The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[dblack]

God Bless this woman. I marvel at the grace with which she has handled this unacceptable nightmare. If it were me, it would have been a postal episode on a certain building on a certain street...

How One Nebraska Woman Lost Her Health Insurance Three Times Under Obamacare

Again, you wingnuts killed the Public Option, and then complain when private insurance can't make up the difference.

It's Obama's fault she didn't do her research on her insurance carriers?

The corporatist sellouts in Congress, the so-called "moderates", killed the public option, not the "wingnuts".

 

[P@triot]

Just when I think I've seen the biggest Obamacare bombshell imaginable, something else comes out to top it. Let's recap real quick, shall we:

• We now know that Obama lied when he promised "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that millions would not be able to keep their doctor. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.
• We now know that Obama lied when he promised "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". Those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that millions would not be able to keep their plan. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.
  
• We now know that Obama lied when he mocked Republican's predictions (based on the historical results of other nations taking these same steps) that there would be death panels. Those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that death panels would be inevitable. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.
  
• And we now know that Obama lied when he promised that it would decrease healthcare costs. In fact, quite the contrary, those involved with writing the bill have now testified that they knew before they wrote the bill that it would drastically increase healthcare costs. But they lied and forced the bill on the American people anyway.

So why would someone force through a bill which did the exact opposite of what they were claiming in public and which they knew would be detrimental to America in every way? Simple. Power and Control. The more government controls healthcare, the more likely people are to vote Dumbocrat to protect their handout. It's the same reason Obama's policies were designed to keep people on unemployment and food stamps. Obama desperately wants to keep the masses on the government plantation. And let's not forget too that Obama studied at Columbia during the same years professors Cloward & Piven were there teaching their strategy of "overloading the system with socialism" to collapse America, blame it on capitalism, and then replace it all with communism. Obama has been masterful at killing the proverbial two birds with one stone. Keep people beholden to the government and on the plantation to ensure power and control while at the same time overloading the system (ahem, $17 trillion in debt) to collapse America.

Gruber In 2009 Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable The Daily Caller

 

[P@triot]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.

For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.

For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.

I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.

On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways. That would take a lot of
work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.

So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?

And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?

Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.

Then people only have motivation to be honest.

Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.

I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....

I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!

A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.

 

[P@triot]

If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)

This Doctor Posts His Prices Online.

 

[JoeB131]

If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)

Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.

"Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"

 

[dblack]

If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)

Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.

"Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"

As much of your money as I can afford?

 

[JoeB131]

If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)

Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.

"Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"

As much of your money as I can afford?

And that's exactly the problem. Most countries treat health care like a public service. we treat it like a commodity.

as a result, we die earlier, less of our babies survive, 70% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis, and we spend more than any country in the world on Health Care.

But..errr...um... "Freedom". "Founding Fathers!"

 

[dblack]

If America can cure the cancer known as Obamacare, here is the future of healthcare (note that this solution is effective, Constitutional, market-based, and requires no coercion, force, or control over others....gasp!)

Yeah, guy, the Market forces. Uh, huh.

"Hey, I have this cure for your kid's cancer, what are you willing to pay me for it?"

As much of your money as I can afford?

And that's exactly the problem. Most countries treat health care like a public service. we treat it like a commodity.

Looks like you got a typo here. You accidentally reversed these.

 

[dblack]

The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.

No, guy. It should be a public service.

And just like we shouldn't expect a fire department to let an orphanage burn to the ground because they were getting a rich woman's cat out of a tree, we shouldn't let a poor person die from an infection because we were using resources to give a rich woman a face-lift.

 

[dblack]

The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.

No, guy. It should be a public service.

And just like we shouldn't expect a fire department to let an orphanage burn to the ground because they were getting a rich woman's cat out of a tree, we shouldn't let a poor person die from an infection because we were using resources to give a rich woman a face-lift.

Making it a public service won't make it not a commodity. It will simply put government in charge of its distribution.

 

[JoeB131]

Making it a public service won't make it not a commodity. It will simply put government in charge of its distribution.

Which would be a bad thing, why?

(Oh, shit, now I'm going to get the whole screed about how government is EEEEEEEEVIL and Freedom as defined by people who raped slaves 200 years ago.)

 

[dblack]

Making it a public service won't make it not a commodity. It will simply put government in charge of its distribution.

Which would be a bad thing, why?

(Oh, shit, now I'm going to get the whole screed about how government is EEEEEEEEVIL and Freedom as defined by people who raped slaves 200 years ago.)

I wouldn't bother with you. You clearly think government can do no wrong.

The thing is, mostly I agree. Most of the time, government is good. But when it's the only game in town, "mostly" isn't good enough.

That's what you don't get. It isn't that government is always evil. It's that it's monolithic (there's only one). If government doesn't provide you the kind of service you want, you can't take your business elsewhere. You're going to pay for that service whether you use it or not.

 

[JoeB131]

I
That's what you don't get. It isn't that government is always evil. It's that it's monolithic (there's only one). If government doesn't provide you the kind of service you want, you can't take your business elsewhere. You're going to pay for that service whether you use it or not.

okay. I can't see that as a problem.

Here's the thing. For six years, I worked for my last company, and paid into an insurance plan. I really didn't have a choice in that plan, especially when they came back every year and told us how they were changing plans and it would cost a little more for us and suck a lot more. so short of quitting, I really couldn't take my business elsewhere.

But when that day came when I needed medical attention, I had to fight them tooth and nail to get the treatments i needed and they still found a flimsy excuse to get me off the payroll.

So I am taking my business elsewhere. Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.

 

[dblack]

So I am taking my business elsewhere. Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.

It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to your business there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.

 

[emilynghiem]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.

For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.

For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.

I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.

On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways. That would take a lot of
work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.

So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?

And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?

Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.

Then people only have motivation to be honest.

Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.

I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....

I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!

A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.

Dear Rottweiler I think our goal is the same: in having complete transparency and consistency.
However, by the Bill of Rights on not self incriminating and on due process, people cannot be required to do something unless it is proven they have committed a crime first. So yes, this can be mandated for people with past records of criminal misconduct. And like I said about "consensus" if everyone AGREES to such a policy then SURE you can pass this law.

If your attitude intones political prejudice, that will not build a consensus but block it for fear of abuse of this for politics.
You will incite the same fears that Clinton/Obama did abusing the IRS to target political enemies, so that the ENFORCEMENT of this polygraph test will get abused -- whoever is in charge will use it to benefit them and block their opposition and it will not be applied equally. So that is why I would use Consensus as the standard, so that if there is such blocking or obstruction, the opposition voices objection and that is taken into account.

It does the same thing you are saying, but lets the PROCESS reveal who is truthful and who is distorting and obstructing.
This is not imposed by whoever is administering the testing which can get onesided and abused for political targeting.

Consensus includes ALL the people in the process and holds them equally to account to each other.
Only people who are honest and inclusive will co-facilitate that process, and whoever is biased and not fully equal
will be limited in what they can defend because someone else will counter them. All conflicts would have to either be resolved or agreed to drop as not essential to the solution.

Our goal is the same, and I agree it is possible to use polygraphs as part of that, but this
would have to be carefully managed so it is (1) legal and not unconstitutional in violation of the Bill of Rights
and (2) not abused political by administrators enforcing it laxly for their benefit while targeting opponents as with the IRS.

 

[emilynghiem]

I
That's what you don't get. It isn't that government is always evil. It's that it's monolithic (there's only one). If government doesn't provide you the kind of service you want, you can't take your business elsewhere. You're going to pay for that service whether you use it or not.

okay. I can't see that as a problem.

Here's the thing. For six years, I worked for my last company, and paid into an insurance plan. I really didn't have a choice in that plan, especially when they came back every year and told us how they were changing plans and it would cost a little more for us and suck a lot more. so short of quitting, I really couldn't take my business elsewhere.

But when that day came when I needed medical attention, I had to fight them tooth and nail to get the treatments i needed and they still found a flimsy excuse to get me off the payroll.

So I am taking my business elsewhere. Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.

JoeB131 you are assuming that passing SinglePayer through the Federal Govt will guarantee that the plans you believe in will be the policy. There's no guarantee of that. With 50 states all vying to protect the interests and methods their citizenry wants, and with TWO political parties fighting for opposing approaches, you are gambling with national politics and that's why corporate insurance bought their way into ACA to get something to pass.

If you didn't get SinglePayer the first time (and the second time with the budget deadlock, the federal shutdown cost taxpayers an estimated 24 billion NOT to reach an agreement) what makes you think this process will work the next time.

If you want to set up health care that works, your best bet is to work locally, either through your State or your Party or both. This is because health care and financial decisions are PERSONAL choices and are NOT the duty of federal govt to regulate for the entire nation. Congress was never designed to micromanage personal aspects of people's lives. That's why personal liberties are reserved to the People and to the States to decide democratically. It is to protect your right to choose and not be forced by govt to compromise your values or beliefs.

What I will propose to the TX govt is to let the Parties in our State organize their membership and structures to provide the coverage and systems that suit those members. And let the public choose which group to be under. So if the Democrats want to mandate insurance and set it up that way, they are only responsible for paying taxes to cover people under that plan.
And if the Republicans want a free market or health care account plan, they handle their members that way. And the charities and medical schools that want to offer public services to the poor through supervised interns in training, then anyone is free to donate to help them cover the populations not covered by the other plans. And the prisons can be reformed also, so taxpayer money already spent on facilities, mental health and health care can cover the general population.

The more LOCALLY you make decisions, the better chances you have of getting the choice of plan you want.
where YOU choose, not the govt choosing for you; where federal is harder to change once mandates or regulations are passed, state is easier and county or city is even more direct where citizens can write their own ordinances for their districts.

Maybe I have an advantage living in Texas where the conservative culture lends itself to maximum autonomy and creating your own business plans, building your own schools, and running your own towns.

Whatever state you are in, I would either recommend working on the state level and/or through the local and statewide Democrats or Greens to organize a Singlepayer network. There is nothing wrong with organizing this by State and then linking up all the Party resources nationally to get your national level Singlepayer. It just has to be for those members
only, and if you don't agree nationally, then separate by state where people can follow the plans they agree to and not be forced to compromise.

Democrats should have organized this through Party through Obama first, get the model to work and then propose it to the nation to adopt. But doing it backwards, imposing it first, then trying to get it to work caused even more rejection because people were forced under plans they don't agree with and keep changing, but still under threat of penalty and tax fines.

It's not too late to do it the right way, in fact, I believe it should be legally required for Obama and Democrats to fix the mess this caused on a national scale. And take back all financial and legal responsibility and costs for reverting the ACA mandates and exchanges to be option on the State level and allow citizens to opt in either by party or by free choice as consumers.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem isn't that we treat health care as a commodity. It's that we try to pretend it's not.

No, guy. It should be a public service.

And just like we shouldn't expect a fire department to let an orphanage burn to the ground because they were getting a rich woman's cat out of a tree, we shouldn't let a poor person die from an infection because we were using resources to give a rich woman a face-lift.

Dear JoeB131 You are leaving out the SPIRITUAL aspects of health and healing that
must remain a free choice and cannot be mandated much less regulated by govt.

If YOU start regulating it as a public service,
what about those who treat health and healing as part of religious spiritual practice?

These groups, if forced under YOUR national policies, should have EQUAL right to mandate "spiritual healing"
which is used to "keep down the costs" the same way YOU propose to use Insurance to keep down the costs.

So SURE if you are okay with Christians mandating Spiritual Healing for the whole Nation,
I AGREE that would be more cost-effective than mandating insurance. It would free up the prisons and mental wards so those facilities resources and taxes can pay for health care for the larger population, and work on prevention which is cheaper.

Yours is not the ONLY way to approach health care. That's why it should remain a FREE CHOICE.

 

[emilynghiem]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.

For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.

For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.

I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.

On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways. That would take a lot of
work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.

So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?

And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?

Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.

Then people only have motivation to be honest.

Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.

I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....

I must vehemently disagree with everything you said here. Not only will this not prevent the despicable dirt-bags in Congress, it will actually facilitate it!

A much simpler and reliable option: require polygraphs for anyone running for office (again, this eliminates 98% of the dirt-bags out there now as adulterers like Bill Clinton are never going to run for office if they have to answer whether or not they have ever cheated on their spouse). Then require quarterly polygraphs for every elected official and include questions about each bill they voted on or each executive order they issued. Problem solved, filthy liars removed from Washington, integrity restored.

Here Rottweiler maybe you want this for all officials:
http://www.oathkeepers.org/
and to screen any candidates for President through the Veterans and active Military first.
Veterans Party of America

 

[JoeB131]

So I am taking my business elsewhere. Single Payer like every other civilized country has. Done.

It's not that simple. If you confined your decision to your business there would be no problem. But single payer is about forcing everyone else to conform to your preferences.

Yup. So what's your point. And can you make it coherently without whining about "Freedom"?