Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

[ELVIS]

What I don't understand is the "go to jail" part for not filling out your paperwork. Can you explain that one to me?

You do realize the government has been building FEMA or re-education camps all acoss the country...?

[standin]

Oh I understand it just fine thanks.

What I don't understand is the "go to jail" part for not filling out your paperwork. Can you explain that one to me? This isn't an IRS, someone owes situation, this is fucking clerical matter that has jail consequences.

Or a gun to your head if you chose to pay as you go, because "others are paying the bill for you" somehow.

yea, it does have fraud involved.

When you go to get medical care and you have not signed up for non-standardized insurance already, you get the standardized insurance automatically. If to find out after, you should not have been on the standardized insurance because of your refusal, then you are defrauding the system. The moment you refuse health care coverage or standardized-insurance is when you commit the act of fraud, if you want to make arrangements to pay an insurance company reimbursement for your bills that is your choice. Arrange for that choice. You can choose not to have health care coverage, by not going to the health care establishments.

[standin]

[Big Train]

yea, it does have fraud involved.

When you go to get medical care and you have not signed up for non-standardized insurance already, you get the standardized insurance automatically. If to find out after, you should not have been on the standardized insurance because of your refusal, then you are defrauding the system. The moment you refuse health care coverage or standardized-insurance is when you commit the act of fraud, if you want to make arrangements to pay an insurance company reimbursement for your bills that is your choice. Arrange for that choice. You can choose not to have health care coverage, by not going to the health care establishments.

I could just claim I'm not a citizen, since they can't verify, thanks to the Hispanic caucaus. No harm, no foul. It would be nice if they would be this balls to the wall about things like immigration.

[Big Train]

Maybe not in pockets but overall across the whole country.

If states count as pockets, maybe your right. It does add up to a serious amount of money.

[standin]

I could just claim I'm not a citizen, since they can't verify, thanks to the Hispanic caucaus. No harm, no foul.

That also would be fraud.

[Big Train]

Right, I've just shown you a very easy and obvious way the system WILL be gamed, so doesn't this put us back at square one (i.e. "Paying for others care who wouldn't pay currently"), defeating the purpose of mandatory signups.

[standin]

If you want to denounce your citizenship, I think that is a right you should have.

You want to deny you are an American citizen to commit fraud against the medical community, I do not think any person would disagree, that such acts are shunned among American society.

To cheat your doctor and those that care for your health, simply because you want to cheat is a shameful act.

[Big Train]

I don't disagree, I'm saying that is HOW individuals will do it. I'm saying if we were SERIOUS about this, we would not allow Congress to block something as simple and direct as verification. PC Culture at it's finest.

Why is every time I describe how something might be done, you assume I'm saying I would do it?

[standin]

Forensic accounting is an developing market. Fraud cost companies, governments and people trillions.

What is the motive to deny citizenship? Simply to defraud the dotors?

There is no motive.



~
Got a meeting, BBL.

[Nickdfresh]

Champ, try a little harder at the "readin" sometime ok? I said to build a "viable third party".

Kay' Hoss, right after you hone your writin' skills a little...

"Viable third party?" Yeah, right, really voting with your conscience there, eh Abe? I mean, most people that would lay claim to some intellectual pretension of trying to 'break the two-party hold over the American system' might actually at least have the moral consistency of voting for their own belief system as opposed to voting for hippie bed-wetters that are very contrary to any of the stated political views you've ever espoused with some few notable exceptions such as your take on the environment and reducing the need for fossil fuels (which I do give you credit for).

I mean, wouldn't your statement have a little consistency if you were voting for a libertarian or conservative moment rather than one seen as largely as only sapping the strength of the Democrats?

I didn't say which way that party had to lean. I believe the only way to insert more actual ideas and people into the process is to get as many alternative parties viable as possible. Keep sucking from the DNC teat though (although yes, I know you say your republican, how I don't know)...

But they're not ideas you even like, agree with, or even consider...

[Nickdfresh]

People always turn on the immigrants when times get hard.
....

Which is interesting --as immigration is way, way down with the economy...

[Big Train]

Kay' Hoss, right after you hone your writin' skills a little...

Next year, when you get to fifth grade, they will have books that will use bigger words. You will learn about irony.

"Viable third party?" Yeah, right, really voting with your conscience there, eh Abe? I mean, most people that would lay claim to some intellectual pretension of trying to 'break the two-party hold over the American system' might actually at least have the moral consistency of voting for their own belief system as opposed to voting for hippie bed-wetters that are very contrary to any of the stated political views you've ever espoused with some few notable exceptions such as your take on the environment and reducing the need for fossil fuels (which I do give you credit for).

I mean, wouldn't your statement have a little consistency if you were voting for a libertarian or conservative moment rather than one seen as largely as only sapping the strength of the Democrats?



But they're not ideas you even like, agree with, or even consider...

Explain to me the moral problems about a math problem please, I'm unsure how that works.

Since the party I voted for had no chance of winning the overall election, their ideas (whether I agreed or not) didn't really matter. It was about getting the party closest to five percent (which would then qualify it for federal matching funds in future elections) up and running, which would spur more growth in alternative parties overall, as it would seem less a "kooky" thing to do. If the Green Party were up to 30%, they would be a threat in EVERY election. At that point, I'd have to weigh whether I agreed with any of their stances (on domestic issues, I have at points).

Basically, I see it as the shortest way to get to a true party I could agree (Morally naturally) with, to splinter the two party system with any wedge possible. The Green Party votes serves this purpose.

There is no problem, since most "indepedent voters" consider themselves conservative. The precious DNC will not suffer much from my efforts I'm afraid.

[Nickdfresh]

Explain to me the moral problems about a math problem please, I'm unsure how that works.

I didn't say it was a moral problem. I just said you and your rationale are full of shit and completely ineffective, which is fine. Not really immoral so much. I really don't give a fuck how you vote, I only bring it up since you seem to worry about everyone elses.

Since the party I voted for had no chance of winning the overall election, their ideas (whether I agreed or not) didn't really matter. It was about getting the party closest to five percent (which would then qualify it for federal matching funds in future elections) up and running, which would spur more growth in alternative parties overall, as it would seem less a "kooky" thing to do. If the Green Party were up to 30%, they would be a threat in EVERY election. At that point, I'd have to weigh whether I agreed with any of their stances (on domestic issues, I have at points).

Basically, I see it as the shortest way to get to a true party I could agree (Morally naturally) with, to splinter the two party system with any wedge possible. The Green Party votes serves this purpose.

There is no problem, since most "indepedent voters" consider themselves conservative. The precious DNC will not suffer much from my efforts I'm afraid.

Firstly, I clearly stated that one should vote their conscience, not just some equation that won't work anyway as the system is fixed towards a two-party state for better or for worse. So voting for these one-hit wonders really means fuckall as you might as well be voting for the Whigs--or the Bull Moose Party--as the Greens. The only way it will change is when the two parties decide that they've had enough of having "big tents" or of drumming out candidates from their parties based on bullshit litmus tests.

And I wouldn't worry about the DNC and independents--since the DNC is now inhabited by moderates and center-rightists that have taken over the old Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans (what I actually consider myself to be). They've left you with reactionary buffoons who don't understand their own ideological premises, religious fanatics, and intellectuals bent on practicing elitist social Darwinism...

[Big Train]

I didn't say it was a moral problem. I just said you and your rationale are full of shit and completely ineffective, which is fine. Not really immoral so much. I really don't give a fuck how you vote, I only bring it up since you seem to worry about everyone elses.

Thanks for the projections. I didn't say that my strategy was a winning strategy (unless a mass of people tried to do it), I said it works for me. It's my vote and I do with it what I want.

Firstly, I clearly stated that one should vote their conscience, not just some equation that won't work anyway as the system is fixed towards a two-party state for better or for worse. So voting for these one-hit wonders really means fuckall as you might as well be voting for the Whigs--or the Bull Moose Party--as the Greens. The only way it will change is when the two parties decide that they've had enough of having "big tents" or of drumming out candidates from their parties based on bullshit litmus tests.

And I wouldn't worry about the DNC and independents--since the DNC is now inhabited by moderates and center-rightists that have taken over the old Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans (what I actually consider myself to be). They've left you with reactionary buffoons who don't understand their own ideological premises, religious fanatics, and intellectuals bent on practicing elitist social Darwinism...

"Wasting my vote", as the theory goes, yup I've heard it from everyone I know. Your bullshit analysis really means NOBODY's vote counts unless they go along to get along. If my consience clearly states that I can't vote for a Republican or a Democrat, as it currently does , am I not to vote? Or am I to find a way to try to constructively use my vote? I chose to try to use my vote, however meaningless it may be to you in the big picture, to induce the changes I believe need to be made. Whether or not that meets your moral criteria, I don't care.