[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[WillyTex]

> > I didn't see it. You post too much in your desperate 
> > attempt for attention. Post it again. But I am not 
> > discussing anything with someone who's best response 
> > is 'turd-brain'.
> > 
Shemp: 
> So you can call me "brain-washed" and all the other 
> invectives in all the other posts you spew towards me 
> but you get all huffy and puffy and weepy like a high 
> school dilletante...
> 
He does not read the posts, apparently. Maybe he has a 
problem with focusing or carry on a conversation. He is 
confused, obviously, about Ron Paul. It makes you wonder 
about his sense of logic, if not his sanity, Shemp. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[WillyTex]

Shemp:
> "Do you want a universal one-payer system for 
> healthcare in the United States?"
> 
You didn't define 'one-payer', so it's hard to
know what to say. Maybe you meant that there
was 'one single source' for health care and that
taxpayers would be the only payer. 

If so, then I would vote 'no'. I'm not in favor 
of paying for anyone else's health care. And, 
I'm not in favor of there being a single source 
for my health care.

However, I would vote 'yes' in a referendum that
would create good paying jobs so that everyone
could pay for, and choose their own health care 
provider. 

I don't think it's a good idea to have the federal 
government as the single source of health care, 
paid for by a mandated withholding of personal 
income. That doesn't sound very fair or very wise.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > You are aware that isn't one of the issues on the
> > table, right? So what would be the point?
> 
> My personal choice; what I would like to see.

OK, but you said:

> > > Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all
> > > the crap that is happening.  Let the people decide
> > > once and for all.  Enough with this on-going debate.

The only way the outcome of your referendum could have any
effect whatsoever on the ongoing debate would be if a
resounding majority voted *for* single-payer; and we know
that isn't going to happen. If a strong majority of voters
favored single-payer, we'd have had entirely different
proposals from the start than we have now. Nothing that's
currently being discussed involves single-payer, so a no
vote would have zero effect on the ongoing debate.

In other words, the people have decided long since. There
has never been more than a small minority who were in
favor of single-payer (and most of them--like me--realize
it's a nonstarter, however much they'd like to see it).

A referendum would help end the debate only if it were on
some issue *that was currently being debated*. Single-
payer isn't such an issue. I only wish enough people
wanted it to make it an issue.



> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to 
> > > represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our 
> > > elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> > > 
> > > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably 
> > > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and 
> > > thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> > > 
> > > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> > > 
> > > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or 
> > > "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level.  And 
> > > the question should be something to the effect:
> > > 
> > > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United 
> > > States?"
> > > 
> > > And then let the games begin.
> > > 
> > > What do you folks think?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[lurkernomore20002000]

Yes, I do like that idea.  And I also liked what Bhaitu said earlier about 
privledged doctors, excessive tests, entrenched interests.  Nothing new, but 
just boiled down nicely.  We seem to be the only country where it is such a 
politicized issue, or at least to this extent.  Yea, a referendum sounds great.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to represent 
> us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our elected 
> representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> 
> But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably 
> represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and thrust of 
> parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> 
> The healthcare debate is one such example.
> 
> What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or 
> "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level.  And the 
> question should be something to the effect:
> 
> "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United 
> States?"
> 
> And then let the games begin.
> 
> Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all the crap that is 
> happening.  Let the people decide once and for all.  Enough with this 
> on-going debate.
> 
> What do you folks think?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > >   > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people
> to
> > > represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I
> trust
> > > our elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> > > >
> > > > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to
> capably
> > > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and
> > > thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> > > >
> > > > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> > > >
> > > > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a
> "yes"
> > > or "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national
> level.
> > > And the question should be something to the effect:
> > > >
> > > > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the
> United
> > > States?">
> > >
> > > You would lose that vote.
> > > But the question should only be "Do you want to be able to be part
> of a
> > > public option that can compete with the insurance industry?" ---
> since
> > > that is the most radical thing Obama has proposed. He never proposed
> a
> > > single payer system. You have been brain-washed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I never said he did propose such a thing.>
> 
> Why would anyone have such a vote then? It seems a completely random
> question un-related to any current topic that anyone is talking about.
> Why not just have a vote asking "should we make dogfood so that it glows
> in the dark when it comes out the other end of the dog?"
> 
> >
> > I am proposing such a thing, turd brain.
> >
> > And, hey, where is your response to the research I did showing that
> what you said about Ron Paul was full of shit?
> >
> > Are you avoiding it?>
> 
> I didn't see it. You post too much in your desperate attempt for
> attention. Post it again. But I am not discussing anything with someone
> who's best response is 'turd-brain'.
> 
> Over and out.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Oh, I see.  So you can call me "brain-washed" and all the other invectives in 
all the other posts you spew towards me but you get all huffy and puffy and 
weepy like a high school dilletante because I called you "turd-brain"?

Truth be told, you're just using that as an excuse not to respond to the 
research.

And it's not that difficult to find as I posted it within the last 24 
hours...ON A THREAD YOU YOURSELF WERE POSTING ON.

But if you're too scared to go and face it, here's the summary:

I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> >  > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people
to
> > represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I
trust
> > our elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> > >
> > > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to
capably
> > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and
> > thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> > >
> > > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> > >
> > > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a
"yes"
> > or "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national
level.
> > And the question should be something to the effect:
> > >
> > > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the
United
> > States?">
> >
> > You would lose that vote.
> > But the question should only be "Do you want to be able to be part
of a
> > public option that can compete with the insurance industry?" ---
since
> > that is the most radical thing Obama has proposed. He never proposed
a
> > single payer system. You have been brain-washed.
>
>
>
>
> I never said he did propose such a thing.>

Why would anyone have such a vote then? It seems a completely random
question un-related to any current topic that anyone is talking about.
Why not just have a vote asking "should we make dogfood so that it glows
in the dark when it comes out the other end of the dog?"

>
> I am proposing such a thing, turd brain.
>
> And, hey, where is your response to the research I did showing that
what you said about Ron Paul was full of shit?
>
> Are you avoiding it?>

I didn't see it. You post too much in your desperate attempt for
attention. Post it again. But I am not discussing anything with someone
who's best response is 'turd-brain'.

Over and out.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to
> represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust
> our elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> >
> > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably
> represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and
> thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> >
> > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> >
> > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes"
> or "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level. 
> And the question should be something to the effect:
> >
> > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United
> States?">
> 
> You would lose that vote.
> But the question should only be "Do you want to be able to be part of a
> public option that can compete with the insurance industry?" --- since
> that is the most radical thing Obama has proposed. He never proposed a
> single payer system. You have been brain-washed.




I never said he did propose such a thing.

I am proposing such a thing, turd brain.

And, hey, where is your response to the research I did showing that what you 
said about Ron Paul was full of shit?

Are you avoiding it?



> And you would lose the vote, so I am all for a referendum. You have been
> brain-washed by your silly right wing talking points blogs if you think
> you would win either of these votes.
> 
> Besides, the Republican, Neocon, Fundie Christian fanatics, and their
> UberLords would likely fix the vote anyway, like they did in the 2000
> and 2004 elections.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> You are aware that isn't one of the issues on the
> table, right? So what would be the point?
> 




My personal choice; what I would like to see.





> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to 
> > represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our 
> > elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> > 
> > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably 
> > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and thrust 
> > of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> > 
> > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> > 
> > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or 
> > "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level.  And the 
> > question should be something to the effect:
> > 
> > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United 
> > States?"
> > 
> > And then let the games begin.
> > 
> > Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all the crap that is 
> > happening.  Let the people decide once and for all.  Enough with this 
> > on-going debate.
> > 
> > What do you folks think?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
> I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to
represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust
our elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
>
> But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably
represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and
thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
>
> The healthcare debate is one such example.
>
> What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes"
or "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level. 
And the question should be something to the effect:
>
> "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United
States?">

You would lose that vote.
But the question should only be "Do you want to be able to be part of a
public option that can compete with the insurance industry?" --- since
that is the most radical thing Obama has proposed. He never proposed a
single payer system. You have been brain-washed.
And you would lose the vote, so I am all for a referendum. You have been
brain-washed by your silly right wing talking points blogs if you think
you would win either of these votes.

Besides, the Republican, Neocon, Fundie Christian fanatics, and their
UberLords would likely fix the vote anyway, like they did in the 2000
and 2004 elections.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[authfriend]

You are aware that isn't one of the issues on the
table, right? So what would be the point?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to represent 
> us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our elected 
> representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> 
> But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably 
> represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and thrust of 
> parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> 
> The healthcare debate is one such example.
> 
> What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or 
> "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level.  And the 
> question should be something to the effect:
> 
> "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United 
> States?"
> 
> And then let the games begin.
> 
> Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all the crap that is 
> happening.  Let the people decide once and for all.  Enough with this 
> on-going debate.
> 
> What do you folks think?
>