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

[JoeB131]

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?

I think they can find other avenues for their supersition and ignorance.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

No, the reason big insurance bought into ACA was they thought with Obama and 60 Democrat Senators and 280 Democrat Congressmen, they were going to get health care reform if they wanted it or not.

We NEED to go to Single Payer. That should have been the starting position and the goal. 9 Figure CEO Salaries add nothing to health care.

 

[emilynghiem]

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"?

^ ???? Really JoeB131 ???? ^

What about YOUR freedom not to have people impose their preference about God.
What if THAT were imposed by national law, wouldn't you "whine about freedom" too?

????

If you wouldn't want OTHER people's preferences imposed on you, and fine YOU higher taxes for YOUR choices that are different, why is that "whining" when it is HUMAN NATURE to want free will and want the right to consent to policies and taxes affecting us.

Any human being is going to PROTEST when threatened with some policy we don't believe in, even more so when TAXED without representation and consent. Don't you protest when someone else's preferences are imposed on you, and you get attacked for simply defending your right to choose?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

No, the reason big insurance bought into ACA was they thought with Obama and 60 Democrat Senators and 280 Democrat Congressmen, they were going to get health care reform if they wanted it or not.

We NEED to go to Single Payer. That should have been the starting position and the goal. 9 Figure CEO Salaries add nothing to health care.

Nobody is stopping you from setting up your own system of health care through your party or networks and leaders.

Trying to set this up at the expense of other people who disagree, and have equal freedom of choice as you do,
is where you and Obama are going wrong.

The Catholics don't force their prolife and proGod school programs on everyone to have to follow and fund.
The Muslims don't force their practices on the entire nation for everyone else to follow or else pay fines into their system.

Why should you and the people who believe in "right to health care' be some exception that is magically allowed to impose YOUR BELIEFS on everyone else to pay as YOU dictate (and ironically while Democrats CLAIM to be for right to choose and for separation of church and state).

Can you explain why an exception to the First Amendment to the Constitution should be magically allowed for YOUR beliefs to be imposed on the entire nation without our consent or vote?

 

[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.

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

My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.

 

[emilynghiem]

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"?

My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.

I would agree -- shifting this around isn't solving the problem of who is running up the costs of health care.
by holding people responsible for their own programs, there would be accountability for costs.
Just shifting it to govt means shifting it to taxpayers, who don't have a direct say in these federal mandates.

JoeB131 I think you and my other friends who lobby for Singlepayer are thinking the money that
goes into Govt is NEUTRAL and/or automatically going to go where and how YOU think it should.

What you seem to miss is that federal govt provides a whole OTHER level of politics and bureaucracy
to filter your resources and choices through. So it is not this automatic vending machine that is going to pay
for whatever you charge to it.

You seem to forget that Conservatives, prolife, and limited govt people make up at least half the nation.

So if you go through federal govt, all those other people and their ways and interests are INCLUDED
and equally represented as YOUR interests.

You seem to leave that out of the equation, and just think going through govt means getting it YOUR way.

The way to get things YOUR way is to set it up yourself. If the Democrats took all the campaign donations
and funding they get and invest in teaching hospitals, intern programs, and converting prisons into medical and mental treatment centers, we'd have a much BETTER guarantee of getting what we want because we'd pay to build it ourselves.

 

[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.

??? 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.

Emily - we do agree (we usually do) on what we want. We disagree on how. The problem is you, like others, are looking at this from a strictly criminal perspective.

You statement "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" is simply not true because you absolutely can require people to take a polygraph. It's not "self-incriminating" outside of a criminal trial. I know several people who were required to take a polygraph for their jobs. If they want the job, they must take the polygraph (the "self-incrimination" simply doesn't apply in a situation like this - it's outside of a criminal trial). The same thing is true in my plan. If you don't want to take the polygraph, don't run for office. But if you choose to run for office, then the polygraph is a requirement.

Everyone needs to stop looking at this from a Hollywood perspective. This has NOTHING to do with "self-incrimination" or "polygraphs are not admissible in a cour of law". We're not talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a job. And you can require polygraphs for jobs because people always have the freedom to not take the job and thus not take the polygraph.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE
??? 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.

Emily - we do agree (we usually do) on what we want. We disagree on how. The problem is you, like others, are looking at this from a strictly criminal perspective.

You statement "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" is simply not true because you absolutely can require people to take a polygraph. It's not "self-incriminating" outside of a criminal trial. I know several people who were required to take a polygraph for their jobs. If they want the job, they must take the polygraph (the "self-incrimination" simply doesn't apply in a situation like this - it's outside of a criminal trial). The same thing is true in my plan. If you don't want to take the polygraph, don't run for office. But if you choose to run for office, then the polygraph is a requirement.

Everyone needs to stop looking at this from a Hollywood perspective. This has NOTHING to do with "self-incrimination" or "polygraphs are not admissible in a cour of law". We're not talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a job. And you can require polygraphs for jobs because people always have the freedom to not take the job and thus not take the polygraph.

Unless it is administered by a consensus based process,
this is still going to get abused politically. So sure, you can incorporate that as one of the tools,
but the whole political process has to move AWAY from this winning-by-bullying mode of operating
and into collaborative problem solving and rewarding solutions that are so effective that they win
support across party lines, by free choice.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Emily - we do agree (we usually do) on what we want. We disagree on how. The problem is you, like others, are looking at this from a strictly criminal perspective.

You statement "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" is simply not true because you absolutely can require people to take a polygraph. It's not "self-incriminating" outside of a criminal trial. I know several people who were required to take a polygraph for their jobs. If they want the job, they must take the polygraph (the "self-incrimination" simply doesn't apply in a situation like this - it's outside of a criminal trial). The same thing is true in my plan. If you don't want to take the polygraph, don't run for office. But if you choose to run for office, then the polygraph is a requirement.

Everyone needs to stop looking at this from a Hollywood perspective. This has NOTHING to do with "self-incrimination" or "polygraphs are not admissible in a cour of law". We're not talking about a criminal trial here. We are talking about a job. And you can require polygraphs for jobs because people always have the freedom to not take the job and thus not take the polygraph.

Unless it is administered by a consensus based process,
this is still going to get abused politically. So sure, you can incorporate that as one of the tools,
but the whole political process has to move AWAY from this winning-by-bullying mode of operating
and into collaborative problem solving and rewarding solutions that are so effective that they win
support across party lines, by free choice.

How is it "bullying"? Were the corporations "bullying" my acquaintances when they required a polygraph to ensure they weren't hiring criminals or liars?

You're operating from the naive position that if everyone joins hands and sings kumbaya, even evil people will see the light and come around. Sorry, but dirt-bags like Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi are NEVER going to act with integrity. They are there for power and control. So the simple solution is to make sure the American people know the truth about them before the voting. Simple. Effective. Full-proof.

 

[JoeB131]

^ ???? Really JoeB131 ???? ^

What about YOUR freedom not to have people impose their preference about God.
What if THAT were imposed by national law, wouldn't you "whine about freedom" too?

We have enough stupid laws to accomedate Sky Fairy Worshippers, thanks.

The problem with people who end up not getting insurance is that we don't "Let them die" as some asshole screaemed at a GOP Debate without ONE candidate admonishing him for it. So as long as we all end up paying for even the most irresponsible person who refuses to get health coverage and shows up at an emergency room after stuffing his face with cakes, then we should have a say in what the best way to cover it is.

And what we are doing, where we have the most expensive system with the worst results, isn't working.

 

[JoeB131]

My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.

Yes, we are. One that WE THE PEOPLE control. As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody is stopping you from setting up your own system of health care through your party or networks and leaders.

Trying to set this up at the expense of other people who disagree, and have equal freedom of choice as you do,
is where you and Obama are going wrong.

well, no. that would be well and good if the bad choices of those who don't participate didn't effect me. But the guy who refuses to see a doctor for that hacking cough who spreads germs all over the office, that guy doesn't do anyone any good. Health is a collective issue. That's why other countries treat it like a PUBLIC SERVICE, not a luxury commodity.

 

[emilynghiem]

^ ???? Really JoeB131 ???? ^

What about YOUR freedom not to have people impose their preference about God.
What if THAT were imposed by national law, wouldn't you "whine about freedom" too?

We have enough stupid laws to accomedate Sky Fairy Worshippers, thanks.

The problem with people who end up not getting insurance is that we don't "Let them die" as some asshole screaemed at a GOP Debate without ONE candidate admonishing him for it. So as long as we all end up paying for even the most irresponsible person who refuses to get health coverage and shows up at an emergency room after stuffing his face with cakes, then we should have a say in what the best way to cover it is.

And what we are doing, where we have the most expensive system with the worst results, isn't working.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

If you are against laws worshipping "sky fairies" YOU don't believe in
how can you endorse national laws forcing YOUR political beliefs on others who don't worship the same way YOU do?

NOTE: saying YOUR way "is the only way" to prevent people from dying
is like Christians saying JESUS "is the only way" to life.

That's not proven and neither is your way.

So people retain free choice, and there are MANY WAYS to prevent people from dying
* charity
* medical schools where supervised interns get credit or pay off educational loans by providing public service
* spiritual healing which is free and natural and saves lives and resources
* reforming the prison system to save resources already paid by taxpayers

Yours is not the only way, so quit preaching that it is and supporting TAX penalties for not supporting YOUR way.

 

[emilynghiem]

My point is we're not 'taking our business elsewhere' by going to single payer. We're dictating how everyone must pay for their healthcare. We're not doing away with all the frustrations of insurance companies. We're simply forcing everyone to sign up with the same insurance company.

Yes, we are. One that WE THE PEOPLE control. As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.

JoeB131 yours is not the only way.

People can pay for health care without going through mandated insurance and govt exchanges.

Just like people can prevent abortion and go through alternatives WITHOUT making that choice "illegal." Why this need to BAN other choices and FORCE your way onto everyone else?

If you trust people with the choice of abortion not to "baby killers"
why don't you trust people the choice of health care not to "let people die."

You act like this is the ONLY thing that can pay for health care.
Where are you getting this?

You DO acknowledge that Obamacare doesn't cover everyone and all costs, right?
So you DO acknowledge that something else has to cover the rest, right?

So why not USE those other resources and programs needed and make THOSE CHOICES equally a right to choose?
Since we need other help anyway, why penalize people for those? Why not REWARD people
for investing in building teaching hospital and medical education programs and internships.

Yours is not the only way, and further, pushing it while penalizing other ways is HURTING
the will and right of people to invest and develop the other ways that are NEEDED to cover the entire population anyway.

Why would you PUNISH people just because we are focusing on the OTHER things needed to provide health care?

 

[dblack]

Yes, we are. One that WE THE PEOPLE control. As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.

Well, WE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE are telling you that we won't don't lay down for bullies.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nobody is stopping you from setting up your own system of health care through your party or networks and leaders.

Trying to set this up at the expense of other people who disagree, and have equal freedom of choice as you do,
is where you and Obama are going wrong.

well, no. that would be well and good if the bad choices of those who don't participate didn't effect me. But the guy who refuses to see a doctor for that hacking cough who spreads germs all over the office, that guy doesn't do anyone any good. Health is a collective issue. That's why other countries treat it like a PUBLIC SERVICE, not a luxury commodity.

JoeB131 do you agree public services can be provided by schools and charities,
and can be managed on a state level,
and don't have to be mandated through federal taxes?

Do you recognize that if states better managed the prison budgets, and quit wasting that on failed systems,
then THAT money the public already spends could cover health care programs and facilities.

If the guy at the office affects you, what about the guy who shoots out your neighborhood
and sends 5 people to the ER at taxpayer expense. Why can't we go after the people
convicted of crimes and hold them accountable instead of making a new class of penalties on law abiding citizens.

why keep depriving the law abiding citizens of liberties to cover the irresponsibility of others.
Why not go directly AFTER the people who are causing the costs and problems, not the ones who
ARE asking to take responsibility for health care WITHOUT depending on fed govt to "make them do it this way."

sounds like you are punishing the wrong people and missing your target.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, we are. One that WE THE PEOPLE control. As opposed to getting it through our employers from a greedy company that could care less if we live or die.

Well, WE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE are telling you that we won't don't lay down for bullies.

Only a liberal would consider having to tell the truth "being bullied"...

By the way - when you edit posts, try to pay attention. You just attributed a quote to me that was from someone else genius.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131 yours is not the only way.

People can pay for health care without going through mandated insurance and govt exchanges.

Yeah, they can. And they'd go bankrupt pretty fast if they get anything more serious than a cold.

70% of bankruptcies are tied to medical crisis. What makes that worse is that of those, 75% had insurance when the crisis started. That's what happens when you don't have universal health care or tie health care into your ability to make someone else money.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131 do you agree public services can be provided by schools and charities,
and can be managed on a state level,
and don't have to be mandated through federal taxes?

Sure, if you want to do it in a half-ass way.

If you want to do it RIGHT, get the feds to do it.

 

[dblack]

Well, WE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE are telling you that we won't don't lay down for bullies.

Only a liberal would consider having to tell the truth "being bullied"...

What does telling the truth have to do with what we're discussing?