Al Gore Facts

[Richpo64]

Watching Algore since 2000 leaves little doubt that the man is insane.

[sirs]

Having universal healthcare does not require an amendment to the constitution.

Yes, in fact it does, as the Fed is not mandated to PROVIDE healthcare to everyone.  I concede that hasn't stopped prior Executive and Legislative bodies from ramrodding extraconstitional entitlements all over the place, but that doesn't refute that it SHOULD be made Constitutional, if its the end all be all to compassionate government.  And obviously if enough folks feel like you, it shouldn't be a problem.  Right?

[BT]

If another system of values is applied, one that has honest compassion for the poor and the well-being of the neediest in society then I think the system can most certainly be fixed to the benefit of social equality.

Are you optimistic this will happen with the current elected class? Even localities with homogenized populations haven't enacted a universal health system based on a sales tax. What makes you think a federal govt approach with competing special interests would be an easier sale?

[Brassmask]

In the last 8 years of posting on this site i have been told that Christian ethics should have no bearing on government policy.

Why is the government the safety net of first resort. What is wrong with famililies taking care of their own? What is wrong with local communities and neighborhoods taking care of their own. Why the push for federal fixes? And what is wrong with the federal fixes in place now?

True rightwing misrepresentation of someone else's position.

While it is true, there are those who have said that religion and usually, judeo-christian religion should have no bearing on government policy, that is overwhelmingly meant to apply to dogma and the evangelical position of "Because a god said so..." which is the endgame to every evangelical position.

The disingenuous  cherry-picking of "christian ethics" (a farcical term) is the problem with their having bearing on government policy.  Those who purport to be in favor of certain stances due to their "christian ethics" will inevitably be in favor of banning abortion but then be in favor of the death penalty.  They are certainly pro-birth but they are never in favor of pro-quality of life so to speak. 

As we have seen again and again, if the evangelical's positions are given weight, then they won't stop with banning abortion, they will then want to force every child to prayer in public schools.

If there were some consistency to their stances, say in favor of banning abortion and in favor of socialized medicine to ensure the unexpected and unaffordable pregnancy were completely covered including training the pregnant mother in how to keep a baby healthy, then I'd be in favor of "christian ethics" but they're never in favor of going all the way with their "chrisitian ethics" but rather prefer to enforce their "christian dogma".

If christian ethics were simply "harm none, do what you will", then I'd be in favor of that.  If they were "we're all in this together; we all win or we all lose together", then I'd be for that.  But they're not.  They essentially boil down to "god loves me and mine and you better get right with jesus (and us) or you're totally fucked, both here and in the afterlife".

And as we've seen with Bush and bin Laden, if you're not with us, you're agin us; let's roll; shock and awe"...

That's what's wrong with christian ethics.
 
By the by, what's wrong with just doing health care nationally and not burdening local (mostly bankrupt) cities, communities, states with even more taxes?  We could fund universal health care for like three years for the about the same amount of money we've pissed away in Iraq killing people.  But see, that's some "christian (Bush's) ethics" at work.

[BT]

By the by, what's wrong with just doing health care nationally and not burdening local (mostly bankrupt) cities, communities, states with even more taxes?  We could fund universal health care for like three years for the about the same amount of money we've pissed away in Iraq killing people.  But see, that's some "christian (Bush's) ethics" at work.

Because health care like water supplies and any other critical commodity should be under local control. One size does not fit all. Granted some communities will be more affluent than others. The leveler can be the state. Same should happen with education funding.

[Brassmask]

So, more affluent communities would have better health care than less affluent communities.  So, the rich get healthier and richer and the  poor get sicker and poorer.  God Bless America Social Darwinism.  Kill the poor slowly so that the rich have plausible deniability.

Why not cover it all federally and be done with it?

And you might want to re-think that "one size does not fit all comment".   What conceivable different sizes could be needed in regard to health care?

[BT]

Granted some communities will be more affluent than others. The leveler can be the state. Same should happen with education funding.

Please reread my post.

Some communities will have different demographics than others and therefore need to service different needs. Local governments, just like small business are quicker to change direction on a dime.

And we have already seen a critique of federally based health care. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. JS wasn't impressed. And then there are the Walter Reed stories run by the DOD.

[Richpo64]

>>So, the rich get healthier and richer and the poor get sicker and poorer. <<

Medicare ... Medicare anyone?

Personally, I think rich folks like the Gore's and the Limbaugh's should pay for their own drug rehabilitation.

[Brassmask]

Granted some communities will be more affluent than others. The leveler can be the state. Same should happen with education funding.

Please reread my post.

Some communities will have different demographics than others and therefore need to service different needs. Local governments, just like small business are quicker to change direction on a dime.

And we have already seen a critique of federally based health care. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. JS wasn't impressed. And then there are the Walter Reed stories run by the DOD.

What does different demographics have to do with what kind of health care a human being might need?  What does a black woman need that is different from a white man?  Both have hearts, lungs, blood, brains, and so forth.  Every hospital should be equipped with everything necessary to meet every need.  Pregnant women usually shouldn't be carted across the state on the day of their child's birth.

Take the profit out of it and everyone wins.

[Richpo64]

>>What does a black woman need that is different from a white man?<<

Let's see ...

A gynocolgist ... a prostate exam ... then there's the cycle cell ...

That enough for ya?

 

[Brassmask]

Given.

So we just need to make sure we have all those specialists on staff in high numbers being paid a decent wage.

[Richpo64]

>>So we just need to make sure we have all those specialists on staff in high numbers being paid a decent wage.<<

Not if chairman Clinton has her way. If you recall, specializing wasn't in her 5 year plan.

[Brassmask]

>>So we just need to make sure we have all those specialists on staff in high numbers being paid a decent wage.<<

Not if chairman Clinton has her way. If you recall, specializing wasn't in her 5 year plan.

Yet another reason to oppose the nomination of the ambitious and conniving POS.

[BT]

What does different demographics have to do with what kind of health care a human being might need?  What does a black woman need that is different from a white man?  Both have hearts, lungs, blood, brains, and so forth.  Every hospital should be equipped with everything necessary to meet every need.  Pregnant women usually shouldn't be carted across the state on the day of their child's birth.

Demographics is not based solely on race. Age, gender ratios, income levels  and education could also  be a factor.

Remember under a government system you are commoditizing a service.

And basically service would be rationed.

So demographics would play an important part in designing rationed services to meet the needs of the community. You might not need a gunshot trauma word in Beverly Hills as much as you would in downtown LA.

[Brassmask]

You're using a buzzword like "rationing" in order to set up some fantasy of people standing in line to get aspirin when that is not even remotely the case.

They do the same thing as what you're talking about now but they don't call it rationing.  It's just plain old fashioned planning.