Bull Ring Calling out francoHFW: Justifying ACA mandates "because something had to be done"

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Dec 18, 2016.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Dear francoHFW if that's too long for you,
    what about starting here:
    A. if you and Obama agree with this plan
    because "something had to be done"
    then why not just require YOU and others
    who AGREE WITH YOU TO PAY FOR IT.

    if you believe it so much?

    Examples of this policy
    B. when right to life advocates believe something has
    to be done about abortion, they are REQUIRED TO PAY
    for their OWN programs they believe will do something!
    *OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN FORCING
    THAT BY LAW, DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS!!!*

    So why can't the same concept be applied here?
    Right to life advocates constantly grieve the losses that happen in the meantime
    because people have free choice.
    If you are demanding Right to life advocates respect 'free choice' and to put
    up with problems in the meantime, why not with "right to health care" and free choice?

    What makes YOUR beliefs about "right to health care"
    MORE IMPORTANT
    than people's beliefs in right to life.

    isn't that discrimination by creed to establish ONE belief through govt,
    and defend it under penalty of law forcing compliance on the entire nation,
    but blocking other people from forcing their beliefs through govt this way,
    based on the same Constitutional arguments I am making in BOTH cases!!!

    C. when people shoot out cops or that shooter in NC
    shot out a church 'because something had to be done'
    THOSE PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR DECISIONS.
    They don't get to decide for everyone else, that's considered CRIMINAL thinking.

    What makes you think "other people" should pay for
    your mandates **against their beliefs** instead of remaining
    free to pay for other options according to THEIR BELIEFS?

    What gives YOU the right to "force your beliefs" on the ENTIRE nation
    and MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR THEM OR BE FINED.


    If Christians did that with their Christian beliefs or right to life beliefs,
    wouldn't you yell, wait there are other ways to "get something done."

    So why do you expect other people to comply with and pay for
    your "right to health care" beliefs "as if that's the only way."

    Isn't that the argument that Christians use, that Jesus is the only way?
    So does that mean Christians have the right to impose that on the entire nation?
    And penalize anyone who doesn't agree that that's the best way????
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2016
  2. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    50,561
    Thanks Received:
    2,982
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +11,754
    TRY and focus on HEALTH CARE. Only a universal system can and will work. My father the good doctor and philanthropist was for it since 1940, when he joined the Brit army to fight Nazis.
     
  3. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Ok so francoHFW has narrowed down the core of his BELIEFS about ACA to
    1. it was the ONLY way to stop freeloaders
    2. insurance mandates are the ONLY way to cover pre existing conditions
    3. universal care "through govt" is the ONLY system that will work

    either he has to convince me and ALL TAXPAYERS to choose to fund these beliefs FREELY
    or I prove there are ways that either don't fit under these mandates
    or are MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND COVER MORE HEALTH CARE AND MORE OF THE POPULATION
    than this model

    I argue that the govt can cover the FACILITIES so these are public,
    but the PROGRAMS can be paid for and chosen FREELY and VOLUNTARILY by participants
    without requiring insurance mandates.

    Insurance becomes another option or choice, but it is not the factor that health care depends on.

    the CORE of the programs are the FACILITIES and STAFF.

    So the CORE of universal care are MEDICAL SCHO OLS FACILITIES AND SERVICE PROGRAMS
    NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT DON'T TRAIN OR PROVIDE ANY SERVICES OR RESEARCH
    TO CUT THE COSTS OF DISEASES AND TO PROMOTE EDUCATION IN ORDER TO COVER EVERYONE.

    My arguments are
    1. letting taxpayers choose what terms to fund will also stop free loaders but without restricting choices how to do so
    2. spiritual healing will not only cover but also CURE pre-existing conditions better than insurance.
    once people go through spiritual healing, they will both cut costs and will also work with others so they aren't freeloading.
    my argument is people who want to require spiritual healing should have an equal choice of choosing and efnorcing
    THAT requirement while keeping insurance optional.
    spiritual healing is free and also reduces incidence, causes and costs of DRUG addiction and other abuses,
    mental/criminal/physical illness, and related crimes including hospitalization and incarceration costs to taxpayers.
    3. the only part that HAS to go through govt are
    the FACILITIES that are open to the public and the CRIMINAL JUSTICE system
    part of reforming the health care budget.

    I argue if francoHFW does not address the "freeloading" by criminal convicts and corporate corruption,
    then he is not really stopping freeloading, but being LAZY and just going after law abiding citizens who file tax returns.
    -===================

    CHALLENGE TO FRANCO:
    1. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE OF WHICH CITIZENS HAVE COMMITTED OR INTEND TO COMMIT "FREE LOADING" BEFORE DEPRIVING US OF LIBERTY, AND TREATING US AS CRIMINALS BY REQUIRING US TO PAY COSTS OR PENALTIES BEFORE WE HAVE INCURRED ANY SUCH DEBTS OR DAMAGES

    2. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENTS ABOUT FREELOADING
    TO ADDRESS BILLIONS SPENT ON A FREE LOADING PRISON SYSTEM THAT COULD PAY FOR HEALTH CARE, AND TRILLIONS SPENT ON CORPORATE FREE LOADING INCLUDING MONEY PAID TO INSURANCE INTERESTS THROUGH ACA.

    HOW IS THAT NOT FREELOADING OFF TAXPAYERS???
     
  4. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    50,561
    Thanks Received:
    2,982
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +11,754
    No idea what you are referring to. Tell your rep. Elections have repercussions- when Dems get 60 votes in the Senate. And control FINALLY for a few weeks.
     
  5. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    If you and other Democrats have no idea of what CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES you are violating with ACA Mandates,
    what business do you have advocating for it?

    If you are "willfully ignorant" of any consequences!

    francoHFW do you really think you have the right to deprive citizens of Constitutional rights with an unconstitutional bill,
    and then blame and pass the buck, for "other reps" to fix it, while it PENALIZES CITIZENS in the meantime.

    ????

    What do we need to do.
    SUE Democratic party leaders and members who pass and enforce laws that violate rights?
    Is that what it takes to get people like you to take responsibility and consider consequences
    BEFORE YOU PASS AND ENDORSE A BILL.

    Are you really at the whim of other reps to sign or reform whatever laws they come up with?

    If that is YOUR belief, that isn't mine.

    NO WONDER Conservatives are saying to BOOT ALL LIBERALS OUT OF GOVT.
    If you are HONESTLY THIS INEPT AND IGNORANT OF CONSEQUENCES OF LAWS
    THEY ARE RIGHT,
    YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ANY SUCH POLITICAL BELIEF.

    This is truly outrageous!

    No sense of Constitutional ethics AT ALL?
    No sense of cost to taxpayers of passing bad legislation,
    but just passing the buck and "kicking the can down the road"
    for someone else to fix? REALLY?

    If this is your belief, yes, I would SUE to prevent any more such political beliefs
    like this from being passed into laws. HORRIFYING francoHFW


    You remind me of criminal thinking where people rob, steal, commit whatever crime
    they can "as long as they don't get caught" and wait until AFTERWARDS to face "consequences."

    What about DETERRENCE?

    You can face consequences after you commit murder,
    but if you PREVENT murder then someone doesn't have to lose their life that can't be restored.

    You remind me of people who only worry about facing the legal consequences,
    and not about the DIRECT IMPACT their decisions have IN THE MEANTIME!!!

    HORRIBLE francoHFW I thank you for your honesty
    but this is truly horrifying to think people can pass laws using this mentality.

    And expect other people to PAY WITH OUR FREEDOM
    because you don't bother to represent the public interests in advance of
    writing, passing, enforcing and endorsing a bill.

    I guess we do need a special Grand Jury to check against this mentality
    and abuse of govt to "experiment with legislation" at the expense of liberty and taxpaying citizens!


    YIKES!
    Voting for reps is NOT enough.
    These bills must be checked instantly, not wait for 4-8 years to change.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Dear francoHFW
    is there any way to compare the ACA mandates to a bill
    that you would EQUALLY argue as I do that this should not be passed IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    EX. A:
    what if "Right to Life" advocates passed a bill penalizing people
    if we didn't pay into prolife programs "as the only way to do something to reduce abortions"

    Would YOU argue that as long as 51% of Congress passed this bill
    (all being prolife Republicans while all prochoice Democrats voted NO)
    then YOU would agree to pay your taxes to PROLIFE programs through govt
    even if this violates beliefs, free choice, and Constitutional protections of citizens who
    argue this is IMPOSING BELIEFS and TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

    1. Would you agree to pay and enforce this, or protest?
    2. Would you be willign to wait 8-12 years or more for the bill to be changed, or protest?

    What would YOU do if the shoe was on the other foot.

    What if a Right to LIFE bill penalizing free choice
    had been passed by 51% of Congress?

    Would you argue this is unconstitutional?
    Or agree to go along with the antichoice conditions
    and PAY the costs and/or PAY the fines
    "until someone changes the law."

    EX. B:
    What about the decisions and vote on Iraq?
    All the trìllions spent on a war half the nation didn't approve as fully constitutional.

    Would that be the equivalent of something
    that even though it was voted on, you would argue people
    should take responsibility and pay the COSTS back to Taxpayers who didn't approve of this.


    NOTE: What if we propose BOTH issues:
    both the ACA policies and spending
    and the Iraq policies and spending,
    and demand taxpayers get reimbursed trillions for both.

    Would you agree then?
    that if the taxpayers didn't approve, then we should be
    reimbursed, and only people who agreed to pay for these
    things should take responsibility. and pay back those of us who don't.

    If we apply the same policy to both ACA and Iraq war spending
    would that be fair, and would you agre e to hold separate parties responsible?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2016
  7. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    50,561
    Thanks Received:
    2,982
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +11,754
    60% of the Senate. Best social reform in many years. A tax. Tough.
     

Share This Page