Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Fantasy Laws      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Fantasy LawsPage 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I guess North Korea must be a ideal political system. Afterall no one there seems unhappy and they seem to have a deep love for their regime.


Actually a lot have a love for the regime since they are indoctrinated from birth in the dear leaders cult.On the other hand express dislike for the regime and you wind up in a "reeducation camp". Sounds like paradise.

check out Inside North Korea

Join National Geographic's Lisa Ling as she captures a rare look inside North Korea - something few Americans have ever been able to do. Posing as an undercover medical coordinator and closely guarded throughout her trip, Lisa moves inside the most isolated nation in the world, encountering a society completely dominated by government and dictatorship. Glimpse life inside North Korea as you've never seen before with personal accounts and powerful footage. Witness first-hand efforts by humanitarians and the challenges they face from the rogue regime.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/29/2010 12:21:47 PM

Right now, the Congress is in control of how Washington D.C. schools are run. They created a small sub group of reps to handle it. My fantasy? No one who did not have THEIR OWN children IN the school system would be allowed to sit on that panel.


Parents need to become involved and held responsible for their children, all schools need to offer equal education and facilities for the children that attend those schools. Kids have no input on where they grow up or who their parents are it's up to us to give them the tools they need to earn a descent living if we don't the long term result will be children that grow up dependent on society


instead of trying to regulate Tobacco products away, instead, since it has LONG been proven that they are addictive, and are destructive of health, simply require ALL of the medical costs of tobacco product CUSTOMERS , to be paid for out of the profits of the tobacco corporations, and of their officers. I'd bet that would take a HUGE chunk out of heath care costs for the rest of us.


The FDA now has the ability to regulate tobacco which means that they can regulate some of the additives, if they regulate the amount of sugar added to tobacco or do not allow the tobacco companies to add cocoa most people will be able to quit, Tobacco is a designer drug as such smokers should have to get a prescription to use it, by requiring a prescription smokers will have to see a doctor and new smokers won't have the easy access to tobacco that they have now.

Unfortunately there is a tremedous amount of money generated by tobacco not just through the taxes on tobacco but also through the illnesses and diseases that smoking causes, imagine the hit that the insurance companies, health care providers and drug companies would take if tomorrow no one smoked, Do you think the economy could survive?


Congressmen are NOT subject to most of the laws they pass for the rest of us. They should be. And we could go further: no one in the Senate should be allowed to have Health Care coverage that is any better than the AVERAGE available to their constituents.


No child in this country should go without adequate health care, we need a universal public option where we all have the same coverage, I was extremely disappointed that President Obama and the democrats did not just jam the health care bill through with the public option. The scare tactics that those opposed to the health care bill used should be criminal and people like Sarah Palin who told out right lies should be prevented from ever holding public office again, Politicians of all parties should be held liable when they knowingly lie or fabricate facts


During the 1980's and 1990's, many big corporations responded to foreign competition, by reducing the number of employees in the company, and by reducing existing employees wages. They always claimed that this was necessary for the company to compete, and I would not argue with that, since it's a matter of math. However, I WOULD like to have seen a rule that said that any corporate officers who claimed that they had to cut worker pay because of competition, could NOT simultaneously claim that they deserved to DOUBLE their own take from the situation as a reward for firing people and cutting pay and shrinking the company. If you don't actually GROW your company, how can you justify that you GROW your paycheck?
Just a start.


I was a field maintenance manager for 25 years for one of the largest chemical companies in the world, I was assigned to work in a process that was losing money, in the first full year I worked there the operation started turning a profit. Working with the union mechanics and the union production workers we made changes which improved productivity and quality. I was the first field maintenance manager to ever receive a year end bonus, I took the bonus money and split it between the union mechanics and production workers, upper management was so mad that I never received another bonus, but I was sent from problem area to problem area and in each new area I not only let but I encouraged the people who maintained and operated the equipment make suggestions and changes that resulted in millions of dollars saved while increasing both quality and production.

No manager should receive a large raise or bonus if he/she has not earned it. CEO's who sell off companies for a one time large capital gain should not receive compensation. We have been continually rewarding politicians and corporate big wigs for their poor performance and here we are. The truth is we allowed this to happen we are responsible for the economic mess we are in, all we ever had to do was look for the American made label and now we want President Obama to wave a magic wand and create jobs but we don't want him to use tax money to do it, our elected politicians start screaming if some one whispers protectionism like it's a crime to protect the jobs of american workers. We allow treasonous behavior by supporting foreign countries that trade with us and then give aid to countries that want to blow us off of the face of the earth.

We watch as oil prices rise and increase the prices of every thing we need to survive, we allow our elected representatives to send our young men and women off to war so that the oil barons can keep selling us oil, we are responsible we were left a country where hard work was rewarded and we are leaving a country that is in an economic crisis and children that will never enjoy the standard of living that we did.

My fantasy I want to leave my childrens children the same opportunities that I was left by my parents and grand parents
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/29/2010 3:18:11 PM
EarlzP.
It is refreshing to hear a voice who came from the dark side, so to speak, so eloquently for future generations' equity as we have these discussions. When the Cousteau Society released their Bill of Rights for Future Generations a couple of decades ago, I used it as a frequent public speaker then, to try to generate inter-generational dialogue for that equity. It was perceived as a threat to the status quo then and the discussion was censored. The tenants of that covenant remain relevant, just as they did with the seven generations agreements prior to European influence on these shores.
http://www.eurocbc.org/page721.html
http://www.forthenext7generations.com/
The concept of ****ing over the kids for our RV, Malwart dependency is relatively new to this specie...aka eat the young..what has posterity ever done for us.

As we panic over peak oil, peak coal, peak consumerism, peak stupidity, it is nice to know that there are living, breathing, and caring humans among us.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 29
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/1/2010 6:52:04 AM

I guess North Korea must be a ideal political system. Afterall no one there seems unhappy and they seem to have a deep love for their regime.

North Korea is a perfect example of what I was referring to - I mentioned that if any one person or group gets everything they want, then the system doesn't work. One guy does get everything he wants. That's what makes it a dictatorship.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 30
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/1/2010 10:51:47 PM


The way to tell if a political system is working properly is if everyone is vaguely unhappy. If any one person or group is happy, then the process has failed.


That's a unique view of the role of government: make everybody unhappy.



In the modern nation state, there will always be competing interests - what you consider to be arbitrary and unconstitutional laws are actually laws that address concerns of other people in your country.


In Nazi Germany lots of people were concerned about the Jewish problem. I guess you would consider it good governance that Hitler cam up with a final solution. Oops, didn't mean to Poe the thread.



Just because you're not getting what you want doesn't mean it's time to kill the politicians - it's actually a reason to both rejoice and speak up.


It's not simply a case of what I want. It's a case of what is constitutional. I don't want there to be an income tax, but it's perfectly constitutional for there to be one. So my Kill the Treasonous Scumbag Politicians fantasy law wouldn't apply to Congressmen just because they vote on tax law.



Oh, and my fantasy laws would take the civil treatment of corporations as persons and apply that more broadly. Either that or redefine corporations as not persons - one or the other.


If we get rid of corporate personhood, then corporations couldn't be parties to contracts. That's what was at stake in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). I'm not sure how any corporation could do business without some degree of personhood.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 31
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/1/2010 11:24:54 PM
First, the role of government isn't to make everyone unhappy - it's to make everyone equally unhappy. That's the way it's always been since we were working these things out around the tribal fire. The consensus is the natural human solution.

I don't remember the case, but it wasn't an 1819 case that conferred personhood - it was a later case involving a railway. And any organization can be party to a contract, personhood isn't necessary.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/2/2010 3:04:57 AM

It's closer to the same idea that requires mining companies to clean up after themselves, out of their profits, and THOSE laws exist NOW, and ARE Constitutional.


Bad analogy - come visit West Virginia and I'll show you how poorly that law has worked out. I've spent the past 16 years involved with a non profit whose primary focus is cleaning up the mess the mining companies HAVEN'T taken care of. And I can say with confidence that 16 years from now there will still be plenty of mess left.

So my fantasy law? Actually make coal companies clean up the mess they've left behind. If no streams were allowed to be polluted or buried, all lands either had to support the same ecosystem they supported before mining or were actually put to true beneficial use, all adjacent residents really were assured of drinkable water out of their taps, then we'd discover the true costs of 'cheap' coal. Included, of course, would be restoring lands and streams already ruined by mining.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but that comment struck a chord with me.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 33
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/3/2010 10:07:54 PM


I don't remember the case, but it wasn't an 1819 case that conferred personhood - it was a later case involving a railway. And any organization can be party to a contract, personhood isn't necessary.


An organization can't sign a contract.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/6/2010 9:42:20 PM

My fantasy law would be that no one in Congress or Government should be allowed to have health insurance until everyone has it. If that were the case ... I'm thinking it would be passed and in place by the end of this week.

I hate views like these that treat Americans like they're subjects to be reigned over who can't take care of themselves.

So, I'll have to be compelled to buy health insurance if I don't want to? Because surely prohibiting the people in charge until I have it means I lose the freedom to purchase what I choose to purchase.

Awesome. You're one of those that thinks the government is there to tell you what to do and make decisions for you. Great. We didn't have enough of those.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 35
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/7/2010 7:40:25 AM

My fantasy law would be that no one in Congress or Government should be allowed to have health insurance until everyone has it. If that were the case ... I'm thinking it would be passed and in place by the end of this week.


I hate views like these that treat Americans like they're subjects to be reigned over who can't take care of themselves.

So, I'll have to be compelled to buy health insurance if I don't want to? Because surely prohibiting the people in charge until I have it means I lose the freedom to purchase what I choose to purchase.

Awesome. You're one of those that thinks the government is there to tell you what to do and make decisions for you. Great. We didn't have enough of those.


Perhaps the point was that the people in the Government shouldn't use the money raised by taxing the people to help themselves first to benefits that are denied to a large portion of the people.

What is the point of forcing the people to pay for Social Security and Medicare if you are abandoning them along the way? Without having health care before one reaches the age of retirement, it is very possible that one may die and never receive the benefits of Social Security and Medicare. That means that the poorer workers are subsidizing the retirement years of the richer workers that can afford to have health insurance during their working years and therefore reach retirement in decent health.

It is not that we want the government telling us what to do and what to buy. It is us telling the government what to do with the money that the government collect from us.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/7/2010 8:29:02 AM
Oh, so you think health insurance should come from the government?

The point of forcing people to pay for Social Security and Medicare? Do you understand how social programs work? They go to people who can't afford to pay themselves. Social security and medicare wasn't supposed to be a retirement plan. It was an insurance plan.

But as usual, the government is masterfully doing the only thing it's ever been really good at: getting bigger. I don't think you understand how social security works. Poorer workers aren't subsidizing anything. You get out of social security based on what you put in. If someone is collecting social security, it's a representation of how much they paid into it, not a subsidy from other people.

And if you don't think the government telling you what to do and what to buy is the same thing as the government taking your money and buying it for you, I don't really know what to tell you. I don't know why you think the solution to this is have the government just will it into existence. It's just going to make the problem bigger: more reliance on a government that will have to become more powerful to fill the new role, and passing new regulations/rules on companies providing health care, causing competition dropoffs and increasing the market power of the largest companies while putting up barriers to smaller companies, creating more of the super-big companies complained about by the people who look to the government for solutions to all their problems because of the evil corporations.

Positive feedback cycle.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 37
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/7/2010 8:54:39 AM
Oh, so you think health insurance should come from the government?


Where do the health insurance benefits that people in Congress and in the Government are getting come from?

That is the point here. If people in the Government and Congress are getting the health insurance benefits, then everybody should have them.

It seems that you missed the point in my post. Let me try again. Workers who are poor (because they only make minimum wages are forced to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes but can't buy health insurance because it is not available to them at affordable prices,) are very likely to have health conditions that may shorten their lives. They most likely will die from illness before reaching retirement age. They will never enjoy all the money they paid for Social Security and Medicare because they died for lack of health care acces while they were working and paying for the Social Security and Medicare of those that could afford health care insurance, and most likely will reach retirement age. I would call that a subsidy!
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/7/2010 1:00:15 PM

But as usual, the government is masterfully doing the only thing it's ever been really good at: getting bigger. I don't think you understand how social security works. Poorer workers aren't subsidizing anything. You get out of social security based on what you put in. If someone is collecting social security, it's a representation of how much they paid into it, not a subsidy from other people.


This is what I think:
No child should have to go with out the best of medical care available, If I have a choice as whether I want to subsidize the insurance and drug companies or the government I will choose the the government "government = we the people" If I have to choose between helping an American or a Haitian or any foreign country I will choose to help an American. I am truthfully amazed at how people are willing to give give give to foreign countries and squeal at the thought of providing health care for Americans. Even animals take care of their young, even fish take care of their young.

I was sorry that President Obama did not jam universal health care though while he had the numbers to do it, his wanting to negotiate with the party of no the same bunch that held the presidency for the last 8 years was a poor decision, he was a lame duck even with the house and senate favoring his party
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/8/2010 5:21:09 PM
Where do the health insurance benefits that people in Congress and in the Government are getting come from?

My parents' provider (Federal law enforcement employees) was Cigna. I'm not sure about Congress.


That is the point here. If people in the Government and Congress are getting the health insurance benefits, then everybody should have them.

Why? Government/Congress get benefits as a course of employment, not because they're special. Many others in dozens of other industries get health insurance as a condition of employment. Why is it somehow different that Congress and other government employees do, as well?


Workers who are poor (because they only make minimum wages are forced to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes but can't buy health insurance because it is not available to them at affordable prices,) are very likely to have health conditions that may shorten their lives. They most likely will die from illness before reaching retirement age.

I don't think this is borne out in practice... But I'd like to see the numbers behind that claim.


No child should have to go with out the best of medical care available

That's a contradiction to what's realistically possible. We can't all have "the best". Otherwise what are you comparing it to? Who should have the worst? And why is that bureaucratically decided?


If I have a choice as whether I want to subsidize the insurance and drug companies or the government I will choose the the government

That's mind-boggling. I can't honestly imagine what thought process would lead you to that. If you have a choice in funding a program, you choose the least efficient and most poorly managed one.


"government = we the people"

This is demonstrably not true. And hasn't been for a while. Sure, they in some cases have the interests of the people in mind, but only to the extent that it continues the power of whoever is running it at the time.


Even animals take care of their young, even fish take care of their young.

Yes, human parents are known to do the same.


I was sorry that President Obama did not jam universal health care though while he had the numbers to do it, his wanting to negotiate with the party of no the same bunch that held the presidency for the last 8 years was a poor decision

This would be where I back my point up of "by the people for the people". Popular polls showed that this isn't what the body republic wanted. You advocate that the government should do something the people don't want it to do. Had Obama done what you wish he would have, the Democrats would be left with even fewer seats in the legislature.


This is true in some cases but not all. Some receive benefits although they have not contributed.

Quite true. But it's not very common, and the instances are rather exceptional.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/8/2010 7:25:28 PM


I don't think you understand how social security works. ..You get out of social security based on what you put in. If someone is collecting social security, it's a representation of how much they paid into it, not a subsidy from other people.

This is true in some cases but not all. Some receive benefits although they have not contributed.
I take care of young people (Americans) who haven't been alive long enough to contribute much less worked any length of time to contribute through an employer and they are set up on social security for the rest of their life ... they were supposedly hurt on the job they had for about 5 months. I know about it because they bragged about how they got social security benefits.

Mind you ... living on SSI or any kind of social security benefits is not any kind of "good" life. These people live in run-down, crime-ridden areas. They live from one check to another with no hope of ever leaving the immediate area. (ie ... there are no trips to Europe or Cancun or even Atlantic City for them, but they do play the lottery.)

SSI is part of the Social Security program. I know of Immigrants who are living here and will be here for the rest of their lives ... living on SSI. They have never paid a dime (much less a penny) into our Social Security system.

So saying that you get out of social security based on what you put in ... that's just wrong. Actually, I don't think you understand how social security works.

My fantasy law ... (AGAIN) ... deny Congress (the House and the Senate) any and all health benefits until everyone in this nation has the same rights to the same benefits. I betcha we'd all have benefits within a week. Keep in mind that it is not mandatory for anyone in the House or the Senate to buy or subscribe to getting benefits ... it appears to be their right. I want that right too.

I want the right to say yea or nay to having the best benefits available with no holds barred on what is covered ... no pre-existing, no nothing.


We can't all have "the best". Otherwise what are you comparing it to? Who should have the worst? And why is that bureaucratically decided?
I lived in a country that has socialized medicine and while not everyone had "the best", no one wanted for anything. No one ever lost their home because they couldn't afford to pay for their medical care. There were no homeless people because of lack of medical care or lack of being able to afford it. Even the hobos were well taken care of.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 41
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/9/2010 6:48:58 AM

Why? Government/Congress get benefits as a course of employment, not because they're special. Many others in dozens of other industries get health insurance as a condition of employment. Why is it somehow different that Congress and other government employees do, as well?


Let's see if you can get it this time. You are defending the right of government employees and the people in Congress to get health insurance, like many other employees in different industries, as a "condition of employment," not because "they're special." Correct?

Then you don't support the right of "all" working people to have access to affordable health insurance. Isn't that putting the employees of some industries and the government employees and the Congress people above the rest of the working people, de facto saying that that they are "special."

Clarify your position! Don't argue both sides of a point. It just sounds that you argue for the sake of arguing.

Other posters seem to have a similar problem with your posts:


Actually, I don't think you understand how social security works.



^^Whether he realizes it or not, he was referring to Social Security DISABILITY benefits.


And then, you never responded to my point regarding the socially immoral practice of having workers who toil for minimum wages, paying Social Security and Medicare taxes when they don't have access to affordable health insurance. The idea here would be to afford those workers a way to maintain themselves in good health and hopefully reach retirement age, and to enjoy the benefits of Social Security and Medicare for which they hade been paying all their working lives. Perhaps you don't think that they are "special" enough?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/9/2010 8:28:27 AM

My fantasy law ... (AGAIN) ... deny Congress (the House and the Senate) any and all health benefits until everyone in this nation has the same rights to the same benefits. I betcha we'd all have benefits within a week. Keep in mind that it is not mandatory for anyone in the House or the Senate to buy or subscribe to getting benefits ... it appears to be their right. I want that right too.

Okay. If you take away their medical benefits (from being employed), then you're just going to have wealthy people in Congress who don't need the benefits. Which means the people representing you are going to be the highest end of the economic food chain. That doesn't make sense. Your law doesn't make sense on several levels.


I want the right to say yea or nay to having the best benefits available with no holds barred on what is covered ... no pre-existing, no nothing.

You do. If you're willing to pay for it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


You are defending the right of government employees and the people in Congress to get health insurance, like many other employees in different industries, as a "condition of employment," not because "they're special." Correct?

No. I never said anyone had a right to health insurance. A lot of people hold jobs that don't pay any benefits and just go buy their own health insurance.


Then you don't support the right of "all" working people to have access to affordable health insurance. Isn't that putting the employees of some industries and the government employees and the Congress people above the rest of the working people, de facto saying that that they are "special."

You're right, I don't support the right of all working people to have access to health insurance. Because I've read the bill of rights. Many times. I will say that there isn't some inherent specialty about being in Congress that determines that you get health insurance. Want health insurance? Get a job that offers it.


And then, you never responded to my point regarding the socially immoral practice of having workers who toil for minimum wages, paying Social Security and Medicare taxes when they don't have access to affordable health insurance. The idea here would be to afford those workers a way to maintain themselves in good health and hopefully reach retirement age, and to enjoy the benefits of Social Security and Medicare for which they hade been paying all their working lives. Perhaps you don't think that they are "special" enough?

Most of the people (vast majority) "toiling" for minimum wage are not providing for a family. They're teens working summer jobs. As people continue to work, their pay goes up. If they want to get health insurance, they can either get a job that provides it or buy it on their own in the market.

Want to make health insurance cheaper? Relax government rules forcing insurance companies to lose money left and right, and their cost of operation goes down. Health insurance is expensive because hospitals are expensive and doctors are expensive. Money doesn't come out of thin air.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/9/2010 4:16:38 PM

No child should have to go with out the best of medical care available



That's a contradiction to what's realistically possible. We can't all have "the best". Otherwise what are you comparing it to? Who should have the worst? And why is that bureaucratically decided?


In your opinion it is impossibe but if we can start wars to feed the oil barons and spend billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries then there is no reason why we can't take care of the health needs of our children


If I have a choice as whether I want to subsidize the insurance and drug companies or the government I will choose the the government



That's mind-boggling. I can't honestly imagine what thought process would lead you to that. If you have a choice in funding a program, you choose the least efficient and most poorly managed one.


You can't possibly draw conclusions about the efficiency of a program that does not exist, health care could not possibly be any worst with the government running it then it is today, walking into a hospital is almost as dangerous as walking across the street,


"government = we the people"



This is demonstrably not true. And hasn't been for a while. Sure, they in some cases have the interests of the people in mind, but only to the extent that it continues the power of whoever is running it at the time.


If "we the people" are not getting the representation that we elect our civil servants to provide then 'we the people" are responsible. Those elected to represent the people work for "we the people"


Even animals take care of their young, even fish take care of their young.



Yes, human parents are known to do the same.


Some do some don't but the facts are that many children in our country go without basic needs


I was sorry that President Obama did not jam universal health care though while he had the numbers to do it, his wanting to negotiate with the party of no the same bunch that held the presidency for the last 8 years was a poor decision



This would be where I back my point up of "by the people for the people". Popular polls showed that this isn't what the body republic wanted. You advocate that the government should do something the people don't want it to do. Had Obama done what you wish he would have, the Democrats would be left with even fewer seats in the legislature.


President Obama ran on a platform of what he would do as president and was elected by a majority of the people to follow through on his campaign platform, had he pushed the changes he wanted through the mid terms would have reflected his determination and resolve, trying to negotiate with the party that left our country in the mess it is in was viewed as weakness not strength.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/10/2010 10:48:17 AM
In your opinion it is impossibe but if we can start wars to feed the oil barons and spend billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries then there is no reason why we can't take care of the health needs of our children

I didn't say we couldn't. I said not everyone can have "the best care". It's easy to see why this is merely by looking at the definition of "best".


You can't possibly draw conclusions about the efficiency of a program that does not exist, health care could not possibly be any worst with the government running it then it is today, walking into a hospital is almost as dangerous as walking across the street,

Okay. You're surely by now familiar with how Einstein characterized insanity. "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Every government program we've ever instituted has become a rapidly expanding black hole for money with ever increasing mandates, budgets, and authorities, but maybe this time it will be different. Been watching things like the TSA in the news lately? This is the kind of madness you would have us subject our health care system to? Seen how the Department of Homeland Security keeps adding new responsibilities and solutions to problems that don't exist? Social security, as pointed out in this thread, grew to encompass a number of things that were not in its mandate, and we're not even sure how it can be funded continuously in the long term.

But maybe this time we can make it happen...


If "we the people" are not getting the representation that we elect our civil servants to provide then 'we the people" are responsible. Those elected to represent the people work for "we the people"

In theory... But not in practice. Democracy is the worst form of government... after everything else. (In reality we live in a republic, with a less direct influence on the workings of the government)


President Obama ran on a platform of what he would do as president and was elected by a majority of the people to follow through on his campaign platform, had he pushed the changes he wanted through the mid terms would have reflected his determination and resolve, trying to negotiate with the party that left our country in the mess it is in was viewed as weakness not strength.

Obama ran on many platforms. His best platform and his most solid credentials in 2008 was not being a Republican. His main platform was "change". And he certainly did not have a mandate to install government run healthcare. The midterm elections were a result of the Democrats ignoring their constituency and not managing to fix the economy despite its promises of gargantuan spending being the solution, instead leaving us with pretty much the same economy, but in the hole for billions of dollars.

Polling for the health care bill as it was written was way unfavorable, but the Democrats pushed it through anyway. They walked straight into a midterm defeat not because they weren't a big enough bully, but because they did too much with too little support.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/11/2010 10:39:42 AM

The midterm elections were a result of the Democrats ignoring their constituency and not managing to fix the economy despite its promises of gargantuan spending being the solution, instead leaving us with pretty much the same economy, but in the hole for billions of dollars.

I take care of people who mostly live in run-down surroundings. They're either on Welfare or extremely meager fixed incomes, so go figure that when they want to fix things up, it takes time. ie our economy didn't crash overnight and there is no way it can be "fixed" overnight. But then the Republicans already know that and that's why they are playing the "No" game. They know if they play "No" and "Hell no" long enough, the Democrats will fail and they can take control and continue with what they were doing for the8 years prior to Obama being elected. Their main goal is that the rich get richer and as a result, (the only one thing that can happen when that happens) the poor get poorer.

My fantasy law ... any lawmaker who does not work in Washington for the good of their constituents should be kicked out of office immediately and an election held immediately for their replacement.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/11/2010 8:32:19 PM

My fantasy law ... any lawmaker who does not work in Washington for the good of their constituents should be kicked out of office immediately and an election held immediately for their replacement


The congress and the senate would be empty

My fantasy law would be that consumer protection laws could be applied to the health care industry, you have to wonder what is wrong when the country that has the highest cost health care in the world the USA " 6,096.00 " ranks 38th in life expectancy, how can a country that ranks 38th has health care costs that are more then double the country with the longest life expectancy Japan 2,293.00. There has to be tremendous waste or tremendous inefficiencies in our health care system for our services to be the most expensive and yet our life expectancy only rank 38th. As consumers we should be protected
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/11/2010 9:47:29 PM
Actually part of the problem is that politicians in Washington think solely of their constituency over the whole of the nation. While everyone agrees cutting back on useful programs in the name of budget discretion, nobody wants the programs for their district cut.

I'm not sure what kind of fantasy law can fix that, but it'd be interesting to hear some brainstorming.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 48
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/12/2010 1:22:16 PM


My fantasy law ... any lawmaker who does not work in Washington for the good of their constituents should be kicked out of office immediately and an election held immediately for their replacement.


The problem is that there are major disagreements about what's "good." I think that gun control laws are not good, and a lot of people agree with me. OTOH, a lot of people disagree with me. I think anti-abortion laws are not good and lots of people agree with me. Lots of people disagree.

So what are we going to do? After every time a Congressman casts a vote, do the constituents vote on whether the Congressman should be kicked out of office? If we do that then we should just switch over to direct democracy...which is unworkable. Or maybe we should just have periodic votes on whether the Congressmen should keep their jobs. Maybe 2 years for each Representative and 6 years for each Senator.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/12/2010 6:20:57 PM

Another one: instead of trying to regulate Tobacco products away, instead, since it has LONG been proven that they are addictive, and are destructive of health, simply require ALL of the medical costs of tobacco product CUSTOMERS , to be paid for out of the profits of the tobacco corporations, and of their officers. I'd bet that would take a HUGE chunk out of heath care costs for the rest of us.


We live in a society fueled economically by misery. Wars , disease, suffering and corruption are the some of the main ingredients that feed us. How many jobs would be lost what would we do to replace the taxes that smoking provides. The FDA has the power to regulate tobacco and they use it to help the tobacco companies stay in business the new rules concerning advertisement could have been written by the tobacco companies.

A FANTASY LAW? Lets require that all politicians and any one in public office or running for public office is required to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, no more Sarah Palin spreading lies about Death Squads or about President Obama's citizenship. Ignorance will not be an excuse for lying one lie and they are out of politics for ever
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 12/12/2010 8:51:29 PM

I think anti-abortion laws are not good and lots of people agree with me. Lots of people disagree.

So what are we going to do? After every time a Congressman casts a vote, do the constituents vote on whether the Congressman should be kicked out of office?
Sure ... why not?

Then at least if it's determined that the Congressman isn't appropriately representing the majority of the constituents, they either start voting that way or they've just gotta go!
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Fantasy Laws