Senate Special Election in MA

[Acturus]

Yes it is - there is a single entity paying for it, the government. You can say that the taxpayers pay the government, which is true, but still that's a single entity with the buying power of the many who fund it. You're arguing semantics.

Then I have a wholly different definition of what a single payer system is.

Single Payer to me is having one insurer that covers 100% of the insured population. i.e. there is no competition between insurance companies for covered lives.

[Olo401]

Then I have a wholly different definition of what a single payer system is.

Single Payer to me is having one insurer that covers 100% of the insured population. i.e. there is no competition between insurance companies for covered lives.

That's one definition of it. Under the original bill that Kennedy drafted, the insurance exchange (a group entity comprised of for-profit and non-profit insurance companies, state-run plans, the VA, Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP) would have been the single payer, and the cost savings it created would have been passed on to ALL insurance plans in the exchange. That's where all the lies and misconceptions about the HCR bill came in - people were being told that they would have to give up their insurance to go on a government run plan, that their costs would go up, that their coverage would go down.. ALL BULLSHIT.

[Acturus]

That's one definition of it. Under the original bill that Kennedy drafted, the insurance exchange (a group entity comprised of for-profit and non-profit insurance companies, state-run plans, the VA, Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP) would have been the single payer, and the cost savings it created would have been passed on to ALL insurance plans in the exchange. That's where all the lies and misconceptions about the HCR bill came in - people were being told that they would have to give up their insurance to go on a government run plan, that their costs would go up, that their coverage would go down.. ALL BULLSHIT.

I am compelled to do more research now.

Thanks a bunch, asshole. There goes a perfectly good Friday afternoon of watching porn and playing viddya games.

[Olo401]

Oh and the excise tax idea? That was McCain's baby.. he used it during the campaign.

[Leif]

Leif basically said when liberals don't like what people say they try to put limits on their first amendment rights, and you can't do that. I find no grounds to disagree with the spirit of the statement - you can't limit freedom of speech for anybody, or else it's no longer freedom of speech.

Corporations being amongst those protected by the first amendment, however, is a travesty of justice.

Corporations are entities supported by people, run by people, financed by people, and are groups of people. If those people want to give money, what is to stop them?

How is a corporation different from Sally's Neighborhood Book Club who decide they're going to donate as a group to Barack Obama's campaign?

If the boards neocon trash was truly the constitutionalist that they claim they would have been outraged by not one but two illegal wars as well.

How were the wars illegal? Democrats would love to explain this if they wouldn't all be complicit in these alleged crimes.

wut?

Government funded is not "single payer".

You're right. It's "single provider", without competition.

Single Payer to me is having one insurer that covers 100% of the insured population. i.e. there is no competition between insurance companies for covered lives.

At least you admit it. No competition. A monopoly. Great plan!

[willriker]

Corporations are entities supported by people, run by people, financed by people, and are groups of people. If those people want to give money, what is to stop them?

How is a corporation different from Sally's Neighborhood Book Club who decide they're going to donate as a group to Barack Obama's campaign?

then let those people give to which ever political cause they wish to independantly of the company. As it stands, the company can use the efforts of the individuals it employs to endorse a political candidate that people in the company would never endorse otherwise. There is nothing in the 'rule book' that stops the company from doing so either. Congress, mostly McCain, is looking into some other ways to limit a corporations contributions to political campaings.

The company is not providing the plitical backing of the people it employs. Sure, the company and the politition will want to spin it that way if it works for them. But it is not true.

As indicated in your post, in the case of 'Sally's Neighborhood Book Club' the members got together and decided to contribute as a group. IGA does not hold some sort of meeting and let the employees decide who they will contribute towards. That is the fundamental differance between the two.

You are operating under the assumption that the company will do what the employees want it to do. Thats is a false assumtion. The corporation does what will generate the most profit for itself and its shareholders. Infact, if a company is not working towards those goals it is deemed to be irresponcible, and the board members will determine new management is needed. The majority of the employees could want to endorse Obama, but if top of the pyramid wants to endorse Palin's campaing... the company is thrusting its support behind Palin.

Thats the difference.

[Olo401]

Corporations are entities supported by people, run by people, financed by people, and are groups of people.

Then let the people give the money. A corporation is NOT A FUCKING PERSON.

[willriker]

Oh that was leif...

Sorry, i browse bg on and off while at work so i hide the names/avatars off the side of the monitor.

[Olo401]

Zealot it's worse than you think.. I'm arguing by proxy.

[Leif]

Corporations are entities supported by people, run by people, financed by people, and are groups of people.

Then let the people give the money. A corporation is NOT A FUCKING PERSON.

It's a group of people. And the "people" do give the money.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

More specifically what the fuck are you talking about?

I have never said that there are no limits. I'm saying that there isn't anything in the constitution that says you can't have a single payer system. Don't put words in my mouth.

Oh and guess what we already do have single payer in this country in the form of medicare and medicaid as well as the VFW.

If the boards neocon trash was truly the constitutionalist that they claim they would have been outraged by not one but two illegal wars as well.


the Tenthers are retarded

You've never said specifically there are no limits, you're right. You do cite the general welfare clause every chance you get however. And you've also said intent doesn't matter. Thus, if intent doesn't limit the general welfare clause then nothing does b/c what "promotes the general welfare" is completely arbitrary and could be anything. Thus, you say there are no limits.

And there is something says the govt. can't be a single payer, the 10th amendment, which you also say doesn't limit Congress. So according to your view what can possibly limit Congress's power?

And again, if corporations are not people which means they don't have rights, then you have apply that to media corporations as well. The SC has never interpreted "freedom of the press" to mean an industry.

And what illegal wars?

And I don't want to read a book, just give a link to the story of the law clear being paid off.

[Leif]

And again, if corporations are not people which means they don't have rights, then you have apply that to media corporations as well. The SC has never interpreted "freedom of the press" to mean an industry.

This is a great point.

Nobody would dare bring a challenge to the media because the left will cry that the law was intended to stop big bad corporate America (the guys than employ millions of Americans). Such restrictions give the left (honestly, because its hard to believe that conservatives are as dedicated to suppressing speech as liberals) the power to ban, among other things, books, movies, newspapers, and internet websites.



Why is it when conservatives say "We want to allow all speech! Even your unions!" liberals whine? This is just further proof of my point that liberalism simply can't survive in the free market. This is why you have all the lefty crazies screaming about the "fairness doctrine" on the day of Air America's collapse (what a coincidence, huh?).


Stop trying to stop people (mainly conservatives) from speaking. And while you're at it, quit playing the victim game.

[Effluo]

It doesn't matter in the end. The corporations will destroy the economy, and the middle class, to bring about the New World Order. In the end we will all be either a have or have not, rich or poor, Executive or slave.

Anyone read Atlas Shrugged? It was a blue print for their agenda. It's all happening before our eyes. Government will no longer matter. Without big corporations to fund the goverment, there is no goverment left. Then, they will be free to rebuild as they please. We'll either bend to their will, or die for trying to hold on.

[Leif]

It doesn't matter in the end. The corporations will destroy the economy, and the middle class, to bring about the New World Order. In the end we will all be either a have or have not, rich or poor, Executive or slave.

I've never heard something so morbid about capitalism. Your account is honestly more consistent with the Soviet model. Long lines for health care, unless you are a government official. Poverty, unless you are a government official.

The great thing about capitalism is all those executives at the top have to compete against each other. If they don't treat their workers like royalty, someone else will.

Anyone read Atlas Shrugged? It was a blue print for their agenda. It's all happening before our eyes. Government will no longer matter. Without big corporations to fund the goverment, there is no goverment left. Then, they will be free to rebuild as they please. We'll either bend to their will, or die for trying to hold on.

It's like you read Atlas Shrugged, took its meaning, inverted it, and arrived at your conclusion.

In the actual book, Rand (who is a major capitalist... why would she tell us why it's so terrible?) talks about the government overreaching into society to the point that all of its talented members stop working. She talks about the consequences of society's members relinquishing the profit motive and what happens as a result.



Way to fudge facts, mister. If her book was actually about what you seem to think it is, it would be in the "fantasy" genre.

[Demosthenes11]

congress is retarded in that it seems physically incapable of even considering changing the constitution

it was a restriction of freedom of speech but that doesnt mean it was wrong. this needs to be fixed asap

[Kuya]

Destroy the Senate.

[Effluo]

Way to fudge facts, mister. If her book was actually about what you seem to think it is, it would be in the "fantasy" genre.

Philip Rothschild has blinded you. The Bildebergs have blinded you. DOOOOM, DOOOOOOOM, DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

[Leif]

it was a restriction of freedom of speech but that doesnt mean it was wrong. this needs to be fixed asap

Irrelevant.

Whether or not it is "good" or not (it's not), it's also unconstitutional.

[Effluo]

They gain control of the world by bankrupting their own businesses. They state that they destroy their own oil wells, that they hide their own oil so nobody can have it. They state how they destroy the coal mines and shut the coal mines down, they shut the electricity down, they state how they cripple the country and no food is grown. It states how they pit and derail trains so that no trains go. It states how they sink and pirate thousands of ships every year.

The idea of taking over is to bankrupt the whole world where nothing is of any value and the currency does not exist anywhere and then come back and solve all the problems.

Atlas Shrugged ends with the hero, John Galt, which is really Philip Rothschild, lifting his hand up in the air and drawing the symbol of his organization in the air and he says, "We shall follow this symbol back." The symbol that he draws is the dollar sign.

[Athas]

I gotta say I really admire Leif's selective reading, it really make for some outstanding trolling.

Good show, were I Stephen Colbert I would tip my hat to you sir.