ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

Wait, wait, wait...you're trying to tell me that these health insurance companies WOULDN'T drop people as soon as they got a serious condition if the government would just get out of their way? Is that really what you're trying to claim? Because I have a lot of difficulty believing that.

You're picking one area where a government regulation might have some merit and trying to use it to argue in favor of the entire health care law? Quite a stretch there. Futhermore, in a free market, if an insurance company is dropping people instead of paying out benefits, that insurance company is going to be losing customers before it even gets to a payout stage. Also, people could probably sue for a breach of contract (and maybe even criminal charges?), which all those trial lawyers would just jump all over.

You have obviously never dealt with Blue Cross over anything more than minor issues, because that is EXACTLY what they do. Proving it is very, very difficult, and no, there is not easy recourse in the courts.

No one ever said life was easy. I'm much younger than you and already know this. And at least there is a chance that you can have recourse in a court. With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

[Juan_Bottom]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

[PLAYER57832]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

[Night Strike]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

So every single election we're now going to be debating which drugs and procedures the government health plans and their bureaucrats should be allowing? Plus, how many of these unelected board positions even turn over for each administration? Are they like judges who get a blank check for life? Why don't we just leave this whole issue for the private market decide and let the federal government deal with REAL problems, like our national debt that has just passed 100% of GDP?

[Juan_Bottom]

Plus, how many of these unelected board positions even turn over for each administration? Are they like judges who get a blank check for life?

Well, I hate to pick a pack of pickled peppers here; those positions almost have to be by appointment or application. Nobody votes anymore.

[Woodruff]

So better is "closer to what I want?" How about something objective?

Closer to freedom and liberty. to be more specific, further from a dependency program, further from debt, further from socialism.

Phatscotty....always about freedom and liberty unless you're talking about poor people, in which case he'd rather add to governmental programs instead.

[Woodruff]

Wait, wait, wait...you're trying to tell me that these health insurance companies WOULDN'T drop people as soon as they got a serious condition if the government would just get out of their way? Is that really what you're trying to claim? Because I have a lot of difficulty believing that.

You're picking one area where a government regulation might have some merit and trying to use it to argue in favor of the entire health care law? Quite a stretch there.

It's not a stretch at all, when you're trying to claim that "the free market has never truly had a chance to actually work because of governmental requirements". A true free market has no governmental requirements.

Futhermore, in a free market, if an insurance company is dropping people instead of paying out benefits, that insurance company is going to be losing customers before it even gets to a payout stage.

That's a nice fantasy and all, but when ALL of the insurance companies are doing it (as is the case right now, I should point out), your argument doesn't hold water.

Also, people could probably sue for a breach of contract (and maybe even criminal charges?), which all those trial lawyers would just jump all over.

Then why AREN'T they, Night Strike? Why haven't insurance companies been sued into oblivion for this current practice?

[thegreekdog]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

[PLAYER57832]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

[thegreekdog]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

I did the digging for you!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I would also note - Goldman Sachs - giving 60% of money to Democrats?

This is a fascinating website I found; I'm going to have to explore it some more.

[PLAYER57832]

Wait, wait, wait...you're trying to tell me that these health insurance companies WOULDN'T drop people as soon as they got a serious condition if the government would just get out of their way? Is that really what you're trying to claim? Because I have a lot of difficulty believing that.

You're picking one area where a government regulation might have some merit and trying to use it to argue in favor of the entire health care law? Quite a stretch there. Futhermore, in a free market, if an insurance company is dropping people instead of paying out benefits, that insurance company is going to be losing customers before it even gets to a payout stage. Also, people could probably sue for a breach of contract (and maybe even criminal charges?), which all those trial lawyers would just jump all over.

You have obviously never dealt with Blue Cross over anything more than minor issues, because that is EXACTLY what they do. Proving it is very, very difficult, and no, there is not easy recourse in the courts.

No one ever said life was easy. I'm much younger than you and already know this. And at least there is a chance that you can have recourse in a court. With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

Seems like a pat answer, once again, rather than an answer to what I actually wrote.

It takes a lot of money to take a corporation to court. When you are sick, you just don't have time and usually don't have the money, either. Those cases you hear of someone winning big bucks by getting some nice attorney to represent them are really few and far between, but they distort the picture incredibly.

And we ALWAYS have recourse against the government. Stop pretending we live in China or the old Soviet Union! Its corporations who don't have to listen to us.

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

So every single election we're now going to be debating which drugs and procedures the government health plans and their bureaucrats should be allowing?

Not what I suggested, not even close. Medicine depends on evidence. It is not like choosing which color tennis shoe you like. At any rate, right now, it is corporate profits, NOT patient care, true effectiveness or any other consumer desire that is met right now in health care.

And no, don't go crying "that's the government's fault.." because no one is telling Blue Cross to deny patients expensive care so they will just die and fall off the roles. But, that IS the type of decision being made by people who are shielded from the reality of their decisions by a corporate front.

Plus, how many of these unelected board positions even turn over for each administration? Are they like judges who get a blank check for life?

That is what we have right now. Not sure your point. It pretty much supports what I have said, in fact.

Why don't we just leave this whole issue for the private market decide and let the federal government deal with REAL problems, like our national debt that has just passed 100% of GDP?

Because there is no real choice when it comes to what kind of appendectomy to get. Medical decisions are not really made by the consumer. They are made by doctors because they are the ones with the MD degree, and for profit insurance companies, because they pay the bills. Choice of insurance is by the employer, not the individual with very few exceptions.

[PLAYER57832]

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

I did the digging for you!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I would also note - Goldman Sachs - giving 60% of money to Democrats?

This is a fascinating website I found; I'm going to have to explore it some more.

Uh.. no. You need to do a good deal more digging to get at who is actually supplying the money there, who controls those things. This is NOT the same as the largest single donor lists, because the same people donate through various means to very different groups.

not sure what your point is about Democrats. This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue, its an average person versus a few extremely wealthy and powerful folks list.

[thegreekdog]

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

[quote="thegreekdog wrote:I did the digging for you!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I would also note - Goldman Sachs - giving 60% of money to Democrats?

This is a fascinating website I found; I'm going to have to explore it some more.

Uh.. no. You need to do a good deal more digging to get at who is actually supplying the money there, who controls those things. This is NOT the same as the largest single donor lists, because the same people donate through various means to very different groups.

not sure what your point is about Democrats. This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue, its an average person versus a few extremely wealthy and powerful folks list.

You are really unbelievable.

Here are the top 10 donors from 1989 to 2012:
1. ActBlue - a Democrat political action committee
2. AT&T Inc. - a corporation
3. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - a union
4. National Association of Relators - a business group (not a corporation)
5. Service Employees Internaional Union - a union
6. National Education Association - a union
7. Goldman Sachs - a company (we'll classify it as a corporation)
8. American Association for Justice - a business group (not a corporation)
9. International Brotherhood of Eletrical Workers - a union
10. Laborers Union - a union

Of these 10, there is one PAC, two companies, two business organizations (realtors and attorneys), and five unions.

So, when you indicated above that groups other than corporations do not give money, you're either ignorant or lying (or else you are correct and this website, which takes data from the Federal Election Commission and is a non-partisan, non-profit organization is wrong).

Here are 11 through 20:
11. American Federation of Teachers - a union
12. Teamsters Union - aunion
13. Carpenters & Joiners Union - a union
14. Communication Workers of America - a union
15. Citigroup, Inc. - a corporation
16. American Medical Association - a business organization (doctors)
17. United Food & Commercial Workers Union - a union
18. United Auto Workers - a union
19. National Auto Dealers Association - a business organization (auto dealers)
20. Machinists & Aeroespace Workers Union - a union

[PLAYER57832]

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

[quote="thegreekdog wrote:I did the digging for you!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I would also note - Goldman Sachs - giving 60% of money to Democrats?

This is a fascinating website I found; I'm going to have to explore it some more.

Uh.. no. You need to do a good deal more digging to get at who is actually supplying the money there, who controls those things. This is NOT the same as the largest single donor lists, because the same people donate through various means to very different groups.

not sure what your point is about Democrats. This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue, its an average person versus a few extremely wealthy and powerful folks list.

You are really unbelievable.

Here are the top 10 donors from 1989 to 2012:
1. ActBlue - a Democrat political action committee
2. AT&T Inc. - a corporation
3. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - a union
4. National Association of Relators - a business group (not a corporation)
5. Service Employees Internaional Union - a union
6. National Education Association - a union
7. Goldman Sachs - a company (we'll classify it as a corporation)
8. American Association for Justice - a business group (not a corporation)
9. International Brotherhood of Eletrical Workers - a union
10. Laborers Union - a union

Of these 10, there is one PAC, two companies, two business organizations (realtors and attorneys), and five unions.

So, when you indicated above that groups other than corporations do not give money, you're either ignorant or lying (or else you are correct and this website, which takes data from the Federal Election Commission and is a non-partisan, non-profit organization is wrong).

Here are 11 through 20:
11. American Federation of Teachers - a union
12. Teamsters Union - aunion
13. Carpenters & Joiners Union - a union
14. Communication Workers of America - a union
15. Citigroup, Inc. - a corporation
16. American Medical Association - a business organization (doctors)
17. United Food & Commercial Workers Union - a union
18. United Auto Workers - a union
19. National Auto Dealers Association - a business organization (auto dealers)
20. Machinists & Aeroespace Workers Union - a union

I see, so you, like the Supreme court, don't get the difference between INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS?

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up. BUT.. be very careful, because in many cases those donations are not made directly. It is actually pretty hard to really get where the money is coming from, very intentionally so.

[thegreekdog]

I see, so you, like the Supreme court, don't get the difference between INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS?

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up. BUT.. be very careful, because in many cases those donations are not made directly. It is actually pretty hard to really get where the money is coming from, very intentionally so.

Why do you have a problem admitting you're wrong about something? I've provided you with both data and a source that you can check yourself. Why do you insist on changing the argument when you are wrong? You've provided me with no data, only theories and speculation that smack of parotting and conspiracy theories. Further, you've again misconstrued the Citizens United case. I'm not sure what it will take for me to convince you that you're wrong. I told myself I should stop trying, but I have a problem with that, especially when the person I'm arguing with provides no data or information or sources.

Furthermore, and why I brought up the Democrat/Republican issue - this thread is about the Affordable Care Act which was supported by, created by, and signed by mostly Democrats. If your theory is correct, and that only wealthy individuals and corporations give money to politicians, and wealthy individuals and corporations don't want the Affordable Care Act, why would such individuals and corporations give money to Democrats?

Even furthermore, if Democrats are the party for Wall Street and financial reform, why would Goldman Sachs be giving money to Democrats?

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so you, like the Supreme court, don't get the difference between INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS?

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up. BUT.. be very careful, because in many cases those donations are not made directly. It is actually pretty hard to really get where the money is coming from, very intentionally so.

Why do you have a problem admitting you're wrong about something? I've provided you with both data and a source that you can check yourself. Why do you insist on changing the argument when you are wrong?

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

#2. I am not wrong. Your web site does not even get at the data to which I referred.

#3. Not sure why you are so vested in this "citizen's united does nothing.." platform, but I am very, very far from the only person who sees it as one of the most dangerous and destructive rulings made in this country in the past century. (second, perhaps to the "seperate but equal" or a couple of other issues).

[thegreekdog]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions. I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

Now you've changed the argument, which you do often, because your original point was proven incorrect.

But, for the sake of your new, changed argument let's look at the "individuals behind the organizations." Did you know that there are individual campaign contribution limits? Here's a website you might want to look at:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

This is from the Federal Election Commission.

So, tell me again about the "money behind the names" theory you have.

#2. I am not wrong. Your web site does not even get at the data to which I referred.

See above for the campaign contribution limits for individuals.

"My website" says, for each organization that "No individuals contributed $50,000 or more in any single election cycle." You might read why that's the case in the link from the FEC I've shared above.

#3. Not sure why you are so vested in this "citizen's united does nothing.." platform, but I am very, very far from the only person who sees it as one of the most dangerous and destructive rulings made in this country in the past century. (second, perhaps to the "seperate but equal" or a couple of other issues).

I'm vested in the correct interpretation of the decision by you and everyone else. I take a very strong stance on the first amendment. I don't think there should be any limits, even those that have a compelling state interest. I'm also an attorney and have had some training in constitutional law. Thus, I know when someone says that the case is dangerous and destructive and likens it to separate, but equal, that person understands nothing about constitutional law or free speech or, alternatively, that person is a politican or political activist attempting to score cheap points in an intellectually dishonest manner.

[PLAYER57832]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions. I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

lol.. take that in context, please. I get criticized when I shorten, but when I do.. I get intentionally misunderstood.

You mentioned unions, not I. I always mentioned corporations because they operate as shields for individuals. Unions are not distinct in this group..that was part of my point. The other part was, as I did say that the money flows from the same basic groups. Your data just looks at superficial titles, not who gave them their money, not the purpose of the donations, etc.

Now you've changed the argument, which you do often, because your original point was proven incorrect.

You twisting my argument to what you wish I said, rather.

But, for the sake of your new, changed argument let's look at the "individuals behind the organizations." Did you know that there are individual campaign contribution limits? Here's a website you might want to look at:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

This is from the Federal Election Commission.

lol, lol, lol...
and those limits do not apply to PACs, etc. Which brings us neatly back to Citizens' United.

So, tell me again about the "money behind the names" theory you have.

Cannot take credit for facts. They just are.

I heard about the study to which I referred before Christmas, so it will take me time to find it again. (Should have saved it, but did not)

However, there is one partial example of what I mean here. I don't think (?) this particular guy is a big player in the whole scheme, but expand this example and you get the story.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... rich-boost

#2. I am not wrong. Your web site does not even get at the data to which I referred.

See above for the campaign contribution limits for individuals.

Read over that Citizn's United ruling again... and look at the impact regarding PACs, other entities.

"My website" says, for each organization that "No individuals contributed $50,000 or more in any single election cycle." You might read why that's the case in the link from the FEC I've shared above.

Done. See above.

#3. Not sure why you are so vested in this "citizen's united does nothing.." platform, but I am very, very far from the only person who sees it as one of the most dangerous and destructive rulings made in this country in the past century. (second, perhaps to the "seperate but equal" or a couple of other issues).

I'm vested in the correct interpretation of the decision by you and everyone else. I take a very strong stance on the first amendment. I don't think there should be any limits, even those that have a compelling state interest. I'm also an attorney and have had some training in constitutional law. Thus, I know when someone says that the case is dangerous and destructive and likens it to separate, but equal, that person understands nothing about constitutional law or free speech or, alternatively, that person is a politican or political activist attempting to score cheap points in an intellectually dishonest manner.

Sometimes it IS obvious you work in a law firm... and that is not a compliment.

You put forward what a lot of folks WANT to claim is the truth, but it just isn't. My example shows why it isn't. But... more data following. Might take a day or two to find it, since I have other things I have to do.

[thegreekdog]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions. I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

lol.. take that in context, please. I get criticized when I shorten, but when I do.. I get intentionally misunderstood.

You mentioned unions, not I. I always mentioned corporations because they operate as shields for individuals. Unions are not distinct in this group..that was part of my point. The other part was, as I did say that the money flows from the same basic groups. Your data just looks at superficial titles, not who gave them their money, not the purpose of the donations, etc.

Now you've changed the argument, which you do often, because your original point was proven incorrect.

You twisting my argument to what you wish I said, rather.

But, for the sake of your new, changed argument let's look at the "individuals behind the organizations." Did you know that there are individual campaign contribution limits? Here's a website you might want to look at:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

This is from the Federal Election Commission.

lol, lol, lol...
and those limits do not apply to PACs, etc. Which brings us neatly back to Citizens' United.

So, tell me again about the "money behind the names" theory you have.

Cannot take credit for facts. They just are.

I heard about the study to which I referred before Christmas, so it will take me time to find it again. (Should have saved it, but did not)

However, there is one partial example of what I mean here. I don't think (?) this particular guy is a big player in the whole scheme, but expand this example and you get the story.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... rich-boost

#2. I am not wrong. Your web site does not even get at the data to which I referred.

See above for the campaign contribution limits for individuals.

Read over that Citizn's United ruling again... and look at the impact regarding PACs, other entities.

"My website" says, for each organization that "No individuals contributed $50,000 or more in any single election cycle." You might read why that's the case in the link from the FEC I've shared above.

Done. See above.

#3. Not sure why you are so vested in this "citizen's united does nothing.." platform, but I am very, very far from the only person who sees it as one of the most dangerous and destructive rulings made in this country in the past century. (second, perhaps to the "seperate but equal" or a couple of other issues).

I'm vested in the correct interpretation of the decision by you and everyone else. I take a very strong stance on the first amendment. I don't think there should be any limits, even those that have a compelling state interest. I'm also an attorney and have had some training in constitutional law. Thus, I know when someone says that the case is dangerous and destructive and likens it to separate, but equal, that person understands nothing about constitutional law or free speech or, alternatively, that person is a politican or political activist attempting to score cheap points in an intellectually dishonest manner.

Sometimes it IS obvious you work in a law firm... and that is not a compliment.

You put forward what a lot of folks WANT to claim is the truth, but it just isn't. My example shows why it isn't. But... more data following. Might take a day or two to find it, since I have other things I have to do.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this discussion. If and until you come back to me with actual evidence and not NPR stories, I will not be paying attention to your arguments in this thread. They are irrelevant.

[PLAYER57832]

[
As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this discussion. If and until you come back to me with actual evidence and not NPR stories, I will not be paying attention to your arguments in this thread. They are irrelevant.

I see, so the most often cited unbiased news organization is not worth paying attention to, but any random internet site that provides data you like is trustworthy?

Good to know you have slipped over to the dark side fully.

[thegreekdog]

[
As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this discussion. If and until you come back to me with actual evidence and not NPR stories, I will not be paying attention to your arguments in this thread. They are irrelevant.

I see, so the most often cited unbiased news organization is not worth paying attention to, but any random internet site that provides data you like is trustworthy?

Good to know you have slipped over to the dark side fully.

Perhaps you don't have the wherewithal to pull your own data from the internet, which is suspect given that you can use this website and you can also use the NPR website.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between campaign contributions and political ads, but that doesn't make sense since you appear to find yourself fully qualified to speak on those subjects.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between political advertisements paid for by Political Action Committees and how much an individual is permitted to give to a Political Action Committee, and that makes sense given your reliance upon the irrelevant NPR news story you've linked to.

Perhaps you have a short-term memory that you refuse to solve by rereading old posts, which I will supply for you here:

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations.

The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

Here are the top 10 donors from 1989 to 2012:

Of these 10, there is one PAC, two companies, two business organizations (realtors and attorneys), and five unions.

You did not respond to my data by saying, "TGD, let me get you data on the few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations," which should be easy to get if your contention was true. You did not respond to my data by saying, "TGD, you're right, unions also contribute to political campaigns and it's not just a red herring," which would have been nice of you to at least acknowledge. No, instead you say this:

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up.

What you're effectively saying is that of the 10 groups that gave the most money to politicians from 1989 to 2012 (9 of which gave money mostly to Democrats and 5 of which were unions), there are a very few number of individuals supplying the funds. Where is the evidence player?

Oh right... the NPR article which shows that one Las Vegas casino owner spent $5 million to run an advertisement. It has nothing to do with campaign donations, which you would realize if you thought at all about your position or other peoples' arguments, instead of reciting the same nonsense verbatim without looking into any data at all.

You've had hours today to pull data, but you've had weeks and months to pull data from prior discussions. You haven't done that.

So show me the names of these very few individuals who contribute most of the money to AT&T Inc. (who then contributes the mony to political campaigns). Or show me the names of these very few individuals who contributes most of the money to the National Education Association (who then contributes the money to political campaigns).

Or, instead, you could click on the link that's attached to those two names on the website I provided and find out that no one individual contributed more than $50,000 to that organization and realize that, unlike your theory, there are not very few individuals who end up contributing money to campaigns and realize, instead, that many organizations, including unions, corporations, trade associations and professional associations, contribute money to campaigns.

Take the politics out of this discussion compeletely. My politics are irrelevant. I'm providing you with facts and data.

[Woodruff]

With the government making all the decisions, it will be impossible to argue against their decision.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

PLAYER, union supporter that I am, I realize that unions contribute massive amounts of money to campaigns. Perhaps not as much as corporations in total, but not at all an insignificant amount and clearly done so in order to fund laws just as corporations do.

[Woodruff]

[
As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this discussion. If and until you come back to me with actual evidence and not NPR stories, I will not be paying attention to your arguments in this thread. They are irrelevant.

I see, so the most often cited unbiased news organization is not worth paying attention to, but any random internet site that provides data you like is trustworthy?
Good to know you have slipped over to the dark side fully.

Do you understand at all that "random Internet site that provides data he likes"? Because that's not what it is at all.

[PLAYER57832]

the "government" is nothig more than people. In an elected government, it will never be "impossible to argue".. UNLESS those in power are decided, not by people's votes, but by the money put forward. aka corporations. Aka.. the problem that you seem to think is not a problem Nightstrike.

You do know that groups other than corporations give money to politicians, right?

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

PLAYER, union supporter that I am, I realize that unions contribute massive amounts of money to campaigns. Perhaps not as much as corporations in total, but not at all an insignificant amount and clearly done so in order to fund laws just as corporations do.

No question that unions donate money. However, there is an important point here. Some of the same people donate the most money. They use mostly corporations, but also donate through unions in specific ways. Like I said earlier, I am going to have to dig up the data.

The point I made above is that if you want to talk freedom, then you have to nuetralize the impact of big money. Nothing Nightstrike puts forward does that. I am not sure we can really count unions as distinct in this, either. That is, I think they put a show of opposing the corporations, but I am not sure they really act that way, except in specific circumstances. They will certainly go out against anything blatantly anti-union, but when you look at the actual policies the support (trade, etc, etc), then sometimes its an "argument" over the surface, but not the real issues.

Anyway, this is getting off of the healthcare debate, so I suppose it should go in another thread.

[thegreekdog]

I posted the link to the website with the contribution data in another thread; we can continue the discussion there if you'd like. I would very much like to see your data. I will do some searching of my own (although the website I found shows that no one individual has donated more than $50,000 to a particular organization).

And again, don't make this a political issue. For me, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue (other than that I find it interesting to see what entities give money to what parties). And I agree with your basic premise that monied interests have too much of a foothold with politicians. What I don't agree with is your characterization that it's a few very rich people donating. I've simply found no evidence to indicate that, I've provided evidence to show that's not the case.