Skeletal Steve wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Skeletal Steve,
First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.
On the personal level, though, I'd encourage you to look on the websites that have the exchange info to see what you qualify for in subsidies, etc. Maybe you already have and it sucks, maybe you don't really need insurance, I don't know. But it seems kind of silly to just throw up your hands and resign yourself to paying the fine if you haven't investigated it yet.
Like I said, though, that's just personal advice. Politically, Obamacare still sucks and is vastly inadequate to meet the real health care needs of the population of this country.
Vive le Galt!
I would get some, yes. But the cost would still be more than paying the penalty which means I pay the penalty, quite simply. Unless I can get an exemption or the cost of the plan is cheaper. It's a tax that I have to try and figure how to pay as little of as possible. To avoid paying the actual tax penalty, simply adjust your withholding so you don't get a refund, then don't pay the penalty. It's that easy.
The only mechanism for collecting the penalty is deducting it from refunds. That's it. No billing you, no IRS coming after you, nothing.
Standard disclaimers apply: I am not a tax lawyer. Don't take tax advice from some guy on the internet. Look into it for yourself.
And do see what plans are available, how much they cost and what subsidies you'll get. It might be worth getting. There is some value in the insurance after all.
So, for those so adamantly opposed to the ACA, what do you think of the latest Washington shenanigans?
Worth the risk of a shutdown and possible damage to the economy to have a chance of defunding Obamacare or delaying it or whatever the latest gambit is?
They can't defund the ACA.
Almost all of it's spending is non-discretionary so won't be effected by defunding the act or a government shutdown (well, any more so than any other program).
Not to mention it's constitutionally murky if the House's power of the purse extends to withdrawing funding from a programs already authorized without repealing the acts that established them or those acts having language allowing it.
The GOP pushing us into a shutdown over the ACA is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum and refusing to eat your vegetables.
Look, I get that Republicans don't like Obamacare (even though that's hard to discern through the continual obfuscation about what the ACA actually IS and DOES, but whatevs) but it's law. It was debated for, what, 25 hours on the floor of the Senate. The law passed, and held up under SCOTUS scrutiny. Flailing your arms and sending the economy into a nosedive is ludicrously immature.
Krensky wrote: They can't defund the ACA.
Almost all of it's spending is non-discretionary so won't be effected by defunding the act or a government shutdown (well, any more so than any other program).
Not to mention it's constitutionally murky if the House's power of the purse extends to withdrawing funding from a programs already authorized without repealing the acts that established them or those acts having language allowing it.
Well, they certainly seem to think they can and no one is calling them on it. Mind you, they have to get the Senate and the President to cooperate, or more accurately cave in.
The ACA won't be affected by a government shutdown, because the White House has classified most of it as "essential". I'm not sure discretionary/non-discretionary spending comes into play there.
There is certainly some discretionary spending in the ACA and even non-discretionary spending can be blocked by an act of Congress. Delaying the mandate and other maneuvers are certainly possible.
Of course the only way to get the Senate and Obama to agree is to threaten to torpedo the economy.
meatrace wrote: The GOP pushing us into a shutdown over the ACA is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum and refusing to eat your vegetables.
Look, I get that Republicans don't like Obamacare (even though that's hard to discern through the continual obfuscation about what the ACA actually IS and DOES, but whatevs) but it's law. It was debated for, what, 25 hours on the floor of the Senate. The law passed, and held up under SCOTUS scrutiny. Flailing your arms and sending the economy into a nosedive is ludicrously immature.
And the freakiest thing about it is the clean spending bill would pass the House without a problem. It would just need Democratic votes to do so, so Boehner won't bring it up.
Meanwhile, there's a 30 hardline Republicans who are pushing the crazy and essentially threatening Boehner's position as Speaker if he does bring it up.
meatrace wrote: The GOP pushing us into a shutdown over the ACA is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum and refusing to eat your vegetables. And then lighting the rest of the country's vegetables on fire while pretending like they've done the nation a favor.
I don't think they're pretending Scott. From what I've seen they really think this is a good idea. Either in general or because the Democrats and President will get the blaime.
Plus it plays well to the far right nutjobs back home in the gerrymandered congressional district.
Krensky wrote: I don't think they're pretending Scott. From what I've seen they really think this is a good idea. Either in general or because the Democrats and President will get the blaime.
Plus it plays well to the far right nutjobs back home in the gerrymandered congressional district.
It does play well to the crazed Republican primary voters. That's the trouble with gerrymandering. With no concern about winning the general election, you only have to worry about the most extreme motivated partisan voters. So you have to act like a lunatic, even if you're smarter than that.
That said, it looks to me like even a good chunk of the Republican caucus knows how much of a bad idea this is. They just know they're screwed if they step out of line.
There was a minor rebellion earlier tonight, but Boehner whipped them back into line.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Skeletal Steve,
First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.
You might want to be more specific. Are your beefs with it more like mine , in that I believe it doesn't go far enough towards setting up a decent national health care system, or are they more like Senator Cruz and the GOP whose mantra is to regress us all back to the status quo that prevailed up till now?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
meatrace wrote: The GOP pushing us into a shutdown over the ACA is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum and refusing to eat your vegetables.
You sir, insult the rationality of children everywhere.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Skeletal Steve,
First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.
You might want to be more specific. Are your beefs with it more like mine , in that I believe it doesn't go far enough towards setting up a decent national health care system, or are they more like Senator Cruz and the GOP whose mantra is to regress us all back to the status quo that prevailed up till now? There's a whole thread here, Comrade X, that specifically details my hatred of Obamacare.
In fact, you will get a hint if you read the whole post that you quoted.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Skeletal Steve wrote: EDIT: And let me be clear. I actually like my employer and my job. It is what it is. I even sympathize with them a little because it was either cut my hours or have to pay a penalty or the cost of upgrading my healthcare plan, would of meant cutting services to the people who come to us. Have they provided a figure, for how much it would cost to upgrade an employee's health cover?
And is the figure they provided verifiable?
Because if the alleged additional cost of complying with the ACA is low, zero, or if it's even cheaper than the health plan they already have in place, then cutting staff hours is not something that has been forced upon them. It's a choice they made to screw over their workers.
Snorter wrote: Skeletal Steve wrote: EDIT: And let me be clear. I actually like my employer and my job. It is what it is. I even sympathize with them a little because it was either cut my hours or have to pay a penalty or the cost of upgrading my healthcare plan, would of meant cutting services to the people who come to us. Have they provided a figure, for how much it would cost to upgrade an employee's health cover?
And is the figure they provided verifiable?
Because if the alleged additional cost of complying with the ACA is low, zero, or if it's even cheaper than the health plan they already have in place, then cutting staff hours is not something that has been forced upon them. It's a choice they made to screw over their workers. Or more accurately, if the additional cost is close to or less than the additional costs involved with hiring more part time workers, then ...
Perhaps his boss is just a member of a political party that's feels the need to cut off the nose to spite the face? I know there were a couple of employers making threats in your last election but I haven't yet heard of any going through were their threats yet.
Guy Humual wrote: Perhaps his boss is just a member of a political party that's feels the need to cut off the nose to spite the face? I know there were a couple of employers making threats in your last election but I haven't yet heard of any going through were their threats yet. David Siegel infamously emailed all his employees and told them to vote for Romney in 2012 or risk forcing him to start laying people off as a result of the economy worsening under Obama. To literally no one's surprise, shortly thereafter he instead began to expand his business and hand out raises, because as it turned out his company was doing fine and the economy really was recovering after all.
Opt out. Pay cash. If you get cancer THEN get insurance.
If that's gaming the system, oh well. The system is trying to game you. I don't see an equitable middle ground.
In theory with a bigger block, i.e. with more people insured, prices could be negotiated on some of these medical costs. I mean right now we have text books being written with the state of Texas school board in mind as they're one of the biggest buyers, it's not hard to imagine if enough folks were under one insurance company that the big pharmaceutical companies might negotiate a lower price to capture that market. All theory of course but if more people were insured it might lower prices for everyone.
Guy Humual wrote: In theory with a bigger block, i.e. with more people insured, prices could be negotiated on some of these medical costs. I mean right now we have text books being written with the state of Texas school board in mind as they're one of the biggest buyers, it's not hard to imagine if enough folks were under one insurance company that the big pharmaceutical companies might negotiate a lower price to capture that market. All theory of course but if more people were insured it might lower prices for everyone. Well, since they can't discriminate by age and seniors can't possibly pay enough to break even on they're overcharging young people to make up for it. The price won't and CAN"T be fair for young people.
It's how the insurance system works. It's always been a gamble. Car insurance always charges dangerous drivers more, safe drivers less, and so if you're a safe driver chances are you're really paying for a dangerous driver. The insurance companies are the house, and the house always wins. One thing that's good about the Affordable Healthcare Act is that insurance companies can't stack the deck by refusing you for a preexisting condition anymore. It does suck that the government forces everyone to play the insurance game so to speak but if more people are playing the cost to play should drop for young healthy folks.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: In theory with a bigger block, i.e. with more people insured, prices could be negotiated on some of these medical costs. I mean right now we have text books being written with the state of Texas school board in mind as they're one of the biggest buyers, it's not hard to imagine if enough folks were under one insurance company that the big pharmaceutical companies might negotiate a lower price to capture that market. All theory of course but if more people were insured it might lower prices for everyone. Well, since they can't discriminate by age and seniors can't possibly pay enough to break even on they're overcharging young people to make up for it. The price won't and CAN"T be fair for young people. OF course not. It can be fair for people though. You're spreading the cost out over your life.
Remember that your employer provided health care works the same way: The business is charged a rate per employee, based on statistics about the workforce, including age. It's all part of the cost of employing people, it's just hidden from the individual. If your company raised your salary by its cost for your insurance, then let you choose to opt in or keep the cash, you'd see the same thing: Young healthy people getting overcharged and old or sick people getting a big discount. At which point all the young people would opt out and the price/person would go through the roof and the company would stop providing insurance at all.
This works exactly the same way, except you can see it.
Guy Humual wrote: It's how the insurance system works. Not usually.
If i drive a painted yellow german tank back and forth to work with no speeding tickets I don't pay as much as the guy driving the mazaradi with four DWIs and a glovebox full of speeding tickets.
There's also an ability to opt out (by not driving). Can't stop breathing.
Quote: It does suck that the government forces everyone to play the insurance game so to speak but if more people are playing the cost to play should drop for young healthy folks. It won't.
It CAN"T.
They need to pay for the seniors. They're getting that money from the young people.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: It's how the insurance system works. Not usually.
If i drive a painted yellow german tank back and forth to work with no speeding tickets I don't pay as much as the guy driving the mazaradi with four DWIs and a glovebox full of speeding tickets.
There's also an ability to opt out (by not driving). Can't stop breathing.
Quote: It does suck that the government forces everyone to play the insurance game so to speak but if more people are playing the cost to play should drop for young healthy folks. It won't.
It CAN"T.
They need to pay for the seniors. They're getting that money from the young people. Of course it can. Maybe it can't drop as low as you'd like, but the more healthy young people enroll and pay, the more the cost for the seniors will be divided and the less each of them will have to pay.
And there are already discounts by age. Again, not as much as you'd like, but you do pay less.
Though technically, the most expensive actual seniors are covered by Medicare, not these insurance plans. And I'd love to see that expanded. It's a far better solution.
Your young people are only covering for people in their 50s and early 60s. And the younger people with serious conditions and expensive problems.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: LazarX wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Skeletal Steve,
First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.
You might want to be more specific. Are your beefs with it more like mine , in that I believe it doesn't go far enough towards setting up a decent national health care system, or are they more like Senator Cruz and the GOP whose mantra is to regress us all back to the status quo that prevailed up till now? There's a whole thread here, Comrade X, that specifically details my hatred of Obamacare.
In fact, you will get a hint if you read the whole post that you quoted. If you look at the first page of this thread, you'll see where my feelings are.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: It's how the insurance system works. Not usually.
If i drive a painted yellow german tank back and forth to work with no speeding tickets I don't pay as much as the guy driving the mazaradi with four DWIs and a glovebox full of speeding tickets. My point was that your insurance is at the level it's at only partly because of your car and driving record . . . your rates are where they're at because of the guy in the mazaradi. They need to make money and offset loses. You might be a responsible driver that never needs to make a claim but there's still a chance that your tank will be hit by the idiot in the mazaradi. If everyone were responsibly driving a tank everyone's insurance rates would be much lower.
thejeff wrote: Though technically, the most expensive actual seniors are covered by Medicare, not these insurance plans. And I'd love to see that expanded. It's a far better solution. Its the exact same solution.
Have the young, poor, and working (those are rapidly becoming synonymous at best) pay for it with regressive taxation on work. Don't tax income, don't tax earnings, tax work. Don't tax progressively, tax regressively.
Guy Humual wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: It's how the insurance system works. Not usually.
If i drive a painted yellow german tank back and forth to work with no speeding tickets I don't pay as much as the guy driving the mazaradi with four DWIs and a glovebox full of speeding tickets. My point was that your insurance is at the level it's at only partly because of your car and driving record . . . your rates are where they're at because of the guy in the mazaradi. They need to make money and offset loses. You might be a responsible driver that never needs to make a claim but there's still a chance that your tank will be hit by the idiot in the mazaradi. If everyone were responsibly driving a tank everyone's insurance rates would be much lower. and at some point, the insurance company can cut off the guy in the mazaradi. Cries of "Death panels!" aside, that doesn't exist for health insurance. I can also choose to say "screw this" and walk. That doesn't work when the government is going to be forcing you into paying a tax or buying the insurance at the same rate (thats bound to be coming)
LazarX wrote:
Are your beefs with it more like mine , in that I believe it doesn't go far enough towards setting up a decent national health care system, or are they more like Senator Cruz and the GOP whose mantra is to regress us all back to the status quo that prevailed up till now?
Our country's politics are PLAUGED with binary thinking.
Justin Rocket wrote: LazarX wrote:
Are your beefs with it more like mine , in that I believe it doesn't go far enough towards setting up a decent national health care system, or are they more like Senator Cruz and the GOP whose mantra is to regress us all back to the status quo that prevailed up till now?
Our country's politics are PLAUGED with binary thinking. That doesn't sound like a request for binary thinking. It sounds like a request to place yourself along a spectrum, which is quite reasonable given the subject matter and the policies that have been proposed to address the issue.
Scott Betts wrote:
That doesn't sound like a request for binary thinking. It sounds like a request to place yourself along a spectrum, which is quite reasonable given the subject matter and the policies that have been proposed to address the issue.
There are alternatives to "Obamacare or the existing system" (what is being fed to us by the Republicrats who want to control the terms of the discussion). It is not reasonable to give them such control.
Justin Rocket wrote: Scott Betts wrote:
That doesn't sound like a request for binary thinking. It sounds like a request to place yourself along a spectrum, which is quite reasonable given the subject matter and the policies that have been proposed to address the issue.
There are alternatives to "Obamacare or the existing system" (what is being fed to us by the Republicrats who want to control the terms of the discussion). It is not reasonable to give them such control. I think it's eminently reasonable, given that we have elected them to do precisely that: formulate, advocate for, vote on, and enact legislation that addresses the pressing issues of the country.
Scott Betts wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: Scott Betts wrote:
That doesn't sound like a request for binary thinking. It sounds like a request to place yourself along a spectrum, which is quite reasonable given the subject matter and the policies that have been proposed to address the issue.
There are alternatives to "Obamacare or the existing system" (what is being fed to us by the Republicrats who want to control the terms of the discussion). It is not reasonable to give them such control. I think it's eminently reasonable, given that we have elected them to do precisely that: formulate, advocate for, vote on, and enact legislation that addresses the pressing issues of the country. So, you think that what we elect politicians to do is what they do?
Justin Rocket wrote: Scott Betts wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: Scott Betts wrote:
That doesn't sound like a request for binary thinking. It sounds like a request to place yourself along a spectrum, which is quite reasonable given the subject matter and the policies that have been proposed to address the issue.
There are alternatives to "Obamacare or the existing system" (what is being fed to us by the Republicrats who want to control the terms of the discussion). It is not reasonable to give them such control. I think it's eminently reasonable, given that we have elected them to do precisely that: formulate, advocate for, vote on, and enact legislation that addresses the pressing issues of the country. So, you think that what we elect politicians to do is what they do? I think that we elect politicians to represent us, which includes tackling the process of legislating. And, by and large, they do tackle the process of legislating. So, yes. It's one of the reasons why our government is representative in the first place; when you start letting anyone and everyone "control the terms of the discussion" you get things like the proposition/referendum system, which does far more harm than good.
Scott Betts wrote:
I think that we elect politicians to represent us, which includes tackling the process of legislating. And, by and large, they do tackle the process of legislating.
I agree that they 'tackle the process of legislation'. They 'tackle' it in whatever way best suits whomever bought their vote.
Scott Betts wrote:
when you start letting anyone and everyone "control the terms of the discussion" you get things like the proposition/referendum system
You also get informed voters who don't just vote for whomever the powers that be tell them to vote.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Being an informed voter is a choice, however.
And if there's one thing we know about human nature, it's that they'll find all sorts of creative ways to avoid work. Like, for instance, being an uninformed voter. Cos being an informed voter requires work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Justin Rocket wrote: Scott Betts wrote:
I think that we elect politicians to represent us, which includes tackling the process of legislating. And, by and large, they do tackle the process of legislating.
I agree that they 'tackle the process of legislation'. They 'tackle' it in whatever way best suits whomever bought their vote.
So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics?
I find that quite a few people who love to complain about how politicians are all bought, starting talking about "freedom of speech" whenever any attempt to stop politician's selling themselves is proposed.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
and at some point, the insurance company can cut off the guy in the mazaradi.
Of course. The house always wins. They'll keep taking his money until they figure he's too great of a risk though.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Cries of "Death panels!" aside, that doesn't exist for health insurance. But what's the equivalent of a guy speeding and getting into accidents? Folks that buy fast cars want to drive fast. Most people want to stay alive and I'd think that few ignore their doctor's advise. Usually were we run into problems is when people can't afford their medication or refuse to go to the doctor because they can't afford it. In theory if some of these people were insured they could afford their medication and others might be able to detect problems before they became serious.
BigNorseWolf wrote: I can also choose to say "screw this" and walk. That doesn't work when the government is going to be forcing you into paying a tax or buying the insurance at the same rate (thats bound to be coming) And while I do agree that your current system is horrible, I believe the one you had before was even worse. At least this way everyone has a chance to play the insurance game, and while the house is still going to win, at least they can't stack the deck quite as much.
Justin Rocket wrote: I agree that they 'tackle the process of legislation'. They 'tackle' it in whatever way best suits whomever bought their vote. This sounds like a good argument for, as thejeff pointed out, removing money from politics/elections.
That said, the votes of the constituency still count for something, and on many issues politicians base their stance on what they perceive to be the wishes of the people they represent.
Quote: You also get informed voters who don't just vote for whomever the powers that be tell them to vote. You can get that either way (and, speaking as someone who lives in a state with an actively utilized proposition/referendum system, it certainly does not guarantee a significantly more informed or politically sophisticated populace). The reality (and the misunderstanding that many who support third party candidates cannot get around) is that, for most people, voting for one of the two major party candidates represents a political compromise that they find tolerable. The idea of political parties is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you give up the ability to be governed in exactly the manner you desire, because the candidate you are supporting probably doesn't agree with you on every single issue. On the other hand, you gain access to the influence of the party, which has a roughly 50% chance of being able to ensure that you are governed in a way that is tolerable instead of governed in a way that is intolerable.
thejeff wrote: So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics? If you can show me a plan that works, I'll be happy - too happy for words.
Scott Betts wrote:
That said, the votes of the constituency still count for something, and on many issues politicians base their stance on what they perceive to be the wishes of the people they represent.
In a country where the average voter can't name the VP or who is in the cabinet, never studied the issues, never read core documents like the Federalist papers, etc., how much do the votes of the constitency count for? Fully half of votes are from people with below average intelligence - people who are easily socially engineered.
otoh, the people can take back their country, improve their country if they get educated
Scott Betts wrote:
The reality (and the misunderstanding that many who support third party candidates cannot get around) is that, for most people, voting for one of the two major party candidates represents a political compromise that they find tolerable.
We know from history that political parties rise and fall (ex. Whig, Federalist, etc.). We need to rid ourselves of this make believe that the political parties are invulnerable.
Justin Rocket wrote: In a country where the average voter can't name the VP or who is in the cabinet, never studied the issues, never read core documents like the Federalist papers, etc., how much do the votes of the constitency count for? Fully half of votes are from people with below average intelligence - people who are easily socially engineered.
otoh, the people can take back their country, improve their country if they get educated
It doesn't help really. Most people form their facts to their opinion, not the other way around.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: In a country where the average voter can't name the VP or who is in the cabinet, never studied the issues, never read core documents like the Federalist papers, etc., how much do the votes of the constitency count for? Fully half of votes are from people with below average intelligence - people who are easily socially engineered.
otoh, the people can take back their country, improve their country if they get educated
It doesn't help really. Most people form their facts to their opinion, not the other way around.
They can be trained not to do that.
Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics? If you can show me a plan that works, I'll be happy - too happy for words. Everyone who gets X signatures to wind up on the ballot gets $Y and Z1 TV time, Z2 Radio time etc.
Anyone violating the rules goes to jail for life.
No other politicking on TV or Radio are allowed outside of public access.
Personal contributions must be in kind and are limited to $Q value, not counting volunteered time.
Violators go to jail for life.
Rough, but its a solid core.
Justin Rocket wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: In a country where the average voter can't name the VP or who is in the cabinet, never studied the issues, never read core documents like the Federalist papers, etc., how much do the votes of the constitency count for? Fully half of votes are from people with below average intelligence - people who are easily socially engineered.
otoh, the people can take back their country, improve their country if they get educated
It doesn't help really. Most people form their facts to their opinion, not the other way around.
They can be trained not to do that. History proves you wrong.
Justin Rocket wrote: Scott Betts wrote:
The reality (and the misunderstanding that many who support third party candidates cannot get around) is that, for most people, voting for one of the two major party candidates represents a political compromise that they find tolerable.
We know from history that political parties rise and fall (ex. Whig, Federalist, etc.). We need to rid ourselves of this make believe that the political parties are invulnerable.
*Snicker.
They don't. The names and organization changes, but it's the same group. It also pretty much only happens when one side destroys itself utterly before rising from its own ashes.
It is built into our electoral system. Rebuilding the part of your choice via bottom up campaigning and work and primary challenges is far more effectatious than voting for a third party.
Example: The Libertarians, constitutionalists, and all the other conservative parties accomplished exactly jack squat over the past half century. The tea party, astro-turf that it is, did far more to push the country to the brink of collapse into anarchy then any third party.
Justin Rocket wrote:
They can be trained not to do that.
I'm sure some people can.
Enough to make a dent in society? No. Not when everyone has a vested interest in controlling the training.
Justin Rocket wrote: In a country where the average voter can't name the VP This is false. As recently as 2011, 71% of Americans were correctly able to name the Vice President.
Quote: or who is in the cabinet, never studied the issues, never read core documents like the Federalist papers, etc., how much do the votes of the constitency count for? Fully half of votes are from people with below average intelligence - people who are easily socially engineered. While it's widely understood that Americans have fairly low average levels of political sophistication, you're arguing against the idea that Americans should not represent themselves. But given your opinion of the average American's intelligence, wouldn't it be dangerous to have them self-represent (participate directly in the legislative process)?
Krensky wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics? If you can show me a plan that works, I'll be happy - too happy for words. Everyone who gets X signatures to wind up on the ballot gets $Y and Z1 TV time, Z2 Radio time etc.
Anyone violating the rules goes to jail for life.
No other politicking on TV or Radio are allowed outside of public access.
Personal contributions must be in kind and are limited to $Q value, not counting volunteered time.
Violators go to jail for life.
Rough, but its a solid core. So, where's your plan that _works_? The above is just "Krensky dreams of being a fascist" which won't go over in the US.
Krensky wrote: The names and organization changes, but it's the same group. If we ignore the fact that they are different in every way (ex. Whigs had a different platform than either Democrats or Republicans do), then, yes, they are the same group - the same way that if we ignore that a metal chair and an orange are different in every way, then they are the same.
Justin Rocket wrote: Krensky wrote: Justin Rocket wrote: thejeff wrote: So what do you think of various campaign finance laws aimed at getting the money out of politics? If you can show me a plan that works, I'll be happy - too happy for words. Everyone who gets X signatures to wind up on the ballot gets $Y and Z1 TV time, Z2 Radio time etc.
Anyone violating the rules goes to jail for life.
No other politicking on TV or Radio are allowed outside of public access.
Personal contributions must be in kind and are limited to $Q value, not counting volunteered time.
Violators go to jail for life.
Rough, but its a solid core. So, where's your plan that _works_? The above is just "Krensky dreams of being a fascist" which won't go over in the US. What do mean by works? Would work if it was implemented?
Or Would work and could get through Congress and survive a challenge in the current Supreme Court?
If you mean the latter, then nothing will work of course.
|
