RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too?

RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 7:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 7:55:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people. Don't forget we have federally run single payer health care for the elderly and disabled, Medicare, and federally run single payer health care for active duty military and veterans, Tricare. Kind of odd that no one noticed all that was unconstitutional. I wonder what the for profit medical clinics on the battlefields will charge?

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 7:58:38 AM)
Things have gotten more complex. Today we have non-profit corporations, collectives, and other small groups of grass roots activists who are incorporated. If the courts use the '2 or more people' definition, then there is the current baby and bathwater situation. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I put it this way...the corporation exists only on paper...in the abstract. The creation of the corporation is the first corruption of democracy it existing only so a (real) person could privately profit without...private liability. It is therefore a complete corruption of business conduct within the very society that so empowers it, for the courts to endow the corporation with anything more at all...than property rights. The rest is merely conversation. The courts are the first refuse of any new tyranny.

MrRodgers -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 8:38:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Things have gotten more complex. Today we have non-profit corporations, collectives, and other small groups of grass roots activists who are incorporated. If the courts use the '2 or more people' definition, then there is the current baby and bathwater situation. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I put it this way...the corporation exists only on paper...in the abstract. The creation of the corporation is the first corruption of democracy it existing only so a (real) person could privately profit without...private liability. It is therefore a complete corruption of business conduct within the very society that so empowers it, for the courts to endow the corporation with anything more at all...than property rights. The rest is merely conversation. The courts are the first refuse of any new tyranny. I don't think it is complex at all. There are for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations, both of which can and do take in million$ in profit. The only difference are, non-profits cannot distribute any profits and their funding in most cases, is...tax deductible. Still non-profit can gouge as for example the Fairfax Hospital Assoc. (Farifax, Va.) was a non-profit that in 1994 took in $31 million of NON-profit. No place for that $31 mill. to go hey ? Oh yes, as the hospital administrator made $1 million a year while doctors averaged $200,000. Plus, most well funded non-profits of any stripe, often pay some of the highest salaries and offer Cadillac benefits. The balance is often sucked up with BS bonuses or accumulated funding for their endowment.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 9:06:36 AM)
You may have missed my broader point. 2 people who form a corporation to encourage disadvantaged kids to learn music instead of joining gangs, would be covered by the same legislation and court rulings as the extreme wealth and power mongers that you cite. So would groups like Veterans For Peace, or hotlines and shelters for battered spouses. There isn't a one size fits all solution to the problem of the rich using corporations to buy influence, because the definition of 'corporation' covers much more than the rich. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I don't think it is complex at all. There are for-profit corporations and non-profit corporations, both of which can and do take in million$ in profit. The only difference are, non-profits cannot distribute any profits and their funding in most cases, is...tax deductible. Still non-profit can gouge as for example the Fairfax Hospital Assoc. (Farifax, Va.) was a non-profit that in 1994 took in $31 million of NON-profit. No place for that $31 mill. to go hey ? Oh yes, as the hospital administrator made $1 million a year while doctors averaged $200,000. Plus, most well funded non-profits of any stripe, often pay some of the highest salaries and offer Cadillac benefits. The balance is often sucked up with BS bonuses or accumulated funding for their endowment.

cloudboy -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 5:44:47 PM)
Your point is really besides the point. Public interest organizations are marginal in political influence compared to the monied ones. In fact if we polled the directors of public interest organizations throughout America, I'm sure they'd be against the Citizen's United decision. -------- 1. On the myth that independent expenditures cannot corrupt I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election of defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the ‘quid pro quo´ of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 6:28:09 PM)
Thanks for a bunch of irrelevant blather that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, especially after I broke it down for clarity. This is about the words used by Supreme Court to explain the ruling, not about your imaginary opinion of the imaginary opinions of NFP directors. You can stop trolling anytime now... can't you? quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Your point is really besides the point. Public interest organizations are marginal in political influence compared to the monied ones. In fact if we polled the directors of public interest organizations throughout America, I'm sure they'd be against the Citizen's United decision. -------- 1. On the myth that independent expenditures cannot corrupt I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of ‘independent expenditures’ expressly advocating the election of defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the ‘quid pro quo´ of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.

cloudboy -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 7:27:01 PM)
Your point is to defend (or explain) the Citizen's United Decision based upon past legal precedents that make the decision look more reasoned and legitimate. Even if the decision is super-reasonable and highly legitimate "legally" it is still bad news for the average American in his endeavor to exercise any influence over the Federal Government and the electoral candidates he has to chose from. It also ties candidates to big money, a very corrupting influence. You point is the small point: Citizen's United has a legal foundation. Your detractor's point is that the Supreme Court still got it wrong because it's harmful to the General Welfare of the nation. Extending this "person-hood" to Corporations as a religious being really is just another "corporate" bias --- this time one that favors managers and owners over workers in the name of "religious freedom." The Supreme Court now is really, really backing big business in a big way. This would be yet another example. Management and owners should not be able to force their workers to conform to a particular set of religious ideas or codes.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/30/2013 8:41:59 PM)
So explaining how something works (more specifically pointing out that the status allegedly created by CU, actually goes back centuries) is exactly the same thing as defending it? Could you even keep a straight face while you typed that? quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Your point is to defend (or explain) the Citizen's United Decision based upon past legal precedents that make the decision look more reasoned and legitimate. Even if the decision is super-reasonable and highly legitimate "legally" it is still bad news for the average American in his endeavor to exercise any influence over the Federal Government and the electoral candidates he has to chose from. It also ties candidates to big money, a very corrupting influence. You point is the small point: Citizen's United has a legal foundation. Your detractor's point is that the Supreme Court still got it wrong because it's harmful to the General Welfare of the nation. Extending this "person-hood" to Corporations as a religious being really is just another "corporate" bias --- this time one that favors managers and owners over workers in the name of "religious freedom." The Supreme Court now is really, really backing big business in a big way. This would be yet another example. Management and owners should not be able to force their workers to conform to a particular set of religious ideas or codes.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 5:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people. Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders? That's what will have to be nationalized.

cloudboy -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 7:58:54 AM)
Fine, I don't know what you are doing, what you support, or what your position is. We can end this here, and I am fine with that. Exchanges with you seem to be all about what you "said" and corrections therefrom --- without any expansions or extrapolations allowed. According to you, you have no opinion on Citizen's United. quote: So explaining how something works (more specifically pointing out that the status allegedly created by CU, actually goes back centuries) is exactly the same thing as defending it? We can go back and find precedents in support of slavery, child labor, and how women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property too, so if all you are doing is referring to old precedents because your goal here is nothing more than serving as the CM historian --- well, no wonder others are having problems with you, we care about the present and whether CU made good or bad law. As the OP had noted, the poisoned apple might now generate offspring. And we can trace this offspring back centuries. Well, thank you for that.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 8:54:59 AM)
In other words, this is a debate club for some, where you practice tactics like making up strawmen and other logical fallacies to 'score points' and prance around with high school popularity contest ad homs like 'well no wonder others are having problems with you'... [8\|]. Limit yourself to that if you wish, I'll continue to look for the handful of posters here that engage in adult discourse. Your last statement is impossible, anyone who refuses to look at the fundamental facts of an issue, and sticks to flinging polemic soundbites, has automatically excluded themselves from the vector that cares about solutions to issues. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Fine, I don't know what you are doing, what you support, or what your position is. We can end this here, and I am fine with that. Exchanges with you seem to be all about what you "said" and corrections therefrom --- without any expansions or extrapolations allowed. According to you, you have no opinion on Citizen's United. quote: So explaining how something works (more specifically pointing out that the status allegedly created by CU, actually goes back centuries) is exactly the same thing as defending it? We can go back and find precedents in support of slavery, child labor, and how women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property too, so if all you are doing is referring to old precedents because your goal here is nothing more than serving as the CM historian --- well, no wonder others are having problems with you, we care about the here and now and whether CU made good or bad law.

cloudboy -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 10:48:01 AM)
The question of the OP is the benefit / harm of Citizen's United -- which may now be extended to Religious organizations. You get testy when actually asked to comment upon whether the new law is good or bad or whether not you agree with it. The fact that Citizen's United relied upon older precedents is pretty much axiomatic of all judicial opinions.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 2:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people. Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders? That's what will have to be nationalized. Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it. Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 4:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people. Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders? That's what will have to be nationalized. Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it. Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even if we went Medicare for all, what makes you think Doctors will be cool with it? And, how is that going to lower costs? Mandating lower reimbursements? Yeah. Fuck that. Doctors, hospitals and providers are already deciding against accepting Obamacare plans. What makes you think they'll accept reduced payments? They'll be the only game in town? Nope. If there are no, or few, providers accepting Obamacare, those with insurance (Medicare) won't have anywhere (or few places) to go where their insurance is any good. Thus, they'll have lots of coverage for nowhere. Now, what do they do? Where do they go? Cash customers, or private customers, will be the only customers left. You will have to nationalize the providers, or else there won't be enough providers for Medicare.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 8:19:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people. Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders? That's what will have to be nationalized. Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it. Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even if we went Medicare for all, what makes you think Doctors will be cool with it? And, how is that going to lower costs? Mandating lower reimbursements? Yeah. Fuck that. Doctors, hospitals and providers are already deciding against accepting Obamacare plans. What makes you think they'll accept reduced payments? Because they are? These lies about doctors not taking Medicare are without any factual support. I've seen a lot of doctors since I got sick and not a single one has ever not taken Medicare. I've asked other people on Medicare and no one has ever been turned away because the doctor doesn't take Medicare. The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork.

thishereboi -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 8:30:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Single payer" won't work in the US, unless we full out nationalize the entire shebang. I'm not so sure the Constitution allows for "single payer" or full out nationalization. And, it's going to be quite ugly in the short term once nationalization takes over. Come on man. First of all, in just about every country with single payer there is a profitable and competitive private market dispensing services and insurance. Germany has 200 private health insurance companies, all competing for patient business. Plus, we have federal single-payer insurance for banks (FDIC) federal single-payer crop insurance (FCIC) also federal single-payer private [sic] overseas investment insurance. (OPIC) Kinda reflects America's real institutional values, insure everything...except people. Does Germany have more or less private [iproviders? That's what will have to be nationalized. Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it. Creating a massive organization to own and manage hospitals, clinics and doctors all over the country seems a bit extreme and unworkable. Easier to simply send out payments just like Medicare does right now. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even if we went Medicare for all, what makes you think Doctors will be cool with it? And, how is that going to lower costs? Mandating lower reimbursements? Yeah. Fuck that. Doctors, hospitals and providers are already deciding against accepting Obamacare plans. What makes you think they'll accept reduced payments? Because they are? These lies about doctors not taking Medicare are without any factual support. I've seen a lot of doctors since I got sick and not a single one has ever not taken Medicare. I've asked other people on Medicare and no one has ever been turned away because the doctor doesn't take Medicare. The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork. Not according to these sites http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/when-will-the-government-start-forcing-doctors-to-see-obamacare-patients http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/us/physicians-refuse-medicare-patients.html http://www.todaysseniors.com/wp/medicare/can-my-doctor-refuse-to-accept-medicare-coverage/

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 8:36:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork. That is sheer delusional horseshit. The only way it could be considered 'faster' is that Medicare shuts off all appeals on claims after a short time, even if they were responsible for the mistake in the first place. Getting Medicare to pay what they actually owe the doctor is a headache for many practices.

Phydeaux -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 9:50:46 PM)
quote: Why? What's to prevent the government from simply making everyone eligible for Medicare? Most every doctor already takes it. Simply wrong. Currently around 30% of doctors take medicare.

Phydeaux -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (12/1/2013 9:53:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The actual facts are that Medicare reimbursements are often higher than HMO reimbursements and get paid more promptly and with less interference and paperwork. That is sheer delusional horseshit. The only way it could be considered 'faster' is that Medicare shuts off all appeals on claims after a short time, even if they were responsible for the mistake in the first place. Getting Medicare to pay what they actually owe the doctor is a headache for many practices. Additionally delusional: -That medicare reimbursements are higher than HMO reimbursements. Feel free to find an authoritative quote on that DomKen. While you're at it - try googling for "find a doctor that accepts medicare" and you will find out exactly how difficult many people are finding it to find a doctor that accepts medicare.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875