DuPageDem's Comments (306)

“It's one thing to say, in the words of Jim Hightower, "they've stolen our country and we want it back." But it's quite another to say that the Republic itself ought to be destroyed. Anyone who says that is not a thoughtful person, and doesn't deserve what this country gives them.”

“I hope you know that the left leaning party in the USA is the "Democrat party" not the "Democratic Party".
It would be ironic if you didn't.”

“Agreed”

“Wait. You mean that wasn't what they brought? ;)”

“The amnesty supporter (black sleeveless t-shirt) attacked the Tea Partier with his sign. I guess that is what was meant by the ANSWER memo calling for "a militant confrontation with the so-called 'tea baggers.' Beating back these forces..."”

“Those transnational companies you refer to serve a purpose in the grand Universal Plan. Don't curse them, but recognize that their purpose and utility will progressively diminish as humanity evolves. The Universe has already planned for their obsolescence as It did the dinosaur.

The current paradigm-shift we are observing presents many opportunites. Instead of resigning yourself to some perceived fate, I suggest that you learn to take advantage of every opportunity currently open to you and prepare for future opportunities on the horizon.”

“One single defeat does not equal a "major shift". Besides, this article is proof that there are civil wars brewing on both sides. I don't think we're that much better off than they are. What do you think would've happened in NY 23 if the DNC approved candidate had lost the nomination to a more progressive candidate? I'm not saying they would've lost, but I'm not sure they would've won; not in a district the G.O.P has held since the civil war.”

“Yeah, exactly DuP. Brilliant...!”

“First you said, "Back when hospitals and health insurance were non-profit by law, we didn't have any of these problems," and now you say that Nixon changed the laws regulating healthcare.

Here's a little history.

In 1944, the Supreme Court overturned certain case law and ruled in US v South-Eastern Underwriters Assn, 322 U.S. 533, that that insurance could be regulated by Congress. In 1945, Congress responded by passing the McCarran-Ferguson Act which allows States to regulate insurance without interference from the federal government.

Nixon was not elected to Congress until 1946 and was not instrumental in the passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

State laws, not federal law, determines whether hospitals and health insurance companies are incorporated as being for profit or nonprofit.

Federal law does not control this. It never has. There never was a golden period in which, as you seem to represent, that federal law required all such corporations to be organized and operated as nonprofit corporations.

When Nixon became president, he did not sponsor or sign any legislation requiring such corporations to be for-profit corporations or give up any not-for-profit status that they had, if any.

You say that hospitals and health insurance companies were required to have a nonprofit status and Nixon changed a federal law so that they were no longer required to have such status.

If what you say is true, it should be easy for you to provide a reference to this purported law.”

“"Back when hospitals and health insurance were non-profit by law ..."

When was this happy time period?

When the term "non-profit corporation" is used, it can sound to the average person as meaning a corporation operated for the public benefit which (1) does not intend to make a profit, (2) does not make profits, and (3) does not pay out those profits to either (a) those who control the non-profit corporation or (b) related parties.

The term can even suggest that the corporation is subject to meaningful governmental oversight. (Because I can see from your moniker that you reside in Illinois and are a Democrat, as am I, my response to such belief in Illinois is: good luck with that.)

Basically, the difference between non-profit corporations and for-profit corporations is that (1) non-profit corporations do not have shareholders in the normal sense and (2) when such corporations are dissolved, the corporations' remaining assets are supposed to be distirbuted to other non-profits or the government.

In a practical sense, managers of non-profits (even large ones) can can drain the profits by both paying large amounts to themselves and paying large amounts to related parties, including other corporations and entities that they control. They are not supposed to do this, but that's the way it is.”

“What do you think a "fair share" would be for the top 0.5% of earners?”

“No I didn't mention the pentagon. I'm glad you caught that. However, the current administration isn't big on cutting budgets. They are fans of the rubber check system of debt management.

By the way. I'll give your suggestions validity, but that doesn't really matter. The federal government couldn't financially plan it's way out of a wet paper bag. That's what happens when one has not toiled for their earnings.”

“Repetition is smart. Repetition works.”

“Excellent points.”