UHC would not be a "social program"...I see it more along the lines of health and safety...you know, like police and firefighters....
call it whatever you want. its still a social program. similar to social security and medicare. both extremely underfunded programs. are they bad programs? not necessarily. but what they are is underfunded and failing. solution? borrow, tax, and print money.
why do you assume UHC would suck...? as I've wondered before, those who currently have Medicaid and Medicare aren't forgoing those "sucky" programs for privately run insurance programs, are they...?
yea I know. you keep saying this over and over and over as if you are making a point. you're not. people can't "opt out of medicare" and switch to private programs.
and medicare isn't sucky as far as care because it utilizes the private healthcare system. it sucks because its underfunded and can not be sustained at its current pace.
but turn over the healthcare system to the government are quality care will quickly diminish.
In what context are you referring to socialism as a proven not good thing?
any country that has been communist. I'm all for government stepping in to help those less fortunate, or children, or elderly. but what I don't want is the government to have 100% control of the healthcare system
You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.
You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.
tax transfer investments nice.
UHC would imply the government commands 100% control of the system. sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
UHC would not be a "social program"...I see it more along the lines of health and safety...you know, like police and firefighters....
call it whatever you want. its still a social program. similar to social security and medicare. both extremely underfunded programs. are they bad programs? not necessarily. but what they are is underfunded and failing. solution? borrow, tax, and print money.
why do you assume UHC would suck...? as I've wondered before, those who currently have Medicaid and Medicare aren't forgoing those "sucky" programs for privately run insurance programs, are they...?
yea I know. you keep saying this over and over and over as if you are making a point. you're not. people can't "opt out of medicare" and switch to private programs.
and medicare isn't sucky as far as care because it utilizes the private healthcare system. it sucks because its underfunded and can not be sustained at its current pace.
but turn over the healthcare system to the government are quality care will quickly diminish.
I say not social, you say social...fine...
can't opt out, huh...yeah, there forced into using it...they can purchase a private plan if they want to....it's a much better option...right...?
and yeah, you keep saying over and over and over that we can't afford it and it will fail and it's gonna suck...
yet, I've seen no alternative from anyone opposed to UHC...I suppose the status quo is ok...
I will say this, if UHC doesn't happen, I'd be ok with the creation of a Public Option i.e. Gov't run insurance alternative....
You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.
tax transfer investments nice.
UHC would imply the government commands 100% control of the system. sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
We have government financial involvement in postage, utilities, fire departments, police departments, waterways, highways, water and sewage treatment, hospitals, universities, schools...these are investments that we find in successful market based economies.
And regardless of your cold war paranoia, its not authoritarian if accountable to the will of the people.
uhc in principle is great ... but it will not work in the US ... it only works in conjunction with an overall socialized philosophy ... unfortunately, there are too many special interests groups that's purpose is to make mass profits ... you cannot base a health care system with that as your foundation ...
uhc is barely hanging on in canada here ... it's only surviving because most people believe in it but slowly and surely - those special interest groups are making their way into a system that is teetering ... it's been on a decline for 2 decades now ...
What if we did away with the special interest groups?
I'm all for that, but how exactly do you propose to do that?
Honestly, I haven't given it enough thought yet to answer this. It was just a question.
can't opt out, huh...yeah, there forced into using it...they can purchase a private plan if they want to....it's a much better option...right...?
whats the point of getting private insurance if you are forced to use medicare? there is not. so your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Medicare is not a bad program. its just unsustainable at its current spending pace. and when the money runs out, which is will in 2020....what do you do? raise taxes, borrow money, and/or print more money.
I will say this, if UHC doesn't happen, I'd be ok with the creation of a Public Option i.e. Gov't run insurance alternative....
I might be ok with this too, but I fear businesses will start dropping coverage for employees and we would all be forced to depend on the government option. which will only lead to cost overruns and typical government mismanagement.
The Feds cant run an efficient health care system.But the Gov. can stop profiteering and unfair practices
Obama's vision is a giant Federal apparatus funded primarily by the wealthy. Punitive taxation will not be able to pay the bills.and we could very well go bankrupt just like california has.
The key to reforming healthcare is industry oversight on cost,punishing frivolous lawsuits against doctors,mandating that hospitals charge according to Gov.. guidelines.
Also setting up clinics for the poor where they can be treated free of charge. Thats doable and wouldn't bankrupt the country..It allows the private system we have in place to continue.,but prevents exploitation and price gouging. every state has medical boards right now. All they have to do is police the cost and any violation could result in the loss of license.
What if we did away with the special interest groups?
I'm all for that, but how exactly do you propose to do that?
Honestly, I haven't given it enough thought yet to answer this. It was just a question.
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
you want my solution....not sure how to draw this up but ALL money used by candidates for campaigns be tax payer money. everyone gets equal share, and your share increases as you win popularity. or something like that, the details can be worked out by the smart people.
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
you want my solution....not sure how to draw this up but ALL money used by candidates for campaigns be tax payer money. everyone gets equal share, and your share increases as you win popularity. or something like that, the details can be worked out by the smart people.
Given how much was spent on the last few elections, I don't think we can afford that any more than we can afford UHC
Also setting up clinics for the poor where they can be treated free of charge.
I can't help but point out that if these clinics offered abortion care - or even contraceptives - among their services, they would be accused of eugenics.
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
absolutely ... corporate control of gov't is like the kevin bacon of american domestic and foreign problems ... you can always link to that when things are not going well ...
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
Exactly. I'm all for this.
see, we all can find common ground.
i find it interesting tho, jlew is all for taxpayers carrying the burden of funding political campaigns, but not healthcare. i say, they get their donations from individuals who support their ideals, and that's it. campaigning has gotten FAr out of hand and the money, the waste..is ridiculous. i'd love to see it gt more low-key, grassroots, not like a damn movie premiere. ya know, keep it simple....discuss the issues.
i find it interesting tho, jlew is all for taxpayers carrying the burden of funding political campaigns, but not healthcare.
whats so funny or interesting about that? it would be funny if they were similar cost. but we are talking about a few hunded million at most compared to Trillions.
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
i find it interesting tho, jlew is all for taxpayers carrying the burden of funding political campaigns, but not healthcare.
whats so funny or interesting about that? it would be funny if they were similar cost. but we are talking about a few hunded million at most compared to Trillions.
i say, they get their donations from individuals who support their ideals, and that's it.
...like special interest groups?
what's *funny*...is the fact that healthcare is a NEED, to benefit ALL citizens. campaign funds is just BS imo.
and we've gone round and round the costs....you think it's impossible...many of us do not....and so it goes. it amused me to think you're ok with taxpayers being FORCED to payu for campaigns, but definitely not for healthcare. it's skewed logic to ME, but i understand we have very different pov.
and um...didya read? said i AGREED it would be great to cut out groups, corps, partnerships, etc. i said INDIVIDUALS, not GROUPS.
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
Allow me to clarify the "government sucks" point of view for you. It is still possible to be in that camp and still believe that government is capable of providing services to the people-- it just works far better the more 'local' it becomes. Let the states figure things out more than the federal government. It's their RIGHT to do so, actually. This explains why, for the most part that poice, fire, sometimes roads work out OK. There is more control by the people at this level. The more layers of government you add on top of what we have already, the more complicated things become, and ultimately taxpayer money just gets thrown at the problem. It's about efficiency and putting the people funding these programs in control more.
what's *funny*...is the fact that healthcare is a NEED, to benefit ALL citizens. campaign funds is just BS imo.
part of the problem with our current political system is its overrun with special interest groups being more important that individuals. campaign finance reform would benefit ALL citizens. and not to mention its about 1/90th of the cost of UHC.
and we've gone round and round the costs....you think it's impossible...many of us do not....and so it goes.
I don't think its impossible. nothing is impossible. we can print a trillion dollars tomorrow and poof, we can afford it. but thats not a good idea. get it?
it amused me to think you're ok with taxpayers being FORCED to payu for campaigns, but definitely not for healthcare. it's skewed logic to ME, but i understand we have very different pov.
you are leaving out the VERY important detail of cost. but cost seems to be irrelevant to you so I'm not surprised you are amused by my logic.
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
Allow me to clarify the "government sucks" point of view for you. It is still possible to be in that camp and still believe that government is capable of providing services to the people-- it just works far better the more 'local' it becomes. Let the states figure things out more than the federal government. It's their RIGHT to do so, actually. This explains why, for the most part that poice, fire, sometimes roads work out OK. There is more control by the people at this level. The more layers of government you add on top of what we have already, the more complicated things become, and ultimately taxpayer money just gets thrown at the problem. It's about efficiency and putting the people funding these programs in control more.
In short: the FEDERAL government sucks, and global government sucks worse.
what's *funny*...is the fact that healthcare is a NEED, to benefit ALL citizens. campaign funds is just BS imo.
part of the problem with our current political system is its overrun with special interest groups being more important that individuals. campaign finance reform would benefit ALL citizens. and not to mention its about 1/90th of the cost of UHC.
and we've gone round and round the costs....you think it's impossible...many of us do not....and so it goes.
I don't think its impossible. nothing is impossible. we can print a trillion dollars tomorrow and poof, we can afford it. but thats not a good idea. get it?
it amused me to think you're ok with taxpayers being FORCED to payu for campaigns, but definitely not for healthcare. it's skewed logic to ME, but i understand we have very different pov.
you are leaving out the VERY important detail of cost. but cost seems to be irrelevant to you so I'm not surprised you are amused by my logic.
and um...didya read? said i AGREED it would be great to cut out groups, corps, partnerships, etc. i said INDIVIDUALS, not GROUPS.
how about a bunch of individuals grouped together. what do you call those?
i AGREED to campaign finance reform. seriously, i don't think you read for content much. however, that doesn't mean i am for taxpayer's paying for campaigns.
and hey, my sense of humor is my own...i am allowed to be amused at whatever you wish. you don't find it funny, i do, and i honestly don't care if you fail to see my humor.
jlew.....i am not addressing each and every of your points, b/c you and i have gone over it and over it.....and we get no where. i HAVE addressed costs, numerous times, in great detail - i certainly don't think they are 'irrelevant'...so yea, you can check your condescension. it's all in that other healthcare thread. why should i waste my time explaining my thoughts, again, to the same person i already have? it's there if you are interested. however, you dismissed it the first time, so what's the point in rehashing it more...and we certainly don't need to print money to do so....so again, the condescension can be left by the wayside...
individuals means individuals.....NOt groups. it's a simple concept really. NO group donations. that's about the only 'new' thing we're discussing here, thus the only new answer i can offer.
btw - according to your logic then...b/c we CAN afford to pay for campaigns, we should...but b/c we cannot (according to you) pay for healthcare...we shouldn't? yea, that is skewed logic to me. if we stop wasting $$$ on BS, we could already start to fund healthcare, right along with the numerous ideas and suggestions made by myself and others....and hey, i don't even pretend to be some economic brainiac.....but if i can think of some very plausable ideas for funding, i bet those truly brilliant economic gurus could come up with a workable budget for it. and yea...getting rid of the FOR PROFIT nature of healhcare would be a HUGE start.
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
thanks for the recap? anything else?
anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
Allow me to clarify the "government sucks" point of view for you. It is still possible to be in that camp and still believe that government is capable of providing services to the people-- it just works far better the more 'local' it becomes. Let the states figure things out more than the federal government. It's their RIGHT to do so, actually. This explains why, for the most part that poice, fire, sometimes roads work out OK. There is more control by the people at this level. The more layers of government you add on top of what we have already, the more complicated things become, and ultimately taxpayer money just gets thrown at the problem. It's about efficiency and putting the people funding these programs in control more.
hey, vinnie, quick question...do you work for the gov't...? just curious...personally, I have worked for both private companies and worked for a gov't agency...
this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
yep...that's basically it
We are a young country and some would say we are an experiment that is failing.....we need to make drastic changes now
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...
theres a shocker.
tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?
fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.
actually, both of those answers are acceptable and intelligent, just seemingly not to you. just b/c we are bigger thn other countries does not mean we cannot follow or learn from their model to see how they fund it and afford it. you seem to be the only one who doesn't see that. we're bigger = bigger taxbase = more $$$ to fund UHC.
and it is soooo annoying that you can no longer search for thread titles....frustrating!
Comments
call it whatever you want. its still a social program. similar to social security and medicare. both extremely underfunded programs. are they bad programs? not necessarily. but what they are is underfunded and failing. solution? borrow, tax, and print money.
yea I know. you keep saying this over and over and over as if you are making a point. you're not. people can't "opt out of medicare" and switch to private programs.
and medicare isn't sucky as far as care because it utilizes the private healthcare system. it sucks because its underfunded and can not be sustained at its current pace.
but turn over the healthcare system to the government are quality care will quickly diminish.
You seem to like stirring up a little of the old red scare. Bringing up the failure of authoritarian communism is not quite an honest comparison in this discussion of capitalist government tax-transfer investments.
tax transfer investments
UHC would imply the government commands 100% control of the system. sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
I say not social, you say social...fine...
can't opt out, huh...yeah, there forced into using it...they can purchase a private plan if they want to....it's a much better option...right...?
and yeah, you keep saying over and over and over that we can't afford it and it will fail and it's gonna suck...
yet, I've seen no alternative from anyone opposed to UHC...I suppose the status quo is ok...
I will say this, if UHC doesn't happen, I'd be ok with the creation of a Public Option i.e. Gov't run insurance alternative....
We have government financial involvement in postage, utilities, fire departments, police departments, waterways, highways, water and sewage treatment, hospitals, universities, schools...these are investments that we find in successful market based economies.
And regardless of your cold war paranoia, its not authoritarian if accountable to the will of the people.
Honestly, I haven't given it enough thought yet to answer this. It was just a question.
whats the point of getting private insurance if you are forced to use medicare? there is not. so your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Medicare is not a bad program. its just unsustainable at its current spending pace. and when the money runs out, which is will in 2020....what do you do? raise taxes, borrow money, and/or print more money.
I've given my solution several times. if you'd like to hear it again, let me know.
I might be ok with this too, but I fear businesses will start dropping coverage for employees and we would all be forced to depend on the government option. which will only lead to cost overruns and typical government mismanagement.
Obama's vision is a giant Federal apparatus funded primarily by the wealthy. Punitive taxation will not be able to pay the bills.and we could very well go bankrupt just like california has.
The key to reforming healthcare is industry oversight on cost,punishing frivolous lawsuits against doctors,mandating that hospitals charge according to Gov.. guidelines.
Also setting up clinics for the poor where they can be treated free of charge. Thats doable and wouldn't bankrupt the country..It allows the private system we have in place to continue.,but prevents exploitation and price gouging. every state has medical boards right now. All they have to do is police the cost and any violation could result in the loss of license.
Fair enough. I think it's the single greatest impediment to effective governance in this country. I'd start with a law banning any business or corporation or LLC or partnership or what-have-you from ever making any contribution to any candidate or political action group.
you want my solution....not sure how to draw this up but ALL money used by candidates for campaigns be tax payer money. everyone gets equal share, and your share increases as you win popularity. or something like that, the details can be worked out by the smart people.
Given how much was spent on the last few elections, I don't think we can afford that any more than we can afford UHC
I can't help but point out that if these clinics offered abortion care - or even contraceptives - among their services, they would be accused of eugenics.
absolutely ... corporate control of gov't is like the kevin bacon of american domestic and foreign problems ... you can always link to that when things are not going well ...
Exactly. I'm all for this.
see, we all can find common ground.
i find it interesting tho, jlew is all for taxpayers carrying the burden of funding political campaigns, but not healthcare.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
whats so funny or interesting about that? it would be funny if they were similar cost. but we are talking about a few hunded million at most compared to Trillions.
...like special interest groups?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
thanks for the recap? anything else?
what's *funny*...is the fact that healthcare is a NEED, to benefit ALL citizens. campaign funds is just BS imo.
and we've gone round and round the costs....you think it's impossible...many of us do not....and so it goes. it amused me to think you're ok with taxpayers being FORCED to payu for campaigns, but definitely not for healthcare. it's skewed logic to ME, but i understand we have very different pov.
and um...didya read? said i AGREED it would be great to cut out groups, corps, partnerships, etc. i said INDIVIDUALS, not GROUPS.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Allow me to clarify the "government sucks" point of view for you. It is still possible to be in that camp and still believe that government is capable of providing services to the people-- it just works far better the more 'local' it becomes. Let the states figure things out more than the federal government. It's their RIGHT to do so, actually. This explains why, for the most part that poice, fire, sometimes roads work out OK. There is more control by the people at this level. The more layers of government you add on top of what we have already, the more complicated things become, and ultimately taxpayer money just gets thrown at the problem. It's about efficiency and putting the people funding these programs in control more.
part of the problem with our current political system is its overrun with special interest groups being more important that individuals. campaign finance reform would benefit ALL citizens. and not to mention its about 1/90th of the cost of UHC.
I don't think its impossible. nothing is impossible. we can print a trillion dollars tomorrow and poof, we can afford it. but thats not a good idea. get it?
you are leaving out the VERY important detail of cost. but cost seems to be irrelevant to you so I'm not surprised you are amused by my logic.
how about a bunch of individuals grouped together. what do you call those?
In short: the FEDERAL government sucks, and global government sucks worse.
i AGREED to campaign finance reform. seriously, i don't think you read for content much. however, that doesn't mean i am for taxpayer's paying for campaigns.
and hey, my sense of humor is my own...i am allowed to be amused at whatever you wish. you don't find it funny, i do, and i honestly don't care if you fail to see my humor.
jlew.....i am not addressing each and every of your points, b/c you and i have gone over it and over it.....and we get no where. i HAVE addressed costs, numerous times, in great detail - i certainly don't think they are 'irrelevant'...so yea, you can check your condescension. it's all in that other healthcare thread. why should i waste my time explaining my thoughts, again, to the same person i already have? it's there if you are interested. however, you dismissed it the first time, so what's the point in rehashing it more...and we certainly don't need to print money to do so....so again, the condescension can be left by the wayside...
individuals means individuals.....NOt groups. it's a simple concept really. NO group donations. that's about the only 'new' thing we're discussing here, thus the only new answer i can offer.
btw - according to your logic then...b/c we CAN afford to pay for campaigns, we should...but b/c we cannot (according to you) pay for healthcare...we shouldn't? yea, that is skewed logic to me. if we stop wasting $$$ on BS, we could already start to fund healthcare, right along with the numerous ideas and suggestions made by myself and others....and hey, i don't even pretend to be some economic brainiac.....but if i can think of some very plausable ideas for funding, i bet those truly brilliant economic gurus could come up with a workable budget for it. and yea...getting rid of the FOR PROFIT nature of healhcare would be a HUGE start.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...
theres a shocker.
tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?
fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.
hey, vinnie, quick question...do you work for the gov't...? just curious...personally, I have worked for both private companies and worked for a gov't agency...
what are you babbling about now...?
you thanked me for the recap and asked I had anything else, thus my response...now this...note to jlew, urine and corn flakes don't mix well....
yep...that's basically it
We are a young country and some would say we are an experiment that is failing.....we need to make drastic changes now
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
actually, both of those answers are acceptable and intelligent, just seemingly not to you. just b/c we are bigger thn other countries does not mean we cannot follow or learn from their model to see how they fund it and afford it. you seem to be the only one who doesn't see that. we're bigger = bigger taxbase = more $$$ to fund UHC.
and it is soooo annoying that you can no longer search for thread titles....frustrating!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow