they're lazy bums.

You're welcome to your hypocrisy but really, you're one of the most unhappy and post bitter posters here.

Oh the irony.

And judicial use of redex from someone who opted out of the rep system.

 

[Andylusion]

Interesting words, coming from a welfare queen. Its not a stupid line: taxpayers DO pay for those who do not pay their own way - like you.

Its true that you pay PART of your Medicare premium but those who work for a living pay for most of what you get. Bottom line, hon, is that you are the person you say you hate.

As for waste, of course we could cut it substantially.

We, in the US believe we can waste and throw away damn near anything. We're stupid that way. Once its out of our sight, it simply ceases to exist. Spend a month recycling everything you can and you'll see what I mean.

Obviously, medical waste has certain different requirements and needs but that doesn't mean we have to throw away without giving it any thought.

If we stopped doing that, we would not have to pay $10 for a Tylenol.

Huh? Why is it, people like you always have to be a scummy jerks. Didn't you have parents that taught you how to be decent?

Yes, Medicare is socialized system. That's why it's going broke. Medicare can't work, and at some point will in fact fail, or the quality of care will drastically be cut. This is unavoidable, just as it has been throughout Europe.

And, no it has nothing to do with Tylenol costing $10. That has to do with health care regulations, that require the Tylenol at hospitals be administered by a Registered Nurse, and that the Tylenol come individually wrapped, instead of in bulk containers.

Government regulations are what has driven up costs, not a lack of recycling or some such leftard nonsense. Good grief.

How is Medicare "socialist"?

Before you answer, you might want to know that the recipients pay for it. Yes, even though she's too stupid to understand it, stupid steph pays for her own medicare.

That's why its called an "entitlement". People are ENTITLED to it. Get it?

You don't have much knowledge about how things work. You and stupid stef make a great pair.

No, they don't. You are ignorant... arrogant... a jerk... and honestly a waste human life. Grow up you child. I'm sorry you were not taught how to interact with maturity, but at this point our entire civilization would be better off, if you didn't exist. You should think about that, and change from being the waste of oxygen that you are.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't even know how you support your own position.

You say you are against coercion.
Yet you consider yourself a progressive liberal.

Um... those are mutually exclusive. It is not possible to have a progressive state, without coercion.

Now for the sake of fairness to you, I am open to your answer. Tell me what progressive view you have, that does not require coercion. I am interested in your explanation.

Hi @Androw You bring up a very good point that NEEDS to be agreed upon and understood by all parties.
THANK YOU!

I believe by holding ourselves and others accountable for the costs and consequences of our own actions
and policies, we naturally compel ourselves and each other to act more accountable, effective and efficient.

I bring this up with Prolife activists who want to ban abortion.
None of the Prolife people I KNOW rely on abortion being against the law
in order to take all action at every level to prevent going down that path. They don't need force of law. They act by free choice, because they care about the consequences. We should all be that conscience-driven and then we don't rely on laws to make us do things.

Same with all these other policies, where some people want the freedom to choose and direct their own will and consent, while others "don't trust X group with that freedom."

We NEED to have an agreement how to handle this! So no freedom is abused, and no responsibility is shirked and dumped on someone else to shoulder that burden.

I believe if we look at the real numbers, the real costs of what is and isn't working,
and we empower people and groups to take on the parts they want to change and be responsible for,
JUST LET THEM FUND THOSE SOLUTIONS THEMSELVES.

Sorry to emphasize so strongly but I believe this is the key.
Once people are paying directly for their own solutions, OF COURSE, they compel themselves
because it's coming from their budgets!

So we need to start doing that, giving the power and responsible back to the people who BELIEVE
in the solutions they are touting and fund it and manage it themselves so there is motivation to make it work!
And to correct abuses failures or waste over problems that are expensive if they aren't fixed!

1. when people have to pay to clean up their own messes, they limit these and focus on fixing problems
2. when each person or group acts to compel THEMSELVES, then that puts social pressure by "example"
on others to follow by free will. This is how people are connected to each other. We naturally influence
each other by acting more responsible ourselves! So the more we act by self-policing, the more others do.

Look again at the prolife activists, or the pro-environmentalists even the animal activists who go out and save animals using their own resources and efforts.

When we all do that with things we care about, and encourage others to do the same,
the free will comes first, and the policies follow as a social contract and agreement based on what we
already consent to do as good policy. The laws should reflect the public consent, not dictate them.

We need to start rewarding and encouraging more groups that are 'doing it themselves' and
set the trend of government to reflect and represent the will and consent of the people.

By education and training, sharing experience so others can be empowered, we can do more this way.
All by informed consent and educated choices. And then let the mandatory policies follow from what
we all agree works better as a society.

 

[emilynghiem]

. It is not possible to have a progressive state, without coercion.

.

very true! lib progressive commie is merely a violence progression. Liberals are told they are morally superior when the reality is they are merely more violent!.

Dear @EdwardBaiamonte and @Androw:
I am guessing where you get this perception of progressive meaning coercive is from
the sold out liberal Democrat politicians who have hijacked progressive movements from both
the Green and the real-left liberals who protest these Democrats, similar to the division on the Right.

We hardly hear about the REAL Greens and REAL liberals who are NONCoercive and believe these
tactics you talk about are VIOLENT.

The Greens have a party practice of forming decisions by consensus and moderating through all conflicts.
They are so "nonviolent" this has worked against them, by objectors "blocking" the consensus process by saying "NO" without offering a correction to t he conflict in order to get to a "YES"

So this nonviolent consensus-building has been silenced and is not visible in the media where we only see the VIOLENT protestors who make the news.

I am guessing this is where you are getting that perception.

I believe this can be remedied by requiring that in the consensus/conflict resolution process, anyone who objects is required to work with the others to RESOLVE the source of objection, and just can't veto with a NO and block the entire process.

If we offered better conflict resolution training and models, where decisions COULD be made by consensus and free choice, NOT coercion for political expedience,
maybe we would see more of the REAL progressive voices and solutions come forth through the media
that are currently censored by politicians who want simple YES or NO they can manipulate and control.

This idea of listening to the will of the people and working with diverse groups and voices,
as the Green activists do WITHOUT coercion, would democratize the movement and stop this monopoly
by power hungry politicians hijacking the liberal movement to push their own political agenda and benefit.

From your responses, I am guessing you have no knowledge, experience or interaction with any Greens
who use nonviolence and noncoersive means in their democratic process.

Maybe that's why you've never heard of this! They aren't VIOLENT enough to get any media exposure!
How ironic, isn't it?

Why all the true peacemakers are never seen or heard, but do all the work in the background
while the hypocrites who yell and scream, project blame back and forth, get all the publicity and credit.

Gee whiz, you wonder why the world is so messed up if we keep rewarding the wrong people
and ignoring those who are working on solutions in sustainable ways by free market choices as the Greens do!

What a mess!
No wonder!

Example of Green solutions that respect free market/free enterprise empowerment:
1. fair trade cooperatives that are self built and managed by the business owners themselves
2. independent currency in community networks managed by business owners and activists and laborers directly
3. consensus decision making by resolving conflicts, accounting for all input and objections, and forming
policy decisions that reflect the entire community represented
4. proportional voting and representation, so that representation is spread among the community
in proportion to the way the members represent by their own party and isn't one party dominating all the others

NOTE: I happen to believe in ISONOMY by using both #3 and #4: letting groups represent themselves by party, and then forming policies by AGREEMENT between these people and groups NOT bullying and imposing one party's policies over all the others by majority rule. I believe in either resolving the conflicts so a general policy is agreed upon by the public OR separating policies and funding them independently if people cannot agree and have inherent differences in political or religious beliefs that cannot be changed or imposed upon. So I would use a mix of both representation by party and consensus by conflict resolution, or separating beliefs from govt policy.

Where I agree with you, and with the Greens/Left who promote change by nonviolence only, is that any of this "bullying by exclusion or coercion" IS either a form of violence itself or causes political violence to erupt as a consequence of abuse of force.

So the REAL progressives would agree with you, and are helpless against the liberal politicians who abuse political force to silence even their own constituents who protest this hypocrisy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Greens have a party practice of forming decisions by consensus and moderating through all conflicts.

so you say the liberal left progressive commie Greens are not naturally violent like typical liberals? Greens tend to be the most violent of all because they need to save the planet from destruction, today. That requires violence today. There is no time to wait. So, exactly who are these peaceful Greens.

Please note that your posts are 99% too long. Learn to be efficient with worlds and other peoples' time. Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

@EdwardBaiamonte
Can you list for me examples of Greens who are into coercive political violence?
I am happy to address these people and try to correct whatever abuses they are committing.
I assume I would have better luck with them, than trying to teach fellow Democrats to respect "free choice"
which they seem to have lost any concept of.

Whenever I go to meetings, it always seems to be the progressive Greens who are trying to correct
the problems with the liberal Democrats running the party in the wrong direction.

Examples of nonviolent noncoercive Greens
1. Paul Glover, founder of Ithaca HOURS independent currency to build community by free market means
2. Dr. Krenie Stowe, founder of The Real School Houston that teaches NONCOERCIVE development
in the educational and the activism environment to promote positive change in healthy ways and relations
3. Dr. Timothy O'Brien (deceased) who helped worked with farmers to set up Fair Trade Coops in South America
and won national awards through Students Against Sweatshops and Students for Fair Trade for outreach and education
4. David Cobb who teaches the conflicts of interest with unchecked corporate influences
infiltrating BOTH major parties and govt, undermining the Constitutional due process checks and balances
between people in govt (subverted by allowing collective entities that use both collective and individual power)
5. Ralph Nader who initiated the Consumer Protection and Occupational Safety Acts,
and has called for the leaders of different parties to stand together and unite against corporate political corruption

@EdwardBaiamonte
Can you list for me examples of Greens who are into coercive political violence?

I have caught a couple of local Greens who "bully by exclusion" some of the SAME control tactics that Democrats use to stay in charge and censor anyone with solutions.

I blame this on "patriarchal politics," that both men and women are conditioned to expect men to take charge, and want others to follow them. But when women and other groups come up with REAL WORKABLE solutions collectively, these get ignored and overridden. People just push for things that their leaders can take charge of, mainly attacking other groups which doesn't solve anything but is used to mobilize people to "take action."

So maybe that is where this coercion and violence comes in.

If we keep ignoring or skirting the solutions that people could put together "voluntarily"
and only push for policies that call for forcing taxpayers to pay or support, so people are motivated to take action.

The Greens have a party practice of forming decisions by consensus and moderating through all conflicts.

so you say the liberal left progressive commie Greens are not naturally violent like typical liberals? Greens tend to be the most violent of all because they need to save the planet from destruction, today. That requires violence today. There is no time to wait. So, exactly who are these peaceful Greens.

Please note that your posts are 99% too long. Learn to be efficient with worlds and other peoples' time. Thank you.

Sorry @EdwardBaiamonte
I am lucky to be able to be post at all and don't always have time to edit, sorry.

I work TWO JOBS to pay off over 60,000 in credit card debts from Democrat politics destroying my home district of Freedmen's Town plus one or two other districts, exploiting the "poor black communities."

If I found as many people who were investing their own time and labor into promoting solutions
to end destructive politics that are defrauding taxpayers and voters,
SURE

I would be HAPPY to have them post and edit msgs where I fail to take the time.

Sorry for this, and I gave up trying to explain. How hard it is even to STAY SANE
working two jobs to fix problems that I still get blamed for, even though I am working
like a slave trying to fix them with my own labor, time and resources while politicians "pimp poverty."

 

[dblack]

@emilynghiem - sometimes I wonder if there isn't a vast left/right wing conspiracy to keep progressives and libertarians from realizing they're on the same side.

 

[emilynghiem]

@emilynghiem - sometimes I wonder if there isn't a vast left/right wing conspiracy to keep progressives and libertarians from realizing they're on the same side.

Where on this board do I click to put a great big LIGHT BULB, AHA! Bingo! on your msg???
What switch do I flip to turn the light on? Thanks @dblack

All I know is to reach out and make sure my neighbors on here know I am NOT their enemy, I do NOT see them that way, and I AGREE on the points and WANT viable solutions. If I don't make others my enemy, I can control that much.

If we all reach out and ask to focus on where we AGREE and what can we do to FIX the problems,
maybe we can break down these barriers and open up the doors to make those connections on a global scale.

What can we do to reach out and promote inclusion and mutual correction of the govt waste we all oppose???

I can't find the recent statement by Nader reaching out to unite Libertarians with other Third Partieshttp://Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes , but I found this which is even OLDER, gee whiz:
Ron Paul Ralph Nader agree on 8216 progressive-libertarian alliance 8217

 

[Andylusion]

@emilynghiem - sometimes I wonder if there isn't a vast left/right wing conspiracy to keep progressives and libertarians from realizing they're on the same side.

Where on this board do I click to put a great big LIGHT BULB, AHA! Bingo! on your msg???
What switch do I flip to turn the light on? Thanks @dblack

All I know is to reach out and make sure my neighbors on here know I am NOT their enemy, I do NOT see them that way, and I AGREE on the points and WANT viable solutions. If I don't make others my enemy, I can control that much.

If we all reach out and ask to focus on where we AGREE and what can we do to FIX the problems,
maybe we can break down these barriers and open up the doors to make those connections on a global scale.

What can we do to reach out and promote inclusion and mutual correction of the govt waste we all oppose???

I can't find the recent statement by Nader reaching out to unite Libertarians with other Third Partieshttp://Can Ralph Nader Get Progressives and Libertarians to Make Common Cause - Forbes , but I found this which is even OLDER, gee whiz:
Ron Paul Ralph Nader agree on 8216 progressive-libertarian alliance 8217

No, you don't understand.

Violence is not just "protesters smashing windows".

That's true as well, but that is not exactly what *I* mean, when I refer to violence. It's part of it... but not the main thing.

You refer to the Green Parties claim to nonviolence, and yet what if I refuse to follow Consumer Protection and Occupational Safety Acts? What happens? People come from the government and take my stuff away.

What happens if I refuse to allow them to take my stuff away? I get shot.

Ralph Nader supports a Single Payer, Government run Health care system. I oppose that.

If you, and Nader, win... what happens if I refuse to pay my taxes because I don't support that socialized health care system? Government people come and take my stuff away. What happens if I try and stop them? I get shot.

The bottom line is this....

You can wrap up your position in all the 'non-coercion non-violent' words you want, it is simply not true.

Your system and policies simply don't work without the force of the government, and anyone who really looks at the issues openly, knows this is true.

Nader supports solar power. Everyone inside that industry, and everyone outside who is honest, knows that the moment the government does not forcibly take money from my pay check, and give it to big solar corporations, that entire industry will cease to exist.

When you post crap about Nader being against the corruption of big corporations, my answer is, start with big solar corporations. But we all know Nader is ok, and supports, and subsidizes that corruption.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Androw:
OK now I see where you are getting this.

1. For example, you are not just talking about the POLICY of sustainable economy/development
you are talking about the REALITY of authorizing govt to enforce regulations that cause these problems.

The reason I separate these and deal with them on both levels not combined,
this is similar to the problems of gun control vs. gun rights (where the freedom/choice is one thing
but the actual implementation is another) and also abortion rights (where the freedom of choice is
not violent, but the consequences of manipulating that and how it is either enforced or not is causing problems)

Androw can we start by addressing and SEPARATING the cause/motivation and the effect/consequence?

I am isolating just the first example you provided under #1
if we can pick that apart and find the BETTER way to achieve the goal WITHOUT
introducing these harmful consequences that I AGREE are problematic. If we do
not resolve these conflicts in better ways, yes it causes more problems that indeed relate to abuse and violence.

OK so I am separating these as #1, #2, etc.

1.

No, you don't understand.

Violence is not just "protesters smashing windows".

That's true as well, but that is not exactly what *I* mean, when I refer to violence. It's part of it... but not the main thing.

You refer to the Green Parties claim to nonviolence, and yet what if I refuse to follow Consumer Protection and Occupational Safety Acts? What happens? People come from the government and take my stuff away.

What happens if I refuse to allow them to take my stuff away? I get shot.

example #1 - how the issue of wanting to enforce consumer watchdog advocacy and safety/health
has unintended consequences of abuse/violence built in to the system used to implement such policies.

Request: to separate the motivation and purpose from the problems with legislating through govt.
How can the issue/interest be addressed where it does NOT cause these negative consequences in practice.

Next #2

2.

Ralph Nader supports a Single Payer, Government run Health care system. I oppose that.

If you, and Nader, win... what happens if I refuse to pay my taxes because I don't support that socialized health care system? Government people come and take my stuff away. What happens if I try and stop them? I get shot.

The bottom line is this....

You can wrap up your position in all the 'non-coercion non-violent' words you want, it is simply not true.

2. Actually I am against forcing Singlepayer on people who don't believe in using Govt for that.
So I believe in pursuing other means of setting up the Equivalent of Singlepayer for those members, such as going throuandgh their own Party systems to register and manage their resources under a national network.
I believe in giving taxpayers and consumers a CHOICE in what networks/means to use for handling health care,
because of both Political Beliefs and Religious/Spiritual Beliefs about health care I don't see as under one policy.

So I am already answering part of my own Request: to SEPARATE the intent and purpose
from HOW this is to be implemented for public access. I gave an example of how I would propose to SEPARATE and that is to use the Party system to organize people by their self-proclaimed beliefs, so they choose not the govt. Given the millions if not billions of dollars contributed and collected through these parties, they have the means to organize representation and resources democratically managed and leave Govt out of it, so everyone can have their way and leave others to their own. I belive this would REWARD taxpayers citizens and leaders for initiating their own solutions. it would teach self-management, self-govt, and self-sustaining financial responsibility for social and health care services and is the direction this country should go in by educating and training citizens.

So this answers:
A.

Your system and policies simply don't work without the force of the government, and anyone who really looks at the issues openly, knows this is true.

My system is not Singlepayer, it is ISONOMY under the Constitution. I believe in delegating as much responsibility to citizens and organizations to manage effectively and de-burden the programs we have dumped on govt which is not designed for that, and never was. We've been using it as a shortcut, but now it's time to reorganize and streamline the process back to the Constitutional standards of what can be checked and balanced through the three branches, and not convolute the system as it is now with too many subagencies and depts not answering directly to any authority or check.

OK, now we have #4

Nader supports solar power. Everyone inside that industry, and everyone outside who is honest, knows that the moment the government does not forcibly take money from my pay check, and give it to big solar corporations, that entire industry will cease to exist.

4. Again, let's separate what is the GOAL and how can we achieve that WITHOUT causing the negative consequences by going about this the wrong way.

I agree this whole Green movement has been hijacked by corporate opportunists, as has the women's vote for health care and choice etc. etc, and the war/peace vote, and the Black/Immigration/Minority vote.

Even the Greens criticize the sellout politicians from Al Gore to Obama for making messes for profit
out of a sincere desire to stop pollution, waste and destruction. It's all been hijacked for political and financial profit.

B. on Corporate corruption in general (not just this one case)

When you post crap about Nader being against the corruption of big corporations, my answer is, start with big solar corporations. But we all know Nader is ok, and supports, and subsidizes that corruption.

I know Republicans who turn the other way when it comes to corruption by corporations they are willing to forgive. I know Democrats who won't question their leaders on conflicts of interest because they tehmselves have a conflict of interest.

This is a larger problem, the Solar case with Obama is a good one to use as an example
and maybe we can set up a system to address all others that are similar.

B. My solution is to work with legal teams around each and every complaint or grievance.
And work it through until the grievance is redressed in full.

So there shold be some settlement that the citizens agree is just for restitution and correction
and deterrence from abuses in the future.

Take each case like Solyndra or Maxxam or the company dumping chemicals into California water,
and also the BP spill case or Alaskan Valdez, and make sure all the consequences are paid for.

If the cost of damages exceeds what can be paid, then the people affected should have the right
to compensation such as credits or collateral against buying out the land if they are going to have
to pay to restore it themselves, they shold be able to claim ownership as compensation.

Some system of holding the wrongdoers accountable to the taxpayers for the full cost
of debts and damages stemming from their actions.

As for Nader, I would use his OSHA as a model for redressing grievances.
Have a simple checklist of the 10 bill of rights articles plus #14 on equal protections and nondiscrimination,
the 10 Code of Ethics articles, and any local policies by city/state that are regionally agreed upon.
and have complainants issue a citation for any violation.
then the agency has a process for answering the citation and either resolving it
or it goes into hearing, trials, mediation or arbitration until the grievance is resolved.

We can use the solar power corruption as a test case.
And see how to develop a grievance system that woudl hold govt and corporations
directly accountable to public checks and balances to deter and correct any abuses.

 

[Andylusion]

Androw can we start by addressing and SEPARATING the cause/motivation and the effect/consequence?

I am isolating just the first example you provided under #1
if we can pick that apart and find the BETTER way to achieve the goal WITHOUT
introducing these harmful consequences that I AGREE are problematic.

Request: to separate the motivation and purpose from the problems with legislating through govt.
How can the issue/interest be addressed where it does NOT cause these negative consequences in practice.

2. Actually I am against forcing Singlepayer on people who don't believe in using Govt for that.
So I believe in pursuing other means of setting up the Equivalent of Singlepayer for those members, such as going throuandgh their own Party systems to register and manage their resources under a national network.
I believe in giving taxpayers and consumers a CHOICE in what networks/means to use for handling health care,
because of both Political Beliefs and Religious/Spiritual Beliefs about health care I don't see as under one policy.

My system is not Singlepayer, it is ISONOMY under the Constitution. I believe in delegating as much responsibility to citizens and organizations to manage effectively and de-burden the programs we have dumped on govt which is not designed for that, and never was. We've been using it as a shortcut, but now it's time to reorganize and streamline the process back to the Constitutional standards of what can be checked and balanced through the three branches, and not convolute the system as it is now with too many subagencies and depts not answering directly to any authority or check.

4. Again, let's separate what is the GOAL and how can we achieve that WITHOUT causing the negative consequences by going about this the wrong way.

B. My solution is to work with legal teams around each and every complaint or grievance.
And work it through until the grievance is redressed in full.

The problem is, you are trying to separate things that are inseparable. You can't separate the goal from the result. You can't separate intentions from outcomes.

Before the mid-1990s, banks pretty much ignored the community reinvestment act. Reagan, and his administration didn't enforce it, and the laws were not strong enough to have an impact.

The goal of giving out sub-prime loans to unqualified buyers, in order to increase home ownership didn't happen.

Any regulation, any goal, any policy, that doesn't have coercion, doesn't work.

When Clinton stepped in, he passed a law, that allowed bank mergers to be denied on the basis of not making CRA sub-prime loans. The administration started suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and won in court.

That's when the sub-prime market began to fly.

You can't make people buy insurance if they don't want to, without coercion. You can't make people build unprofitable, impractical solar power, without coercion.

It's like carbon credits. People go, see the carbon credits is a free-market solution. BULL.... My utility company would *NEVER* buy a carbon credit, and pass the cost onto me, except the government mandates that X% of their power is generated from bad solar power.

In a free market, they would produce power at the least expensive source, and sell it at the market rate. The only reason they buy super expensive 'renewable' power, which they don't actually use, from Montanna, is because the government uses COERCION, to force them to buy that expensive credit, and pass that cost onto the poor power users, like me.

The two aspects are not separable.

So I believe in pursuing other means of setting up the Equivalent of Singlepayer for those members, such as going throuandgh their own Party systems to register and manage their resources under a national network.

I don't want to operate through a party system. Especially if you mean a political party system. I hate the GOP, and the DNC equally. I hate parties.

I don't want my resources registered or managed under a national network.

I want a *FREE-MARKET*. No controls by you, by party, by government, by anything.

The 'singlepayer' of my bills thus far as been >ME<, and that's how it should remain.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is, you are trying to separate things that are inseparable. You can't separate the goal from the result. You can't separate intentions from outcomes.

Hi Androw this statement above tells me we are talking about two different things.
I AGREE that once a consequence is happening, you cannot "simply justify it" by explaining away the intentions.

That is NOT my point.

I am saying the opposite.
That in order NOT to fall into that defensive reaction,
the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

Sorry I am truncating and just starting with this one point.
If we can agree to find a BETTER method and outcome to
achieve that SAME goal, do you agree that is better than just blaming both together as wrong or bad.

Isn't the better way to teach math
to focus on the RIGHT answer one should get to solve a problem,
and not just throw out BOTH the wrong answer and the question that went with it.

what if that same question or problem has a RIGHT answer.
Shouldn't we separate the question from the answer
and come up with the right answer for that same question?

Thanks Androw!

 

[Andylusion]

the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

You said that before. And I'll respond the same way I did before.

There is no common goal.

What goals do you think we have in common?

 

[dblack]

the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

You said that before. And I'll respond the same way I did before.

There is no common goal.

What goals do you think we have in common?

If we focus on the broader problems we're trying to address, rather than specific policies, I think it's possible. I think, for example, that we can find solid consensus that health care prices are artificially inflated. It simply makes no sense that a routine service like basic health care is unaffordable for the average person.

 

[Katzndogz]

the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

You said that before. And I'll respond the same way I did before.

There is no common goal.

What goals do you think we have in common?

If we focus on the broader problems we're trying to address, rather than specific policies, I think it's possible. I think, for example, that we can find solid consensus that health care prices are artificially inflated. It simply makes no sense that a routine service like basic health care is unaffordable for the average person.

Then you support tort reform and caps on malpractice awards. Good.

 

[dblack]

the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

You said that before. And I'll respond the same way I did before.

There is no common goal.

What goals do you think we have in common?

If we focus on the broader problems we're trying to address, rather than specific policies, I think it's possible. I think, for example, that we can find solid consensus that health care prices are artificially inflated. It simply makes no sense that a routine service like basic health care is unaffordable for the average person.

Then you support tort reform and caps on malpractice awards. Good.

???

 

[Andylusion]

the point is to separate and identify what IS the common goal and intention,
and then find a BETTER way to address it that does NOT produce that conflicting outcome.

Does this make sense?
Can we please start here.

You said that before. And I'll respond the same way I did before.

There is no common goal.

What goals do you think we have in common?

If we focus on the broader problems we're trying to address, rather than specific policies, I think it's possible. I think, for example, that we can find solid consensus that health care prices are artificially inflated. It simply makes no sense that a routine service like basic health care is unaffordable for the average person.

Then you support tort reform and caps on malpractice awards. Good.

???

Right there is what I'm talking about. When you say "the broader problems", different people go in radically different directions. Some of the things you say are problems, others do not. Others say this or that is a problem, which you do not.

There is no universal consensus of what 'broader problems" are.

You are talking about allowing health care to be cheaper, which I suppose. That's a free-market capitalist approach.

The other side had no intention of making health care cheaper. They want health care to be 'equal'. Cheaper would still make it unequal.

These are two mutually exclusive goals. There is no common ground between them.