Mandatory but affordable health insurance.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Someone must be in charge of lawmaking and policy making in order to have some sense of uniformity of purpose. Otherwise you get a situation like they have in parts of Africa where you have groups running all around with machines guns and no one who can control the madness. The Canidates I support are not about using force to achieve "their own ends" but they are about achieving the ends that can solve problems in our country for the sake of everyone in this country, big difference. You can impeach a monster if you have just cause to do so based on legitimate scrutiny and if you gather majority consent to do so. Advocating lawlessness and a do-nothing Congress is not going to get us any changes out of which to advance and progress.

Sorry friend, but I think you have it backwards. The situation in Africa proves that "unaccountable" governments make for messy revolts, genocide, and all the other major ills society has in store for those who are not vigilent in defense of their rights.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul It is not about a total give away by the government. Because it will not happen if a majority of people do not agree to those terms by voting for a canidate this election term. If you vote for anyone other then Clinton then you will never see affordable health care insurance and that will be the end of that, in which case the middle class will continue to pay higher and higher rates for insurance and the poor will be doing without healthcare.

That's also basically false. Laws are supposed to emminate from Congress, not some candidates election platform.


That is the philosophy that brought us George "Wiretap" Bush's policies, and his "Mandate of the People" soundbyte.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Hehehe, wait, perhaps this isn't so funny after all. You do know the difference between fact, and fiction, right?

We live in modern would that came right out of a very old science fiction book, relative to some of our modern technology.

But I can tell the difference. fiction is fun and facts are a bore.

Fact is, it was a good joke. So it is okay to chuckle because funny is funny.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul We live in modern would that came right out of a very old science fiction book, relative to some of our modern technology. But I can tell the difference. fiction is fun and facts are a bore. Fact is, it was a good joke. So it is okay to chuckle because funny is funny.

I laughed.


Never let it be said that I lack a sense of humor. It may not translate well into internet forum debate, but I'm laughing at you guys all the time.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley That's also basically false. Laws are supposed to emminate from Congress, not some candidates election platform. That is the philosophy that brought us George "Wiretap" Bush's policies, and his "Mandate of the People" soundbyte.

I never voted for wiretaps nor did I hear Bush promise to do that duing his election debates.

You have created a fictional concept about why people elected Bush.

Laws emminate from Congress and Congress emminates form an election where people vote for them to represent their state as part of the over all union. Congressmen did not walk out of the constitution from some past era, they got elected based on some promises they made.
Congress and the powers of Congress are mandates of both the Consitution and by the voters who seat them via the mandate of the people who vote in elections.

So don't confuse things too much.

Anyway Hillary moved to veto those wiretaps that Bush had put into effect.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: god's mercenary's Nobody should be refused treatment at an emergency room, and if it's a state hospital, then yes, the government would end up paying.

Ok, then what if a homeless person comes in with a broken arm? An infection? What about a common cold? Should we deny them treatment because they can't pay and don't have health insurance?

Someone has to pay the bills.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Sorry friend, but I think you have it backwards. The situation in Africa proves that "unaccountable" governments make for messy revolts, genocide, and all the other major ills society has in store for those who are not vigilent in defense of their rights.

Hoy! Can I have your take on the response I gave to God's Mercenary's?
On who we should deny treatment to?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ok, then what if a homeless person comes in with a broken arm? An infection? What about a common cold? Should we deny them treatment because they can't pay and don't have health insurance? Someone has to pay the bills.

If he comes in with a common cold, he should be given two aspirin and shown the door. If the condition is life or limb threatening, it's morally wrong to turn him away, then again, a private hospital could do what it wants, and it's the doctor on call who should make the decision.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If he comes in with a common cold, he should be given two aspirin and shown the door. If the condition is life or limb threatening, it's morally wrong to turn him away, then again, a private hospital could do what it wants, and it's the doctor on call who should make the decision.

Exaclty.


It's people like Winter Wind, that if they are so concerned with the well being of others, should prove that, and go into charity work, and let the rest of us have our government back.


Donate your own time, and money.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: God's Mercenary If he comes in with a common cold, he should be given two aspirin and shown the door. If the condition is life or limb threatening, it's morally wrong to turn him away, then again, a private hospital could do what it wants, and it's the doctor on call who should make the decision.

Now for the tricky one. What if he's showing signs of cancer, doebut it's probably nothing?

See, how morally complex this gets. You can't make absolutes on where a hospital should be legally obligated to help or not. My reasoning is simple, just treat them all, most life-threatening case first. You don't want the doctor talking to his lawyer about whether he's allowed to reject his client or not when it may be life threatening.

But I maybe wrong, where do you draw the line?

Quote by: Milton Bradley It's people like Winter Wind, that if they are so concerned with the well being of others, should prove that, and go into charity work, and let the rest of us have our government back.

Alright, last question. Guy shows up with a broken leg. Not life threatening, just a broken leg. If he finds his way into a hospital with no money, should the hospital be legally able to refuse treatment to him?
If so, then what if he was suffering from curable cancer? Should a penniless man get the expensive treatment to cure him (if it isn't 100% cure rate)?

Oh, in case you were wondering, I am already doing charity work.

[Domino]

What if he's suffering from exposure, or malnutrition: do we have to feed him, clothe him, and put a roof over his head?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind Now for the tricky one. What if he's showing signs of cancer, doebut it's probably nothing? See, how morally complex this gets. You can't make absolutes on where a hospital should be legally obligated to help or not. My reasoning is simple, just treat them all, most life-threatening case first. You don't want the doctor talking to his lawyer about whether he's allowed to reject his client or not when it may be life threatening. But I maybe wrong, where do you draw the line? Alright, last question. Guy shows up with a broken leg. Not life threatening, just a broken leg. If he finds his way into a hospital with no money, should the hospital be legally able to refuse treatment to him? If so, then what if he was suffering from curable cancer? Should a penniless man get the expensive treatment to cure him (if it isn't 100% cure rate)? Oh, in case you were wondering, I am already doing charity work.

Look, I'n not prepared to dictate protocals fr every situation that arises. Realistically, it should be a State issue, so communities should probably evaluate the situation on a case by case basis.


Places where the climate is warm year round, like California, often end illustrating why the Welfare System can't work.


There just aren't enough "taxpayers" to alleviate all of the suffering that exists.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If he comes in with a common cold, he should be given two aspirin and shown the door. If the condition is life or limb threatening, it's morally wrong to turn him away, then again, a private hospital could do what it wants, and it's the doctor on call who should make the decision.

The fact is they would set the arm and perhaps put it into a cast with a sling. A private doctor does not do such treatments in his office anyway. Who pays? Simple: They make up the loss by overcharging some rich person's insurance company when the next person comes in with good insurance. They overcharge people with insurance to make up for those charity cases. But is is done secretly and in different ways, the insurance company then must raise the costs of their policy and cut paying for some drugs or treatments to make up their losses.
That is how things now work in the private industry at emergency rooms because all doctors who get permission to use the hospital must do a limited amount of "duty time" in the emergency area, as part of his contract with a hospital. Therefore, everyone who is buying insurance right now and uses it is paying for the treatment of those charity cases.
By force via the rising cost of medical coverage.

When medicare or some insurance does not allow a doctor to make up for losses on the charity cases or lack of co-payments then the doctor will not longer honor that insurance company or medical payment. As medicare sometimes refuses to pay for apparent overcharges many doctors will not accept it anymore. All this is sort of secret stuff going on because the private industry does not want those who pay for good insurance to know they are also paying for charity cases. But you are none the less.

Universal health care, proposed by Hillary Clinton and John Edwards faces that fact and will cover everyone. Obama does not support that same program but another plan that covers more people in an affordable way, but not everyone. Especially homeless people who roam around and do not sign up for insurance coverage.

So you have a choice to continue to pay higher prices for a insurance policy, a governmental program that may or may not come form taxes, or just doing totally without going to a doctor or hospital. It you select one of the two first options you are being forced to pay for charity cases, like it or not.

But doctors can get into trouble for stuffing their bills with extra charges or overcharges and for ripping off the policy holder on behalf of his poor clients. But they hardly never get into trouble because a insurance company does not want to be blacklisted so they ignore minor overcharges (which add up to a lot). You think you are just covering your self and your family, and you got hoodwinked and do not even know it.

Therefore if you think you can avoid not paying for someone else's hosptial treatments by voting no on democratic health care programs you are sadly miss-informed. You will be forced to do it on the "hush hush" plan presently used via private businsess.

Face reality and lets get it out in the open where we can manage all that in a proper and knowledgable way.

Nearly everyday hostpital emergency rooms are filled with uninsured people seeking non-emergency treatments or advice. Some are left sitting there til the give up hope of being seen and they walk away. But many get attention and do you really think the hospitals and doctors do that for free? No - they just charge more to those who have insurance and they treat them first. So one way or another the insured are paying also for the uninsured. That's reality.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Look, I'n not prepared to dictate protocals fr every situation that arises. Realistically, it should be a State issue, so communities should probably evaluate the situation on a case by case basis. Places where the climate is warm year round, like California, often end illustrating why the Welfare System can't work. There just aren't enough "taxpayers" to alleviate all of the suffering that exists.

But we can pay for a war in Iraq and for our space program and for this massive complex of law enforcement agents from the homeland security department to boarder patrols to policement and the war on pot smoking and for motorcycle cops to write expensive tickets that poor people cannot afford to pay? Gee. Perhaps we should import more workers to have more folks paying income taxes, open them boarders!

The plan is about everyone buying insurance to cover health care based on what they can afford which also reflects the status of the economy in which those people live. Not free pills for everyone just paid by taxes.

Now your state by state plan is not workable. It would work in California because we have lots of people and a above average economy, and a bunch of rich people. But some states the poor outnumber the middle class, other states where they mostly do farming you have a small population over all. Only a national plan can be user friendly to everyone in every state.

[Technosoul]

Now it is true that we need more taxpayers, which translates into more workers, which translates into more jobs. A case I already made. We cannot build up our health care system with more poor people at the bottom of the economy (as Obama claims) because that is just poor math. I have made that case. The more jobs outsouced, the more unemployed and the fewer who are insured (as job related insurance goes bye bye with those exported jobs). Downsizing, CEO ripoffs, machines & computers replacing human workers, the lowering of wages. All ads up to fewer taxpayers and more uninsured people, and more medical programs due to poverty.

The longer the war the more people who will come home with physical and mental injuries that hamper them form getting decent jobs so they can pay income taxes and afford health coverage. That is the root of the problem ... no jobs. No jobs = not enough tax payers to support universal health care. Right?

In any culture not everyone can get paid high wages, we need those people however who do those minimum wage jobs at the bottom. Without them our buildings would not look clean, our lawns would not look mowed, we could not get our cars washed, or buy those yumming double cheese burgers for under $2.00. And yet we should not just shun them when it comes to health care, they are doing their part same as those who get paid higher wages, they should get a policy that is affordable for them.

What is right, is just flat right.

A Universal Health care system based on affordable health insurance can only cost less if we create more jobs here in the USA so we have more workers paying income taxes. And so that more people can afford to pay more for coverage. If you have more poor people then working people who get middle class wages then you got troubles because the poor would drag down the middle class into their area of just getting by on almost nothing. So the priority is more jobs, more better paying jobs, and more production here in this country. Plus, we must be on guard that drug companies do not take advantage of such a program by feeling free to pump of the costs of medications. If drug companies cannot mangage to find a way to lower the costs of their products then the government should look in and see if they can manage it for the drug companies, via regulations. We the taxpayers, via our representives, can hire scientists and chemists and open our own drug making operations and research programs, and do it a lot cheaper then they can. No one likes the word "regulation" as it can be abused. But if we cannot trust private industry to be fair, and to play the game "free market place" the right way, then we might as well have a little revolution to change that.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul But we can pay for a war in Iraq and for our space program and for this massive complex of law enforcement agents from the homeland security department to boarder patrols to policement and the war on pot smoking and for motorcycle cops to write expensive tickets that poor people cannot afford to pay? Gee. Perhaps we should import more workers to have more folks paying income taxes, open them boarders!

WTF are you talking about?


I hope that's not an attempt to link those policies to my beliefs.


Again, like all Liberals, you are just tryin to point at Republican hypocrisy in hopes that it justifies your own. It doesn't.

[Technosoul]

Voting for a democrat is no longer a vote for the same o same o. It is a vote for revolution. A revolution that is long over due. A vote for change. Not change backwards to some "good old days", but a change for some better old days in the future.

In this revolution you the taxpayers of Amreica get to be the Nanny. You get to take care of your own country. Not some dominator sitting at a desk behind a wall in Washington. Try it, at this point you do not have much to loose (anymore) and a lot to gain back. America heal thyself and vote for D party that is for the people.

This post was not paid for nor endorsed by any party.... I did it for free. (gave my own speech a 3 star rating for effort).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley WTF are you talking about? I hope that's not an attempt to link those policies to my beliefs. Again, like all Liberals, you are just tryin to point at Republican hypocrisy in hopes that it justifies your own. It doesn't.

No the police state spending is not your cup of tea. Sorry to suggest that. Just making a point that taxpayers do seem to be able to afford a lot more then you gave them credit for. I doubt if Bush is paying for it out of pocket.

But a 3rd party idealogoly does not seem to be "Washington Washable" and right now that is where the machines are plugged into. I really do not know how you guys are ever going to get a chance, the best way is to get rid of a least one party, I suggest you work to get rid of the Republicans and then that would create a void for your party to step into. With a chance to debate and raise donations to operate within the free market place of TV advertising and so forth. The idea is to offer something people want or need, promote it, and then collect the votes. Run your party like a business would operate in an old time free market place.

And a pointer, use a little dreamy pixie dust on your ideas, it can work magic in our fantasy driven world of dream weavers. Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. Take a class in poetry and talk like the original Patrick Henry with flowering and inspirational speeches. Make it a felt experience for voters and not a snowglobe of cold facts. Warm up the crowd and leave them with a big smile on thier face. Politics (and elections) is an art, a skilled craft, and you gotta get artistic to compete. Watch the winners and learn.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul No the police state spending is not your cup of tea. Sorry to suggest that. Just making a point that taxpayers do seem to be able to afford a lot more then you gave them credit for. I doubt if Bush is paying for it out of pocket.

No, see, there's part of the stumbling block. It's not only the cost, or liability that we object to, it's the moral justification by which you attempt to hijack those funds.

Quote by: Technosoul But a 3rd party idealogoly does not seem to be "Washington Washable" and right now that is where the machines are plugged into. I really do not know how you guys are ever going to get a chance,

The best way is for people like yourself to admit the flaws in your logic, and attempt to find a workable solution that doesn't punish other people for the shortcomings of perverted Liberal ideology, and the corrupt leaders thay have installed that created this mess.


Sorry, but the answer really does lie in the accountability of the individual. That's the hard reality you guys need to deal with on a very basic level.

[Milton Bradley]

Look, it's like you guys don't get the fact that, short of robbing the truly rich, there aren't enough wage earners left to implement your ideas.


You admit that Medicare, and Medicaid are failing, you admit that Social Security is tanking, yet why can you not understand that all the other policies built around this same concept ( tax, and spend ) will fail?


There are less, and less people to tax, and less, and less jobs to employ people, where is the disconnect?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Look, I'n not prepared to dictate protocals fr every situation that arises. Realistically, it should be a State issue, so communities should probably evaluate the situation on a case by case basis.

Never the less, you are sanctifying free health care. You think life is a right. I just want to see where you draw the line. You can't say your against it so strongly simply because we agree on the same thing, just varying degrees of it. I think people should be able to get preventative health care (cheeper, safer, and healthier for the public) for free. You think they should get health care when their life is in danger. Both come at some cost to the government.

It's not too different.

There just aren't enough "taxpayers" to alleviate all of the suffering that exists.

Actually, it wouldn't take much from the tax payer. If you got out of Iraq and redirected the funds to this, that should pay for a large chunk of it.