Then the federal governement has to take things into their hands, i mean how simple can it be, now you just have a fracktured (ugh i misspelled that i think) healthcare system with terrible administrations and a privatized sector almost completely free in doing whatever they want to do.
It's not nearly as simple as that. And I'm actually a big advocate of state power versus federal power. Just because as of late, states have done a better job in providing services for people than the national government and they're in better touch with their constituency.
But I'm always trying reach a consensus beween privatized healthcare and fully socialized healthcare. Most people however feel it should be entirely one or the other.
There is comensation for people that cannot pay their medical bills. If a person has no way to pay their bill financially and delcare bankruptcy their medical bill is picked up by the Government.
The level of access to it is similar to any other countries system. Based on need. The only other added element is if they can afford it. There is a system in place with Social Security for elderly and children disabled and such. As it seems you are already aware, the system just needs to be tweaked. Thats all.
The 30% research for immigration was a study conducted by UC Santa Cruz if I am not mistaken. Been a few years. At that time they conducted their study of the KNOWN illegal immigrants in our nation that were attempting to become citizens. (The ones attempting to try to abide by our laws) The unaccounted for section brings that percentage up. The only problem is how do you account for that percentage. Guesstimations. The reason they estimate I think its 25% higher crime elevation is because that is the ones that are caught and incarcerated. Going off the 28 million which is the current guesstimation, meaning taken by houshold and the average of people found living in that household through sting opperations and such would balance that % rate out. I myself doubt that its 25% higher, but it deffinately is higher.
The ones caught generally do not face prosicutions. Which lowers the % rate again. They are expedited insted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pking in Softcore, is like two deaf kids yelling at each other."
There is comensation for people that cannot pay their medical bills. If a person has no way to pay their bill financially and delcare bankruptcy their medical bill is picked up by the Government.
I agree with you that the government is willing to pick up the tab if you are bankrupt and cannot pay your medical bills. However, this is a big part of the problem. You must first be declared bankrupt before you can obtain government assitance. My question then is why must people first be rendered to a lowel level of income and assets before the government kicks in to help? But before you answer that, consider my analogy to the 5th Amendment privelege of Miranda Rights. Specifically the part that says you have a right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney then one will be appointed to you before any questioning. This sounds like good news. To be arrested for something, but claiming I cannot afford an attorney so the state will provide one for me. However, proving you are too poor to afford an attorney has become as difficult as it has to declare bankruptcy. What this means is if you have any viable assets in your name, you can still afford a lawyer. If you have a car that you need to drive back and forth to work, you can still afford a lawyer. If you insist however that despite owning this car that you still can't realistically afford a lawyer, then the state insists that you sell your car.
It is very similar when people try to declare bankruptcy. Before the scandals of corporate corruption where company giants where declaring bankruptcy left and right, it was easier to claim you were indeed poor, and therefore needed financial assistnace. But for a family to be poor enough to receive free benefits in the form of healthcare, they must first be rendered poor to the point of having no assets left. And I don't think a family who needs help paying their medical bills should be reduced to such a financial state before the government is willing to step in. Not unless the government wants another long-term welfare recipient on their hands. Cause once you are that poor, it is indeed easy to receive benefits of all kinds, courtesy of the states mostly.
So yes, compensation is there for people, but not before unrealistic sacrifices take place first. If families managed to get financial help with their bills before that, then they were just lucky. That or their states (not the federal government) had a special program designed for those in that situation.
Quote from "NoExplanation" »
The level of access to it is similar to any other countries system. Based on need.
But the context of that need is very different in the U.S. than in many other countries. If I lived in some country with socialized medicine, my need is that I have strep throat and I need antibiotics. That is my need. But in the U.S., your need may be that you need antibiotics for your throat, but more importantly that you need a way to pay for that. So, I guess they're both based on needs, just in a different way.
Quote from "NoExplanation" »
The only other added element is if they can afford it. There is a system in place with Social Security for elderly and children disabled and such. As it seems you are already aware, the system just needs to be tweaked. Thats all.
So if I am elderly or disabled, then I may dip in the Social Security fund? I mean, yes, that has always been its purpose and I'll admit that most people's medical expenses are incurred during that last couple years of their lives, but that does not help the millions of other Americans that are uninsured and cannot afford to pay their medical bills.
Quote from "NoExplanation" »
The 30% research for immigration was a study conducted by UC Santa Cruz if I am not mistaken. Been a few years. At that time they conducted their study of the KNOWN illegal immigrants in our nation that were attempting to become citizens. (The ones attempting to try to abide by our laws) The unaccounted for section brings that percentage up. The only problem is how do you account for that percentage. Guesstimations. The reason they estimate I think its 25% higher crime elevation is because that is the ones that are caught and incarcerated. Going off the 28 million which is the current guesstimation, meaning taken by houshold and the average of people found living in that household through sting opperations and such would balance that % rate out. I myself doubt that its 25% higher, but it deffinately is higher.
I'm still confused on this. Are you saying that the ones unaccounted for were assumed to be the ones committing crimes? It's just not making sense to me.
Quote from "NoExplanation" »
The ones caught generally do not face prosicutions. Which lowers the % rate again. They are expedited insted.
Yes, well it is easier of course to just deport them than to face trial. But most of them don't face trial because they simply don't show up. Usually at that point they've got nothing more to lose so they take their chances. In a trial, they know they'll be getting sent home. So it's either don't show up for the trial, risk getting caught and automatically sent home, or go to the trial, get convicted and be sent home by order of a federal court.
Look, I want to make it clear that I think illegal immigration is a serious problem. But there can only be a sensible solution for it. I don't think granting them all amnesty is the solution, nor do I believe building a huge fuck-off wall is the solution either. And that's what the current bill being debated is all about: sensible Republicans and Democrats trying to work together toward a viable solution to the immigration problem.
I agree with you that the government is willing to pick up the tab if you are bankrupt and cannot pay your medical bills. However, this is a big part of the problem. You must first be declared bankrupt before you can obtain government assitance. My question then is why must people first be rendered to a lowel level of income and assets before the government kicks in to help? But before you answer that, consider my analogy to the 5th Amendment privelege of Miranda Rights. Specifically the part that says you have a right to an attorney.
Well the reason they get appointed an attorney is because they have a right for due process. Its falls under their Civil Rights. Unfortunately for them medical is not a Civil Right. Many argue that it is, or should be, but at this time it is not.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
So if I am elderly or disabled, then I may dip in the Social Security fund? I mean, yes, that has always been its purpose and I'll admit that most people's medical expenses are incurred during that last couple years of their lives, but that does not help the millions of other Americans that are uninsured and cannot afford to pay their medical bills.
Thats the choice they made. Insurance is available, yes its a hassle. Yes there are scamming Insurance Companies, but more and more those are being actively pursued by the court system.
If you are refurring to the layed off worker who becomes ill stricken with disease or injury, they can back file for Bankruptcy or liquidate their assets. Does it suck? Yes, but there are other financial aid opportunities where they can get help from. Life can be cruel, its not always going to be perfect.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
I'm still confused on this. Are you saying that the ones unaccounted for were assumed to be the ones committing crimes? It's just not making sense to me.
I am saying there were many uncontributed factors in their research including criminals that were not charged for a crime and expedited insted or as you pointed out, don't show up.
Although in 2003 in the state of California, you can now still be convicted without being present. Its is now under fire by Pro Civil Rights activists, which is funny cause it only protects those that already have no civil rights as an american citizen.
Same activists that were up in arms about the Guantanamo Bay incident.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pking in Softcore, is like two deaf kids yelling at each other."
Well the reason they get appointed an attorney is because they have a right for due process. Its falls under their Civil Rights. Unfortunately for them medical is not a Civil Right. Many argue that it is, or should be, but at this time it is not.
I know one is a civil right and one is not, but the purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate how either one may be something that is there for you, but neither is in fact free. It is only seemingly free.
I know one is a civil right and one is not, but the purpose of the analogy was to demonstrate how either one may be something that is there for you, but neither is in fact free. It is only seemingly free.
Yes, and people generally don't argue the right to due process being taken from their taxes because it is a Civil Right. Until medical is added as a Civil Right, I doubt real dramatic changes will occure in our medical system. Which is not flawed now, just need some upgrades to keep up with the times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pking in Softcore, is like two deaf kids yelling at each other."
But I'm always trying reach a consensus beween privatized healthcare and fully socialized healthcare. Most people however feel it should be entirely one or the other.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
The level of access to it is similar to any other countries system. Based on need. The only other added element is if they can afford it. There is a system in place with Social Security for elderly and children disabled and such. As it seems you are already aware, the system just needs to be tweaked. Thats all.
The 30% research for immigration was a study conducted by UC Santa Cruz if I am not mistaken. Been a few years. At that time they conducted their study of the KNOWN illegal immigrants in our nation that were attempting to become citizens. (The ones attempting to try to abide by our laws) The unaccounted for section brings that percentage up. The only problem is how do you account for that percentage. Guesstimations. The reason they estimate I think its 25% higher crime elevation is because that is the ones that are caught and incarcerated. Going off the 28 million which is the current guesstimation, meaning taken by houshold and the average of people found living in that household through sting opperations and such would balance that % rate out. I myself doubt that its 25% higher, but it deffinately is higher.
The ones caught generally do not face prosicutions. Which lowers the % rate again. They are expedited insted.
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475
If you cannot afford an attorney then one will be appointed to you before any questioning. This sounds like good news. To be arrested for something, but claiming I cannot afford an attorney so the state will provide one for me. However, proving you are too poor to afford an attorney has become as difficult as it has to declare bankruptcy. What this means is if you have any viable assets in your name, you can still afford a lawyer. If you have a car that you need to drive back and forth to work, you can still afford a lawyer. If you insist however that despite owning this car that you still can't realistically afford a lawyer, then the state insists that you sell your car.
It is very similar when people try to declare bankruptcy. Before the scandals of corporate corruption where company giants where declaring bankruptcy left and right, it was easier to claim you were indeed poor, and therefore needed financial assistnace. But for a family to be poor enough to receive free benefits in the form of healthcare, they must first be rendered poor to the point of having no assets left. And I don't think a family who needs help paying their medical bills should be reduced to such a financial state before the government is willing to step in. Not unless the government wants another long-term welfare recipient on their hands. Cause once you are that poor, it is indeed easy to receive benefits of all kinds, courtesy of the states mostly.
So yes, compensation is there for people, but not before unrealistic sacrifices take place first. If families managed to get financial help with their bills before that, then they were just lucky. That or their states (not the federal government) had a special program designed for those in that situation.
But the context of that need is very different in the U.S. than in many other countries. If I lived in some country with socialized medicine, my need is that I have strep throat and I need antibiotics. That is my need. But in the U.S., your need may be that you need antibiotics for your throat, but more importantly that you need a way to pay for that. So, I guess they're both based on needs, just in a different way.
So if I am elderly or disabled, then I may dip in the Social Security fund? I mean, yes, that has always been its purpose and I'll admit that most people's medical expenses are incurred during that last couple years of their lives, but that does not help the millions of other Americans that are uninsured and cannot afford to pay their medical bills.
I'm still confused on this. Are you saying that the ones unaccounted for were assumed to be the ones committing crimes? It's just not making sense to me.
Yes, well it is easier of course to just deport them than to face trial. But most of them don't face trial because they simply don't show up. Usually at that point they've got nothing more to lose so they take their chances. In a trial, they know they'll be getting sent home. So it's either don't show up for the trial, risk getting caught and automatically sent home, or go to the trial, get convicted and be sent home by order of a federal court.
Look, I want to make it clear that I think illegal immigration is a serious problem. But there can only be a sensible solution for it. I don't think granting them all amnesty is the solution, nor do I believe building a huge fuck-off wall is the solution either. And that's what the current bill being debated is all about: sensible Republicans and Democrats trying to work together toward a viable solution to the immigration problem.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Well the reason they get appointed an attorney is because they have a right for due process. Its falls under their Civil Rights. Unfortunately for them medical is not a Civil Right. Many argue that it is, or should be, but at this time it is not.
Thats the choice they made. Insurance is available, yes its a hassle. Yes there are scamming Insurance Companies, but more and more those are being actively pursued by the court system.
If you are refurring to the layed off worker who becomes ill stricken with disease or injury, they can back file for Bankruptcy or liquidate their assets. Does it suck? Yes, but there are other financial aid opportunities where they can get help from. Life can be cruel, its not always going to be perfect.
I am saying there were many uncontributed factors in their research including criminals that were not charged for a crime and expedited insted or as you pointed out, don't show up.
Although in 2003 in the state of California, you can now still be convicted without being present. Its is now under fire by Pro Civil Rights activists, which is funny cause it only protects those that already have no civil rights as an american citizen.
Same activists that were up in arms about the Guantanamo Bay incident.
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Yes, and people generally don't argue the right to due process being taken from their taxes because it is a Civil Right. Until medical is added as a Civil Right, I doubt real dramatic changes will occure in our medical system. Which is not flawed now, just need some upgrades to keep up with the times.
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475
What do you mean cut out? I saw your picture..;)
http://us.battle.net...ile/vadle-1714/
http://us.battle.net...4/hero/34530475