[ocrenter]

If you are looking at 1 hour to downtown, sky’s the limit!

Escondido, Valley Center, Hidden Meadows. There should be plenty of homes built during the peak, so relatively new and most should be without MR with low HOA. Some of the communities, even with MR, the prices would be so low you can simply absorb the MR cost and pay it off.

Also consider Vista, milder climate but should have plenty of options that fit your requirement.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]What kind of documentation other than your group as witnesses If you were born on a wagon trail to the wild frontier of Eastern Tennessee?

What about the kids who were held captive in their parents’ basement?

Anyway, the supreme court ruled that AZ is wrong. Time to move on.[/quote]

I agree, let’s make this official:

UNDOCUMENTED: kids held captive in parents’ basement

ILLEGAL: immigrants that illegally entered the country or overstayed their visa

Time to move on, indeed!

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]What would the Founding Fathers think?

Back then, babies were born on farms and on the frontiers. Plenty of Anerican citizens were undocumented. There are still plenty today.[/quote]

The founding fathers also owned slaves and subscribed to the notion that blacks were 3/5 human.

There are plenty of americans born in america without any birth certificates? Citation please.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]The Supreme Court has spoken on the subject of SB1070.

All the AZ state police can do is investigate the immigration status of people apprehended, if there is reasonable suspicion. And even that provision is on hold pending further litigation. It’s doubtful that AZ can setup a fair mechanism to comply with that provision of the law.

Sorry guys, the court has ruled and my side has been vindicated.[/quote]

Brian, dude, even the ILLEGALS themselves will freely admit they are illegal.

What you are arguing is totally counterproductive for what you are trying to achieve.

Here’s the bottom line if you call the illegals “undocumented”: since these foreign nationals are undocumented, let’s get them back to their countries of origin to obtain the proper documentation. Otherwise, how do we know maybe Jose is really Jorge, or Zhang is really Zhou? They were born somewhere where proper certificate of birth was generated, that is their documentation, if they are undocumented, then it is very logical to say they need to go back an obtain those documents.

Now, if these are illegals, at least they have documentation to prove they are who they said they are. This is a whole lot better than someone that is completely without documentation, as the term “undocumented” implies. As their status are currently illegal, policies can be made based on the existence of criminal record or lack thereof, or if they made good and went to college or served the country, to correct the current illegal status into a legal one. And if we find one to be unfit for conversion to legal status, deportation.

The first step in treatment is always the proper diagnosis.

A morbidly obese person will not seek treatment if he thinks he is just a little chub, slightly heavy, big boned, or just overweight. But proper diagnosis of clinical morbid obesity will frequently prompt action. Same with alcoholics, they have to admit they truly are alcoholics before help can take place. Saying they just drink a bit too much or they just party at little harder does nothing for them.

Same with calling illegals undocumented, it doesn’t help them at all, not one bit.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=ocrenter]
brain, this is way too much.

the person illegally entered the country, or illegally overstayed their visa. that is illegal.

to say they are undocumented means they were frolicking on one side of the Rio Grande, and the current took them to the other side. Hence they are undocumnted, but they didn’t mean to cros the border illegally.[/quote]

OCR: Thank you for stating what should be painfully obvious (but apparently isn’t.)

Plus, you get extra points for using the word “frolicking.” We all should do a little more frolicking, doncha think?[/quote]

haha, thank you thank you, (patting self on back)

btw, brian, you know you are in the wrong when me and Allan are on the same side…

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]As I said before, undocumented presence in USA is not illegal, nor criminal. If anyone thinks otherwise, please point to the Constitution or any statute that makes it illegal.

Here are important parts of the article:

Migrant workers residing unlawfully in the U.S. are not — and never have been — criminals. They are subject to deportation, through a civil administrative procedure that differs from criminal prosecution, and where judges have wide discretion to allow certain foreign nationals to remain here.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.” The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.

As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has “children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service,” officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.

[/quote]

brain, this is way too much.

the person illegally entered the country, or illegally overstayed their visa. that is illegal.

to say they are undocumented means they were frolicking on one side of the Rio Grande, and the current took them to the other side. Hence they are undocumnted, but they didn’t mean to cros the border illegally.

[ocrenter]

Anyone know if we would at least get our money back from the big bust last night?

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter]
As for CAR’s comments about the lobbyist forcing the single payer plan off the table. I don’t think that would be possible without the current climate of retorical stand off. I think first issue is the GOP has moved dramatically to the right. Then the lobbyist simply come in and exploit the situation for their benefit.[/quote]

But where do you think the “rhetoric” (and national group think) comes from? I believe it’s the corporations themselves who try to shift public perception/national thought via their talking points and control of the MSM.[/quote]

That gets a little too tin foil hat for me. Don’t get me wrong, I think corporations have way too much access to the politicians and the lobbying is way over the top. But you are basically implying Rupert Murdoch is in bed with Big Pharma and the insurance industry. He first use FOX to brainwash all of the red states, then the health care lobbyists sneak in and prevent the implementation of the single payer plan…

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=ocrenter]
As for CAR’s comments about the lobbyist forcing the single payer plan off the table. I don’t think that would be possible without the current climate of retorical stand off. I think first issue is the GOP has moved dramatically to the right. Then the lobbyist simply come in and exploit the situation for their benefit.[/quote]

OCR: Actually, the lobbyists come in BEFORE and not AFTER the fact. Quite a lot of legislation (not solely limited to healthcare) is in fact written by the lobbyists.

In this sense, partisanship is a non-issue, as money is the sole determinant.

I’m sure Obama did in fact want to limit lobbyist access and influence and then he arrived in Washington and got smacked in the head by reality.

As this MSNBC article shows, the more things change, the more they stay the same: http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/21/11790805-lobbying-continues-at-the-obama-white-house-visitor-logs-show?lite%5B/quote%5D

Of course the lobbyist has always been around. But the shift to uncompromising extreme does help the health lobby get its ways.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Of course we are not heartless. But we got to pay for it, hence the ACA.

The whole point is you can’t go half way in as we are now, we can’t mandate emergency care yet do not mandate insurance coverage.

Extending Medicare to all is essentially a single payer system. Reason why I mentioned socialism is because that is the number one reason why it is politically impossible to achieve at least in the foreseeable future.[/quote]
If a single payer system is impossible, then why not work together and come up with a solution to the health care problem that both side will like. When you have a bill that one side voted yes and another side voted will inevitably be challenged by the other side.

ACA were passed with 100% of republican voted no, why didn’t they just go straight for single payer, since they’re not getting republic support anyways. Why go have way w/ the ACA?

I think both side can agree that we’re not heartless, regardless of political party line. Why can’t they all just sit down, investigate what are the top 10 reason for the rising healthcare cost and create 10 bills to fix those 10 problem. Would that be so hard?[/quote]

Like what CAR pointed out, what the left really wanted was single payer. Howard Dean has made this point many a times.

The problem, if you remember, was the blue dogs, they face a Republican constituency back home and the single payer was just too “socialist” to them. Obama moved to the right so much to accommodate for them that he ended up with a plan originated by a group of GOP senators and implenmented by a GOP governor. How much more working together can you get? The fact that there were zero votes from the GOP speaks more about how much more to the right the GOP have moved.

I disagree about both sides are not heartless. A large part of the GOP today wants to emulate China. They see China’s 10 percent growth rate and think that is because of lack of regulations. And remember, China does not have a mandate to treat even in dire emergencies.

As for CAR’s comments about the lobbyist forcing the single payer plan off the table. I don’t think that would be possible without the current climate of retorical stand off. I think first issue is the GOP has moved dramatically to the right. Then the lobbyist simply come in and exploit the situation for their benefit.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]Well it’s obvious.

First choice… Me

Second choice… AN

Third choice. Markmax33[/quote]

I don’t know flu. Markmax33 seem to be the obvious choice to keep the patriots in line.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Why do we need to treat them in the ER even for extreme circumstances if they made the choice to go without insurance? Those extreme circumstances cost us the most bucks. [/quote]Because we’re not a bunch of heartless SOB? I’d like to see data behind what’s the % of expenditure for uninsured people between people coming for non real emergency vs extreme emergency. It will cost thousands, even if they come in for a common cold. I agree that extreme circumstances cost more per visit. However, I think the amount of people coming into the ER for non emergency out weigh the real emergency.

[quote=ocrenter]I agree single payer is the best system, but remember, that’s socialism![/quote]I never said it’s the best system. I just said I’m sympathetic about it and wouldn’t mind if it’s implemented. But I want the cost to be spread across everyone, so that everyone will pay for the service they will receive. Just like Medicare. Which is why I would rather have Medicare extended to everyone and increase the Medicare tax instead of the ACA.

What’s the point of tossing around the word socialism?[/quote]

Of course we are not heartless. But we got to pay for it, hence the ACA.

The whole point is you can’t go half way in as we are now, we can’t mandate emergency care yet do not mandate insurance coverage.

Extending Medicare to all is essentially a single payer system. Reason why I mentioned socialism is because that is the number one reason why it is politically impossible to achieve at least in the foreseeable future.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]Why is socialism such a dirty word anyway? I’m a socialist on some issues, a libertarian on others, and I’m G-d damn proud of my views.[/quote]It’s not a dirty word to me. But I’m sure ocrenter tossing out the word socialism thinking he can get an argument from those who does think it’s a dirty word. I can see this thread going down a rat hole if there end up being a back and forth between him and those who think socialism is a dirty word.[/quote]

The point was simply we have completely removed single payer as an option because of its socialism connotation, which is quite unfortunate.

[ocrenter]

[quote=spdrun]

Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there’s no point going forward.

Personally, I’m for universal, public-option health care, paid for by a percentage tax on ALL incomes. But that’s just me.[/quote]

Me too.

That would be impossible to pass in DC given the “class warfare” and “socialist agenda” type arguments against it. We are left with Obamacare as the only alternative. Which of course in its core is a Republican product the the GOP has rejected purely because Obama has his hands on it. So there are no other options, we have in essence painted ourselves into a retorical corner.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]
Personally, I like to leave it up to the people to decide whether they want health insurance or not. If they choose not to buy insurance, then they have to live with the consequences of not being treated in ER except for extreme circumstances.

However, I’m sympathetic to the idea of single payer system. If we do that, we should just extend Medicare to all and raise the Medicare tax for all to accommodate the extra cost of extending Medicare to all. There’s no need to have this ACA.[/quote]

Why do we need to treat them in the ER even for extreme circumstances if they made the choice to go without insurance? Those extreme circumstances cost us the most bucks.

I agree single payer is the best system, but remember, that’s socialism!

[Author]

Posts