no tax return, no place on ballot

[Andylusion]

When wealthy people are in need of serious medical treatment, they don't go to a socialized medicine country. They come here. Canadian patients are renown for coming to the US because of the care they can't receive under socialized medicine. In fact our northern hospitals are flooded with Canadians.

Except when Rand Paul went to Canada to get surgery a few months ago.

Oh, you mean at that privately owned hospital???

Nothing wrong with privately owned. The problem is when thousands want to be part owners.

So where did I say there was something wrong with it? Merely pointing out that this was not a socialized medicine hospital. It's very similar to the hospitals and care we have here.

No it isn't. Every single Canadian citizen can access it without bankrupting themselves.

You are contradicting yourself. You pointed to Paul Rand, and then said every Canadian can access it without bankrupting themselves.

But that isn't true. The hospital Paul Rand went to in Canada, was a pay-for-service private hospital, not part of the Canadian Gov-care-and-die system.

No, Canadians can't access it without paying for it. That's what "private" hospital means. That's why Rand had to pay for his care.

That is the essence of what a Capitalist system is. You pay for what services or products, you get.

The point was, Rand did not go to a government run hospital. Why? Because they suck.

Hundreds of people, just dumped in the hallway at a hospital in Toronto.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-hospital-beds-flu-season-hallway-medicine-1.4851945

So let me explain what is going on.

In a socialized system, the amount of money is static. Meaning it doesn't change over time. The amount of money the hospital has, doesn't change. Equally, the hospital does not actually need the amount of money to change. The doctor is paid by the government, and he'll get his wage, and his pension, whether patients are treated well, or badly. Now that is not to say that doctors don't care... some do.

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters

Dr Brian Day, got so fed up with seeing his patients in agony, waiting years to get treatment, he opened his own private hospital.

But the main point is, whether you live or die in a government socialized system, means nothing to the hospital. They get paid no matter what, because the government is forking over the cash.

Regardless, there is no money for more rooms, or more beds, or more whatever. So you end up having to have people scream and yell at government, to get them to adjust the system. Which takes years to accomplish, and in the mean time, people are dumped in hallways, waiting hours or even days to get treated.

And even when the system is adjusted, it's still a static system. If they increase the number of beds by 10,000.... what happens when the number of patients increases beyond that 10,000? Then you are back to where you are now.

Aboriginal Man Died After 34-Hour Emergency Room Wait

Again... the system is static, and the patients do not matter. That's the socialized system.

Now in a Capitalist system, you have a completely different setup.

First, the amount of money is dynamic. As more people use the system, there is more money in the system. The more customers show up, the more money you earn, the more profits you have. And what do businesses do with profits? They grow to serve more customers.

So when more people show up at the ER over time, that means the hospital collects more money from the ER, which the hospital can then use to hire more doctors or nurses, to care for more ER patients.

This is why the Capitalist system inherently works better, than the socialized system. This is why people in Canada go to their government run hospital, and are appalled to be dumped in the hallway for almost 2 days.

Also... in a Capitalist system, patients are not annoyances, they are customers. If you don't keep your customer happy, they don't come back. Years ago, I was at a McDonalds to get a morning breakfast sandwich at 5 AM, just before work, which was right around the corner. They left me at the drive through, without responding for 15 minutes, and I ended up leaving without them even acknowledging I was there. I rarely get pissed off, but the fact I could see them inside the store, and they could see me, and did nothing, really pissed me off. I got to work, and contacted McDonald's corporate, and gave them the whole story. The next day that McDonald's was closed. It stayed closed for 2 days. When it opened again, all those employees had been replaced. Not one of the faces in that store, were people who had been there before.

Why? Because pissed off customers don't come back, and don't spend money. Hospitals that are private, need you there. They need happy customers. Customers that sit in the hallway for 2 days, tend to not want to come back. If they don't come back next time they are ill, then the hospital loses money.

So you don't see people siting 36 hours in the ER at a private hospital. Government hospitals do that, because if you never come back to the government hospital, not a single doctor, nurse, manager or executive loses a single penny.

That's the difference between Gov-care, and Capitalist-care. That's why the VA had secret waiting lists, where hundreds of vets died waiting for treatment. That is simply the reality of socialism vs capitalism.

 

[pknopp]

No, Canadians can't access it without paying for it.

Shouldice accepts public insurance, but it also allows people to pay for services.

Rand Paul headed to Canada for surgery, but will pay out of pocket

 

[OKTexas]

States can't keep anybody off the Presidential ballot. They would like to, the same way they didn't let anybody have say on sanctuary cities. But that overreach of theirs has limits. Funny how that works. I would also love to have state officials investigated for giving sanctuary to illegal whatzits from Shitopia without legal, fair representation, or permission of the local constituency. So that makes sanctuary cities illegal acts and unconstitutional as well. But here we are, a bunch of political scoundrels nitpicking on stuff they themselves don't bother to follow.

There is no such thing as a "Sanctuary City". Cities can do nothing about immigration, that is strictly a federal issue.

They labeled themselves as Sanctuary cities, and after the election, some states have labeled themselves as sanctuary.

Yes they have. Political mumbo jumbo. Like Trump they are doing nothing but blathering on.

We didn't make up that term--they did. Sanctuary means to give shelter to people who broke our laws. Not only do they refuse to interact with our federal agencies, some have made laws against doing so for government employees. You can be fired for cooperating with federal authorities.

That's Sanctuary alright.

They can do absolutely nothing about the Feds coming in. Nothing.

No they cannot, but they don't have to alert the feds of illegal criminals in their custody. They have issued warnings for illegals to hide because they knew the feds were coming in. They have told their local authorities they are not to cooperate with the feds in any way, even if they know something the feds want to know.

These are anti-American, pro-illegal government entities we are talking about here.

We are NOT helping the Feds come in here and yank people out of their homes to be taken out of the country. That's not what we want in California. You are talking about our friends, neighbors, and in many cases, families. Do that in your own state.

California sends more $$$$ to the Fed than we get back. We are supporting your sorry stupid poor uneducated lazy ass red states.
You should try to fix your own shitholes, but GOP never can mind their own business.

On top of that, Trump is hated and despised in this state. Why the hell do you think we would willingly cooperate with that POS?

Wow, another commie that thinks illegals are above the law. So much for the commie mantra that NO ONE is above the law. Fucking hypocrites need to be deported with the GD illegals.

.

 

[Andylusion]

No, Canadians can't access it without paying for it.

Shouldice accepts public insurance, but it also allows people to pay for services.

Rand Paul headed to Canada for surgery, but will pay out of pocket

I'm not sure what your point is.

Riverside Methodist Hospital here in Ohio takes my insurance too. So?

If the insurance pays the cost, then I would accept it. It's still pay-for-service. It's not government run hospital.

Now if you want to discuss how well the Canada public insurance works....

And the bill is getting bigger over time. Before inflation, the cost of public health care insurance went up by 53.3 per cent over the last decade. That's more than 1.5 times faster than the cost of shelter (34.2 per cent) and clothing (32.4 per cent), and more than twice as fast as the cost of food (23.4 per cent). It's also nearly 1.5 times faster than the growth in average income over the decade (36.3 per cent).

And what did these substantial funds buy?

Despite talk of wait times reduction initiatives (backed with substantial funding), Canadians face longer wait times than their counterparts in other developed nations for emergency care, primary care, specialist consultations, and elective surgery. Access to physicians and medical technologies in Canada lags behind many other developed nations. And things have improved little since 2003. For example, the total wait time in 2012 (17.7 weeks from GP to treatment) is every bit as long it was back then.
​

The one thing I do like about the Canadian health insurance program, is that at least the Canadians are honest about it.

The poor and middle class have seen their taxes to pay for health insurance increase substantially.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/price-of-public-health-care-insurance-2017.pdf

So, I'm not seeing that their public health insurance is all that sustainable.'

But at least it's better than the American left-wing that seem to pretend that magic money fairies will pay for health care, and it won't cost the poor and middle class more money.

 

[OKTexas]

The feds never asked you to yank anything. They asked that you contact them when you have a criminal illegal in custody so they can be processed and thrown out.

The only way a city or state agency can determine if someone is here illegally is to contact ICE. So ICE already knows. But you know this.

That's a lie, millions of illegal aliens are in the country that ICE doesn't know about. Several States are issuing illegals drivers licenses with the full knowledge of their status. Do you think the status of illegals are verified by ICE when the States issue the licenses?

.

 

[pknopp]

removed edited quotes

Yes, otherwise the state has no way of determining their status. Do I need to start posting court rulings here also?

( I edited out your spin that we never discussed.)

 

[OKTexas]

The feds never asked you to yank anything. They asked that you contact them when you have a criminal illegal in custody so they can be processed and thrown out.

The only way a city or state agency can determine if someone is here illegally is to contact ICE. So ICE already knows. But you know this.

Several States are issuing illegals drivers licenses with the full knowledge of their status. Do you think the status of illegals are verified by ICE when the States issue the licenses?

.

Yes, otherwise the state has no way of determining their status. Do I need to start posting court rulings here also?

( I edited out your spin that we never discussed.)

Wow you admit to a posting violation and then lie again. The State of TX requires a birth certificate to get a drivers license, my mother-in-law had to have one for a State ID. If a person doesn't have a US birth certificate or a green card, they won't give them a license or ID. Other States like commiefornification aren't so picky.

( I reported your posting violation.)

.

 

[Terri4Trump]

sounds good to me -

Thats because you are an idiot who hates the constitution.

That unconstitutional law will be thrown out.

 

[daveman]

Oh yeah, front page news, like this story?

I've posted stories of ICE busts under Trump. I was told by you leftists he had nothing to do with those; ICE did that long before Trump.

Which was the case. You were told that by me. You are discussing this with me. I have no control or anything to do with what others say.

It's estimated there are over 20 million illegals in this country; some claim it's much more than that. I believe the latter which is why Democrats are fighting so hard to keep the legal status question off the Census. I was also told by leftists that the main reason illegals come here is to work. Now let's put that together for a moment.......

If most of these 20 million are here to work, we can honestly say that at least 15 million are. So how many workplace raids would it take to capture 15 million illegal workers in this country?

I don't care what others have told you. What it would take is quite a few highly publicized raids with very strong repercussions for it to start to have an affect. That is not going to happen. Business wants them here to both work for them and to purchase their products. Trump is going to do nothing to interfere in that.

It seems like he already is. You want stricter penalties? Contact your local Democrat representative for that. All bills originate in the House which they now control.

'
Why do you suppose I should expect people to enforce stricter laws when they will not enforce the laws we have now? Yes, I would like to see stronger repercussions but the ones we have would suffice if they were enforced.

Like gun laws...not that Democrats will admit it.

Yeah sure. Like gun laws if you wish.

Doesn't matter what I wish. It's just reality.

 

[pknopp]

Which was the case. You were told that by me. You are discussing this with me. I have no control or anything to do with what others say.

I don't care what others have told you. What it would take is quite a few highly publicized raids with very strong repercussions for it to start to have an affect. That is not going to happen. Business wants them here to both work for them and to purchase their products. Trump is going to do nothing to interfere in that.

It seems like he already is. You want stricter penalties? Contact your local Democrat representative for that. All bills originate in the House which they now control.

'
Why do you suppose I should expect people to enforce stricter laws when they will not enforce the laws we have now? Yes, I would like to see stronger repercussions but the ones we have would suffice if they were enforced.

Like gun laws...not that Democrats will admit it.

Yeah sure. Like gun laws if you wish.

Doesn't matter what I wish. It's just reality.

It was your point.

 

[daveman]

It seems like he already is. You want stricter penalties? Contact your local Democrat representative for that. All bills originate in the House which they now control.

'
Why do you suppose I should expect people to enforce stricter laws when they will not enforce the laws we have now? Yes, I would like to see stronger repercussions but the ones we have would suffice if they were enforced.

Like gun laws...not that Democrats will admit it.

Yeah sure. Like gun laws if you wish.

Doesn't matter what I wish. It's just reality.

It was your point.

My point was an assertion, not a wish as you characterized it.

If you have to lie about what other people say to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

 

[pknopp]

'
Why do you suppose I should expect people to enforce stricter laws when they will not enforce the laws we have now? Yes, I would like to see stronger repercussions but the ones we have would suffice if they were enforced.

Like gun laws...not that Democrats will admit it.

Yeah sure. Like gun laws if you wish.

Doesn't matter what I wish. It's just reality.

It was your point.

My point was an assertion, not a wish as you characterized it.

I agreed and you still felt a need to quibble over something.

If you have to lie about what other people say to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

Absolutely.

 

[daveman]

Like gun laws...not that Democrats will admit it.

Yeah sure. Like gun laws if you wish.

Doesn't matter what I wish. It's just reality.

It was your point.

My point was an assertion, not a wish as you characterized it.

I agreed and you still felt a need to quibble over something.

If you have to lie about what other people say to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

Absolutely.

Words to live by. Maybe you should.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, not if they don't contact ICE. HTF would ICE know if the cops have an illegal sitting in a jail cell in Fresno?

I'll simply let this reply speak for itself since we have already covered and agreed here.

I know, because leftists can never admit when they are wrong.

Yeah I notice how all Republicans in the senate stand up to Trump the MANY times he's wrong. Cowards

Trump is hardly wrong. The proof is in the poodin.

How many have left him now?? Do you know what a good manager is?? It's one who hires the best people for the job NOT anyone who will kiss his ass

Whatever Trump decides on and who he selects to work for him are obviously working very well. Trump is used to firing people that don't perform. In fact he had a hit television show about it. Not many people last long working for somebody else that they disagree with all the time.

A good manager does not let his workers push him around. A good manager is one who's performance is transcending.

 

[Rigby5]

Stricter enforcement of laws is never the answer.
The problem with gun violence in the US is entirely caused by too much enforcement of the War on Drugs, which inflates the profits from drugs, entices poor people, causes turf wars, prevents the use of banks or police, discredits government, etc.

 

[pknopp]

Stricter enforcement of laws is never the answer.
The problem with gun violence in the US is entirely caused by too much enforcement of the War on Drugs, which inflates the profits from drugs, entices poor people, causes turf wars, prevents the use of banks or police, discredits government, etc.

That's not the entire problem but it is a problem.

 

[Flopper]

Trump's total tax return is reported to be over 125 pages without supporting worksheets and forms. For anyone who operates and managing an organization the size of the Trump Organization there is a huge amount of information in his tax returns.

To report interest paid on loans you must list who holds the loans. Every write off requires supporting data. Every source of income must be listed. Sale of assets have to be reported.

Yes, if a candidate does not release his tax returns, then his opponent can make up all kinds shit about his finances. This is one the reason they release their returns.

Of course if the candidate has financial transaction that would indicate a conflict of interest transaction that would point to possible criminal conspiracies, or transactions that would be difficult for the president to explain then the president might well chose to hide hide them from voters.

It doesn't matter if Trump releases his returns or not. Democrats will still make up shit.

And whether Trump releases his tax returns or not, he will still be the republican nominee.

That's the point I'm making. If the little commies come up with some scheme to have a primary race for the Republicans in their state, and Trump tells them to beat a salt bag with their additional requirements, they may try to use that as disqualification from being on their general ballot.

Flopper, they are doing this for a reason. What do you suppose that reason is?????

Republicans in California adopted the primary as method of determining voter preference in 1912. It is a closed primary.

If Trump decides not to put his name on the primary ballot, the California State Republican Committee will simply ignore the election and select Trump pledged nominees to assure the nomination.

If California passes the law for the general election and I hope they do because what might unfold would be really interesting.

The issue before the courts would be the right of states to control their elections. Republicans have long been a champion of this issue as were southern democrats in the mid 20th century as well as the late 1800's. The Supreme Court rulings have always upheld the right the states to control elections in their state.

Add to the mix the fact that a dozen other state legislatures are considering similar legislation.

Unfortunately, I don't see this train going anywhere for following reasons.

At least a half dozen lawsuits are being filed in federal court and at least one of the courts is going temporary block the law till the case is heard. Since there is less than 5 months before the deadline for releasing tax returns, this may effective solve the problem for Trump.

However, if the courts do not block the law Trump may end the issue by releasing his returns.

If other states joint California, then Trump will certainly release his returns unless there is damning information in the returns which would lead him into criminal court.

The answer to your question as to the reason for this, I refer to the governors statement.
“These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement announcing the bill signing.

And he is full of shit because this has nothing to do with standards. It has to do with Trump not willing to release his returns. Blackmail.

This so-called law is aimed at one thing only and one candidate only. Would you be happy with states making laws against any candidate including Democrat candidates?

Forcing a candidate to release his returns is illegal. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as the US qualifications to run for this office. If successful, California Electoral Votes should be rejected in the next presidential election. They need to be their own country and leave our union.

I don't think that will fly in courts.
Is California doing unreasonable searches or seizures? Are they issuing warrants to seize documents or property from Trump on his person or in his home or business? Are the primary registration requirements different for Trump than all other candidates?

The fact is registering for the California primarily is completely voluntary. It is not a requirement to be president so how is the state changing the presidential requirements?

California is not compelling Trump to register. The state is not forcing Trump to do anything. So how in hell can it be a violation of the 4th amendment?

It may not seem unfair that Trump may be the only candidate inconvenience by this law but remember states have often made changes in election registration requirements such as number signatures needed on a petition to be put on the ballot, registration information required of the candidate, and in fact which political parities will be allowed a primary.

Apparently you are not familiar enough with the constitution to understand that neither primaries nor a general presidential election in a state is required by the constitution. If the state of California so desired it could abolish the primaries and general election and appoint electors to the Electoral College and it would be constitution. This should indicate the degree of control states have over their elections.

 

[Flopper]

Hell yeah, every other president made their tax returns public. I like that. And whilst we are at it, tie in to that public disclosure stuff, a really nasty issue that will piss off liberals. Sanctuary cities, I would tie into that a big federal investigation as to the legality and constitutional nature of sanctuary cities. And those that made it happen, and how they sort of sidestepped their constituents wants and needs. Piddly stuff like that. Being sanctuary cities harm American citizens, the very people that vote, and the fact it was never on any ballot or questionnaire or public debate or inquiry, and that perhaps our noble Dem lib leaders were compromised by the need of groups that profit from exploiting cheap labor illegals represent...I welcome looking to all those deep dark dank secrets of the entitled and greedy. Of whatever ilk. And lets follow all the legal implications.

And this is what is going to happen. What dems in California are doing is putting in a "poison pill" to target individuals. If this is allowed look for it to be the next political game we beat each other up with.

If you want this change it needs to be at a federal level and for the good of the system. Not individual desires and butthurt.

For it to be a poison bill, not being on the primary ballot would have do Trump great harm. The fact is if Trump was not on the primary ballot, the republican state committee would still select Trump pledged delegates to the convention so it would make no difference in the nomination. However, even it was, there is nothing illegal about. The state has control over state elections, an issue republicans have championed over and over.

 

[Flopper]

The feds never asked you to yank anything. They asked that you contact them when you have a criminal illegal in custody so they can be processed and thrown out.

The only way a city or state agency can determine if someone is here illegally is to contact ICE. So ICE already knows. But you know this.

That's a lie, millions of illegal aliens are in the country that ICE doesn't know about. Several States are issuing illegals drivers licenses with the full knowledge of their status. Do you think the status of illegals are verified by ICE when the States issue the licenses?

.

If ICE, doesn't know who is in the country illegally, then how do the states know.

 

[iceberg]

Hell yeah, every other president made their tax returns public. I like that. And whilst we are at it, tie in to that public disclosure stuff, a really nasty issue that will piss off liberals. Sanctuary cities, I would tie into that a big federal investigation as to the legality and constitutional nature of sanctuary cities. And those that made it happen, and how they sort of sidestepped their constituents wants and needs. Piddly stuff like that. Being sanctuary cities harm American citizens, the very people that vote, and the fact it was never on any ballot or questionnaire or public debate or inquiry, and that perhaps our noble Dem lib leaders were compromised by the need of groups that profit from exploiting cheap labor illegals represent...I welcome looking to all those deep dark dank secrets of the entitled and greedy. Of whatever ilk. And lets follow all the legal implications.

And this is what is going to happen. What dems in California are doing is putting in a "poison pill" to target individuals. If this is allowed look for it to be the next political game we beat each other up with.

If you want this change it needs to be at a federal level and for the good of the system. Not individual desires and butthurt.

For it to be a poison bill, not being on the primary ballot would have do Trump great harm. The fact is if Trump was not on the primary ballot, the republican state committee would still select Trump pledged delegates to the convention so it would make no difference in the nomination. However, even it was, there is nothing illegal about. The state has control over state elections, an issue republicans have championed over and over.

Fine.

Shut the fuck up when the right pulls this in a payback move.

That really what you want to support? MORE bullshit games?