We need to reform our electoral system so that the country would have a proportional representation multiparty electoral system.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

We need to reform our electoral system so that the country would have a proportional representation multiparty electoral system.

I don't know that representative democracy is doing well. Legislatures and executives alike seem to care more about big campaign donors than the country or the people.

If the Information Age is to be distinctly different from the Industrial Age, I suspect that sooner or later we're going to go with direct vote internet democracy. People are afraid of it now, and The Establishment will emphasize the fears. The question is how to phase it in slowly and in a way where the will of the people is leavened with experience advice.

My thought as to a first step might be filibuster busting. If a minority of representatives is blocking the advancement of a bill or, say, a supreme court nomination, the People could override the filibuster. You'd need a large number of people to get a quorum, to call for a vote, than a majority vote would move things along. A second step might be that if a bill is voted up or down in one house or another, the People could override their representatives. A third step might be a People's veto.

Moving to a many party Parliamentary system would be good as well, but enough changes would have to be made that I don't see it happening by amendment. We'd likely need a constitutional convention.

Originally Posted by marypoza

---agreed on Cruz. As for the Donald.. well he is for Medicare 4 all & he'll leave PP alone. He's not only against the TPP for some reason (he's a Big Businessman afterall) but wants to get rid of NAFTA. He wants us out of the globocop business & the MidEast- not bcuz he's antiwar but bcuz he's not gonna start any wars (hello China!) that he can't win. If he delivers on those 4 things I can stomach his loud blustery ass for 4 yrs. That said this is NOT an endorsement of the Donald. I want Bernie, or failing that Jill Stein. Too bad she don't come with electoral votes

I don't see anything about Medicare for all in his campaign policy statement. His proposal is to eliminate Obamacare, allow purchase of insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid, Health Savings Accounts, and other standard GOP proposals that don't expand access to health care. He does talk about expanding Medicaid so that everyone (except illegal immigrants) can have some health care, but no specifics are provided.

See below.

Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Bismarck invented the German equivalent of Social Security so that the working class would have a stake in the system and not demand "socialism". Bismarck gets a bad rap for his connections to German nationalism, something a certainty even in the wake of the unification of Germany. In fact the German Empire of 1871-1918 was a weak confederation as a political order. William II deserve the blame for an attempt to destroy such democracy as existed in Germany going into World War I.

At the least Bismarck was cautious on foreign policy because he recognized the limitations of German military power. In that Bismarck was better than Dubya. Nixon was closer to Bismarck in that than Dubya was, and the Obama foreign policy is still largely a Nixon foreign policy.

-- thanx for the explanation. The only thing I know about Bismarck is that he overran France, specifically Alsace. 2 of my Greatgrandparents were Alsatian & they emigrated to this country bcuz of that

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I don't see anything about Medicare for all in his campaign policy statement. His proposal is to eliminate Obamacare, allow purchase of insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid, Health Savings Accounts, and other standard GOP proposals that don't expand access to health care. He does talk about expanding Medicaid so that everyone (except illegal immigrants) can have some health care, but no specifics are provided.

See below.

-- ok Medicaid then, I thought it was Medicare. At least he doesn't believe in forcing ppl to buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. That's just plain wrong

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- thanx for the explanation. The only thing I know about Bismarck is that he overran France, specifically Alsace. 2 of my Greatgrandparents were Alsatian & they emigrated to this country bcuz of that

...and he stopped at Alsace and Lorraine. German rule of Alsace-Lorraine was not gentle. It was practically a colony, much like Posen. The German-speaking Alsatians seemed not to like the harsh, centralized rule from Berlin which was very different from that in, for example, Bavaria or Saxony. There are still German-speaking Alsatians in Alsace-Lorraine... and they consider themselves French.

Where I live (if you can call it living, but that is a different story), many of the Polish-Americans come from what is now the Poznan area. Some sold out their farms to German "settlers" and took a war bonus for service in the Franco-Prussian War and bought farms. Germany was trying to make what was then occupied western Poland "German".

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- ok Medicaid then, I thought it was Medicare. At least he doesn't believe in forcing ppl to buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. That's just plain wrong

That's just medicare for all, which you said you want.

Obamacare is a poor substitute, but it's better than what we had before.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- ok Medicaid then, I thought it was Medicare. At least he doesn't believe in forcing people to buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. That's just plain wrong

Like abortion (Trump used to be a strong pro-choicer), Trump's views on health care have "evolved".

Mr. Trump’s views have evolved. Writing about health care in his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” he said, “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one,” and he expressed interest in the idea of a “single-payer plan,” with consumers free to choose from competing private options. He backed away from that idea in an interview with The New York Times in 2011, when he was flirting with a White House bid and his conservative credentials were under scrutiny.

He also plans to block grant Medicaid. That means that once a given state runs out of money, if you are uninsured, you are SOL.

Under ACA, there are subsidies for people who can't afford to pay market rates for insurance. If your income is too low to even afford subsidies, it was designed to provide Medicaid. However, since some states have not expanded Medicaid eligibility to adults who aren't absolutely destitute, those folks are stuck. However, because their income is so low, they are exempt from the tax imposed on those not insured.

I would love a single player system. I'm not going to get it under Trump, unless his views "evolve" again.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- ... At least he doesn't believe in forcing ppl to buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. That's just plain wrong

Yeah, well the "free rider" problem rears its ugly head without a requirement to buy insurance. Right now we have mandated EMTALA, which is a law that emergency rooms MUST treat people, no choice. Furthermore, ambulances MUST pick up lunatics that ride motorcycles without helmets at 90+ miles per hour, and society through its taxes, etc. winds up caring for paraplegics and quadraplegics for the rest of their lives when they injure themselves on the roads, and don't carry insurance.

Everyone want freedom, until they don't. Freedom to do whateve they want, but not have to live with the consequences. If you want the "freedom" to take advantage of the wonderfulness of American medicine, then you need to also want the "freedom" to buy an insurance policy to cover part of the cost.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

We cannot blame gun manufacturers for the misuse of the weapons we sell when we have legitimated the use of them by non-police or military in certain legal circumstances.

Why not? We do with manufacturers of other dangerous products all the time. Consider a drug company who put their product in container lacking a child-proof cap, which was then taken by a child, who died from overdose. Don't you think that company would be sued? Why do you suppose there ARE child-proof caps?

There are child-lock technologies that would make guns safer should they get into the hands of children. Were gun makers not immune to lawsuits, guns would have these locks like drug bottles do. Most of the people killed by guns do not come from homicides, it's suicides and accidents. The incidence of both can be reduced by making guns unavailable for use by unauthorized users. There are technologies that can do this.

Any other product would have technology that prevents use by unauthorized persons as standard. Gun manufacturers (and the NRA) oppose this for the same reason manufacturers have always initially opposed safety and environmental measures.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- ok Medicaid then, I thought it was Medicare. At least he doesn't believe in forcing ppl to buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. That's just plain wrong

You are required to buy auto insurance if you are going to drive. How is that different from requiring health insurance if you are going to live (here). If you don't want to buy auto insurance but need to drive, then go elsewhere. Same thing for health insurance.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

We don't need another Clinton in the white house especially an establishment shill like Hillary. 8 years of Hillary would break the country the 4T would have passed without any reform whatsoever. We don't need a return to the 3T. We need a strong leader and trump shows signs of being able to make the tough decisions. Sanders too as indicated and has shown a willingness to be a strong leader. We need a Bismarck.

You may fool the rubes with your farce of revolution against some ambiguous 'Establishment' - you got a better chance of that in the bubble worlds of both the GOP and the Democrat nomination process.

But when the primaries are over and the general is in full swing, it is going to be very clear to even the least informed BernieBot on the Left or t-bagger on the Right that this is all-out political civil war over the heart and soul of this Nation for decades. Only the very stupid and most ill-informed will be in the center - you morons on the Right may need them to have the slimmest of chances; but I don't think we do - you're welcome to them.

Originally Posted by marypoza

--omg they must be having snowball fights in hell bcuz I actually agree with this. Dunno about the Bismarck part but we do need Bernie

That says mountains about what more than a few BernieBots are about.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It is not an insult directed at women. It is an insult directe at people that someone thinks are unqualified.

Because, well, they're women, right?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It was stuff from photos that she should have known were classified.

Exactly what photos are you talking about? Or does that require a secret decoder ring that only full-time Faux News viewers got in the mail from Rupert Murdoch?

These emails, with or without photos, were not marked as classified when sent by the sender (who was not Clinton). All of the relatively few emails that have now been classified have been RETROACTIVELY classified - this has happened with both Colin Powell and Condi Rice - have you seen anything on Faux Noise about that? Apparently, most, if not all, of the emails now RETROACTIVELY classified would not have been classified at the time (with or without photos). Where's the beef?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Other people did not use private servers in the way she did, and did not send it to people he should not have seen it like she did. She was told that blackberries were a bad idea, but did it. If she was a regular joe, she would already be in prison.

The Secretary of State and the people who actually send emails to the SoS are not 'regular joes' and nor do we want them to be - get over it.

Whether the SoS or a regular joe, you still have to make the case for a crime. Neither you, the FBI or Faux News has come anywhere close to doing so. Make your case if you have one; but if you think you have, you are mistaken.

Take a peek outside of your bubble; there's a whole world out there beyond Faux New. But sorry, it has no magic ponies to sooth your Clinton Hatre Derangement Syndrome with bullshxt.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Because, well, they're women, right?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/11/...-deal-with-it/

Originally Posted by playwrite

Exactly what photos are you talking about? Or does that require a secret decoder ring that only full-time Faux News viewers got in the mail from Rupert Murdoch?

These emails, with or without photos, were not marked as classified when sent by the sender (who was not Clinton). All of the relatively few emails that have now been classified have been RETROACTIVELY classified - this has happened with both Colin Powell and Condi Rice - have you seen anything on Faux Noise about that? Apparently, most, if not all, of the emails now RETROACTIVELY classified would not have been classified at the time (with or without photos). Where's the beef?




The Secretary of State and the people who actually send emails to the SoS are not 'regular joes' and nor do we want them to be - get over it.

Whether the SoS or a regular joe, you still have to make the case for a crime. Neither you, the FBI or Faux News has come anywhere close to doing so. Make your case if you have one; but if you think you have, you are mistaken.

Take a peek outside of your bubble; there's a whole world out there beyond Faux New. But sorry, it has no magic ponies to sooth your Clinton Hatre Derangement Syndrome with bullshxt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b9a_story.html

satellite photos that were marked classified, but the classification was removed. When are sateliilte photos not classified?

And youir second arguemnt is that Clinton is not a regular joe, so should have an easier standqard? Wow.

maybe you should look someone other than media matters.

Originally Posted by TnT

Yeah, well the "free rider" problem rears its ugly head without a requirement to buy insurance. Right now we have mandated EMTALA, which is a law that emergency rooms MUST treat people, no choice. Furthermore, ambulances MUST pick up lunatics that ride motorcycles without helmets at 90+ miles per hour, and society through its taxes, etc. winds up caring for paraplegics and quadraplegics for the rest of their lives when they injure themselves on the roads, and don't carry insurance.

Everyone want freedom, until they don't. Freedom to do whateve they want, but not have to live with the consequences. If you want the "freedom" to take advantage of the wonderfulness of American medicine, then you need to also want the "freedom" to buy an insurance policy to cover part of the cost.

-- I think if the Govt is gonna force something on us (like say, health "care") then they should provide it. What is so damn difficult about lowering the Medicare age to 0? But hey, I'm funny like that

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You are required to buy auto insurance if you are going to drive. How is that different from requiring health insurance if you are going to live (here). If you don't want to buy auto insurance but need to drive, then go elsewhere. Same thing for health insurance.

--DING DING DING DING DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! I was wondering if somebody would be lame enough to trot out that old chestnut. The difference here is if you can't afford the car insurance then don't drive. What do you do if you can't afford (the more expensive) health insurance? Stop breathing?

Sorry, no prize for comparing apples to oranges. Thanx 4 playing, however

Originally Posted by marypoza

--DING DING DING DING DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! I was wondering if somebody would be lame enough to trot out that old chestnut. The difference here is if you can't afford the car insurance then don't drive. What do you do if you can't afford (the more expensive) health insurance? Stop breathing?

No, you go to the emergency room when you're sick, and drive up insurance and hospital rates for everyone else.

It's called being a "free rider," also know as a "freeloader."

What makes it more untenable is for a family of four you would have to making over a $100K a year to not be subsidized by the government.

You don't deserve any sympathy, and I don't think you're going to get any here.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b9a_story.html


satellite photos that were marked classified, but the classification was removed. When are sateliilte photos not classified?

You should check out this this thing on the Internet called "google maps." Hit the "satellite button" and be amazed.

Whether a photo from a satellite, the Queen's butt, or a photo of Trump's 'hand size,' doesn't matter, someone with the authority has to classify the material.

Did you note that your linked article also tells you that these were handed around through private email BEFORE being forward to Clinton? Do you believe google mail or the State Department's private email servers are more secure? Do you know both have been hacked but there is no evidence Clinton's server ever has been? Again, where's the beef?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

And youir second arguemnt is that Clinton is not a regular joe, so should have an easier standqard? Wow.

maybe you should look someone other than media matters.

I never made the argument that Clinton being the SoS puts her above the law. In fact, one could argue the opposite, that her position sets a lower bar for people to believe she did something wrong. There are thousands of average joe federal workers that have passed around work-related material that could be post classified and none of them are being subjected to what Clinton is being subjected to. I'm merely pointing out that (a) you are imposing a different standard because she is a somebody and (b) that you haven't made any case for criminality regardless if the person is a somebody or a nobody. Think about it.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- I think if the Govt is gonna force something on us (like say, health "care") then they should provide it. What is so damn difficult about lowering the Medicare age to 0? But hey, I'm funny like that

Hey, I'm with you 100%. Medicare for all is virtually the only system that makes any sense. This bastardized approach to keeping the health insurance companies in business makes no sense.

Did you know that once upon a time, the AMA was against health insurance? They thought IT was TOO "socialistic."

Headline of TruthDig column today: "Most American Voters Say ‘Meh’ to 2016 Presidential Candidates in Both Parties, Except to Sanders"

Looks like Americans are none too excited about the 2016 election. What’s more, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll, a majority of Americans are going to be pretty disappointed no matter who is elected come November, given the current crop of 5 candidates. And yet, of all the candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties, Bernie Sanders is the only to have scored some positive feedback.

Among all the remaining candidates, only Sanders, Clinton’s Democratic rival, generates significantly more positive than negative ratings from Americans, with 48 percent saying they have a favorable opinion of him and 39 percent unfavorable. He’s also the only candidate described by a majority of Americans as at least somewhat likable, civil, honest and compassionate. ...

At least half of Americans say they would be disappointed or even angry if either of the front-runners — Donald Trump for the Republicans or Hillary Clinton for the Democrats — are nominated, the survey shows. And a quarter said they would be disappointed or angry if both win nominations. Still another quarter would feel at best neutral if both are nominated.

Among all registered voters, 63 percent say they wouldn’t consider voting for Trump and half say the same about Clinton. About one-fifth of those surveyed say they’d either probably or definitely vote for a third-party candidate if Trump and Clinton are the nominees. ... The AP-GfK poll suggests the general election, after the parties name nominees, will be less about emotional appeals and inspiration and more about getting actual voters to cast votes before the end of Election Day. It’s what insiders call the “ground game.” And much of it is played over the airwaves at enormous expense.

Perhaps this poll reveals why one pundit wryly labeled a Clinton-Trump matchup "the election that nobody wants."

Originally Posted by marypoza

--DING DING DING DING DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! I was wondering if somebody would be lame enough to trot out that old chestnut. The difference here is if you can't afford the car insurance then don't drive. What do you do if you can't afford (the more expensive) health insurance? Stop breathing?

Move to another jurisdiction, or pay the fine. Or better still work to change the political terrain so we can have "Medicare for all" or a similar system (Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and almost all the European counties all have them).

Originally Posted by TnT

Hey, I'm with you 100%. Medicare for all is virtually the only system that makes any sense. This bastardized approach to keeping the health insurance companies in business makes no sense.

Did you know that once upon a time, the AMA was against health insurance? They thought IT was TOO "socialistic."

Of course, nothing matters more in America than profit, the only sacred commodity among the ruling elite (which includes televangelists).