Church shooting - Sutherland Springs, Texas
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Not one single Republican voter or politician needed to be in favor of it. There was not a single anything that any or every Republican in the country could do to stop it. This was, and is, a failure of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Why would my feelings be hurt? Just pointing out how you and the murderer show a similar disdain for prayer and like to mock others. Does it bother you that I point that out? On this point the guy belongs to your tribe. And internet trolling might - just might contribute further to a disturbed person's hatreds. I believe we all should be mindful of that. I know I should be. In the way we post, we likely are contributing to the problems bubbling to the surface in our culture. While we rightfully ought to look for solutions, for aids to check, arrest, prevent such evils, we shouldn't forget to look into the mirror. Just a suggestion that I'll preach to myself first.
Nice response since you have no defense. Jaw summarized it real well. Majority of large violent events have been perpetrated by the left. Own it and realize you are part of the violence party.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Sure, and that's completely irrelevant to my point.
What's your policy prescription to square that circle, without the private-sector subsidies or public-sector outlays?
ACA was, at its core, a center-right technocratic solution. Elected Republicans made a purely political choice by deciding not to support it. Now that they're the proverbial dog that's caught the car, what do they do? What do YOU propose they do, when it comes to meaningfully addressing the same issues?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Um, what?
Shocking right? As I said. Jaw summarized it nicely.
Basically a radical lefist goes and shoots people and now we are talking abut taking guns away from a population that is majority on the right.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Didnt he have the weapon illegally? People who want to do things like this dont care about your gun ban. If you think suddenly making them illegal for everyone is going to stop people from committing acts like this you are kidding yourself.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Uh, my personal perspective is queasiness that our national sickness and quasi-religious fervor about guns alongside our quite recent and entirely debatable jurisprudence about the individual right to procure them with limited oversight is destructive and dangerous. That stands apart from any consideration of personal politics. But, having said that, I'm still not sure what you're blathering on about.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
What? This problem has been discussed by great and not so great minds throughout government, academia, and health care for years. Now Jaw the layman is supposed to come up with the solution? That hardly seems prudent, but I'll give it a shot.
Form a national PCP/LPN union that negotiates a basic rate for every service offered by any member, as well as the costs to provide generic, medically necessary prescriptions for a range of medicines that cover non specialized needs. Adjust the rates for the value of the dollar locally so that rural Kentucky citizens aren't paying for San Francisco real estate. Allow every PCP and LPN to decide whether they will participate in the program voluntarily, but require anyone participating to accept only the negotiated rate for every service offered if it is being paid for by the government policy, minus some extremely low office visit co pay.
The goal behind all of that is to price services at a point that will encourage providers to participate in the plan and to eliminate cost uncertainty for the patients.
Allow citizens to opt in to the program during a pre-specified open enrollment period from February to April with premiums calculated to cover the government cost. Allow citizens to direct their tax refund to cover or contribute to their monthly premiums for the coming year. The goal here is to copy the car dealer tactic of getting people to use their tax return as a down payment. The best time to get people to pay is when they have cash on hand, and this is especially relevant to lower income earners.
Allow private insurance companies to offer whatever plans they like. That should guarantee that people who want everything to be covered can get it, people who want ER coverage can get it, people who want coverage only for what the government plan doesn't cover can get it.
So, those with faith in the federal government to provide cost effective health insurance should be confident that this plan will grant affordable access to basic health care for all. Those who think we should subsidize health care for low income earners should be pleased that those customers can use their existing tax break refunds to pay for their coverage, and those who want something beyond basic access to health care can still pay for that on their dime, without government interference. I'm sure there are plenty of holes, but I don't think this is bad for shooting from the hip.
57Brave
Well-known member
" Those who think we should subsidize health care for low income earners "
wow.
especially in the conversation of mental health.
What does income have to do with it ?
I want mentally ill people regardless economic status treated.
Would that be called societal insurance ?
pray gun violence goes away and "fend for yourself " health care
I sense an ideology
wow.
especially in the conversation of mental health.
What does income have to do with it ?
I want mentally ill people regardless economic status treated.
Would that be called societal insurance ?
pray gun violence goes away and "fend for yourself " health care
I sense an ideology
57Brave
Well-known member
you pigeon holed low income people as undeserving for inclusion in viable health insurance.
Insurance that serves only low income people would survive a week.
Because do they have to chose do they eat or pay for health insurance.
" Your inability to see a view other than your own increases daily "
a wise man once wrote
methinks you want it both ways
Insurance that serves only low income people would survive a week.
Because do they have to chose do they eat or pay for health insurance.
" Your inability to see a view other than your own increases daily "
a wise man once wrote
methinks you want it both ways
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
You think that plan would only serve low income people? Why do you think that? Without the cost of providing profit to the insurance companies it should be extremely cost effective insurance, right?
Ideally people would purchase this plan and some type of catastrophic coverage that handles anything else, providing a significant savings over the current insurance market.
57Brave
Well-known member
That was the point of ACA.
Low income people could afford insurance. Dependent on the contribution of those with more.
Dependent on everyone
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...t-would-affect-mental-health-coverage/528291/
"Under the Affordable Care Act, low-income people at risk for mental-health emergencies, and those fighting substance abuse issues finally had a way to pay for preventative and rehabilitative services. “Basically, what that did then is create a sort of plan of care for people,” says Doug Walter of the American Psychological Association. “Rather than being cycled in and out of emergency rooms, they actually now had access through the medicaid expansion to mental health providers like psychologists who then could provide a plan of treatment.”