Obamacare good or bad ?

[emilynghiem]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

 

[Dalia]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Emily thinks she is not represented by Congress when in fact she is, even though she disagrees.

I believe in consensus JakeStarkey when it comes to beliefs.
Here is an example of a bill passed into laws by 100% consensus:
www.ethics-commission.net

The way the ACA and alternatives could get a consensus
is to separate the funding for both track and give taxpayers
a choice which to fund and to develop that they believe in.

That would represent my belief in equal protection of the laws
under the Constitution and the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

Thanks JakeStarkey
I think Congress is close, but just needs to approve options for both
tracks and leave it to taxpayers to fund the one they want. Then it's fair and equal.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

And THAT is the real objection, subsidies and "socialism" in america is for the wealthy, not the masses.

Two wrongs don't make it right Fenton Lum
we should get RID of the corporate welfare
not add more by giving welfare to everyone without agreeing on the terms.

ACA IS more corporate welfare.
The insurance interests got paid up front
and got a bill that forced taxpayers to buy insurance.

Taxpayers didn't get universal coverage.
So this doesn't solve the problem but makes it worse!

 

[Fenton Lum]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

You would do much better arriving at a real understanding of this by researching on your own, and going back to look at the trendline in spending going back to the 1900s, or at least the 1960s. In america, healthcare is political and the status quo would lose economically were we to join the advanced modern world in a single payer system. As such, healthcare in the US has never been about what works best for society, but rather what lines the pockets of the private corporate health insurance and pharma industries.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

And THAT is the real objection, subsidies and "socialism" in america is for the wealthy, not the masses.

Two wrongs don't make it right Fenton Lum
we should get RID of the corporate welfare
not add more by giving welfare to everyone without agreeing on the terms.

ACA IS more corporate welfare.
The insurance interests got paid up front
and got a bill that forced taxpayers to buy insurance.

Taxpayers didn't get universal coverage.
So this doesn't solve the problem but makes it worse!

That's wonderful, never happens does it. Getting rid of corporate welfare.

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

Dear Fenton Lum
That has LONG been debunked:
it was for CATASTROPHIC only, not for micromanaging all health care decisions

And no such "health care law" ever got Republican support in Congress before ACA.
Even when ACA passed the votes were all Democrats.

I'll find and post the links debunking this MYTH
that Heritage and conservatives supported federalized health care to this extent....

Here are some
1. No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
2. most Conservatves agree it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR FEDERAL VOTE TO MANDATE and that such power belongs to STATES instead:

he Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group ProCon.org. Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.

In 2006, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was then governor of Massachusetts, signed off on a law requiring individuals of the state to purchase health insurance. American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic opposition research group, on Wednesday released a 2006 video in which Romney says he is “very pleased” with the mandate.

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need," Romney says in the video.

In 2007, a bi-partisan Senate bill authored by Senators Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, contained a mandate. In 2009, however, Republican senators declared such a provision “unconstitutional.”

 

[Fenton Lum]

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

Dear Fenton Lum
That has LONG been debunked:
it was for CATASTROPHIC only, not for micromanaging all health care decisions

And no such "health care law" ever got Republican support in Congress before ACA.
Even when ACA passed the votes were all Democrats.

I'll find and post the links debunking this MYTH
that Heritage and conservatives supported federalized health care to this extent....

Yeah you go do that love, we'll all declare "fake news" when we don't like reality.

 

[Dalia]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

You would do much better arriving at a real understanding of this by researching on your own, and going back to look at the trendline in spending going back to the 1900s, or at least the 1960s. In america, healthcare is political and the status quo would lose economically were we to join the advanced modern world in a single payer system. As such, healthcare in the US has never been about what works best for society, but rather what lines the pockets of the private corporate health insurance and pharma industries.

Here in France the health cover ( healht insurance) is espensive every month, we have to have a other insurance than the SQ is the gouvernement coverage

 

[Fenton Lum]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

You would do much better arriving at a real understanding of this by researching on your own, and going back to look at the trendline in spending going back to the 1900s, or at least the 1960s. In america, healthcare is political and the status quo would lose economically were we to join the advanced modern world in a single payer system. As such, healthcare in the US has never been about what works best for society, but rather what lines the pockets of the private corporate health insurance and pharma industries.

Here in France the health cover ( healht insurance) is espensive every month, we have to have a other insurance than the SQ is the gouvernement coverage

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...ef/2015/oct/squires_oecd_exhibit_12.png?la=en

Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison

All of the 10 countries on the list spend at least 8.9% of their total GDP on health care. The difference, however, between the No. 1 spender, the United States, and the No. 10 spender, Canada, is quite large. Canada spent 10.2% of its GDP on health care in 2013, which amounted to $4,351 per person, while the United States spent 16.4% of its GDP that year, amounting to $8,713 per person.

According to Francesca Colombo, head of the health division at the OECD, “Higher health sector prices explain much of the difference between the U.S. and other high-spending countries.” She added that the health care system in the United States is also fragmented and overly complex, with a larger share of uninsured individuals than is common among developed countries. While every country on the list has near universal health care coverage, only 88.5% of Americans are insured. However, under the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. uninsured rate is on the decline.
Countries Spending the Most on Health Care

Subscribe to read

Health Care Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1980–2013

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

If not let's put it this way Fenton Lum
When govt passes car regulations
does it require "all citizens to buy cars"
so car manufacturers can AFFORD the safety provisions?

NO, those provisions are required in order to SELL cars.
So health care could be the same way.

Let the best providers and programs COMPETE to get consumers
to buy from them. That's the way it's normally done!

There is no "competition" in your system love, and it doesn't work for the society at large, and it's been a problem long before Obama came along.

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

Dear Fenton Lum
That has LONG been debunked:
it was for CATASTROPHIC only, not for micromanaging all health care decisions

And no such "health care law" ever got Republican support in Congress before ACA.
Even when ACA passed the votes were all Democrats.

I'll find and post the links debunking this MYTH
that Heritage and conservatives supported federalized health care to this extent....

Yeah you go do that love, we'll all declare "fake news" when we don't like reality.

Okay Fenton Lum
We can go to the Bull Ring and you can prove that Conservatives support federal mandates controlling every aspect of health care. So much that they proposed this themselves? No, nothing like that ever got support but was rejected and revised because otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Fenton Lum you'd have better luck proving that
Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War but then retracted that
and DON'T support the war and spending that ensued.

At least there are votes on record showing Democrats supported it
before they voted against it.

You'll find nothing on Republicans supporting FEDERAL mandates as in ACA.
the most you'll find is STATE level mandates like Romney in MA,
and even that is criticized by fellow Republicans as failed.

The problem as I pointed out as that the policies
DO NOT ADDRESS PRISON SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE
AND MENTAL HEALTH POLICIES THAT ARE COSTING TAXPAYERS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

So the problems can be solved by STATES
by addressing prison and mental health reforms.

You want to go to the Bullring on these three points:
1. Republicans and Conservatives never supported federal mandates
as in ACA, but at most catastrophic coverage and not personal health care managed by federal govt.
Romney passes state level mandates and health care but this is not the same as federal.

2. You would have better luck proving that the Democrats
voted for the War in Iraq before RETRACTING their support by
claiming misrepresentation on the WMD claims. At least that
has records in Congress for voting FOR it before arguing against it.

3. and lastly the better solution to health care coverage
is to reform state budgets and policies on prisons and mental health
systems and costs, and using those resources and facilities to
provide universal care for all citizens at the rate we are paying for
inmates and drug addictions/abuse alone. That's the solution
we could be pursuing instead of fighting over federal mandates.

 

[emilynghiem]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

You would do much better arriving at a real understanding of this by researching on your own, and going back to look at the trendline in spending going back to the 1900s, or at least the 1960s. In america, healthcare is political and the status quo would lose economically were we to join the advanced modern world in a single payer system. As such, healthcare in the US has never been about what works best for society, but rather what lines the pockets of the private corporate health insurance and pharma industries.

Here in France the health cover ( healht insurance) is espensive every month, we have to have a other insurance than the SQ is the gouvernement coverage

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...ef/2015/oct/squires_oecd_exhibit_12.png?la=en

Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison

All of the 10 countries on the list spend at least 8.9% of their total GDP on health care. The difference, however, between the No. 1 spender, the United States, and the No. 10 spender, Canada, is quite large. Canada spent 10.2% of its GDP on health care in 2013, which amounted to $4,351 per person, while the United States spent 16.4% of its GDP that year, amounting to $8,713 per person.

According to Francesca Colombo, head of the health division at the OECD, “Higher health sector prices explain much of the difference between the U.S. and other high-spending countries.” She added that the health care system in the United States is also fragmented and overly complex, with a larger share of uninsured individuals than is common among developed countries. While every country on the list has near universal health care coverage, only 88.5% of Americans are insured. However, under the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. uninsured rate is on the decline.
Countries Spending the Most on Health Care

View attachment 118775
Subscribe to read

Health Care Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1980–2013

GREAT Fenton Lum

Now show us where CA TX and other states
spend BILLIONS on inmates including ILLEGAL undocumented nationals
who aren't even US citizens. When that money could pay for HEALTH CARE
for LAW ABIDING citizens and taxpayers.

SHOW US THE MONEY!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Fenton Lum here's one link:
https://calcoastnews.com/2010/01/schwarzenegger-build-prisons-in-mexico/

Under Schwarzenegger’s plan, California would pay for the construction of private prisons, built and operated at half the cost of what it would require in California. The state currently spends about about $800 million a year to house undocumented immigrants.

In a speech delivered to the Sacramento Press Club, Schwarzenegger claimed the Mexico prison plan could save California $1 billion annually.

^ That's CA.

* For TX, we're talking 50K a year per person in prison.

Don't you think 50K a year could train and pay for MEDICAL EDUCATION FOR doctors and nurses to provide health care? CouLdn't prison and mental health facilities be used to provide care to the general population, but are currently used to warehouse a ballooning population of sick people who can no longer work but become wards of the state and welfare burdens on the taxpayers?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Health insurance prices will continue to skyrocket due to Ocare regulations.....

 

[Fenton Lum]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

If not let's put it this way Fenton Lum
When govt passes car regulations
does it require "all citizens to buy cars"
so car manufacturers can AFFORD the safety provisions?

NO, those provisions are required in order to SELL cars.
So health care could be the same way.

Let the best providers and programs COMPETE to get consumers
to buy from them. That's the way it's normally done!

There is no "competition" in your system love, and it doesn't work for the society at large, and it's been a problem long before Obama came along.

The individual mandates are really superficial.

They are merely a tiny tax penalty.

The real benefit of ACA is the subsidies to the poor.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

Dear Fenton Lum
That has LONG been debunked:
it was for CATASTROPHIC only, not for micromanaging all health care decisions

And no such "health care law" ever got Republican support in Congress before ACA.
Even when ACA passed the votes were all Democrats.

I'll find and post the links debunking this MYTH
that Heritage and conservatives supported federalized health care to this extent....

Yeah you go do that love, we'll all declare "fake news" when we don't like reality.

Okay Fenton Lum
We can go to the Bull Ring and you can prove that Conservatives support federal mandates controlling every aspect of health care. So much that they proposed this themselves? No, nothing like that ever got support but was rejected and revised because otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Fenton Lum you'd have better luck proving that
Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War but then retracted that
and DON'T support the war and spending that ensued.

At least there are votes on record showing Democrats supported it
before they voted against it.

You'll find nothing on Republicans supporting FEDERAL mandates as in ACA.
the most you'll find is STATE level mandates like Romney in MA,
and even that is criticized by fellow Republicans as failed.

The problem as I pointed out as that the policies
DO NOT ADDRESS PRISON SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE
AND MENTAL HEALTH POLICIES THAT ARE COSTING TAXPAYERS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

So the problems can be solved by STATES
by addressing prison and mental health reforms.

You want to go to the Bullring on these three points:
1. Republicans and Conservatives never supported federal mandates
as in ACA, but at most catastrophic coverage and not personal health care managed by federal govt.
Romney passes state level mandates and health care but this is not the same as federal.

2. You would have better luck proving that the Democrats
voted for the War in Iraq before RETRACTING their support by
claiming misrepresentation on the WMD claims. At least that
has records in Congress for voting FOR it before arguing against it.

3. and lastly the better solution to health care coverage
is to reform state budgets and policies on prisons and mental health
systems and costs, and using those resources and facilities to
provide universal care for all citizens at the rate we are paying for
inmates and drug addictions/abuse alone. That's the solution
we could be pursuing instead of fighting over federal mandates.

You seem to have bought into this partisanshit ruse hon, sorry, I just don't, you'll have to locate someone else for that.

"We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.
The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.
Do you get the difference?"

You've been mandated to buy car insurance forever and if you've ever gotten healthcare insurance through an employer you got whatever they decided they would allow you to have access to. The only difference is in your perceptual reality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Health care though govt is good where taxpayers agree to fund it and on the terms and condtions.

It is bad when taxpayers lose right to representation,
civil liberties, and right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which is fundamental.

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

If not let's put it this way Fenton Lum
When govt passes car regulations
does it require "all citizens to buy cars"
so car manufacturers can AFFORD the safety provisions?

NO, those provisions are required in order to SELL cars.
So health care could be the same way.

Let the best providers and programs COMPETE to get consumers
to buy from them. That's the way it's normally done!

There is no "competition" in your system love, and it doesn't work for the society at large, and it's been a problem long before Obama came along.

yiostheoy
well that "tiny tax penalty" that overrode and violate the BELIEFS
of HALF the nation cost Democrats not only the
Presidential Election but half the seats in Congress.

Not just a tiny issue!

I believe Democrats should be SUED to fix it.
And force Democrats to fulfill both prison reform
and health care reform promises to fix this funding issue.
Or it's FRAUD by misrepresenting the platform to the
donors and voters, and it's imposing Constitutionally and violating
beliefs and rights of citizens who DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU DO.

yiostheoy you have every right to YOUR potitical beliefs.
But you cannot abuse govt to IMPOSE OR ESTABLISH
your beliefs, much less PENALIZE taxpayers for not complying.

NOT ONE DIME: No matter how small, it is a major
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

You might as well force prochoice people to be under prolife policies they DON'T BELIEVE IN, and force them to pay taxes, fines and funds to those prolife programs, while PENALIZING them for wanting to provide nonprofit services through Planned Parenthood.

If it's unconstitutional to push THAT through federal mandates,
the same is wrong with ACA mandates! yiostheoy

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

Dear Fenton Lum
That has LONG been debunked:
it was for CATASTROPHIC only, not for micromanaging all health care decisions

And no such "health care law" ever got Republican support in Congress before ACA.
Even when ACA passed the votes were all Democrats.

I'll find and post the links debunking this MYTH
that Heritage and conservatives supported federalized health care to this extent....

Yeah you go do that love, we'll all declare "fake news" when we don't like reality.

Okay Fenton Lum
We can go to the Bull Ring and you can prove that Conservatives support federal mandates controlling every aspect of health care. So much that they proposed this themselves? No, nothing like that ever got support but was rejected and revised because otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Fenton Lum you'd have better luck proving that
Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War but then retracted that
and DON'T support the war and spending that ensued.

At least there are votes on record showing Democrats supported it
before they voted against it.

You'll find nothing on Republicans supporting FEDERAL mandates as in ACA.
the most you'll find is STATE level mandates like Romney in MA,
and even that is criticized by fellow Republicans as failed.

The problem as I pointed out as that the policies
DO NOT ADDRESS PRISON SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE
AND MENTAL HEALTH POLICIES THAT ARE COSTING TAXPAYERS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

So the problems can be solved by STATES
by addressing prison and mental health reforms.

You want to go to the Bullring on these three points:
1. Republicans and Conservatives never supported federal mandates
as in ACA, but at most catastrophic coverage and not personal health care managed by federal govt.
Romney passes state level mandates and health care but this is not the same as federal.

2. You would have better luck proving that the Democrats
voted for the War in Iraq before RETRACTING their support by
claiming misrepresentation on the WMD claims. At least that
has records in Congress for voting FOR it before arguing against it.

3. and lastly the better solution to health care coverage
is to reform state budgets and policies on prisons and mental health
systems and costs, and using those resources and facilities to
provide universal care for all citizens at the rate we are paying for
inmates and drug addictions/abuse alone. That's the solution
we could be pursuing instead of fighting over federal mandates.

You seem to have bought into this partisanshit ruse hon, sorry, I just don't, you'll have to locate someone else for that.

"We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.
The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.
Do you get the difference?"

You've been mandated to buy car insurance forever and if you've ever gotten healthcare insurance through an employer you got whatever they decided they would allow you to have access to. The only difference is in your perceptual reality.

No that IS the point, Fenton Lum
The insurance with Cars and with Romney/MA is on the STATE level.
That IS the argument Conservatives are making!

Same with marriage laws.
it is legal for STATES to vote on this
but NOT FOR FEDERAL GOVT TO MANDATE.

that IS THE WHOLE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
It is STATE jursidiction NOT FEDERAL !!!!

 

[Fenton Lum]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

You would do much better arriving at a real understanding of this by researching on your own, and going back to look at the trendline in spending going back to the 1900s, or at least the 1960s. In america, healthcare is political and the status quo would lose economically were we to join the advanced modern world in a single payer system. As such, healthcare in the US has never been about what works best for society, but rather what lines the pockets of the private corporate health insurance and pharma industries.

Here in France the health cover ( healht insurance) is espensive every month, we have to have a other insurance than the SQ is the gouvernement coverage

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...ef/2015/oct/squires_oecd_exhibit_12.png?la=en

Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison

All of the 10 countries on the list spend at least 8.9% of their total GDP on health care. The difference, however, between the No. 1 spender, the United States, and the No. 10 spender, Canada, is quite large. Canada spent 10.2% of its GDP on health care in 2013, which amounted to $4,351 per person, while the United States spent 16.4% of its GDP that year, amounting to $8,713 per person.

According to Francesca Colombo, head of the health division at the OECD, “Higher health sector prices explain much of the difference between the U.S. and other high-spending countries.” She added that the health care system in the United States is also fragmented and overly complex, with a larger share of uninsured individuals than is common among developed countries. While every country on the list has near universal health care coverage, only 88.5% of Americans are insured. However, under the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. uninsured rate is on the decline.
Countries Spending the Most on Health Care

View attachment 118775
Subscribe to read

Health Care Spending as a Percentage of GDP, 1980–2013

GREAT Fenton Lum

Now show us where CA TX and other states
spend BILLIONS on inmates including ILLEGAL undocumented nationals
who aren't even US citizens. When that money could pay for HEALTH CARE
for LAW ABIDING citizens and taxpayers.

SHOW US THE MONEY!!!

I think we have found common ground now that you've abandoned the healthcare discussion for something else. I agree that corporate for profit prisons which signal this society’s return to profiting from bondage, with stocks traded on Wall Street, do siphon off taxpayer funding away from the commons into the hands of private corporations who lobby for more criminalized behaviors, longer sentencing, and provide a profit motive for more crime in society and high rates of recidivism.

But your healthcare money went to your endless war of global occupation funds.

Love the bold big all caps.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Citizen taxpayers have no right to representation, civil liberties, or right to exercise and defend beliefs of their choice which in any for profit corporate healthcare system either, so you must have some other objection. Could you get to that?

Dear Fenton Lum
We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.

The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.

Do you get the difference?

The corporate insurance lobbies CUT DEALS With Obama to get BILLIONS
if not TRILLIONS in payouts as part of ACA.

So the ACA was to cover their behinds and costs.
and SCREW the taxpayers.

The corporations got paid. the taxpayers got charged and forced to pay that or fines.
Get it?

If not let's put it this way Fenton Lum
When govt passes car regulations
does it require "all citizens to buy cars"
so car manufacturers can AFFORD the safety provisions?

NO, those provisions are required in order to SELL cars.
So health care could be the same way.

Let the best providers and programs COMPETE to get consumers
to buy from them. That's the way it's normally done!

There is no "competition" in your system love, and it doesn't work for the society at large, and it's been a problem long before Obama came along.

This approach/concept came out of the Heritage Foundation love.

Dear Fenton Lum
That has LONG been debunked:
it was for CATASTROPHIC only, not for micromanaging all health care decisions

And no such "health care law" ever got Republican support in Congress before ACA.
Even when ACA passed the votes were all Democrats.

I'll find and post the links debunking this MYTH
that Heritage and conservatives supported federalized health care to this extent....

Yeah you go do that love, we'll all declare "fake news" when we don't like reality.

Okay Fenton Lum
We can go to the Bull Ring and you can prove that Conservatives support federal mandates controlling every aspect of health care. So much that they proposed this themselves? No, nothing like that ever got support but was rejected and revised because otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Fenton Lum you'd have better luck proving that
Democrats voted FOR the Iraq War but then retracted that
and DON'T support the war and spending that ensued.

At least there are votes on record showing Democrats supported it
before they voted against it.

You'll find nothing on Republicans supporting FEDERAL mandates as in ACA.
the most you'll find is STATE level mandates like Romney in MA,
and even that is criticized by fellow Republicans as failed.

The problem as I pointed out as that the policies
DO NOT ADDRESS PRISON SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE
AND MENTAL HEALTH POLICIES THAT ARE COSTING TAXPAYERS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

So the problems can be solved by STATES
by addressing prison and mental health reforms.

You want to go to the Bullring on these three points:
1. Republicans and Conservatives never supported federal mandates
as in ACA, but at most catastrophic coverage and not personal health care managed by federal govt.
Romney passes state level mandates and health care but this is not the same as federal.

2. You would have better luck proving that the Democrats
voted for the War in Iraq before RETRACTING their support by
claiming misrepresentation on the WMD claims. At least that
has records in Congress for voting FOR it before arguing against it.

3. and lastly the better solution to health care coverage
is to reform state budgets and policies on prisons and mental health
systems and costs, and using those resources and facilities to
provide universal care for all citizens at the rate we are paying for
inmates and drug addictions/abuse alone. That's the solution
we could be pursuing instead of fighting over federal mandates.

You seem to have bought into this partisanshit ruse hon, sorry, I just don't, you'll have to locate someone else for that.

"We WERE not forced to buy from corporations BEFORE ACA.
The mandates REQUIRED citizens to buy insurance.
Do you get the difference?"

You've been mandated to buy car insurance forever and if you've ever gotten healthcare insurance through an employer you got whatever they decided they would allow you to have access to. The only difference is in your perceptual reality.

No that IS the point, Fenton Lum
The insurance with Cars and with Romney/MA is on the STATE level.
That IS the argument Conservatives are making!

Same with marriage laws.
it is legal for STATES to vote on this
but NOT FOR FEDERAL GOVT TO MANDATE.

that IS THE WHOLE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
It is STATE jursidiction NOT FEDERAL !!!!

So I reckon the states are NOT the laboratories of democracy then are they. "Conservatives" hatched this approach at the Heritage Foundation in response to Hilary's attempt to muck about with healthcare love, c'mon now, it's just objective reality, it won't bite.

 

[emilynghiem]

In France a medical opération of a cost of $ 4,000 is fully refunded but you Americans you must fully pay for an medicale operation?
And Obamacare is a cover for the poorest only?

Dear Dalia
France is about the size of Texas, only 1 of 50 states that would have to vote and decide on a policy
"for all 50 states if this is NATIONAL"

For population, France is like adding CA and TX together, those are two of the top populations.
But with political diversity, CA is the polar OPPOSITE of TX.

We'd be better having CA make its own health care policy for its citizens.
And TX do the same.

And FL, and NY.

Then if more than one state can AGREE, why can't their citizens pool costs
and resources together. But give other states the FREE CHOICE whether to participate or not.

This could be done by organizing Nationally and Statewide by PARTY.
The liberal parties want universal care managed on a global collective level such as national or federal.
The conservatives parties want localized control to stay with taxpayers per state.

so both can get what they want if we organize by PARTY so the people'
who SHARE the same philosophy can pool their resources together under a collective plan
for their members (and leave other members of other parties to organize their OWN PLANS too!).