Top Three Mysteries in Liberal Beliefs

[G.T.]

No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.

I want to know why you engage in the inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric that has made messageboards a vile place for discourse in the first place.

Let's see you come to terms with your bullshit OP and its motivations befor I waste any time trying to be "serious" with you. You also labeled me, AGAIN as "progressive" whereas I don't identify as any such thing.

I also think you have the poorest possible understanding of most anyone on the board as to what elected representatives are sent to do. They're not sent to placate every side of every issue, they're there to fulfill the will of the voters that put them there. To REPRESENT them.

Hi G.T. and sorry to give the wrong impression here.
A. I totally agree that it isn't "all liberals" who want to ban guns outright.
But yes, I do know and have run into such people even at my local
fellowship who preach about banning guns, and having gun free schools
and district. so it's not like this mindset doesn't exist at all.
It may be the minority, but that's enough to make it worth addressing.

I'm GLAD if you and me and others advocate for better solutions.
That is why I asked to hear from others like you with better solutions.
Pogo also made it clear.
so that's what I'm asking for.
Sorry I set up the thread in such a way as to appear
NOT interested in that.

B. As for representatives, do you agree that even while
representing the beliefs of the district and populations these reps serve
NO ONE IN GOVT SERVICE SHOULD BE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS, ETHICS, LIMITS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS.

I totally agree that reps should be representing the people.

But since Govt cannot establish beliefs or mandates AGAINST the will of the people, it makes more sense that the PEOPLE form policies that represent
the public and then WE instruct GOVT officials in what is approved by the PEOPLE in order for policies and reforms to reflect the consent of the taxpayers
and citizens affected and served by govt and public policies and institutions.

Do you have any issues with that?
With making sure that govt and policies reflect the CONSENT of the people governed? And the taxpayers paying for policies so we agree on the terms of payment and services?

Thanks G.T.
I'm okay starting over with a different thread and different premise
if that would work better than whatever is objected to here.
Sorry about that, but whatever it takes,
the whole point and purpose IS to discuss
working solutions and approaches. Whatever that takes!

Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.

???

What "intentions" are you talking about G.T.

What is wrong with setting up local representation by party
so that all people can redress grievances without depending
on being voted in before we enjoy equal rights and protections.

What do you think will go wrong that you think
I am either "naive" about or actively trying to do that is negative here?

Thanks G.T.
sorry if I still come across wrong or disingenuous.
Whatever is causing that, we need to fix it if we are going
to implement sustainable health care, education and other
solutions to social problems that require democratizing districts
so resources are invested into cost effective programs that work
instead of wasted on fighting politically without solving problems!

I don't like the hard right religious indoctrination wrapped up in fuddy duddy, "fairness for all" pie in the sky baby girl bullshit every time a policy is passed that isn't hard right religious indoctrination bullshit...

...and every time you say something stupid like "setting up local representation by party,"...

when we already have that,,,

and you pretend it's some new or needed idea...

JUST because your Religious views, YOU FEEL, aren't getting their shine.....THAT'S a clearly hidden intention. Raise your hand.

It's... in effect... whining. Quit whining.

We HAVE local representatives.
We HAVE national representatives.
We DO Vote for our beliefs, and we win and lose.

There's nothing "unfair" about society moving past certain mores and traditions. Go out in your back yard, start a mini government for your friends and family and be happy. Quit pretending you don't already have the Vote...both locally and nationally...every time a policy decision doesn't go your way. It's old.

Dear G.T.
Okay let's address two separate points you bring up
and thank you for clarifying all this in detail

1. First, I am ALSO rallying and working DIRECTLY with members of religious right,
right to life, and Christian Constitutionalist positions to STOP THEM FROM
TRYING TO PUSH THEIR BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT AS WELL.

So NO I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT EITHER WHICH IS EQUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I end up having to tell my friends who believe in pushing the Bible or Christian based govt
including right to life that the Constitutional limits APPLY TO THEIR FAITH BASED BELIEFS AS WELL.

So NO, to answer to your statements assuming that I support that,
I equally have to ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION with my Christian/Conservative/Prolife
friends as well.

They don't like to hear this either, but the same laws apply to ALL faith based beliefs.
If we are going to allow Christian beliefs to be established by Govt
then LGBT beliefs should be allowed this as well; if one side is going to lobby
to REMOVE LGBT beliefs, then the other should be allowed to REMOVE CHRISTIAN beliefs.

The Laws/Govt should remain NEUTRAL and not impose
EITHER the BELIEFS of the Right against the free choice CONSENT and equal protection/inclusion of the left
or the BELIEFS of the Left against the free choice CONSENT and equal protection/inclusion of the right.

^ Can I please clarify this IMPORTANT point with you about Constitutional equal protection under law
of ALL people to be protected from infringement or abuse of Govt from BELIEFS they don't consent to.

That goes for the Right to be protected from the Left
EQUALLY as it applies to protecting the Left from the Right.

NO BELIEFS should be established by Govt unless everyone consents to that!

G.T. please confirm this point is clear.
If not, please tell me why, what objections or problems do you
see either with me or my above beliefs/interpretation.

Emily..literally every law, pact, regulation, tax or red tape is based on a belief. The constitution itself is based on beliefs. You are too naive for air, just like I said...and its not for offense but just to tell you my position on the fluffernutter things youve got to say.

Representative government...represents what?

The BELIEFS of those represented.

EVERYTHING done is based on beliefs.

Does EVERYONE believe RAPE should be illegal? Lets ask a Rapist if others' beliefs are being imposed upon them.

Does EVERYONE believe in a Constitution? Lets ask some fascists and commies if they're at all feeling imposed upon...by the existence of the Const.

Does EVERYONE believe in borders...and states? Lets ask some true anarchists how they feel about a Constitutional Govt which imposes the belief of borders on everyone else in the world.



Your view is simple minded and absurd. A Nation itself is an imposition of beliefs.


So...in conclusion, your statement that "NO BELIEFS should be established by govt unless EVERYONE consents" is the dumbest statement ever uttered......for the above reasons and 1. every act is based on beliefs...and 2. 100% consensus is not and never was required and is not written anywhere, n'or was ever had.


Naive.
Dumb.
either
both

 

[emilynghiem]

2. Point 2

...and every time you say something stupid like "setting up local representation by party,"...

when we already have that,,,

and you pretend it's some new or needed idea...

JUST because your Religious views, YOU FEEL, aren't getting their shine.....THAT'S a clearly hidden intention. Raise your hand.

It's... in effect... whining. Quit whining.

We HAVE local representatives.
We HAVE national representatives.
We DO Vote for our beliefs, and we win and lose.

There's nothing "unfair" about society moving past certain mores and traditions. Go out in your back yard, start a mini government for your friends and family and be happy. Quit pretending you don't already have the Vote...both locally and nationally...every time a policy decision doesn't go your way. It's old.

2. Dear G.T.
What I mean is only the party/side that gets the MAJORITY VOTE gets representation.

For example:
I. Electoral College Votes where ALL the state votes go to the MAJORITY CANDIDATE
and ZERO go to the others.

Ia. This can be remedied by SPLITTING each State's Electoral College Votes
Proportionally by party.

So if TX and CA have Popular Votes 51-49, then instead of ALL THEIR VOTES
going to just ONE PARTY, these are DIVIDED Proportionally closer to 50/50 which better REPRESENTS their
actual populations.

Ib. And also, I propose to have those Electoral College Districts set up an ONGOING council
of Electors, appointed PROPORTIONALLY by PARTY affiliation of their district voters,
so that LIBERTARIANS, GREENS, CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL LAW, VETERAN,
SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST and OTHER PARTY MEMBERS have representation
PROPORTIONAL to their memberships in that district.

NOT JUST THE WINNING PARTY trying to represent everyone which
doesn't work. If you don't trust ME to represent your beliefs, why would
you trust Republican Party members or Libertarian or anyone else.

You would likely trust people YOU SELECT who align with YOUR PARTY BELIEFS.

II. Judicial seats and rulings

Again, only the WINNING party/candidate gets judicial representation.

And in votes on rulings, only the WINNING vote gets their side represented.

IIa. Again this can be remedied by CONFLICT RESOLUTION where whatever
objections or conflicts cause rejection, those are resolved so all sides are included, represented and satisfied with
the conclusion.

IIb. Again, this is WHY I recommend setting up LOCAL REPRESENTATION BY PARTY
in order to REDRESS grievances, RESOLVE CONFLICTS, and present JOINT SOLUTIONS
to Govt that REPRESENT the diverse parties and constituents affected by policies.

G.T. WE DO NOT HAVE THIS ACCURATE LEVEL of REPRESENTATION YET.

We only have a black and white system of Majority rule/winner take all,
yes or no, but not a way to RESOLVE CONFLICTS BY INCLUDING ALL SIDES.

NOTE: The GREEN PARTY promotes
* Proportional Representation
* Consensus models of decision making to reflect community participation and input

This better accommodates DIVERSITY
protects INDIVIDUAL rights and free choice from being overruled by political COERCION
by hostile opposition abusing Majority rule to CENSOR or OPPRESS dissent,
and rewards conflict resolution and problem solving to work out more effective solutions
that all sides agree on.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi G.T. and sorry to give the wrong impression here.
A. I totally agree that it isn't "all liberals" who want to ban guns outright.
But yes, I do know and have run into such people even at my local
fellowship who preach about banning guns, and having gun free schools
and district. so it's not like this mindset doesn't exist at all.
It may be the minority, but that's enough to make it worth addressing.

I'm GLAD if you and me and others advocate for better solutions.
That is why I asked to hear from others like you with better solutions.
Pogo also made it clear.
so that's what I'm asking for.
Sorry I set up the thread in such a way as to appear
NOT interested in that.

B. As for representatives, do you agree that even while
representing the beliefs of the district and populations these reps serve
NO ONE IN GOVT SERVICE SHOULD BE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS, ETHICS, LIMITS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS.

I totally agree that reps should be representing the people.

But since Govt cannot establish beliefs or mandates AGAINST the will of the people, it makes more sense that the PEOPLE form policies that represent
the public and then WE instruct GOVT officials in what is approved by the PEOPLE in order for policies and reforms to reflect the consent of the taxpayers
and citizens affected and served by govt and public policies and institutions.

Do you have any issues with that?
With making sure that govt and policies reflect the CONSENT of the people governed? And the taxpayers paying for policies so we agree on the terms of payment and services?

Thanks G.T.
I'm okay starting over with a different thread and different premise
if that would work better than whatever is objected to here.
Sorry about that, but whatever it takes,
the whole point and purpose IS to discuss
working solutions and approaches. Whatever that takes!

Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.

???

What "intentions" are you talking about G.T.

What is wrong with setting up local representation by party
so that all people can redress grievances without depending
on being voted in before we enjoy equal rights and protections.

What do you think will go wrong that you think
I am either "naive" about or actively trying to do that is negative here?

Thanks G.T.
sorry if I still come across wrong or disingenuous.
Whatever is causing that, we need to fix it if we are going
to implement sustainable health care, education and other
solutions to social problems that require democratizing districts
so resources are invested into cost effective programs that work
instead of wasted on fighting politically without solving problems!

I don't like the hard right religious indoctrination wrapped up in fuddy duddy, "fairness for all" pie in the sky baby girl bullshit every time a policy is passed that isn't hard right religious indoctrination bullshit...

...and every time you say something stupid like "setting up local representation by party,"...

when we already have that,,,

and you pretend it's some new or needed idea...

JUST because your Religious views, YOU FEEL, aren't getting their shine.....THAT'S a clearly hidden intention. Raise your hand.

It's... in effect... whining. Quit whining.

We HAVE local representatives.
We HAVE national representatives.
We DO Vote for our beliefs, and we win and lose.

There's nothing "unfair" about society moving past certain mores and traditions. Go out in your back yard, start a mini government for your friends and family and be happy. Quit pretending you don't already have the Vote...both locally and nationally...every time a policy decision doesn't go your way. It's old.

Dear G.T.
Okay let's address two separate points you bring up
and thank you for clarifying all this in detail

1. First, I am ALSO rallying and working DIRECTLY with members of religious right,
right to life, and Christian Constitutionalist positions to STOP THEM FROM
TRYING TO PUSH THEIR BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT AS WELL.

So NO I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT EITHER WHICH IS EQUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I end up having to tell my friends who believe in pushing the Bible or Christian based govt
including right to life that the Constitutional limits APPLY TO THEIR FAITH BASED BELIEFS AS WELL.

So NO, to answer to your statements assuming that I support that,
I equally have to ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION with my Christian/Conservative/Prolife
friends as well.

They don't like to hear this either, but the same laws apply to ALL faith based beliefs.
If we are going to allow Christian beliefs to be established by Govt
then LGBT beliefs should be allowed this as well; if one side is going to lobby
to REMOVE LGBT beliefs, then the other should be allowed to REMOVE CHRISTIAN beliefs.

The Laws/Govt should remain NEUTRAL and not impose
EITHER the BELIEFS of the Right against the free choice CONSENT and equal protection/inclusion of the left
or the BELIEFS of the Left against the free choice CONSENT and equal protection/inclusion of the right.

^ Can I please clarify this IMPORTANT point with you about Constitutional equal protection under law
of ALL people to be protected from infringement or abuse of Govt from BELIEFS they don't consent to.

That goes for the Right to be protected from the Left
EQUALLY as it applies to protecting the Left from the Right.

NO BELIEFS should be established by Govt unless everyone consents to that!

G.T. please confirm this point is clear.
If not, please tell me why, what objections or problems do you
see either with me or my above beliefs/interpretation.

Emily..literally every law, pact, regulation, tax or red tape is based on a belief. The constitution itself is based on beliefs. You are too naive for air, just like I said...and its not for offense but just to tell you my position on the fluffernutter things youve got to say.

Representative government...represents what?

The BELIEFS of those represented.

EVERYTHING done is based on beliefs.

Dear G.T.
What I mean are FAITH BASED and SPIRITUAL beliefs including
beliefs about human nature.

That's NOT the same as "believing it is better" that a road should be 14 miles or 40 miles.

In the case of FAITH BASED beliefs, people DO NOT CONSENT to have Govt dictate that for them.

With the other matters of legislation, people WILL agree to either Majority Rule of 51-49, or 2/3 or 3/4 depending on the process. They aren't going to argue "free exercise of religion"
over conflicts over SECULAR matters.

I'm talking about INHERENT beliefs that are different because
people are either theist/nontheist, believe in religious authority before state authority,
or believe in state authority before church authority,
believe in right to life or right to health care,
believe that right to vote or right to bear arms should not be regulated
because they "don't trust govt to do that" etc.

People DO NOT AGREE to Compromise beliefs about
abortion, gun rights, voting rights, marriage,
death penalty, euthanasia, health care through govt,
LGBT, and immigration because there are SPIRITUAL
beliefs involved that Govt cannot force people to change or compromise.

On issues involving such beliefs, we have to craft laws that
ALLOW people to fund and follow their own beliefs and not be
forced to compromise those by Govt. We have to find better
approaches and solutions that DON'T DEPEND on coercing people
to fund policies against their beliefs.

And yes G.T. the good news is that by the time we set up
Conflict Resolution and representation by Party to protect beliefs
from imposing on each other, ALL OTHER CONFLICTS CAN BE
RESOLVED THE SAME WAY. by mediation to RESOLVE points
of objection so we QUIT forcing compromise.

 

[G.T.]

Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.

???

What "intentions" are you talking about G.T.

What is wrong with setting up local representation by party
so that all people can redress grievances without depending
on being voted in before we enjoy equal rights and protections.

What do you think will go wrong that you think
I am either "naive" about or actively trying to do that is negative here?

Thanks G.T.
sorry if I still come across wrong or disingenuous.
Whatever is causing that, we need to fix it if we are going
to implement sustainable health care, education and other
solutions to social problems that require democratizing districts
so resources are invested into cost effective programs that work
instead of wasted on fighting politically without solving problems!

I don't like the hard right religious indoctrination wrapped up in fuddy duddy, "fairness for all" pie in the sky baby girl bullshit every time a policy is passed that isn't hard right religious indoctrination bullshit...

...and every time you say something stupid like "setting up local representation by party,"...

when we already have that,,,

and you pretend it's some new or needed idea...

JUST because your Religious views, YOU FEEL, aren't getting their shine.....THAT'S a clearly hidden intention. Raise your hand.

It's... in effect... whining. Quit whining.

We HAVE local representatives.
We HAVE national representatives.
We DO Vote for our beliefs, and we win and lose.

There's nothing "unfair" about society moving past certain mores and traditions. Go out in your back yard, start a mini government for your friends and family and be happy. Quit pretending you don't already have the Vote...both locally and nationally...every time a policy decision doesn't go your way. It's old.

Dear G.T.
Okay let's address two separate points you bring up
and thank you for clarifying all this in detail

1. First, I am ALSO rallying and working DIRECTLY with members of religious right,
right to life, and Christian Constitutionalist positions to STOP THEM FROM
TRYING TO PUSH THEIR BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT AS WELL.

So NO I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT EITHER WHICH IS EQUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I end up having to tell my friends who believe in pushing the Bible or Christian based govt
including right to life that the Constitutional limits APPLY TO THEIR FAITH BASED BELIEFS AS WELL.

So NO, to answer to your statements assuming that I support that,
I equally have to ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION with my Christian/Conservative/Prolife
friends as well.

They don't like to hear this either, but the same laws apply to ALL faith based beliefs.
If we are going to allow Christian beliefs to be established by Govt
then LGBT beliefs should be allowed this as well; if one side is going to lobby
to REMOVE LGBT beliefs, then the other should be allowed to REMOVE CHRISTIAN beliefs.

The Laws/Govt should remain NEUTRAL and not impose
EITHER the BELIEFS of the Right against the free choice CONSENT and equal protection/inclusion of the left
or the BELIEFS of the Left against the free choice CONSENT and equal protection/inclusion of the right.

^ Can I please clarify this IMPORTANT point with you about Constitutional equal protection under law
of ALL people to be protected from infringement or abuse of Govt from BELIEFS they don't consent to.

That goes for the Right to be protected from the Left
EQUALLY as it applies to protecting the Left from the Right.

NO BELIEFS should be established by Govt unless everyone consents to that!

G.T. please confirm this point is clear.
If not, please tell me why, what objections or problems do you
see either with me or my above beliefs/interpretation.

Emily..literally every law, pact, regulation, tax or red tape is based on a belief. The constitution itself is based on beliefs. You are too naive for air, just like I said...and its not for offense but just to tell you my position on the fluffernutter things youve got to say.

Representative government...represents what?

The BELIEFS of those represented.

EVERYTHING done is based on beliefs.

Dear G.T.
What I mean are FAITH BASED and SPIRITUAL beliefs including
beliefs about human nature.

That's NOT the same as "believing it is better" that a road should be 14 miles or 40 miles.

In the case of FAITH BASED beliefs, people DO NOT CONSENT to have Govt dictate that for them.

With the other matters of legislation, people WILL agree to either Majority Rule of 51-49, or 2/3 or 3/4 depending on the process. They aren't going to argue "free exercise of religion"
over conflicts over SECULAR matters.

I'm talking about INHERENT beliefs that are different because
people are either theist/nontheist, believe in religious authority before state authority,
or believe in state authority before church authority,
believe in right to life or right to health care,
believe that right to vote or right to bear arms should not be regulated
because they "don't trust govt to do that" etc.

People DO NOT AGREE to Compromise beliefs about
abortion, gun rights, voting rights, marriage,
death penalty, euthanasia, health care through govt,
LGBT, and immigration because there are SPIRITUAL
beliefs involved that Govt cannot force people to change or compromise.

On issues involving such beliefs, we have to craft laws that
ALLOW people to fund and follow their own beliefs and not be
forced to compromise those by Govt. We have to find better
approaches and solutions that DON'T DEPEND on coercing people
to fund policies against their beliefs.

And yes G.T. the good news is that by the time we set up
Conflict Resolution and representation by Party to protect beliefs
from imposing on each other, ALL OTHER CONFLICTS CAN BE
RESOLVED THE SAME WAY. by mediation to RESOLVE points
of objection so we QUIT forcing compromise.

Its too stupid and tedious to continue this naive crappola....g'night emily.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!

Dear WTH_Progs?

How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.

Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.

I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.

Let's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!

Universal Healthcare

A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.

Sure we can afford it
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper

The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all

Thanks rightwinger

I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.

www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com

otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.

Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.

Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.

It's too complicated. Much simpler just to eliminate private health insurance and consolidate everything under one umbrella.

Dear Crepitus
1. There is nothing wrong with nonprofit and private insurance
competing to offer the better benefits, lower rates and with lower or no copays/deductibles.

The nonprofit cooperative association program that has
researched this has already gotten top insurance underwriters
to offer that level of benefits and coverage.

2. Also don't forget that what may seem SIMPLE to you
would be OPPOSED by half the nation that doesn't believe
in relying or going through Govt to mandate such policies

You remind me of Prolife people who think the problem of abortion
would be simpler to solve by just BANNING it PERIOD.

You are still left with solving the problems and complications
that don't go away just by making laws against something.

Crepitus to lower the costs and raise the quality and choices in medical and health care,
this requires organizing networks where local providers contract and get paid directly by their clients.

So this has to be set up COST EFFECTIVELY anyway to be SUSTAINABLE.

The Cooperative model is based on setting up those direct relations
so it cuts the costs by eliminating insurance profits, claims, deductibles, copays.

So you don't have to change anything through govt, when these choices
can already be set up to be the most cost effective and MAXIMIZE patient choices.

NOTE: The one area of law that we could change, and these cooperatives will help,
is to make health care/medical costs 100% tax deductible if the services are paid for AT COST.
Because cooperatives would allow for both the free market structure that Conservatives defend,
and the universal care coverage that Liberals believe in as the basic standard,
then this set up would bring people from either side together in agreement
to lobby for 100% tax deductions for payments or donations for services provided at cost.

NOBODY would oppose that, but trying to ban either abortion or ban private insurance, etc.
or other restrictions on how health care choices are "regulated through govt" runs into OBJECTIONS
that WASTE TIME ENERGY AND RESOURCES better invested in solutions that cause no such objections.

 

[emilynghiem]

Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.

??? G.T.
Since WHEN does voting for someone mean giving them all your
consent and authority to make decisions for you?

No, G.T. there is something called the CONSTITUTION that limits Govt from ESTABLISHING or PROHIBITING free exercise of religion or beliefs
and Civil Rights laws against DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

Voting someone into office is NOT FREE LICENSE
to violate Constitutional laws and limits on Govt.

Sorry, but no.
It's NOT a dictatorship by voting in someone to play such a role.
It's NOT a theocracy where elected officials have Divine Right to Rule.

WTF are you talking about.

G.T. do you remember when people used to justify Marital Rape
because once the wife agrees to marry the husband, people just ASSUMED
that any sex was already consented to?

WTF G.T. Where are you getting that just because someone is elected
to office they can do whatever in the name of Govt and it is mandated
and "automatically represents the consent of the people."

No, we don't have a Monarchy or anything like that.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying???

???

 

[emilynghiem]

What is the difference between Healthcare exchanges under Obamacare and a Healthcare Cooperative?

Benefits wise, the cooperatives offer lower or no deductibles compared with the
higher deductibles that made Obamacare unusable to people who still couldn't afford the costs.

The cooperatives allow equal free choice if people WANT to use Obamacare benefits
where those work better and/or cost less, and still retain equal access to choose better
benefits and/or lower rates, so they have the best of all systems to choose from.

The cooperatives don't require mandating anything through govt which requires lobbying and legislation
and fighting to control and get the terms you want, while other people would be competing for their preferences.

With cooperatives, people organize democratically so you get the policies you want without
conflict with other people in other groups who can decide their own terms and choices of providers.

Basically, rightwinger you retain maximum choice and benefits
instead of having to compete politically with opposing factions to try to control things through govt mandated policies.

Because members choose which providers they want to build their networks around,
the control belongs to the clients receiving the services. And the providers get paid
directly by the association so this cuts the costs of admin, bureaucracy and claims
where the money saved goes into medical services, not profits or excess admin costs as with federal govt.

Localizing the services to regions allows for lower costs by
* reducing admin costs where minimal staff can provide more efficient service to a localized group of 1500
* distributing the higher cost cases evenly and naturally by population instead of concentrating them
* being able to predict costs at a minimum of 1500 members so the monthly payments cover costs without filling claims

Federal Govt is not set up to handle the individual choices or demands of the population
as effectively as setting up localized pools democratically managed by the members.

However, these cooperatives CAN INCLUDE federal funded clinics AS AN OPTION.

So rightwinger if you want the choice of the best options and affordable sustainable "universal care"
this model is the best approach I've found to get us there.

The setbacks are EDUCATING and ORGANIZING people to set up their own local cooperatives
which takes time and effort. So you can either keep fighting to try to mandate universal care through federal
govt, and then STILL have to educate and train people to run the system and HOPE the govt does as well as cooperatives.

Or we can go ahead and lobby our party leaders and members to SET UP COOPERATIVES
and then put in tax breaks for donors, investors or lenders to cover paid jobs to train people
how to manage their own health care. The cooperatives save enough money to pay people
to manage the admin. But until they are set up, where states require various licensing to
negotiate the medical and insurance costs, the money isn't organized yet to pay for the staff.

If you happen to live in Houston or Wichita KS or other areas that already have licensed coops you can join.

To replicate these models in all cities and states, someone has to organize a network of
providers and register to set up nonprofit status and get the licensing as required per state.

We could get help from party leaders and precinct chairs to organize cooperative chapters.
It's a lot of work to develop, but it would be necessary anyway in order to afford universal care.

And this way, the conservatives would actually SUPPORT investing in such programs
(instead of opposing any efforts to mandate or manage them through federal govt).

 

[SweetSue92]

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

The answer will always be....

UTOPIA

 

[G.T.]

Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.

??? G.T.
Since WHEN does voting for someone mean giving them all your
consent and authority to make decisions for you?

No, G.T. there is something called the CONSTITUTION that limits Govt from ESTABLISHING or PROHIBITING free exercise of religion or beliefs
and Civil Rights laws against DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

Voting someone into office is NOT FREE LICENSE
to violate Constitutional laws and limits on Govt.

Sorry, but no.
It's NOT a dictatorship by voting in someone to play such a role.
It's NOT a theocracy where elected officials have Divine Right to Rule.

WTF are you talking about.

G.T. do you remember when people used to justify Marital Rape
because once the wife agrees to marry the husband, people just ASSUMED
that any sex was already consented to?

WTF G.T. Where are you getting that just because someone is elected
to office they can do whatever in the name of Govt and it is mandated
and "automatically represents the consent of the people."

No, we don't have a Monarchy or anything like that.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying???

???

yupp.

 

[emilynghiem]

Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.

??? G.T.
Since WHEN does voting for someone mean giving them all your
consent and authority to make decisions for you?

No, G.T. there is something called the CONSTITUTION that limits Govt from ESTABLISHING or PROHIBITING free exercise of religion or beliefs
and Civil Rights laws against DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

Voting someone into office is NOT FREE LICENSE
to violate Constitutional laws and limits on Govt.

Sorry, but no.
It's NOT a dictatorship by voting in someone to play such a role.
It's NOT a theocracy where elected officials have Divine Right to Rule.

WTF are you talking about.

G.T. do you remember when people used to justify Marital Rape
because once the wife agrees to marry the husband, people just ASSUMED
that any sex was already consented to?

WTF G.T. Where are you getting that just because someone is elected
to office they can do whatever in the name of Govt and it is mandated
and "automatically represents the consent of the people."

No, we don't have a Monarchy or anything like that.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying???

???

yupp.

Thank GOD G.T. that's NOT what you were saying
WHEW!
Now you got me so relieved,
whatever you did mean will not be so bad!
I can take it, next to THAT! ;-)

 

[emilynghiem]

The answer will always be....

UTOPIA

The real question SweetSue92
Is how much work is it really going to take
to make all this wonderful stuff happen.
Which parts are the Liberals really willing to fund
and develop, and which programs or approaches
will the Conservatives agree to take on.

If we can organize this by Party, and start holding
people to pay for the agenda they preach,
that's half the battle. Just mapping out a game plan
that makes everyone happy they can fund what they ask for.

Then there's all the work to FULFILL the plans
once we even agree what they are!

Utopia, yes, but it will take real work by real people.
Nothing is by magic.
Someone has to do the work to develop it,
and it has to be set up where people AGREE TO FUND IT.
So clearly we'd have to separate and organize
which teams and groups agree to be in charge of
which programs they are so committed to they
are willing to fund the work, jobs, education and
reforms themselves to ensure it meets their standards.

 

[SweetSue92]

The answer will always be....

UTOPIA

The real question SweetSue92
Is how much work is it really going to take
to make all this wonderful stuff happen.
Which parts are the Liberals really willing to fund
and develop, and which programs or approaches
will the Conservatives agree to take on.

If we can organize this by Party, and start holding
people to pay for the agenda they preach,
that's half the battle. Just mapping out a game plan
that makes everyone happy they can fund what they ask for.

Then there's all the work to FULFILL the plans
once we even agree what they are!

Utopia, yes, but it will take real work by real people.
Nothing is by magic.
Someone has to do the work to develop it,
and it has to be set up where people AGREE TO FUND IT.
So clearly we'd have to separate and organize
which teams and groups agree to be in charge of
which programs they are so committed to they
are willing to fund the work, jobs, education and
reforms themselves to ensure it meets their standards.

There will never be Utopia on earth. That's what conservatives understand and liberals do not. That's why conservatives "believe" in the free markets and liberals believe socialism can motivate people.

Put simply, conservatives accept human nature but hope for the best. Liberals keep thinking humans are better than we are. With disastrous, often tragic results.

 

[rightwinger]

What is the difference between Healthcare exchanges under Obamacare and a Healthcare Cooperative?

Benefits wise, the cooperatives offer lower or no deductibles compared with the
higher deductibles that made Obamacare unusable to people who still couldn't afford the costs.

The cooperatives allow equal free choice if people WANT to use Obamacare benefits
where those work better and/or cost less, and still retain equal access to choose better
benefits and/or lower rates, so they have the best of all systems to choose from.

The cooperatives don't require mandating anything through govt which requires lobbying and legislation
and fighting to control and get the terms you want, while other people would be competing for their preferences.

With cooperatives, people organize democratically so you get the policies you want without
conflict with other people in other groups who can decide their own terms and choices of providers.

Basically, rightwinger you retain maximum choice and benefits
instead of having to compete politically with opposing factions to try to control things through govt mandated policies.

Because members choose which providers they want to build their networks around,
the control belongs to the clients receiving the services. And the providers get paid
directly by the association so this cuts the costs of admin, bureaucracy and claims
where the money saved goes into medical services, not profits or excess admin costs as with federal govt.

Localizing the services to regions allows for lower costs by
* reducing admin costs where minimal staff can provide more efficient service to a localized group of 1500
* distributing the higher cost cases evenly and naturally by population instead of concentrating them
* being able to predict costs at a minimum of 1500 members so the monthly payments cover costs without filling claims

Federal Govt is not set up to handle the individual choices or demands of the population
as effectively as setting up localized pools democratically managed by the members.

However, these cooperatives CAN INCLUDE federal funded clinics AS AN OPTION.

So rightwinger if you want the choice of the best options and affordable sustainable "universal care"
this model is the best approach I've found to get us there.

The setbacks are EDUCATING and ORGANIZING people to set up their own local cooperatives
which takes time and effort. So you can either keep fighting to try to mandate universal care through federal
govt, and then STILL have to educate and train people to run the system and HOPE the govt does as well as cooperatives.

Or we can go ahead and lobby our party leaders and members to SET UP COOPERATIVES
and then put in tax breaks for donors, investors or lenders to cover paid jobs to train people
how to manage their own health care. The cooperatives save enough money to pay people
to manage the admin. But until they are set up, where states require various licensing to
negotiate the medical and insurance costs, the money isn't organized yet to pay for the staff.

If you happen to live in Houston or Wichita KS or other areas that already have licensed coops you can join.

To replicate these models in all cities and states, someone has to organize a network of
providers and register to set up nonprofit status and get the licensing as required per state.

We could get help from party leaders and precinct chairs to organize cooperative chapters.
It's a lot of work to develop, but it would be necessary anyway in order to afford universal care.

And this way, the conservatives would actually SUPPORT investing in such programs
(instead of opposing any efforts to mandate or manage them through federal govt).

Sounds like you are buying into a fantasy. Got any actual experiences where coopératives offered the cost and service you claim?

ALL insurance is cooperative. It is the only way it can work
The more people you have, the more you can cover

Who underwrites your cooperative? What happens when a large percentage of members make million dollar claims? What happens when you show up at the hospital with your Cooperative Insurance plan and they just laugh at it?

 

[rightwinger]

The answer will always be....

UTOPIA

The real question SweetSue92
Is how much work is it really going to take
to make all this wonderful stuff happen.
Which parts are the Liberals really willing to fund
and develop, and which programs or approaches
will the Conservatives agree to take on.

If we can organize this by Party, and start holding
people to pay for the agenda they preach,
that's half the battle. Just mapping out a game plan
that makes everyone happy they can fund what they ask for.

Then there's all the work to FULFILL the plans
once we even agree what they are!

Utopia, yes, but it will take real work by real people.
Nothing is by magic.
Someone has to do the work to develop it,
and it has to be set up where people AGREE TO FUND IT.
So clearly we'd have to separate and organize
which teams and groups agree to be in charge of
which programs they are so committed to they
are willing to fund the work, jobs, education and
reforms themselves to ensure it meets their standards.

There will never be Utopia on earth. That's what conservatives understand and liberals do not. That's why conservatives "believe" in the free markets and liberals believe socialism can motivate people.

Put simply, conservatives accept human nature but hope for the best. Liberals keep thinking humans are better than we are. With disastrous, often tragic results.

To put it simply

Liberals help those who need help, Conservatives tell them to go fuk themselves

 

[RealDave]

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

Fabricated bullshit.

Police brutality has been around forever. The problem todaty is that it has become accepted practice. Rodney King, etc.

And really, all guns???? Who is saying that
How about we don't pass out concealed carry licenses like candy & stop so many assfucks friom running around in public with loaded weapons.


There is correlation between 15/hr minimum wage & Medicare for all. Medicare for all will be less money paif=d by people for their healthcare.

No one is being discriminated against for being Christian. The law days Christians can't use their religion as an excuse for them to discriminate.

 

[Dragonlady]

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

Canada has all of the above. $14 minimum wage. Universal health care with no co-pays, no extra billing. Handguns are severely restricted - as in kept in lock boxes at all times when not in use, as are all semi-automatice assault style weapons.

What we don't have is the world's most expensive military, nor do we participate in wars of agression. When you're not spending 4% of your GDP blowing shit up on the other side of the world, to protect corporate interests, you have a LOT more money to spend on your people.

 

[rightwinger]

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

Canada has all of the above. $14 minimum wage. Universal health care with no co-pays, no extra billing. Handguns are severely restricted - as in kept in lock boxes at all times when not in use, as are all semi-automatice assault style weapons.

What we don't have is the world's most expensive military, nor do we participate in wars of agression. When you're not spending 4% of your GDP blowing shit up on the other side of the world, to protect corporate interests, you have a LOT more money to spend on your people.

Exactly....it is a case of national priorities

Having a military larger than the next eight nations combined and a population armed to the gills is our priority

The health, safety and prosperity of the people is of no importance

 

[Dragonlady]

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:

A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence

MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?

1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?

If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?

Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!

B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor

MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.

How can you have both?

PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.

DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)

C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt

MYSTERY C:

Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.

How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?

Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?

My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?

What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?

THANK YOU!

Canada has all of the above. $14 minimum wage. Universal health care with no co-pays, no extra billing. Handguns are severely restricted - as in kept in lock boxes at all times when not in use, as are all semi-automatice assault style weapons.

What we don't have is the world's most expensive military, nor do we participate in wars of agression. When you're not spending 4% of your GDP blowing shit up on the other side of the world, to protect corporate interests, you have a LOT more money to spend on your people.

Exactly....it is a case of national priorities

Having a military larger than the next eight nations combined and a population armed to the gills is our priority

The health, safety and prosperity of the people is of no importance

The people have to take care of themselves. It's not "rugged individualism" or "every man for himself" as conservatives like to portray, but how can we impoverish, enslave and control as many people as possible with our less than living wages and government handouts. This is the antithesis of "freedom".

"Freedom" includes the freedom from stress and worry about how to stretch a paycheck that was never enough in the first place.

"Freedom" means the middle class is not subsidizing poverty level wages for corporations that pay their leadership 8 figure salaries for selling hamburgers.

"Freedom" means that ALL workers participate in the American success story of the last 40 years, instead of the middle class and the working class losing real income while the top 10% gave themselves a 300% increase. Corporations managed to absorb cost increases in materials, premises, insurance, upkeep, machinery, equipment, but not labour. This makes no economic sense.

"Freedom" means when you get sick, you go for treatment, get your meds and get well. It doesn't mean waiting for the insurance company to pre-approve your treatment, ponying up hundreds of dollars or even thousands of dollars in co-pays, and being told "bring your co-pay or don't come in". When I had chest pains, I went to the hospital. They did a blood test which confirmed a heart attack and admitted me. Nobody asked me how I was going to pay or if I could pay.

I was placed in a private room on 24 hour monitoring and received treatment for a week, while my family planned for my restrictions on climbing stairs, and doing housework on my return home. I went from my small town hospital to the big city heart treatment centre (by ambulance), for an Angiogram, and potentially having any stents necessary to open blockages. Since I had no blockages, and no stents, and no damage to my heart, I was returned to my small town hospital. The next day, I was sent home with heart medications, 7 days after my heart attack. Total bills and co-pays $0.00. Total number of forms which me or any of my family completed - 0.

Throughout my recovery, my only focus was getting better. Since I was retired, income wasn't an issue, but had I still been working, I would have been eligible for Employment Insurance to the maximum insurable amount - $550 per week, at that time, for up to 20 weeks. My heart drugs, which cost $175 for a 3 month supply, are subject to an annual co-pay of $100, payable in August. THAT'S FREEDOM WRIT LARGE.

Freedom is low income families receiving child tax benefits to help with child care expenses. My daughter jokes that despite every precaution they took, they had two unplanned children in two years, as my son-in-law sought to re-start his grandfather's business, which his father had lost in the Great Recession. Family child tax benefits provided their family with $2,500 per child in those first two years of the business. The kids are now turning 4 and 2 - the oldest starting school in the fall. My SIL, now has 2 full-time crews of 5 men working for him, full time. And while they no longer receive or need that maximum benefit, without it, he'd be a wage slave supporting his family on his $40 an hour wage, instead of a successful small business owner with over $300 in sales last year, and already way ahead of that pace for this year.

"Freedom" is giving unemployed workers money to retrain, and an income while they do it. Unemployed adults can receive tuition up to $5000, and a weekly income under Employment Insurance:

Employment Insurance (EI) and courses or training programs - Canada.ca

This program has been used extensively by workers who were displaced by off-shoring. As a result, the City of Oshawa, which used to be home to 23,000 GM workers and their families, is being realistic about GM shutting down manufacturing this year.

Notice how optimistic this story is, about how Oshawa has coped with the job losses which have been going on since NAFTA came into effect. Yes, there will be pain when the plant closes it's doors, but the City has already diversified it's jobs base, and they'll adapt to this one too.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/why-gm-s-retreat-from-oshawa-may-be-a-blow-to-the-city-s-heart-but-not-its-economy-1.1176570[URL="https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/why-gm-s-retreat-from-oshawa-may-be-a-blow-to-the-city-s-heart-but-not-its-economy-1.1176570"]Why GM’s retreat from Oshawa may be a ‘blow to the city’s heart,’ but not its economy - BNN Bloomberg[/URL]

That too is "freedom". Freedom not to have our communities tied to corporations which don't have our best interests at heart, but rather their profits. Canadians participated in the bailout of the US Auto industry, only to have GM pull out of the deal to keep jobs in Canada, two years after we gave them $50 million to keep jobs in Canada.

Notice how Canadians aren't trying to bring back coal, re-start the steel industry, and return our economy to the 1950's, but rather how we're embracing the new green technologies of clean power, clean water, and decent wages. Our middle class is growing. We consistently rank as one of the top 5 education systems in the world. We invest in the health, infrastructure, and people who have always made Canada great!

Here are the 2016 Freedom Rankings from the Conservative Cato Institute:

Americans have slightly more economic "freedom" in terms of your get to decide which insurance company gets your health care dollars. But where were are reams ahead of Americans are our personal freedoms. Despite our ban on personal hand guns, and hate speech, Canadians have far more personal freedoms than Americans.

That's from the Cato and Fraser Institues: two think tanks that are actively trying to dismantle the government programs which have given Canadians our personal freedom. Because it's more profitable to keep your people enslaved with high health care costs and taxes which aren't enough to begin to cover the costs of your for-profit military supply lines which feed off of war and turmoil, and the health care industry which has insurance company executives pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries, while his customers are out of pocket by $5000 every time they walk through the hospital doors.

 

[Crepitus]

Dear WTH_Progs?

How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.

Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.

I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.

Universal Healthcare

A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.

Sure we can afford it
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper

The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all

Thanks rightwinger

I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.

www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com

otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.

Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.

Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.

It's too complicated. Much simpler just to eliminate private health insurance and consolidate everything under one umbrella.

Dear Crepitus
1. There is nothing wrong with nonprofit and private insurance
competing to offer the better benefits, lower rates and with lower or no copays/deductibles.

The nonprofit cooperative association program that has
researched this has already gotten top insurance underwriters
to offer that level of benefits and coverage.

2. Also don't forget that what may seem SIMPLE to you
would be OPPOSED by half the nation that doesn't believe
in relying or going through Govt to mandate such policies

You remind me of Prolife people who think the problem of abortion
would be simpler to solve by just BANNING it PERIOD.

You are still left with solving the problems and complications
that don't go away just by making laws against something.

Crepitus to lower the costs and raise the quality and choices in medical and health care,
this requires organizing networks where local providers contract and get paid directly by their clients.

So this has to be set up COST EFFECTIVELY anyway to be SUSTAINABLE.

The Cooperative model is based on setting up those direct relations
so it cuts the costs by eliminating insurance profits, claims, deductibles, copays.

So you don't have to change anything through govt, when these choices
can already be set up to be the most cost effective and MAXIMIZE patient choices.

NOTE: The one area of law that we could change, and these cooperatives will help,
is to make health care/medical costs 100% tax deductible if the services are paid for AT COST.
Because cooperatives would allow for both the free market structure that Conservatives defend,
and the universal care coverage that Liberals believe in as the basic standard,
then this set up would bring people from either side together in agreement
to lobby for 100% tax deductions for payments or donations for services provided at cost.

NOBODY would oppose that, but trying to ban either abortion or ban private insurance, etc.
or other restrictions on how health care choices are "regulated through govt" runs into OBJECTIONS
that WASTE TIME ENERGY AND RESOURCES better invested in solutions that cause no such objections.

For profit insurance is what got us where we are today.

It needs to go. No compromise.

 

[emilynghiem]

I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.

A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.

Sure we can afford it
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper

The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all

Thanks rightwinger

I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.

www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com

otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.

Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.

Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.

It's too complicated. Much simpler just to eliminate private health insurance and consolidate everything under one umbrella.

Dear Crepitus
1. There is nothing wrong with nonprofit and private insurance
competing to offer the better benefits, lower rates and with lower or no copays/deductibles.

The nonprofit cooperative association program that has
researched this has already gotten top insurance underwriters
to offer that level of benefits and coverage.

2. Also don't forget that what may seem SIMPLE to you
would be OPPOSED by half the nation that doesn't believe
in relying or going through Govt to mandate such policies

You remind me of Prolife people who think the problem of abortion
would be simpler to solve by just BANNING it PERIOD.

You are still left with solving the problems and complications
that don't go away just by making laws against something.

Crepitus to lower the costs and raise the quality and choices in medical and health care,
this requires organizing networks where local providers contract and get paid directly by their clients.

So this has to be set up COST EFFECTIVELY anyway to be SUSTAINABLE.

The Cooperative model is based on setting up those direct relations
so it cuts the costs by eliminating insurance profits, claims, deductibles, copays.

So you don't have to change anything through govt, when these choices
can already be set up to be the most cost effective and MAXIMIZE patient choices.

NOTE: The one area of law that we could change, and these cooperatives will help,
is to make health care/medical costs 100% tax deductible if the services are paid for AT COST.
Because cooperatives would allow for both the free market structure that Conservatives defend,
and the universal care coverage that Liberals believe in as the basic standard,
then this set up would bring people from either side together in agreement
to lobby for 100% tax deductions for payments or donations for services provided at cost.

NOBODY would oppose that, but trying to ban either abortion or ban private insurance, etc.
or other restrictions on how health care choices are "regulated through govt" runs into OBJECTIONS
that WASTE TIME ENERGY AND RESOURCES better invested in solutions that cause no such objections.

For profit insurance is what got us where we are today.

It needs to go. No compromise.

Dear Crepitus
It will go faster if everyone starts patronizing
the NONPROFIT insurance programs that
will easily put the for profit out of business.

No need to waste time or money fighting politically.
the nonprofit structures cost HALF as much with
lower or no deductibles and copays. Instead of paying
for insurance profits and marketing, at 600 for every 800
spent, that money can be applied to eliminate deductibles.

Everyone wins, and nobody has to fight over legislation
that isn't even necessary.

We'd be better off helping nonprofit cooperatives get
licensing in every state, and start replicating chapters
similar to Habitat for Humanity. Teach people to run their
own programs, and the insurance companies have to
compete with the nonprofit rates or they become OBSOLETE.

www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
PPC (nonprofit cooperative) uses a carrier for
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama to
underwrite their ERISA group employee plans.

Anyone in any state can replicate this same
pay structure, but licensing varies per state.
Crepitus we should focus there on nonprofit
licensing that can be shared universally, and
that's direct reform that will be faster than indirect
legislation that doesn't set up the actual programs.
The cooperatives programs will, that's how we can
get to universal care without legal or political battles.