Can anyone explain Edwards being endorsed by nader and Robbins

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

WE can manage the health care system however we want. I agree, the governing system in the United States is exactly what many great thinkers in the past feared it would become...this massive beauracratized machine managed by the wealthy elite...but the fact remains people need health care, me for example. And we can manage the system however we want-and there are examples in place around the world that are working fairly well for people in more than a few countries. WE can take from them the right ideas, leave the bad ones behind and come up with a nationilzed haealth care system, its not impossible, even with this beast of gov't we have to work with. imo, obviously

the sig says it all

a. There is NOT plenty for all.
There is only PLENTY OF DEBT FOR ALL. We are in MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE DEBT from all the EXISTING entitlements ... you want to add another 25%+ (TOTAL) to that number ... there is no free lunch!


b. Obviously you didn't read the bit about the FUNDAMENTAL differences between America and those plenty of "other" countries where socialized medicine "works". The obesity figures alone should be enough to make you "scared straight".
:(

c. No. You can't just get all optomistic and say, "WE" can "make this work" ... sorry. The government is long overrun with people who give approximatly 2\8ths of a shit about you, and your saying "we can do this" is a VERY weak solution to that problem.

d. Your statement that you need healthcare would tend to discount your arguments just a smidge, since admittedly you are just after a piece of the government cheese yourself. A piece that gets carved off of MY block!

:(

macgyver06

did nader actually say he's endorsing edwards or did the television program he appeared on say that.. the interview i saw... he said he thinks edwards has the best shopt of winning and seems out of the top 3 to be the best candidates that represents the people and workers

lalalalaaaaaaaa

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Why is this (universal healthcare) a better \ smarter alternative than to simply give people MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY back (much much more if you get rid of incometax and social security) and let them decided how to manage their life?

Because not everyone is able to manage their health insurance costs, like in the example I just gave. Yes, social programs cost everyone more money...everyone knows that. That's why they need to be constantly monitored and reformed and improved upon so they don't become more costly than they are beneficial.

This goes without mentioning the fact that there'd be plenty of money for health care if cuts were made into the military budget. Read the overall U.S. budget. It's very obvious what the problem is. It's not that there's not enough money to fund a health care system...the problem is where most of our tax dollars are going right now and who they're taxed from.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

macgyver06 wrote:

did nader actually say he's endorsing edwards or did the television program he appeared on say that.. the interview i saw... he said he thinks edwards has the best shopt of winning and seems out of the top 3 to be the best candidates that represents the people and workers

Exactly...he's not endorsing anyone as far as I can tell, and he hasn't even confirmed that he won't run this year either.

DriftingByTheStorm

Saturnal wrote:

This goes without mentioning the fact that there'd be plenty of money for health care if cuts were made into the military budget. Read the overall U.S. budget. It's very obvious what the problem is. It's not that there's not enough money to fund a health care system...the problem is where most of our tax dollars are going right now and who they're taxed from.

Even IF providing full coverage for EVERYONE is an EXACT WASH with military funding, there are two fatal flaws.

a. You can't just push for healthcare under the INCREDIBLY FLAWED ASSUMPTION that said military spending will be cut. By which mechanism does one intrinsicly go with the other?

b. ASSUMING it is a WASH, we are STILL IN A HUGE DEFICIT! And that is ASSUMING it is a wash ... i place money on full health coverage outweighing current military expenditures by a considerable margin ... you are talking about a system where everyone gets a "free lunch", and the government writes the check.

Current healthcare spending is about 2\3rds of military spending (based on tax dollars) ... double that, and you'll see that it is NOT a wash.

So. WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?

:(

macgyver06

Saturnal wrote:

Exactly...he's not endorsing anyone as far as I can tell, and he hasn't even confirmed that he won't run this year either.

last election didnt he wait till February of the election year to announce his candidacy?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Even IF providing full coverage for EVERYONE is an EXACT WASH with military funding, there are two fatal flaws.

a. You can't just push for healthcare under the INCREDIBLY FLAWED ASSUMPTION that said military spending will be cut. By which mechanism does one intrinsicly go with the other?

b. ASSUMING it is a WASH, we are STILL IN A HUGE DEFICIT! And that is ASSUMING it is a wash ... i place money on full health coverage outweighing current military expenditures by a considerable margin ... you are talking about a system where everyone gets a "free lunch", and the government writes the check.

Current healthcare spending is about 2\3rds of military spending (based on tax dollars) ... double that, and you'll see that it is NOT a wash.

So. WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?

:(

I'm not saying cutting the military budget will fix everything. That's just one problem. I'm making the point that the U.S. has enough money to put together a health care system. Cuba has enough money to put together a health care system, and they're under blockade...their income per capita is well below ours.

And as far as I know, health care spending in the U.S. is actually more than the military budget, not 2/3 of it. You may be calculating it differently but that's besides the point...What I can't figure out is why you're not mentioning the most important thing, which is WHY health care spending is so high in the U.S. The reason for that is because it's privatized....a small number of people profit from the industry. Again, look at Cuba...they spend a fraction of what we do on health care per capita, yet their average life expectancy is comparable. Social systems CAN work.

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. There is NOT plenty for all.
There is only PLENTY OF DEBT FOR ALL. We are in MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE DEBT from all the EXISTING entitlements ... you want to add another 25%+ (TOTAL) to that number ... there is no free lunch!

You do realize the United States accounts for half of the entire world's spending on arms? We wouldn't even have to cut back spending on our military, we could just not pay some dictator his 50 apache gunships or choose not to supply Israel with arms. THere is more than enough if we tap into the military budget. Its all in how we decide to spend OUR tax dollars.

b. Obviously you didn't read the bit about the FUNDAMENTAL differences between America and those plenty of "other" countries where socialized medicine "works". The obesity figures alone should be enough to make you "scared straight".
:(

Matter of opinion. We can creat any system we want, theoretically, and could eliminate much gov't involvement if we so choose. Shit, give the doctors the power.

c. No. You can't just get all optomistic and say, "WE" can "make this work" ... sorry. The government is long overrun with people who give approximatly 2\8ths of a shit about you, and your saying "we can do this" is a VERY weak solution to that problem.

That's why those people won't be running it. YOur pessimistic aproach is part of the problem with this country, people dont' give a shit and say, "ah it will ever work, and so it never does. Apthy is no good either.

d. Your statement that you need healthcare would tend to discount your arguments just a smidge, since admittedly you are just after a piece of the government cheese yourself. A piece that gets carved off of MY block!

Again, the billions this gov't spend on violence around the world is appaling. Giving machine guns to tyrants, tanks to dicators, bullets to war criminals, cash to corrupt officials everywhere. This is my money. And I would rather see it spent saving lives then taking them.

:[/quote]

DriftingByTheStorm

Saturnal wrote:

What I can't figure out is why you're not mentioning the most important thing, which is WHY health care spending is so high in the U.S. The reason for that is because it's privatized....

YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MARKET WILL STILL BE DOING THE BILLING !!??!!

I don't follow this logic AT ALL.

The GOVERNMENT will NOT BE DOING THE actual administration of healthcare (there will be no GOVERNMENT DOCTORS!), they will ONLY be doing the ADMINISTRATIVE and financial operation of the system.

That means, JUST LIKE HALIBURTON AND BLACKWATER, they will be CONTRACTING CORPORATIONS to provide services.

YOU SEE HOW THAT WORKS, RIGHT?

:( :( :(

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MARKET WILL STILL BE DOING THE BILLING !!??!!

I don't follow this logic AT ALL.

The GOVERNMENT will NOT BE DOING THE actual administration of healthcare (there will be no GOVERNMENT DOCTORS!), they will ONLY be doing the ADMINISTRATIVE and financial operation of the system.

That means, JUST LIKE HALIBURTON AND BLACKWATER, they will be CONTRACTING CORPORATIONS to provide services.

YOU SEE HOW THAT WORKS, RIGHT?

:( :( :(

Its a fundamental flaw in capitalism. That's why we move it to socialized HEalth care.

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

You do realize the United States accounts for half of the entire world's spending on arms? We wouldn't even have to cut back spending on our military, we could just not pay some dictator his 50 apache gunships or choose not to supply Israel with arms. THere is more than enough if we tap into the military budget. Its all in how we decide to spend OUR tax dollars.


Matter of opinion. We can creat any system we want, theoretically, and could eliminate much gov't involvement if we so choose. Shit, give the doctors the power.

That's why those people won't be running it. YOur pessimistic aproach is part of the problem with this country, people dont' give a shit and say, "ah it will ever work, and so it never does. Apthy is no good either.


Again, the billions this gov't spend on violence around the world is appaling. Giving machine guns to tyrants, tanks to dicators, bullets to war criminals, cash to corrupt officials everywhere. This is my money. And I would rather see it spent saving lives then taking them.

:

[/quote]

a. The entire military budget will not be enough to fund the health care system as sugested (it will come from inflation and future debt!)

b. No it's not an opinion. Its a fact. There are very real and verifiable differences between cultures and health indicators in America Vs. THOSE countries

c. No. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY IN THE MILITARY BUDGET TO CUT IN ORDER TO FUND 100% SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. There just isn't!

300,000,000 US citizens times a MEASLY $1,000 in coverage annualy = THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALY.

From Lovely Wikipedia: "For 2007, the [US Military\DOD] budget rose to US$532.8 billion"

That is a gross understatement of the TRUE cost of healthcare and it is nearly equal the ENTIRE MILITARY BUDGET.

Unless you are proposing "Universal" healthcare ONLY for "those in need" and not truly for EVERYONE (even the rich, right?)

Or is it just for the people who can't afford it?
In which case you've just pitted the insurance companies against the government and fucked ME even further.

:(


So do you want to scrap 100% of the DEFENSE OF AMERICA, to provide "free" health coverage?

Just curious.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The GOVERNMENT will NOT BE DOING THE actual administration

they will ONLY be doing the ADMINISTRATIVE

lol

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. The entire military budget will not be enough to fund the health care system as sugested (it will come from inflation and future debt!)

b. No it's not an opinion. Its a fact. There are very real and verifiable differences between cultures and health indicators in America Vs. THOSE countries

c. No. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY IN THE MILITARY BUDGET TO CUT IN ORDER TO FUND 100% SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. There just isn't!

300,000,000 US citizens times a MEASLY $1,000 in coverage annualy = THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALY.

From Lovely Wikipedia: "For 2007, the [US Military\DOD] budget rose to US$532.8 billion"

That is a gross understatement of the TRUE cost of healthcare and it is nearly equal the ENTIRE MILITARY BUDGET.

Unless you are proposing "Universal" healthcare ONLY for "those in need" and not truly for EVERYONE (even the rich, right?)

Or is it just for the people who can't afford it?
In which case you've just pitted the insurance companies against the government and fucked ME even further.

:(


So do you want to scrap 100% of the DEFENSE OF AMERICA, to provide "free" health coverage?

Just curious.

If you look within the United States the 400 richest families own 90% of it. That hasn't changed. Media used to be spread out, now its being consolidated. The middle class has been shrinking, while the income gap has been growing. Minimum wage in realation to inflation has remained stagnant for almost 40 years, while the top 10% have seen exponential wage increases. Economic levels are reverting back to levels not seen since the 20's. And now over 40 million Americans are without health care.

The United States has over 300 military bases around the world, and its basically a matter of empire. We have 33 I think in the middle East-the Romans had the same, you can calculate the number of bases it takes to control the area and that's basically what's goin on. Also we supply 50% of the world's spending on violence. And that's accurate.

Then you look at Cuba. (forgetting the strong sense of community they share-some of the poorest reagions have some of the happiest people) they have over 20,000 trained medical doctors around the world, helping people. Tha'ts exponentionaly more than even the United STates has.


The point is-Its about priority. Do we continue the quest for global hegemony-looking at past results of US invasions the world will be much worse off-or do we realize there are more important things in this world than empire?

11-13 million speople die every year from easliy curable diseases or starvation - according to the UN, and 90% of those people live under WTO 'controlled' countries. That's an American holocuast ever year-and that's what US empire has brought this world. We should be saving these people, and people within the United States, and abandoned this mad quest for world control.

DriftingByTheStorm

Saturnal wrote:

lol

Poor word string.
The POINT is that the Government will only pay another set of companies that will be billing YOU (as the taxpayer) for their services.

The government will NOT be in the business of running hospitals, buying doctors, owning pharmacies, etc etc etc.

It will CONTRACT FOR SERVICES, and will administrate that system by maintaining its own OVERHEAD\COST CENTER departments to account for\keep records for\ADMINISTRATE the system.

It will not be "ADMINISTERING ACTUAL HEALTH PROVISION SERVICES"

Is that so funny now?

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

If you look within the United States the 400 richest families own 90% of it. That hasn't changed. Media used to be spread out, now its being consolidated. The middle class has been shrinking, while the income gap has been growing. Minimum wage in realation to inflation has remained stagnant for almost 40 years, while the top 10% have seen exponential wage increases. Economic levels are reverting back to levels not seen since the 20's. And now over 40 million Americans are without health care.

The United States has over 300 military bases around the world, and its basically a matter of empire. We have 33 I think in the middle East-the Romans had the same, you can calculate the number of bases it takes to control the area and that's basically what's goin on. Also we supply 50% of the world's spending on violence. And that's accurate.

Then you look at Cuba. (forgetting the strong sense of community they share-some of the poorest reagions have some of the happiest people) they have over 20,000 trained medical doctors around the world, helping people. Tha'ts exponentionaly more than even the United STates has.


The point is-Its about priority. Do we continue the quest for global hegemony-looking at past results of US invasions the world will be much worse off-or do we realize there are more important things in this world than empire?

11-13 million speople die every year from easliy curable diseases or starvation - according to the UN, and 90% of those people live under WTO 'controlled' countries. That's an American holocuast ever year-and that's what US empire has brought this world. We should be saving these people, and people within the United States, and abandoned this mad quest for world control.

I agree with ALL of this, EXCEPT for your deduction that MILITARY is the be-all-end-all blame.

It is not.
The over-reaching military is a direct result of FISCAL policy, as is the concentration of wealth.

All that is actualy FACILITATED by your dream-world assumption that shoveling more of YOUR money at the government will help fix things.

The problem is THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
If you don't understand that the use of fiat monetary policy along with the graduated income tax is a SCAM TO FLEECE YOU OF YOUR WEALTH AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, then you will never understand the REAL problems facing america.

Every time the government has to pay defense contractors (or in your dream-world, the HEALTHCARE contractors), they will (instead of raising taxes -- see edwards -- lower taxes and MORE entitlements -- how do you do it?) RAISE INFLATION BY PRINTING MORE MONEY ...

this money will go STRAIGHT in the pockets of the healthcare-industrial-complex and the military-industrial-complex and they will spend that money before it looses its value (before "the system" can adjust prices to account for the inflated money supply) ... and then when it DOES hit the system, YOUR DOLLAR WILL LOSE VALUE.

it will happen day in and day out, every year ... your dollar will lose 2-3% (or if you have your way with healthcare, probably more like 4-5%) PER YEAR!

THAT IS HOW THE RICH GET RICHER.
The government hands those freshly printed dollars to THEM first ... them being the military, or ANY government contractor, AND WALLSTREET VIA THE BANKS (which OWN the fed, btw)!

You want to take money away from the richest of th rich, cut off their banking cartel at the source.

BUT DON'T GIVE THEM MORE OF YOUR MONEY TO STAY FAT AND HAPPY WITH !!!

Do you get that at all?
Serious question. Because i will explain it again.
It is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CONCEPT!

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I agree with ALL of this, EXCEPT for your deduction that MILITARY is the be-all-end-all blame.

It is not.
The over-reaching military is a direct result of FISCAL policy, as is the concentration of wealth.

All that is actualy FACILITATED by your dream-world assumption that shoveling more of YOUR money at the government will help fix things.

The idea is to give the people the power yeah? So in a democracy, where the people have the power, giving money to the gov't equates to giving money to the people. GRanted, as it st ands teh US doesn't even qualify as a democracy, since the level of participation by the public i salmost nonexistent. So as it stands, a nmatinalized health care system would't be an ideal system, but the fac t remains that people need health care.

The problem is THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
If you don't understand that the use of fiat monetary policy along with the graduated income tax is a SCAM TO FLEECE YOU OF YOUR WEALTH AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, then you will never understand the REAL problems facing america.

Graduated? 90% of us pay the majority of our taxes through the social security tax, which is actually regressive. Hence the growing income gap over the last 30 years.

Every time the government has to pay defense contractors (or in your dream-world, the HEALTHCARE contractors), they will (instead of raising taxes -- see edwards -- lower taxes and MORE entitlements -- how do you do it?) RAISE INFLATION BY PRINTING MORE MONEY ...

Eliminate as much beuracracy as you can. Have a health care fund that writes checks based on need, pretty straightforward. It can be funded with reduced military spending-we're talking about covering 40 million americans for the time being.

this money will go STRAIGHT in the pockets of the healthcare-industrial-complex and the military-industrial-complex and they will spend that money before it looses its value (before "the system" can adjust prices to account for the inflated money supply) ... and then when it DOES hit the system, YOUR DOLLAR WILL LOSE VALUE.

THAT IS HOW THE RICH GET RICHER.
The government hands those freshly printed dollars to THEM first ... them being the military, or ANY government contractor, AND WALLSTREET VIA THE BANKS (which OWN the fed, btw)!

You want to take money away from the richest of th rich, cut off their banking cartel at the source.

BUT DON'T GIVE THEM MORE OF YOUR MONEY TO STAY FAT AND HAPPY WITH !!!

Do you get that at all?
Serious question. Because i will explain it again.
It is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CONCEPT!

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well.
Thats enough for me.
Sweetpotato has weighed in.

:rolleyes:

it's kinda creepy how you watch my every move.

you want me, don't you?