Kucinich on not for profit health care

[slipslidingaway]

Dennis Kucinich on his Universal Healthcare Plan
"This is a fight inside the Democratic Party..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk
2:41

[Desertrose]

1. Healthcare...."Fault line in the Democratic party"

Dennis , YOU ROCK!

[slipslidingaway]

2. Great line, hope people are listening! n/t

[groovedaddy]

3. See what happens when politicians don't take special interest money?

They actually represent OUR interests.

[Nederland]

4. Correction

They don't represent "the people", they represent the people that support and agree with them. In Kucinich's case, that means around 1%-2% of "the people".

[groovedaddy]

6. I know plenty of people who agree with Kucinich but don't

support him for President because "he can't win."
Support and agreeing with are not necessarily the same.

[Desertrose]

7. I think more than that support him...

Are you telling me that only 1-2% of the people want single payer healthcare?

...only 1-2% of the people want our troops out of Iraq?

...only 1-2% of the people want the things Kucinich advocates?

I have a hard time going along with that.


Polls...what the hell do they mean anyway unless everyone is represented?

[Nederland]

8. Perhaps

The numbers are above 1%-2%, but not much. I have to note that you cherry picked your questions. Better questions to ask would be:

How many people agree with Kucinich on abortion?

How many people agree with Kucinich on gun control?

How many people agree with Kucinich on legalizing marijuana?

How many people agree with Kucinich on having a Department of Peace?


Ask those questions and you'll understand why Kucinich is a fringe candidate.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

9. Can't speak for other people, but I can speak for me.

I wouldn't consider myself an activist. I would consider myself as rather conservative/


How many people agree with Kucinich on abortion? I agree. To me if I put forth people-first policies in health care, child care and education, Abortion would be obsolete.

How many people agree with Kucinich on gun control? I agree...and I'm a gun owner. Guns in this country in my opinion are too easy to get and not enough is put on responsibility to go along with the rights.

How many people agree with Kucinich on legalizing marijuana? I agree, mainly because when it comes to drug enforcement the criminal justice system and law enforcement have no credability...Much like the 'War On Terror'"

How many people agree with Kucinich on having a Department of Peace? I STRONGLY AGREE. We have whole departments that spend trillion of dollars with the express purpose of killing people. Why not a department that is dedicated to better living?

The only reason why Kucinich is a "fringe candidate" in my mind is that so many people really believe that the mess we are in is as good as it'll ever get.

Imagine the world we can build, if we fought for the things we say we really want.

[Desertrose]

10. No I didn't really cherry pick my questions.

or I didn't mean to.... I was trying to eat my lunch & was typing onehanded and I'm slow...:shrug:


But I notice that you picked the hot-button issues- abortion, guncontrol, lagalizing marijuana, where there is a big polarity of opinions.I give Dennis credit for taking a stand on them- more than a lot of the centrist candidates have done. Easier to try to please everyone by saying nothing of substance.

I honestly think there may be more who agree with him on these issues that 1-2%.

As to the Dept of Peace, I don't think too many people really understand just what he is proposing, so to say they don't agree or support it is really not fair when they haven't even heard of it. Even here on DU, its clear few have taken the time to really learn what the proposed DoP would do...much easier to make fun of something they don't know about.

I still contend DK is far less fringe that you think. There are many people who don't have a voice but yet they'd agree with DK.

DR

[slipslidingaway]

11. Dennis Kucinich on Abortion in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVKtwS-UvM

Wholeheartedly agree with his stance!


Department of Peace...not a problem.


Gun control, I would like to hear more about his current position, there are too many guns on our streets.


Legalizing marijuana...

Marijuana Laws Cost Taxpayers $41 Billion a Year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1951513

[Desertrose]

12. I mean, whats not to like??

;)

[Nederland]

20. Missing the point

The question I asked was not whether or not YOU liked his positions. The question was do most of "the people" agree with his positions. On that score, I think the answer is clear. DK does not remotely represent the opinions of "the people".

[benEzra]

15. He wants to outlaw the civilian possession of all handguns,

as well as of rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips and such.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

From this gun owner--not just no, but hell no.

Consider the fact that somewhere in excess of 35-40 million Americans of voting age lawfully and responsibly own handguns. 13 to 16 million hunt.

Think about the political backlash against a ban on hunting, and multiply that by three or more. And that's not even including all the popular rifles and shotguns he's suggested banning. And consider the police-state measures that would be necessary to locate and take those guns by force, and that those measures would have to be WAY more intrusive than the War on Drugs...drugs vanish when they're used, but a gun lasts a thousand years.

The War on Drugs has gone on for 80 years now, and diacetyl morphine is more widely available in the U.S. than it's been in six or seven decades; in the city, it's apparently easier to get than prescription foot powder. Why would a War on Gun Ownership be any different?

FWIW, I'm with Kucinich 100% on taking a more rational approach to the drug issue. But he's applying the Drug Warrior mentality to the gun issue in spades, whether he realizes it or not, and gun prohibition wouldn't work any better than the alcohol or drug variety.

[slipslidingaway]

17. There has been nothing new on the gun issue since that time

and I would like to hear his current position, I find it hard to believe he is in favor of banning all guns.

"I have friends who both hunt and shoot. These are good people, they are not criminals, and they lock up their guns when not using them. I support their right to their hobbies, and I support the right to bear arms. I have also talked with widows and children left fatherless due to the improper use of firearms, and I am committed to preventing such tragedies from happening."

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/guns.php


And just a reminder that he does a pretty good job in upholding our rights, voted no on the Patriot Act.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/h101201.html

Mr. KUCINICH

"The terrorists have aimed their attack on the fundamental freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. They have attacked our right to life, to liberty, to pursuit of happiness, to freedom of association, freedom of mobility, freedom of assembly, and freedom from fear.

Freedom is not just 50 States. Freedom is a state of mind. Freedom is our National anthem here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Let freedom ring. If freedom is under attack from outside sources, then let us not permit an attack from within. It is an attack on freedom to let government come into the home of any American to conduct a search, to take pictures without notification. It is an attack on freedom to give the government broad wiretap authority. It is an attack on freedom to permit a secret grand jury to share information with other agencies. It is an attack on freedom to create laws which can
endanger legitimate protests.

Tens of thousands of men and women are getting ready to journey far from the shores of our Nation. They are being asked to defend some of the very rights this legislation would take away. Patriots are those who, in times of crisis, do not give up their liberties for any cause."

[benEzra]

22. No one cares if someone doesn't want to ban *ALL* guns, if they wish to ban the most important.

Operation Rescue isn't fighting to ban *all* abortions, either, and the Moral Majority doesn't want to ban all books, just the ones they don't like. Doesn't make their positions any more palatable, does it?

Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, so a "gun rights for hunters only" approach is a guaranteed loser, as it was in 1994, 2000, and 2004. Three times as many people own handguns as hunt, and there similarly far more "assault weapon" owners as hunters ("assault weapons," i.e. small-caliber rifles with modern styling, are the most popular civilian target rifles in America). And it would require police-state measures to take them, measures that would make the War on Drugs look positively benign.

I agree that Kucinich has a lot of good points. His stance on the gun issue is not one of them, IMO.


----------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[slipslidingaway]

25. Thanks for the link to your post on gun ownership, I've printed it to

read. I wish this topic would receive more attention as I am sure there are many misconceptions about different types of guns.

Clinton and Dodd both supported the ban on assault weapons in 2005, more discussion is needed, although I suppose right now preventing the next conflict in the ME and getting out of Iraq has priority.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-645

Thanks again for the link :)


"There are few topics that divide America more than the issues associated with firearms. For the vast majority of Americans who own firearms, they are a form of recreation in the character of hunting and/or target shooting. For many, they are a method for safety and protection in a society characterized by violence. But all too frequently, they are used for violence.

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/guns.php

[eridani]

36. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, though

And gun owners are mostly too cowardly to take action against this oppression of Americans by their government.

[benEzra]

37. Glad he voted against the "Patriot" Act. That law is a travesty.

But regarding gun bans--don't forget that merely raising prices on over-10-round pistol magazines, and requiring new civilian rifles with protruding handgrips to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost at least 20 House seats in Nov. 1994, plus a number of Senate seats, and a number of closely fought states in 2000. Care to speculate on how an outright ban on the guns of 40 to 50 million people would go over politically or socially?

As I mentioned, the War on Gun Ownership would have to be even more draconian than the War on Non-Approved Herbs. And if only 10% of the gun owners who were directly affected chose to resist confiscation, that's five MILLION people. 1% would be half a million. Kucinich claims to oppose violence, but gun confiscation would require state-sanctioned violence to a degree not seen in this country since the Civil War.

Not to mention the fact that in the 29 Palms survey, over half of combat Marines said they'd refuse a direct order to fire on Americans who refused to surrender their "nonsporting" guns, and only 25% would actually do it.

The estimated compliance rate with California's ban on rifles with protruding handgrips or modern styling is 10%. That means 90% are giving it the finger.

No, gun confiscation will not happen in this country, and Kucinich et al would do well to stop daydreaming about it, or trying to tie the fortunes of the party to advocacy of such bans.

[eridani]

38. Since when does "registration" = "banning"?

The state licenses both cars and their drivers, and I've noticed not the slightest decrease in traffic over the years.

[benEzra]

41. Lack of a central "who owns what" database is a significant deterrent

to eventual confiscation of prohibited classes, IMHO. On the other side of the coin, existence of a "who owns what" list has led, in many jurisdictions that have created them, to the tempting question of "should we let them keep them?" And there, of course, is the rub.

In a different political climate, where there were not well-funded organizations fighting to ban popular civilian guns, registration might not be so controversial. But those pushing registration are the same groups pushing for more bans, and one would have to be gullible indeed to believe that they'd stop pushing for bans on particular guns if they only had a list of who owned them. That, methinks, is why the compliance with registration in California was so low; absent registration, confiscation must needs be voluntary, whereas it is easier to compel given a registry.

The worst-case scenario for gun owners of a registration leading to confiscation would probably be the UK, followed closely by Australia; in both cases, confiscatory bans were enacted that would have been impossible sans registration. Registration hasn't had a particularly good history here in the U.S.; NYC followed its registration of "assault weapons" with confiscation, California has shown some inclination to do the same, and there is certainly no shortage of legislators looking to enact new bans on "nonsporting" guns.

[eridani]

42. For me, guns = cars

I don't have any problem with regulating either. In rural areas, gun control is unnecessary because small town social controls are a good substitute. But when good ol' boys slip free from those controls and come to the big city, I don't want them to have guns, like that whackjob from Montana who slaughtered 20 kids in Seattle because he thought they were too "loose" sexually, and at any rate having fun that didn't include him.

[benEzra]

51. You do generally have to have a license to carry a gun...

in all but 2 states, just as you need to have a license to operate a car in public, but do not need a license to own one, to operate it on private property (whether your driveway or a racetrack), or to transport it on a trailer from one place to another. Only Vermont and Alaska do not require a license in order to carry a concealed weapon on your person in public.

FWIW, I am licensed by the state to carry a firearm for lawful purposes; to obtain that license, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, had my prints run by the FBI (clean), passed a mental health records check, took a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, passed a written test on self-defense law administered by my local sheriff's department, and demonstrated proficiency with a handgun on a shooting range, live fire. There was also considerable time spent at the sheriff's office, and a significant financial outlay in fees.

In a lot of ways, guns are regulated more tightly than cars; putting a wing on your imported Civic isn't a Federal felony, but putting a protruding handgrip on an imported rifle may be. You don't have to pass a background check to buy a car from a car dealer, but you do to buy a gun from a gun dealer. And so on.

BTW, why do you think that banning guns in cities would work any better than banning drugs in cities? (Heroin has been banned for how long in this country?)

Kucinich has seen the foolishness of that approach as it applies to drugs, but it is IMHO no more rational when applied to guns. And the law-abiding aren't the problem; Bloomberg says that 90% of shooters in NYC homicides had prior criminal records. Urban violence doesn't stem from law-abiding rural and suburban gun owners visiting the city; it stems from the social breakdown that has been engendered in the inner city itself, by years of bad policy choices and the fallout from the War on Non-Approved Herbs.

[eridani]

52. Cities are very anonymous places

In small towns, people tend not to do road rage or other kinds of emotional blowouts because the person on the other end of it is probably teaching your kid, drilling your cavity, wiring your house, digging your well, or maybe even sitting on the zoning board to which you have just applied for a variance. For that reason, people with violent crime records or serious evidence of mental problems shouldn't be allowed to carry, any more than blind people should be allowed to have drivers' licenses.

What I really don't get is this guns = "freedom" bullshit. We are a nation of bedwetting, well-armed sheep. No politician in any rural state has paid a price for supporting the PATRIOT Act. Iraq has never had any gun control laws, neither under Saddam or afterward. All that being well armed has achieved there seems to be a war of each against all.

[benEzra]

53. Thoughts...

For that reason, people with violent crime records or serious evidence of mental problems shouldn't be allowed to carry, any more than blind people should be allowed to have drivers' licenses.

They're not, in most states.

What I really don't get is this guns = "freedom" bullshit. We are a nation of bedwetting, well-armed sheep.

It has been my observation that gun enthusiasts tend to be more concerned about the erosion of the 4th Amendment than the non-gun-owning population, since aside from all other considerations, there is a small but nonzero chance that such powers would end up used against us. Gunnies tend to lean individualist rather than authoritarian collectivist, although there are certainly exceptions.

No politician in any rural state has paid a price for supporting the PATRIOT Act.

I would differ on that; quite a few Patriot-Act-supporting repubs went down in 2006, and I think the MSM underestimates the degree to which the administration's screw-the-fourth-amendment attitude led to this outcome. George Allen was a good example, who despite his well-established position, was defeated by a pro-gun Dem (Jim Webb) in a heavily gun owning state. Jim Webb courted gun owners effectively, opposed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, and won. Tester in MT, Casey in PA, also won Senate seats in pro-gun districts by running anti-administration AND pro-choice on guns.

Don't forget that around half of gun owners are Dems and indies; gun ownership (particularly ownership of nonhunting guns) is NOT a repub thing.

The mistake some Dems have made in the past (and which Kucinich appears to be making now) is bashing 80% of gun owners, talking up his support for the 20% who hunt, and then being surprised when the bloc opposes him.

Iraq has never had any gun control laws, neither under Saddam or afterward. All that being well armed has achieved there seems to be a war of each against all.

Myanmar does, though. So did Rwanda, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Most of New England (except for Massachusetts and Connecticut) don't, and I don't see any civil wars going on in Vermont or New Hampshire (lowest crime rate in the nation, FWIW). One can cherry-pick examples to associate "gun ownership" or "gun control" with either violent nation/states or nonviolent ones, because violence is caused by underlying social factors, not lawful gun possession.

In this country, taking guns from the law-abiding would be viewed by many as equivalent to state shutdown of the media, elimination of jury trials, or abducting and executing political dissidents in the middle of the night. You may recall some unpleasantness that followed the attempt by British law enforcement to take guns from some Massachusetts farmers, and the farmers' response was essentially "not just no, but HELL no." What a lot of people don't remember is that the attempted confiscations and arrests at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 happened over a year before the Brits living here decided to break away and start their own country.

There is no surer way in this country to launch an Iraq-style insurgency than to enact a confiscatory ban on "assault weapons," handguns, and other nonhunting guns and attempt to carry it out. It will NOT fly in most of this country. Thankfully, it would never get to that point here, because the party that tried it would be voted out on its ear before it could be implemented. Think about 1994, when merely raising prices on replacement magazines for civilian pistols, and requiring civilian rifles to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost at least 20 House seats and enough Senate seats to hand the entire Congress to the repubs. How well do you think an outright ban on handguns, target/defensive carbines, and nonsporting shotguns would go over, politically?

No, Mr. Kucinich is out of touch with much of America on the gun issue, and if he wishes to have the support of gun-owning Dems and indies (around 1 in 4 Dems personally owns a gun, FWIW), he would do well to become better informed on the issue. In this country, tens of millions of peace-loving people of goodwill do own guns (lawfully and responsibly, I might add), and would like to keep them.

[eridani]

55. I agree that the assault weapons ban was seriously stupid

The very term needs to be classed with "partial birth abortion" and "logic and accuracy testing" as deliberately obfuscatory bullshit with no real meaning to those who actually know something about the underlying issues. However, I wish I could see a real organized movement against FISA and the PATRIOT Act. I don't see NRA doing it, but I do see ACLU doing it. The general public seems to be a bunch of passive bedwetters in this respect.

I think that Dennis, being a city boy, doesn't get why gun control isn't necessary in small, cohesive communities like you find in Vermont and NH.

[ProudDad]

13. Ah, the far right wing 1% fringe speaks up... (n/t)

[Nederland]

18. You just don't get it do you?

What I'm asking is that you consider the fact that even if YOU agree with Kucinich on the issues, a very large number of "the people" do not. Is that so hard, to comprehend that there are people in this country that disagree with you? Is it so hard to understand that you are in the minority? Keep in mind that does not mean you are wrong, merely not in the majority. Why is that idea so hard for Kucinich supporters to grasp?

The fact that you refer to me as the far right wing 1% demonstrate just how clueless you are about American opinion. The questions I ask reveal that Kucinich has positions that a large number of "the people" disagree with. This is not debatable, it is provable fact. Kucinich's stance on gun control is different from the majority's. Kucinich's stance on drug legalization is different from the majority's. His position on abortion, while in the majority, is nevertheless difference from maybe 40% of Americans. Put it all together and you have a candidate the doesn't remotely represent the typical American.

So please stop the ridiculous rhetoric about Kucinich representing "the people". In this country, "the people" do not exist as a unified group. Americans have widely differing views on just about everything and anyone claiming to represent them all is just plain lying.

[ProudDad]

28. Most of the "98%" you speak of

know nothing about Kucinich or his issues or policies...

Most of the "98%" you speak of don't know ObamClintWards' issues or policies but, thanks to the corporate controlled M$M, they DO know their names...

Your attempts to marginalize Kucinich belong in the same slop bucket with the M$M's propaganda and that's where I rhetorically put them...

According to all reputable polling data, the Kucinich stand on nearly EVERY important issue is 100% "mainstream"...

============

You may want to examine your "position" on the spectrum of public opinion:

Kucinich's stance on gun control is different from the majority's. <-- WRONG!!!

# Which principles do you support regarding guns: Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks.
# Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
# Require a license for gun possession.
# Establish a national database of ballistic "fingerprints" to track guns used in criminal activities.
# Renew the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns.
# Strengthen the enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.

ABSOLUTELY MAINSTREAM - unless you're an NRA wack-job -- Dennis gets an F from the NRA...

-----------

Kucinich's stance on drug legalization is different from the majority's. <-- ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!

"My position on this issue is to face it directly, though other politicians run away from it. I agree with the many law enforcement officials and experts in the field that we must find a new way of dealing with illegal drugs.

I have studied the issue for decades and recognize that our "War on Drugs" has failed. In fact, because our War on Drugs drives up the price, it encourages violence. Prohibition simply doesn't work. It only creates thousands and thousands of Al Capones. Prison should be for people who hurt other people, not themselves. We don't jail people for merely drinking. We jail people when they drink and drive or hurt another human."

Positively MAINSTREAM unless you're one of those profiting from the prison-industrial complex...

http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/publicde.htm

------------

If you have some actual facts concerning Kucinich's policies vs. the corporate candidates, etc. we'd LOVE to hear them. But I get real tired of your knee-jerk opinions and obvious fear of a Kucinich Presidency being touted as "facts"...

Have a nice day :hi:

[Nederland]

34. The facts

Kucinich wants to ban civilian ownership of handguns:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

68% of all people oppose a ban on the sale of all handguns:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm



Kucinich wants to decriminalize recreational and medicinal use of marijuana.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/01/26/kucinichs-pipedream/

59% of all people oppose the legalization of marijuana:

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm


Nice try. Next.

[LanternWaste]

54. ou assert that someone else is cherry-picking questions?

Did you leave out his monetary policy purposefully?

Did you leave out his Iraq policy purposefully?

Did you leave out his international Diplomacy-first policy purposefully?

And yet you assert that someone else is cherry-picking questions?

Which are the precise and relevant questions to ask? The ones you posed? Who determines what those questions should be? On what is that based on?

I don't mind one way or the other when I see political bias. I expect it. But to see someone accusing another of it and implying that he himself is innocent of it...? Bad form.

[Nederland]

56. No

...but in reality adding those would only make DK look bad.

How many people are in favor of the type of monetary reform he talk about? A handful of right wing wack jobs who want to take us back to the gold standard, that's who.

How many people favor his Diplomacy first policy? Well, he was definitely in the minority when it came to how we should deal with Afghanistan. I think you might be surprised at just how many people would view his foreign policy sentiments as "wimpy".

I'll give you Iraq--he's clearly in the majority there.

All in all though, he's got a bunch of positions that are simply too far out of the mainstream to make him a viable candidate.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. Most people would get behind Kucinich if the Democratic Party would let them-

hear what he has to say.

He's been advocating and working towards a universal health system that everyone would embrace. I can't believe some of the people on DU parading as independent minded, but seem like HRC hacks when talking about health care. My argument with someone today who made a lame claim about HRC having the best plan was to look at what is already working- Medicare. Their claim was that most people wouldn't want to place faith in a govt. run health sysem, then they proceeded to cut and paste vague meaningless puff pieces trying to support HRC.

Most people would cut you with a knife, so to speak, if you tried to take their Medicare away. Why? Because it is the most efficient in place plan, and that is the exact thing these sunshine pumping other Dems DON'T want to hear.

MOST people want single payer, universal (choose your label) healthcare!

[Nederland]

19. What do you mean by "most people"?

Do you mean "most Democrats"? "Most DUers"?

I ask because I know you can't possibly mean "most people"...

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I mean most people who have Medicare. But if you're looking for pubic opinion-

... there is that, too. On an eight point Medicare-Medicaid Knowledge Scale there's been an assessment of adult knowledge on government run healthcare, keeping in mind that Medicaid is run by the state and have many variables, you see that Medicare beneficiaries see Medicare positively.

Assessed according to their own Medicare knowledge, )correlated with age, education, income) a multiple regression showed that even when controlling for age and education, the race and ethnicity knowledge of Medicare/Medicaid correlates positively with age, income, and education, and negatively with being Latino and African-American.

If you sub-divide the group, you have an overwhelming MEDICARE eligible group who wouldn't never give it up. If you analyze the state controlled MEDICAID eligible group, well, then the less knowledge and age, the less positively like Medicaid. Makes sense to me that MOST PEOPLE with Medicare would not give it up.

[Nederland]

23. Limiting it to health care

If you only want to talk about single payer, then yes, on that issue Kucinich has the support of most people. However, when you put all of his other positions together it's quite clear he does not enjoy the support of many people at all.

[MrMickeysMom]

27. That was the subject of the the OP

If you want to debate "all of his other positions", hammer away on a new or other thread.

[ProudDad]

29. He daren't get involved with other issues

'cause nederland is wrong about those as well...

[MrMickeysMom]

31. ...

:D

[slipslidingaway]

5. Yes, whether it's HC or removing troops from Iraq or holding

the administration accountable or not invading Iraq from the onset, they can ignore the people in the streets :(

[LWolf]

14. Health care for people, or

health insurance as a commodity to profit from.

What's the democratic thing to do?

[twiceshy]

24. Who's going to break their neck......

Going to twelve years of Med school or founding a high tech medical equipment company for no profit? I think you are being naive.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Nobody has said no profit for doctors or medical equipment

companies.

[Steve_in_California]

30. KUCINICH IS LYING HIS SILLY BUTT OFF

MEDICARE FOR ALL, HUH? END OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY'S STRANGLEHOLD, EH?

Well, kids, what Dennis the "boy Mayor" isn't telling you is that the government does not run Medicare. Medicare is run by 31 private insurance companies who act as Medicare intermediaries. Close them up, and "poof" . . . Medicare ceases to exist.

[MrMickeysMom]

32. No, that is wrong. Thanks for trying to think and contribute to this thread

.... but fiscal intermediaries are an ever changing group of insurance companies located in the regions of the country. They are suppoed to interprete standards of reimbursing care, or correct them, if they fuck up and the providers of that can can provide the evidence that the FI's did fuck up.

Strange as it is, and as much as Medicare is regulated by law (the board of directors in fact, are the congress), it's intention is to keep the providers from committing fraud.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, everyone who is eligible for Medicare pretty much loves and it wouldn't give it up. Must be because it's a good model to follow, which MANAGED CARE TRIES TO do.

Now, write on the board 50 times, "I will do my homework", and get back to us, kid.

[Steve_in_California]

33. You don't know what you're talking about.

I spent 18 months working with the FBI's health care fraud unit. I am a forensic accountant. Your facts are the invention of your immaturity. The intermediaries have no interest in preventing fraud or abuse for the very reason that they earn the same amount of the take no matter what.

Senior citizens are being murdered by doctors and hospitals and it is the Medicare reimbursement system that encourages this criminal activity. In the state of Florida, in one state-owned hospital alone, 1500 Medicare patients were exploited and murdered. I spoke to the forensic scientists who uncovered this. They were fired from their jobs and forced from the building at gunpoint on order of Florida's Governor.

You have a lot to learn about the real world, sonny.

[Desertrose]

35. Ah,ya got anything beyond your word to back this up...sonny?

"Senior citizens are being murdered by doctors and hospitals and it is the Medicare reimbursement system that encourages this criminal activity. In the state of Florida, in one state-owned hospital alone, 1500 Medicare patients were exploited and murdered. I spoke to the forensic scientists who uncovered this. They were fired from their jobs and forced from the building at gunpoint on order of Florida's Governor."



"You have a lot to learn about the real world, sonny."


Nice attitude btw.

[MrMickeysMom]

39. I'm afraid I'm no "sonny", Mr. Steve

I'm Mr. Mickey's Mom. But, we won't worry about that right now....

... Here's your tin foil hat, and it looks good on you- :tinfoilhat:

[flvegan]

40. Which state hospital was this?

I live in Florida and heard nothing of this.

IOW...got a linky?

[MrMickeysMom]

43. I lived in Florida for 30 years and was knee deep in health care. This guy is full of it

and I was trying to be as polite as I could.

Some people are just all fucked up about what happens. Sure, there is Mediare fraud and abuse. Sure, fiscal intermediaries are supposed to regulate the fraue and abuse, and sure, lots of them are inconsistent....

Mr. Steve is further proof that ignorance is bliss and paranoid schizophrenics need close clinical follow up!

[flvegan]

44. Aha...so you're saying that Steve_in_California is full of shit.

I suspected. But, but, but...he worked with the FBI or something.

[Desertrose]

45. I kinda thought so too.....

plus the snotty attitude kinda gives it away, too.

[MrMickeysMom]

46. Yeah, he sure did... as a forensic accountant!

:wtf: .... Okay, now what the hell is THAT SHIT?



oh, I don't want to know!... :rofl:

[flvegan]

47. But....but...he worked with the FBI!!!!!1!!

[MrMickeysMom]

49. That's the other FBI....

... Fabricating Bullshit Inspectors

He was the accountant. On account of him being so good a shoveling it.

Okay, I'll go back to being nice now... :-)

[flvegan]

50. Oh, you...

That was good.

That was VERY good.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. well there needs to be some changes in the healthcare system?

[slipslidingaway]

57. A disruptor gone...thanks to the moderators! n/t