Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Part 2 of the Democratic Debate 2019

Politics   (2,009 Views 130 Comments)
6,902 Visitors; 229 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 11 of Part 2 of the Democratic Debate 2019. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

13 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I get how that sounds like it's intended to be more lenient on deportations, but the purpose of "decriminalizing" the deportation process is that we can deport far more people that way.

There are two ways to deport someone here illegally.  One is to utilize the criminal conviction process, the other is to utilize the civil court process.  The civil court process is far more efficient, and a single court can complete the deportation in some cases more than 100 people per day since no criminal trial is required.  The criminal process can take up to a week or more to try and convict just one person, and in the end the result is the same; they get deported.  

Sure.  

The Democrats backing decriminalization of border crossings are doing so with the intent of making the deportation process more efficient.

Did you have a straight face as you typed that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Ah, Obamacare isn’t working.  Libs are running away from Obama’s crowning achievement, blaming Republicans for its faults.

Now, were supposed to give the Dems another shot?

I notice that you directly avoided providing the examples of "easier solutions" to crow about some right wing perspective of the ACA and the necessary transition to a single payer system.  How many shots should we give conservatives, who make lots of claims while having exactly nothing in the way of tangible ideas? 

And just what is this "another shot" language, as if this is a contest or game and this is about scoring points or something.  This is about the FACT that our current for profit health system is too expensive, too fragmented, too dangerous, and not sustainable.  Republicans sabotaged parts of the ACA when they could and tried even when they knew they couldn't, and yet folks like you don't think that they should be criticized by liberals for doing so.  The GOP refused to consider legislation which might improve the law, they deserve fault and blame for that too. 

Edited by toomuchbaloney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I suppose it's how you look it at it. 

I look at compassion to a man that has lived here for many years paid taxes, served in the military and brought his children here against their will.  

I don't look at the person crossing illegally currently in the same vein.  

That might be wrong and it technically can be said "I support decriminalization of border crossings".   But I think it's very mean spirited to go after these people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken care of many patients on Obamacare that have gotten much needed joint replacements, ending years of suffering.   

I think the problem that Social Democrats have with it, is not that it isn't working, it's that it doesn't go far enough.  

As far as the comment "why should I pay for someone else's health care".  I'm not sure I heard it on this board.  What I heard was "we need healthcare reform, just not this one".  

But I have heard it from more than one person in real life.  Including a Veteran that never saw any action, that spent two years in the military but gets his healthcare on the tax payers dole.

Obamacare's main failure is that some people just don't want to be insured.  I have a friend whose son nearly died in a motorcycle wreck recently and was uninsured.  They were all shocked that they were told "there is nothing for you, you're on your own".  He took his son in, bought him a wheelchair, crutches, everything and he's now fine.  But there is no way his son is paying for the hundreds and thousands of dollars he stacked up.  

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Sure.  

The Democrats backing decriminalization of border crossings are doing so with the intent of making the deportation process more efficient.

Did you have a straight face as you typed that?

 

I would think that leaving the dreamers and long term residents alone and concentrating on the current situation would make things more efficient.  Again, if that's "decriminalization of border crossings" then so be it.  

If would even comprise and agree to that blasted wall if that's what it would take to put the focus where it should be.

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Sure.  

The Democrats backing decriminalization of border crossings are doing so with the intent of making the deportation process more efficient.

Did you have a straight face as you typed that?

 

Democrats are backing decriminalization because then separating little kids from their parents isn't part of the process, which I can't say I disagree with, but I don't think it makes sense to back a deportation process that's far more expensive and far less efficient just because it might please democrats, although for different reasons.  I think that's called cutting off one's nose to spite your face.

Speaking of which, the republican health care platform is similarly based on cutting of their nose to spite their face.

Our healthcare system to date has been an extensive study on the effects of taking on the costs of health conditions where little was done to prevent those costs, and we can now definitively say that it's far more expensive to let very expensive to treat health conditions occur unabated than to provide barrier-free access to preventing those conditions in the first place.  Even Trump appears to have realized that which is why he ran on a promise of universal healthcare.  Yet despite that, republicans don't like that what democrats like about universal healthcare is that it's a socially responsible thing to do.  So rather than pay less for healthcare, republicans would rather continue to pay more for healthcare than we need to so long as it keeps democrats from also getting something they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
On 7/2/2019 at 8:57 PM, MunoRN said:

Democrats are backing decriminalization because then separating little kids from their parents isn't part of the process, which I can't say I disagree with, but I don't think it makes sense to back a deportation process that's far more expensive and far less efficient just because it might please democrats, although for different reasons.  I think that's called cutting off one's nose to spite your face.

Well, that’s not the reason you gave the first time.

If this is the real reason to decriminalize illegal border crossings, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer that all the Dem candidates would support it?  A few don’t.  Biden hasn’t decided yet if he supports it or not.

And, of course you probably know that parents with kids is a small number of the total people prosecuted for illegally crossing the border.

Edited by AN Admin Team
rude/divisive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2019 at 7:41 AM, SC_RNDude said:

Well, that’s not the reason you gave the first time.

If this is the real reason to decriminalize illegal border crossings, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer that all the Dem candidates would support it?  A few don’t.  Biden hasn’t decided yet if he supports it or not.

And, of course you probably know that parents with kids is a small number of the total people prosecuted for illegally crossing the border.

.

I don't think I ever claimed to be offering a comprehensive list of why we don't pursue criminal violations instead of civil violations, but yes, the reason we stopped pursuing criminal convictions of illegal border crossings is that it severely reduces our ability to deport those here illegally, the reason we had tried it was in hopes that those with a criminal conviction then would not re-attempt to cross illegally, but as it turned out, those criminally charged were no less likely to re-attempt to enter the US illegally than those with civil violations.

Of the full herd of democratic candidates, only O'Rourke has stated he doesn't support decriminalizing illegal border crossing, although as Castro pointed out, this appears to be because he doesn't understand what this means.  His concern was that we should still pursue criminal prosecution against those who have committed other crimes in the process; human trafficking, drug trafficking, etc., but there's nothing preventing us from pursuing criminal charges against those criminal acts.  Biden took no position either way, giving a nonsensical answer unrelated to the topic.  His position is about as clear as yours on the topic.  

I'm not sure what the significance is that only a portion of illegal border crossers have children, does that some how make it a logical policy?

Edited by AN Admin Team
quoted edited post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 4:13 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

Progress often makes a specific industry obsolete. The government of the USA  is obligated to serve the best interests of the people, not corporations. The private health insurance industry will evolve and have less (negative and expensive) impact on routine delivery of health care in the country.  None of that is bad. 

Medicare for All Means Real Choice: One Health Card, Good Anywhere You Go

You can go to any doctor, any hospital or clinic or other provider you prefer. All networks are gone. So are all surprise medical bills. So are all out of network charges. So are all premiums, all deductibles, all co-pays for such basics as emergency care, doctor's visits, mental health, dental, vision, long term care, and so much more...

...   Even if you go to a provider that is "in your network," you may still get hammered with a surprise medical bill by a physician, or other provider on call that night at the hospital, or lab or supplier the hospital generally uses who is "out of network." That's not choice, it's robbery, and generally you don’t know you were "out of network" until the bill comes. Check out why so many people are starting GoFundMe accounts to pay for medical bills when they thought they were "in network."...

by Bonnie Castillo RN

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/03/medicare-all-means-real-choice-one-health-card-good-anywhere-you-go?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=AO&utm_campaign=Weekly Newsletter&utm_content=email&utm_source=Weekly Newsletter&utm_medium=Email 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've cared for Dr. Paul Song's patients and admire his kindness as well as his competence. He is a radiation oncologist with great communication skills with patients, families, and hospital staff.

Quote

Pro-Life? Try Medicare for All

BY DR. PAUL SONG, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/03/19

As a physician and a person of faith, I believe it’s time to rethink how we value life in America.  If we are truly interested in being a “pro-life” society, we should have as much concern, if not more, for life after birth and especially for the lives of the most vulnerable among us...

...   Many legislators and their supporters point to their personal faith as the basis of their “pro-life” beliefs in their effort to end access to safe, medically supervised abortions. But legally requiring a woman to carry an unintended pregnancy is not really “pro-life” if nothing is done to address our country’s alarming infant and maternal mortality rates.

The leading causes of U.S. infant deaths include preterm birth complications, childbirth-related events and sepsis, an extreme response to infection. Meanwhile, the leading causes of death of young children (age 1 to 59 months) are pneumonia, diarrhea and injury.

Medicare for all would ensure every U.S. resident had comprehensive health coverage for life, which would go a long way in combating these largely treatable or preventable conditions.

The U.S. infant and maternal mortality rates are substantially higher than those of many other developed nations, making the United States among the most dangerous wealthy nations in which to give birth; and the situation is worsening. Though the overall global maternal death rate decreased by 44 percent from 1990 to 2015, it increased by about 27percent from 2000 to 2014 in 48 U.S. states and Washington D.C...

...   Independent of race, women living in poverty and women living in states that have failed to expand Medicaid also experience significantly higher maternal mortality rates than the U.S. average. And uninsured women are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than those who are insured...

...   If we are genuinely interested in “pro-life” issues, we should focus on fixing our current broken and immoral health-care system in which:

1. Nearly 29 million people remain uninsured and tens of thousands of people die each year as a result.

2. Some 530,000 families go bankrupt each year because of medical issues and two-thirds of all U.S. bankruptcies are medically related.

3. Forty-percent of Americans recently surveyed said they skipped a recommended medical test or treatment in the past 12 months due to cost...

...   We should also be able to agree that if a woman decides to carry her pregnancy to term, that we as a society need to do all we can to provide her and her future child with the very best health care possible. Truly caring for one another means redefining what “pro-life” is...

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/451546-pro-life-try-medicare-for-all?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9ed4931e-9af0-4852-bdc0-9b9c624f4b89 

medicareforall_042919gn3_lead_zpsnqeby1a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×