I know what people say about him -- however he is the most qualified candidate for the job by leaps and bounds -- and if you got past "personality" politics, you might just think so too.
Where as the other two candidates have historically sided with big business over the little man -- Nader has historically defeated big business single handedly in the name of making this nation a better, safer, place.
This country is sick of the guy with 18 mansions ****ing over the guy who has problems putting food on the table -- despite working over 50 hours a week.
This country is sick of the bull-crap of "personality politics" that has overcome the nation and has decided to move past it to actual politics.
Q: Ever wonder why there is no difference in the politics of Hillary and Obama and how neither of them are "promising" to get us out of Iraq?
A: Because their "politics" are dictated by their cash flow. Thus, as their cash is coming from the same big business interests, they have the same political philosophy.
If you want to live in a country where we have -
[B]Single-payer national health insurance[/B] - The most efficient form of health care (complete reform). WORLDS better than either the plans from Clinton or Obama.
[I]The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 47 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.
This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.
Here are more benefits derived from this "form" of health insurance that neither Obama or Hillary's plans offer. Compare this with their half-baked policies and you can see that there is no comparison.
[I] * Single payer health insurance is a system by which the health care expenditures of an entire population are paid for through one source – the Federal government or a subcontracting entity – using tax revenue from individuals and employers.
* Distinctly different from socialized medicine, whereby the government owns and operates health care facilities, a “single payer system” is simply a financing mechanism. The government collects and allocates money for health care but has little to no involvement in the actual delivery of services. Care is provided privately at hospitals and clinics but paid for publicly.
* Individuals are allowed to choose their providers, and physicians are either compensated on a fee-for-service basis or paid salaries by hospitals that receive an annual global budget or by nonprofit health maintenance organizations.
* All medically necessary services are covered by the insurance, including primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, long term care, mental health, substance abuse treatment, dental services, and vision care.
* Services are delivered based on need rather than on ability to pay. Coverage is uninterrupted and equal for everyone, thus ending the dependency of health care access upon employment status.
* Single payer health insurance would save money by vastly reducing administration and paperwork and by giving the Federal government bargaining power to procure medications in bulk. Even more significant than the savings that a single payer system achieves are the universal coverage and comprehensive benefits it provides, thereby realizing the right of every person to quality health care.
* Single payer health insurance has proven itself to be successful in Canada, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Taiwan, and the model exists here in the United States as well in the Medicare program – which holds administrative overhead to 3%.
* The expansion of Medicare, as proposed in House Resolution 676, is the smoothest road toward universal coverage and the only way to achieve sustainable, cost-effective coverage for every American.[/I]
[B]A crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare[/B] - Bush tax cuts, Exxon situations that don't get caught, government policies that throw money to the rich and destroy the environment. It also will adress the funneling of our tax dollars in Iraq into the hands of massive coorporations. They in turn build up society poorly -- creating even more civil unrest.
[B]A "Reverse" U.S. policy in the Middle East[/B] - No other candidate has "committed" to pulling ANYONE out, whereas Nader will REGARDLESS unless of course the obvious “dire” situation. If you read about the situation it has devolved into a civil war (between 3 distinct groups of people) -- yet we still continue to fight "extremists" -- people who still are angry at us for invading their homeland. We need a new kind of president to bridge the gap between our two cultures -- and to minimize both the violence toward America and the violence towards one another.
[B][I](NOTE -Blackwater doesn't help).[/I][/B]
[B]A Cut to the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget[/B] -
Billions upon billions of tax payer dollars are being given to corporations in Iraq -- who then in turn funnel the money, using only a small percentage of it to actually build what they are hired to build. Billions of dollars more are being transferred into debt to both the Federal Reserve (Banking Interests) and Foreign Countries.
[B]Open Presidential debates[/B] - I'm personally appalled with the idea that only "2 people" are deemed qualified to be able to run our country. I could name about 2 million who could have done it better than George Bush. Lets begin to hear other opinions besides than that of the majority. Did you know that there was a poll done in which over 70 percent of americans (a bigger demographic than just voters) believe both the democratic and republican parties to be "conservative"? Then they wonder why so many people don't vote -- there are too few options -- this would change that and help move our country away from party politics and towards politics designed to improve our nations.
If any of these issues are important to you, Ralph Nader might be your best option -- he is the only candidate (at least none of the main-stream candidates are pushing ANY of these issues) to vote for if any of these issues would make a difference to your life in these coming 4 years.
I don't think a single-payer national health insurance plan is the answer. Now I'm sure you'll say I'm biased as I'm a pharma rep (I know they're evil, right?) but one of the doctors I call on has told me that patients from Canada have been coming to their office for treatment for Lyme disease because they can not get treatment in Canada. I don't know that I'd want to sign up for that level of care. I admit that there are major issues with our medical system today but I don't believe that single payer is the answer.
lol no - you're not evil (your bosses are ;)) - and no the single-payer wouldn't change how much we can get treated for -- how would "stream-lining" the payment process change how doctors treat lymes? Especially since we could allocate 350 bil of beauracratic cash to HEALTHCARE.
Last edited by alexgutterson; 03-21-2008 at 12:24 AM.
[QUOTE=alexgutterson;2444193]lol no - you're not evil (your bosses are ;)) - and no the single-payer wouldn't change how much we can get treated for -- how would "stream-lining" the payment process change how doctors treat lymes?[/QUOTE]
Well according to my doctor, you can't get treatment for Lyme disease in Canada. No doctor there will diagnose or treat it so patients who can afford it have to leave the country to get treatment.
[QUOTE=alexgutterson;2444193]lol no - you're not evil (your bosses are ;)) - and no the single-payer wouldn't change how much we can get treated for -- how would "stream-lining" the payment process change how doctors treat lymes? Especially since we could allocate 350 bil of beauracratic cash to HEALTHCARE.[/QUOTE]
where the hell is that 350 billion coming from exactly?
[QUOTE=adb280z;2444205]Well according to my doctor, you can't get treatment for Lyme disease in Canada. No doctor there will diagnose or treat it so patients who can afford it have to leave the country to get treatment.[/QUOTE]
My doctors refused to treat me for Lyme disease. Growing up in Jersey, I played soccer and my symptoms were treated as sports related injuries. Granted this was about 15 years ago when I was about 12-13 years old and Lyme disease was still relatively unknown.
However, my mother is an ER nurse. So, she had her doubts and brought me into her ER one night during her shift and had them run a blood test. It came back positive and based on my medical records and how long I had the symptoms, I was told I carried it for about 3 years.
They put me in the hospital for about 2 weeks and then had me on an I.V. with medication for another 6-8 weeks at home.
I'm listed as a chronic carrier (I believe) because I had to get a waiver for it prior to going into the USMC. Additionally, I can't give blood. In fact, I still test positive for it because I carried it when I was a kid.
Doctors in Canada may refuse to test patients with symptoms because they may not believe the range of the vectors go that far north. I'm not sure...
Also, I know some of the doctors in sickbay at Camp Geiger in Camp Lejeune have a particular interest in Lyme disease and its vectors.
Last edited by finlee17; 03-21-2008 at 09:49 AM.
Reason: Additional comments