Election Day

[AlphaDoG]

I voted on the 1st day that I could.

Many registered voters in Illinois are unable to vote in person at the polling place on election day. Early voting was created to allow the voter to vote in a designated polling place during the 22nd day through the 5th day preceding an election without having to supply an excuse or reason.

[null0010]

Death panels are already in place by private insurance companies, by supporting them you support death panels so I don't see where this random objection to (albeit imaginary) death panels come from with the right wing propaganda.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose what you say is true. You are then of the opinion that having govt. bureaucrats take over the death panel job is preferable? At least with insurance companies one could always sue them or you could get a different insurance company. Try that with Obama Care.

Like there are any real discernible differences between insurance companies. Like obstructive bureaucrats aren't already a permanent fixture of any insurance company. Like anyone who was denied care by an insurance company would have the money to sue the insurance company. I love this alternate reality. How do I get in? Do I draw a door on my wall with chalk, add a doorknob, and knock three times?

[Tunnelcat]

TC must have forgot this thread http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=16 ... 8a6b1e5811 where she is calling for death panels. I'm sorry not death panels but

It about how we should decide on what we as a collective are willing to spend on extending life

Oh, I remember quite well. The story was NOT about death panels. The story pointed out that essentially we as individuals want to prevent our deaths by any and all means possible, but we as individuals or as a society are NOT factoring in the costs, the morality and medical ethics in doing so. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live, it's human nature to want to survive, but how much are we all willing to pay, and who pays for it? The other point was how much do we have to suffer medical machinations before we are allowed to just die in peace?

The problem comes in because of the costs incurred of trying to stay alive with our technologically advanced and EXPENSIVE medical system. Not everyone can afford it, whether people LIKE that fact or not. There just isn't enough money in the entire world to pay for expensive end-of-life heroics for EVERYONE in the U.S. So guess what, there has to be some form of 'rationing'.

Right now, we have rationing by wealth, Those who can afford it will get it, and the overseers are the health insurance companies and Wall Street money. Their main concern is profit and the bottom line, NOT the health of the insured, unless they get sick of course, THEN it's a problem. They could give a rat's a$$ if a person lives or dies, as long as it doesn't cut into their profits. In fact, I'm pretty sure they would PREFER that a patient died instead of enduring the long and costly treatments the company would have to PAY for. There are many cases of insurance companies cutting off coverage from dying patients, for some obscure reason or another and directly causing those patients death. So we essentially already have 'death panels', and they certainly have no compassion for human lives either.

The other extreme is government run single payer, which puts the cost burden of everyone's health care on essentially, EVERYONE. We would all pay for the health care for ALL of our fellow citizens, which would then fall to the mercy and discretion of government to run and manage. Now they would also HAVE to have some form of decision making panel, bureaucracy or office to keep costs under control as well. Since government bureaucracy has no humanity either, we get those darn dreaded 'death panels' again. Obamacare is just a bastardized marriage of the present medical/insurance industrial complex, Wall Street and government, with absolutely NO cost transparency or controls (oooooooooooh, those damn 'death panels' come up again) or any curtailment of profit motive from health care.

As you can see, neither system can solve the problem. In fact, there actually may be NO solution at all that makes everybody happy. My only point in posting that original story was the problem with our present system. It has NO cost transparency at all. All of you that espouse the 'free market' system seem to overlook that what we have is not really 'free market' because the consumer (patient) has no way to determine what his or her health care is really going to cost them BEFOREHAND. All prices are hidden, called proprietary by hospitals and the insurance companies. People usually get a surprise hit with mega-sized bills when they can least afford or deal with it. No one can decide treatment option costs before they get sick, not even a ballpark figure! If a person is already sick and out of it physically or mentally, well.......they can kiss their money goodbye. All we CAN see before we get sick is those astronomical insurance company premiums, and that chunk of our personal net worth is NOT going directly to our personal health care either.

Another problem, and I've experienced this personally, is that if you have ANY money or assets AT ALL, they don't want to let you die UNTIL your money runs out. Then once your bankrupt and broke, THEN it's legal to die. Otherwise it's called "committing suicide" and we certainly can't have people kill themselves until the hospitals, big pharma and the insurance companies have at least taken their pound of flesh.

[Ferno]

Death panels are already in place by private insurance companies, by supporting them you support death panels so I don't see where this random objection to (albeit imaginary) death panels come from with the right wing propaganda.

Indeed. It's become a question of how many applicants can they deny using excuses like 'pre-existing condition' and the like.


Oh, by the way; welcome back.

[Tunnelcat]

ALMOST OVER! Just a few more torturous hours, then no more campaign ads or robo calls! YEA!

[Mjolnir]

Death panels are already in place by private insurance companies, by supporting them you support death panels so I don't see where this random objection to (albeit imaginary) death panels come from with the right wing propaganda.

Indeed. It's become a question of how many applicants can they deny using excuses like 'pre-existing condition' and the like.


Oh, by the way; welcome back.

x2 on the Indeed... but welcome back?

[Ferno]

thought you were the original mjolnir.

[Isaac]

ALMOST OVER! Just a few more torturous hours, then no more campaign ads or robo calls! YEA!

I wonder if a robo-call ever changed anyone's vote... for the better.

[woodchip]

Death panels are already in place by private insurance companies, by supporting them you support death panels so I don't see where this random objection to (albeit imaginary) death panels come from with the right wing propaganda.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose what you say is true. You are then of the opinion that having govt. bureaucrats take over the death panel job is preferable? At least with insurance companies one could always sue them or you could get a different insurance company. Try that with Obama Care.

Like there are any real discernible differences between insurance companies. Like obstructive bureaucrats aren't already a permanent fixture of any insurance company. Like anyone who was denied care by an insurance company would have the money to sue the insurance company. I love this alternate reality. How do I get in? Do I draw a door on my wall with chalk, add a doorknob, and knock three times?

All depends on the terms of your insurance policy. If the insurance company denies coverage that is part of your policy then I suggest getting a atty. as they will more than likely take the case on a percentage basis especially if pain and suffering was the result. The trouble with people like you is they are defeated before they even get started. You continuously look for the govt. to solve your problems as you have no self confidence to handle them yourself. The only alternate reality is listening to the naysayers you surround yourself with.

[Stroodles]

thought you were the original mjolnir.

Did someone just fail...

[null0010]

Death panels are already in place by private insurance companies, by supporting them you support death panels so I don't see where this random objection to (albeit imaginary) death panels come from with the right wing propaganda.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose what you say is true. You are then of the opinion that having govt. bureaucrats take over the death panel job is preferable? At least with insurance companies one could always sue them or you could get a different insurance company. Try that with Obama Care.

Like there are any real discernible differences between insurance companies. Like obstructive bureaucrats aren't already a permanent fixture of any insurance company. Like anyone who was denied care by an insurance company would have the money to sue the insurance company. I love this alternate reality. How do I get in? Do I draw a door on my wall with chalk, add a doorknob, and knock three times?

All depends on the terms of your insurance policy. If the insurance company denies coverage that is part of your policy then I suggest getting a atty. as they will more than likely take the case on a percentage basis especially if pain and suffering was the result. The trouble with people like you is they are defeated before they even get started. You continuously look for the govt. to solve your problems as you have no self confidence to handle them yourself. The only alternate reality is listening to the naysayers you surround yourself with.

By "people like me" what are you referring to? Minorities? Persons with a low income? College students? Not everyone can afford an attorney, Woodchip. And people who can't afford an attorney are the ones insurance corporations are screwing over.

[woodchip]

What do minorities have to do with anything unless you are trying to stigmatize them as low income. Then I have to ask, why are the people low income? Got into drugs? Decided early in life that education was a waste of time? Thought the slogan, \"Be the best you can be\" was for chumps? Parents were dirt bags and raised their kids to be the same? Somehow you expect that people who decided to work and get ahead are now obligated to take care of those who decided work was a dirty word. I don't.

I see you also over-looked the S-CHIP program that covers children of low income families. I suggest you read up on it.

[Top Gun]

What do minorities have to do with anything unless you are trying to stigmatize them as low income. Then I have to ask, why are the people low income? Got into drugs? Decided early in life that education was a waste of time? Thought the slogan, "Be the best you can be" was for chumps? Parents were dirt bags and raised their kids to be the same? Somehow you expect that people who decided to work and get ahead are now obligated to take care of those who decided work was a dirty word. I don't.

The amount you don't know about sociology is staggering.

[Avder]

What do minorities have to do with anything unless you are trying to stigmatize them as low income. Then I have to ask, why are the people low income? Got into drugs? Decided early in life that education was a waste of time? Thought the slogan, "Be the best you can be" was for chumps? Parents were dirt bags and raised their kids to be the same? Somehow you expect that people who decided to work and get ahead are now obligated to take care of those who decided work was a dirty word. I don't.

I see you also over-looked the S-CHIP program that covers children of low income families. I suggest you read up on it.

I thought Liberals were supposed to be the idealists, but the simple fact of the matter is that some people will work their asses off and do the very best they can and they still end up poor because that's simply how it is. Real life factors like being born into poverty, stresses, and prejudices result in a society where its possible to maybe get a slight improvement in class from sheer hard work, but a lot of other factors conspire against a person who really wants to move upward from poverty to wealth. The playing board is not level like you seem to think. That's why we need (non corrupt, that is, not our own) government regulation of things like health insurance, etc. The goal would be to get the slate as level as possible and allow each to earn their own, not nessecarily by negating the bonuses of being born high class, but by negating the penalties of being born poor.

[Will Robinson]

...The goal would be to get the slate as level as possible and allow each to earn their own, not nessecarily by negating the bonuses of being born high class, but by negating the penalties of being born poor.

The sad thing is we could actually afford that regulation for healthcare and a few other basic human provisions without raising taxes one bit if the congress wasn't so damn corrupt wasting our money on paying it's national party's obligations to the big donors who fund their re-elections.
You don't need to take over big chunks of the economy to manage fairness into it or try to keep raising taxes through the roof or printing more currency.
You don't You just need to take away the tax code loop hole scam that Congress has been running. Get rid of corporate welfare and we could fund a decent healthcare minimum subsidy for anyone under a certain income level as well as make a real social security fund solvent.

But too many of us keep voting for the status quo thinking a vote for the R team or the D team is the only hope for the future. Voting for the status quo only brings more of the same.

Why does anyone think it makes sense to give some hack the title of Pay Czar to cap the salary of the CEO's? It doesn't stop the corporation from raking in the money! Obama does it because stupid voters think he's being Robin Hood on their behalf but he's careful to leave the corporate source of income unharmed because that is where the party's get their donations.
If you would cut out lobbiests completely and cap campaign donations to a small amount allowed only from registered voters. Then just tax the corporations at a realistic rate without selling them loophole exemptions the salary they pay would be self regulated relative to their profit margin. You can't keep a healthy capitalist system alive if you stick a corrupt politician in the cash flow stream. Who cares how much the CEO makes as long as the company he works for is paying their due amount of tax!!

Just make a simple fair tax system and keep your boots on the neck of Congress and there is already plenty of revenue to pay for most of everyones wish list.

[null0010]

The sad thing is we could actually afford that regulation for healthcare and a few other basic human provisions without raising taxes one bit if the congress wasn't so damn corrupt wasting our money on paying it's national party's obligations to the big donors who fund their re-elections.

I think I've heard that one before.

[Will Robinson]

The sad thing is we could actually afford that regulation for healthcare and a few other basic human provisions without raising taxes one bit if the congress wasn't so damn corrupt wasting our money on paying it's national party's obligations to the big donors who fund their re-elections.

I think I've heard that one before.

You aren't paying attention to what I said or even what is in the piece you linked.
I recommend cutting out the corporate welfare tax exemptions to increase revenue without having to raise tax rates on the working wage earners. I recommend removing corrupt politicians like McCain and Obama and Reid et al from the cash flow from corporations by removing the ability to receive donations from any source other than a registered voter and limited to small amounts, $3000 per voter limit should do it.

The article you linked doesn't have that in there and the article you linked exposes McCain as being in favor of the staus quo that I'm suggesting we eliminate.
So if you heard it before it wasn't in that article...
Your reaction to what I said is typical of someone who wants to see everything neatly within the R vs. D template when in fact what I said does not fit either party's position at all. Why do you do that?

[null0010]

I'm seeing the bit I quoted of what you've proposed as essentially \"stop pork barrel spending,\" which is a negligible amount of spending per year. It just happened that McCain's name shows up in an article saying that.

I like the campaign finance idea, but who, aside from those already in power and large corporations (read: those in power) wouldn't?

[Will Robinson]

I'm seeing the bit I quoted of what you've proposed as essentially "stop pork barrel spending," which is a negligible amount of spending per year. It just happened that McCain's name shows up in an article saying that.

Except that I mean it when I say it. He proposed some selective vague change just like his McCain/Fiengold campaign finance reform was some watered down-full-of-holes legislation.
I would make lobbying illegal.
Limit contributions to registered voters.
Wipe out the thousands of pages of tax code with something simple that doesn't provide congress the ability to 'sell' exemptions for favors/campaign donations etc.

Nothing vague about it.
Simply taking our representation back from the two headed monster called the DNC/RNC.

I like the campaign finance idea, but who, aside from those already in power and large corporations (read: those in power) wouldn't?

All those foolish voters who think every proposal has to be a D or an R idea otherwise it must be a dirty trick from the enemy D or R (depending on which letter they serve)...

[null0010]

I would make lobbying illegal.
Limit contributions to registered voters.
Wipe out the thousands of pages of tax code with something simple that doesn't provide congress the ability to 'sell' exemptions for favors/campaign donations etc.

Good luck getting elected.

[dissent]

hmmm ...........

I wonder what the carbon footprint of this last election was ???

[Avder]

The sad thing is we could actually afford that regulation for healthcare and a few other basic human provisions without raising taxes one bit if the congress wasn't so damn corrupt wasting our money on paying it's national party's obligations to the big donors who fund their re-elections.

Damn right. This is why I would advocate pretty much any voting structure change. Plurality voting is one of the root causes of this tyranny of the DnR two headed monster. It boils down to two big parties taking control of everything with every other party marginalized. I'd like to see something like ranked choice voting with instant runoffs, so people could actually vote for real candidates instead of feeling like their vote is going to be wasted unless they vote for a DnR'r.

And hell yes on the illegalization of lobbyists. Congressmen should only be allowed to talk to their constituents and each other. If a business person is not in said representatives district or said senators state, he shouldn't be able to talk to him.

[null0010]

But political lobbying is free speech, guys. Isn't that important? Writing a letter to your congress critter is lobbying.

[Krom]

I'm alright with letting people write letters to congress (in fact more people should), what I am not alright with is someone flying a congressperson out to some resort and spending thousands of dollars and promising them huge rewards in exchange for voting some way or putting forward some bill.

Someone should tell the people in congress/the house that the next time someone approaches them having spent thousands of dollars to get there, they probably do not require any of your assistance what-so-ever and you should promptly have them removed from your vicinity.

[Will Robinson]

But political lobbying is free speech, guys. Isn't that important? Writing a letter to your congress critter is lobbying.

My take on it is this:

Our representatives spend a big portion of their time trying to secure funding for their re-election campaign, both from their party as well as from big donors. Both of those sources are buying influence to affect the vote of the representative
They are instantly beholding to the national party for any chance at re-election which compromises their vote.
They are equally compromised by their debt to big donors contributions which are brokered by lobbiests.
Lobbiests also spend all their time with privileged access to our representatives...walking them to lunch yapping in their ears, stroking their ego's giving them all sorts of gifts etc. like a big brother bribing his sibling to keep a secret from Mom & Dad.

So you restrict access to the law makers the same way you restrict access to a judge or jury in a criminal case. You don't let a defendant or plaintiff buy the judge lunch during his trial why in the world would you let a company representative bribe the guy who makes the law itself when the law directly affects the company?

You also reform campaign finance in the way I laid out, only a registered voter can make donation limited to a small amount.

Now you have represetatives with a lot of free time on their hands since they aren't occupied with collecting funding for re-election.
So they show up for work and they are randomly assigned committees to sit on where any entity can go to plead their cause for government intervention.
This is the new lobby mechanism.
The NRA wants laws changed for gun rights? Fine! Go before a committee of randomly selected lawmakers and plead your case.
Tree Huggers of America....whoever...go plead your case.

Are you a big company or special interest and want to spend some of your budget you were giving lobbiests to bribe politicians with to get the congress to vote for your bail out, or subsidy, or to save the lesbian art college?
Sure, no problem, go to NBC,CBS,ABC,MSNBC,CNN,Fox,etc.etc. buy some air time and convince the citizens of this country that your cause is worthy of government intervention and implore them to appeal to the congress to vote in your favor.

It isn't taking away anyones right to write a letter and doesn't even take away a special interests ability to speak to the representatives but if you are caught giving a representative so much as a cup of coffee while you talk to him you go to federal prison mandatory to serve actual time on first offense.

You do that and within a few election cycles you will see the quality of our representation go way up and corruption go way down.

[null0010]

I think a cup of coffee is a bit extreme. This would require tremendous legislative support and you'd need the Supreme Court on your side, which might take some serious time and doing, as evidenced by the recent Citizens United case.

[Avder]

Youre absolutely right that anything like this would require serious backing. It would also require that those DnR jerks in power be willing to gut the system that works in their favor. Put it short, it ain't gonna happen with the DnR two headed monster holding all the keys to power.

And as far as free speech goes, it is my opinion that free speech is an individual right, not nessecarily the right of every business, and certainly not a right that belongs in the hands of a corporation. In my opinion, anything that a corporation does such as lobbying, robocalling, or buying ad time in support or opposition of something the government does should be considered commercial speech and should be subject to regulation.

The reason for this is that corporations arent persons. If they were, you could throw them in jail, execute them for capital crimes, and punish them in the same manner you punish a misbehaving human. There is no reason for corporations to actually have the same rights and freedoms that you and I enjoy as actual human beings. In fact, a lot of the revolutionary crap, such as the Boston Tea Party, happened because one corporation, the East India Trading Company, had so damned much power.


Restrict the corporations, and you ensure personal freedoms. Allow the corporations to do whatever they want, and you see what we have in America today, where corporations are holding more and more of the power and encroaching more and more on individual rights and freedoms. You cut the corporations off from congress in the form of monetary support of elections and the ability to lobby, you suddenly have a congress that actually has time and freedom to legislate as the people want, not as the corporations want.

[Mjolnir]

On that note, Corporations are -not- people.

[null0010]

Fscking corporate personhood.

[Bet51987]

.

[null0010]

Fscking corporate personhood.

That was a stupid comment.

Okay.

[Grendel]

Fscking corporate personhood.

That was a stupid comment.

Bee

Depends.

[Spidey]

On that note, Corporations are -not- people.

1. group regarded as individual by law: a company recognized by law as a single body with its own powers and liabilities, separate from those of the individual members.

2. local governing authority: the governing authority of an incorporated municipality such as a city or town

3. group acting as single entity: a group of people acting as a single entity

They’re not?

Funny, we can tax a corporation..but don’t give it a voice.

[null0010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

[dissent]

Heh. (via Instapundit)

Barack Obama helped elect 255 Democrats to the House in 2008. This year, he helped elect 240 Republicans to the House.

Now that’s bipartisanship.

[Avder]

On that note, Corporations are -not- people.

1. group regarded as individual by law: a company recognized by law as a single body with its own powers and liabilities, separate from those of the individual members.

2. local governing authority: the governing authority of an incorporated municipality such as a city or town

3. group acting as single entity: a group of people acting as a single entity

They’re not?

Funny, we can tax a corporation..but don’t give it a voice.

Legally they are, but they should not be. Thats the point.

[woodchip]

hmmm ...........

I wonder what the carbon footprint of this last election was ???

I wonder what the carbon footprint of Obama's trip to India is:

"He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier"

"Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt."

"Sources said 13 heavy-lift aircraft with high-tech equipment, three helicopters and 500 US security personnel have arrived in India ahead of Obama's visit."

[Gooberman]

You gotta stop with that ultra-conservative media woodchip. They just make stuff up.

[Krom]

All of that sounds pretty normal when the president goes to visit some place, the secret service usually drags out everything including the kitchen sink. They probably did pretty much the same anytime Bush left the country (or even much more when he went to Iraq on Thanksgiving that time).

[Will Robinson]

All of that sounds pretty normal when the president goes to visit some place, the secret service usually drags out everything including the kitchen sink. They probably did pretty much the same anytime Bush left the country (or even much more when he went to Iraq on Thanksgiving that time).

And even then they can't keep someone in a small room from throwing a shoe at his head!

What isn't normal is the number of people in his entourage and the expense that is racking up.