reserved

Stanley "Tookie" Willams became a "peace activist":

Phil Gasper is a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University in California, a member of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty and Educators for Tookie. On Dec. 7th he nominated Stan Tookie Williams for the Nobel Peace Prize. This is the sixth time Williams has been nominated.

http://www.savetookie.org/

He became a famous activist struggling against the death penalty and to overcome gang violence, and fought up to his death bed. He drafted the Tookie Protocol for Peace, a national street peace initiative. This is a framework for peace between gangs. This Legacy network was founded to achieve Tookie’s last wishes, including violence prevention education, literacy projects, and work for social justice, including abolishing the death penalty. Go online and read the Protocol for Peace!

http://www.prisonactivist.org/directory/death-penalty/stanley-tookie-williams-legacy-network

It's almost amazing that he also found time to commit several murders.

Plus he carried hand guns, assault weapons too. Wouldn't at least that make him somewhat suspect in the eyes of his liberal supporters?

I am myself against the death penalty, but I do wonder why these protesters always seem to chose the most vile murderers as example cases.

The renaming is an important part of it, of course.

Sell people a "peace activist" who "writes children's books" and you get them to support you. Sell them the murderer he is, and it would be more difficult (you would only reach hardcore liberals).

Incidentally, those gang wars he wanted to end, as a "peace activist"?

He founded one of the two major gangs that fought them.

thank you leauki. I can't believe I forgot about your liberal dictionary... I linked it in the OP...

Also forget people calling themselves peace activists and freedom fighters...

Look, would you pay $250/pound for something called "monkey shit coffee" or rather for some exotic blend called Kopi Luaka?

It is all about the labeling and who can be fooled by it.  Planned Parenthood is anything but that.

The nice name is part of the customer experience. The coffee is still something people want.

But nobody wants a mass murderer, not even with a nice name. Plus I can ignore the coffee if I don't like it or its name.

If you want Parenthood and a Plan, go to a priest. He will tell you what to do.

I don't think health care reform is such a big problem. It should just go hand-in-hand with tort reform.

Liberals like how Europe does things? Well, do it the European way. The party that loses, pays the legal bills of both sides. And damages are never meant as a punishment. There we go. We introduced something left-wing from Europe that the American elite, the lawyers, do not want. How socialist am I?

Next step, reform the health care system. Want to make sure everyone can afford health care? Lower the costs. Tort reform already lowers the costs significantly, so we are half-way there. I am sure doctors and nurses themselves can propose good ways to lower health care costs (that won't affect them). There we are.

Get the state(s) to fund free clinics that are also used as teaching hospitals. Require students to work in them to gain experience. This is already done. Expand this system!

Now health care costs are lower and insurance prices have gone down. Next problem: the idiots who decide against getting health insurance. No problem. Make a law that forces people to buy health insurance (of any insurer they want, as long as the insurer covers what is deemed necessary to be covered) or let them pay a penalty. The money thus collected from the idiots can be used to finance emergency and basic care.

Finally, attack the red tape. Force insurers to take anyone, regardless of medical condition. Since everyone will choose some insurer, the risk will even out. (Sick people do not gang up on one insurer.)

If everyone has to be insured, there will be few problems about whether a given patient was already or still covered or not. People simply won't fall in and out of the system but only become customers of different companies with no time in between. This should make things a lot easier.

None of the insurance companies has to be public or state-funded and tax money is only needed for the teaching hospitals (which do also rely on donations). The free clinics offer their services to everyone and hence we have no direct transfer of funds from one tax payer to another.

Problem solved.

I must not be people.

Not true.  American liberals want Stalin and Mao, 2 of the worst.  If Hitler had been a communist instead of a socialist, they would want him as well.

Or what not to do as the case may be.

yes they do.  And while some may argue (in another venue) whether the UK, German, or canadian system is any good (or just a rationing scheme), the fact is America has not been debating it!  They have been debating health INSURANCE reform.  And the plans were doing nothing for costs (somewhat due to the fact that the lawyers are one of the democrats primary contribuutors). 

It may surprise you to learn (since the MSM just parroted the democrats in this regard) that republicans have floated reforms for Health Care and Insurance.  But being so in the minority, they were shot down before they even got out of the gate.  2 of the keystones of the Republican plans were Tort reform and Allowing Insurance to be sold across state lines.

And that is a major sticking point that I do not agree with.  Many democrats use the analogy of Car insurance (in most states you have to have it to drive).  But that fails in 2 ways.  First, you do not HAVE to buy Car insurance (you can opt not to drive), and 2 the constitution does not say "Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and Cars".  So driving a car is not a right, but life is.  If you penalize life, you compromise that right.

And the final flaw that may be unique to this country - Illegal Aliens*.  Since they are already off the grid, they can and will ignore the law which means they will not be insured. So regardless of the plan, not all will be insured.  But America will not pass a law that says "no insurance, no treatment" as medical care, while not a right, is a privelege that a vast majority of Americans insist upon.   Anyone in America (does not matter where you are a citizen of) will get medical care if needed, and not have to pay if they are unable. 

*While I understand that Illigal aliens are not unique to America, the magnitude of the issue I believe is.

If only he just killed his own, he'd be in there.

A lot of people want mass murderers... typically so called liberals fawn over murderers because they are "freedom fighters" or some other BS. As long as they murder conservatives, jews, hunters, whalers, or other groups that the left loathes.

This carries several problems, it requires the state to override personal decision making like a nanny. It is redistributives. the illegals will get it without paying any. and so on.

A better solution is to leave things as they are.

An ideal solution is that if you refuse to buy insurance then you don't get healthcare. Likewise, people who refuse to donate organs (in case of brain death) shouldn't be eligible to receive organs (or should be very low on the list). It sounds mean, but people must be allowed to make their own choices, even bad ones. It is a matter of freedom and basic human dignity. Besides which, the only alternative is to have the government ration who gets care and who doesn't. When you say "everyone must be treated, even if they do not have insurance OR the money to pay", you are basically taking a finite resource, and redistributing it from those who pay to those who do not. Because the extra cost of treating the uninsured for free results in decreased availability (sometimes via increased cost) to the insured. Worse yet, you are creating a disincentive for people to actually pay for insurance, and a disincentive to go into medicine (resulting in less doctors, resulting in less care overall)

But if you don't drive a car, you cannot force others to drive you.

But we do have an obligation to help people when they are sick, and doctors do too.

Anyone who doesn't have health insurance (or otherwise cannot pay for health care) just abuses this system.

There is no reason to give such health insurance for free to the illegals.

They shouldn't be in the country without paying taxes anyway.

Which is why the correct solution is to remove the legal obligation to furnish unlimited care to those who do not pay for it. As for it being "cruel"... more people are saved that way, because forcing the redistribution of aid just lowers the overall amount of aid available. Allowing doctors to chose how much pro bono work they do, increases the amount of doctors and care available, decreases costs for everyone, increases private donations (which have lower overhead then government mandated aid to all) etc etc etc.

But in effect, they do.

There is no legal obligation to furnish unlimited care.

But there is a tradition that doctors have to help if they can.

In fact, everybody does. Doctors just happen to be very good at it.

Oh, but there IS a legal obligation... if you go the ER they must care for you. It is illegal for them to turn you away.

Of course, I would expect most doctors to want to help... but if there are 50 patients in the ER and only 5 can pay / have insurance, I would expect most doctors to help them first (and possibly care for only 20 other patients for free that day because the feel like the others are not seriously sick and that their time is more limited).

This would make being a doctor more profitable, which will result in more people becoming doctors, less doctors retiring, the hiring of more support staff (nurses and the like) and the creation of additional support technology and equipment. Overall, more people would be treated and cared for, and more people will buy insurance (because there is an actual incentive to do so).