| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Honest Politician | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 12:56 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.house.gov/htbin/formproc/paul/mail/formtemplate1.txt&display=/paul/mail/formdisplay.shtml reply@kucinichforcongress.com
Last edited on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 12:57 pm by Joe Kelley |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 12:20 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
spikemedic Guest
|
there must be a charge paid by anyone who has already proven unable to pay off previous loans and that charge goes to an insurance fund based upon accurate insurance data but how? ____________________ Medical insurance
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
there must be a charge paid by anyone who has already proven unable to pay off previous loans and that charge goes to an insurance fund based upon accurate insurance data but how? If I understand the question, and the answer, as my thinking goes, the answer is a math problem based upon accurate statistics. Risk is high for someone who proves incapable (in the past) of paying off loans, so a buy-in to the "collective" fund is high for that person who has earned a high risk (like a relative who borrows but does not pay back, or a "user", or a "politician", or a "criminal"). The fund is presumed to be a possitive store of wealth (actual power of some kind stored in some place) or, in case of severe economic desperation, the fund is debt based or "promises to pay" based upon statistics again, where a projected capability of production is measured accurately. I can't answer the question accurately without further productive communication where we arrive on the same page - more or less. This topic was posted back in september. P.S. A minimum pay-out is presumed to be measurable - based upon some accurate measure of charity. To elaborate, the idea is similar to the difference between PPO and HMO from the following perspective: If your enemy is in need of medical care, suppose the worst case to illustrate the principles involved, and you want to help that person, rather than let them die, so that person is afforded at least the minimum moral care possible (triage is also a factor when desperation sets in). You are the one deciding to help this person or move onto helping some other person and this person is on the farthest end of “bad credit” – where this person is proven guilty of massive torture and mass murder, beyond any doubt whatsoever in your mind, but this person needs help, from your paid-to insurance fund, the pot, the collective, the store of all your “insurance’ investments. You help him, or her, as humanely as possible under the current circumstances. Who wouldn’t? Does that person earn the best possible treatment compared to someone, anyone, who has, at least, earned a history of paying back every cent borrowed, someone who never, ever, harmed anyone in any pre-mediated way, no way, no how, never, ever? A. PPO type care = the same for everyone who is in no way measurable as a criminal (criminal is defined as someone who plans on and follows through with the plan to injure innocent people for profit). B. HMO type care = trading with the enemy, healing the enemy, helping the enemy, the criminals, survive, and therefore possibly helping the criminal commit more crimes. The insurance policy makes the subtle distinction between honest producers of wealth and dishonest pre-mediated destroyers of innocent life. PPO for people who prove their honest productivity HMO for proven criminals (innocent until proven guilty) PPO for people who are neither proven to be honest and productive nor proven to be criminal; such as children without parents – for example. Parents, honest and productive ones, provide for their children, at their own cost, so that distinction above is meant to address cases where orphans are cared for by the insurance policy; and that can be statistically measured too (if garbage is not put in, garbage will not come out). How many of the greatest producers of wealth in our human history started as orphans? Isn’t it our best interest to make sure that each person reaches his or her greatest potential? When the chips are down, and the available resources are scarce, where the store of power is not enough for everyone, then someone will make a decision to divert scarce power to the most profitable investment; is that not triage? The insurance policy suggests (voluntary association) that criminals will be treated the same way as everyone else, no better, no worse, unless a non-criminal is injured because scarce resources are spent on the criminal instead of the non-criminal. I may not have cleared up the question well, please forgive the complexity of the answer – it is based upon simple principles. Last edited on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 10:32 pm by Joe Kelley |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:53 am | |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Honest Politician | Top |
