CDZ Obamacare: health insurance or catastrophic insurance at a higher cost?

[iamwhatiseem]

Very simple question.

What is Obamacare?
Is it mandated health insurance, or is it mandated catastrophic insurance at health insurance prices?

What is health insurance?
By definition...
...a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

Does Obamacare do this? That is, in a realistic sense perform this?
How much health cost does an individual have to achieve in order for Obamacare to kick in?
In my state, a family of 4 cost roughly $14,000 a year, with a $5000 deductible. (Bronze)
So an employed, middle class wage person would have to pay out $19,000 in healthcare before Obamacare pays one red cent.
Is that honestly healthcare insurance?
Or is it really catastrophic care insurance - at an extraordinary high cost?
Not only that, but after the $19,000 in paid out cost - the plan is only 70/30 copay!!

So why do supporters celebrate Obamacare?

Subsidies? You don't really pay because of subsidies?
Well...true if you are unemployed, or have a crappy job.
But what about the majority of Americans who have good jobs? Who don't get subsidies.
Is Obamacare really a means in which to make middle class people pick up the tab for the poor? At what point does it make sense NOT to get a good job?

Is Obamacare really health insurance??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

 

[Josf]

"What is Obamacare?"

Obama care is inculpatory evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a crime is in progress. The word "Obomacare" is inculpatory evidence as the word is designed to disarm the victims into a false confidence in one individual's feelings. This is very much a part of what is known as the cult of personality.

In a federation that is based upon rule of law the criminals are not free to perpetrate this type of false advertising (fraud) as they cover up this type of crime.

Example:_________________________________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_______________________________________________________________________

Source:
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

If Obama were to care about people then Obama would turn his coat from crimson criminal red back to liberty blue, as exemplified by John Kennedy, and then Obama would have to start dogging all the lone gunmen just like Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and even the lone gunman had to dodge the other lone gunmen, all down the line until there is no more interest in finding the truth.

So what is the idea here, find the falsehood, name that falsehood, pick and choose which lies are worth arguing over, and then base your arguments on the idea that crime is perfectly acceptable in the absence of any rule of law whatsoever?

If criminals employ fraud (lies) as a means of gaining power, and their power is a claim that they are government, then how in the world can anyone agree with such lies with a straight face?

 

[auditor0007]

Very simple question.

What is Obamacare?
Is it mandated health insurance, or is it mandated catastrophic insurance at health insurance prices?

What is health insurance?
By definition...
...a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

Does Obamacare do this? That is, in a realistic sense perform this?
How much health cost does an individual have to achieve in order for Obamacare to kick in?
In my state, a family of 4 cost roughly $14,000 a year, with a $5000 deductible. (Bronze)
So an employed, middle class wage person would have to pay out $19,000 in healthcare before Obamacare pays one red cent.
Is that honestly healthcare insurance?
Or is it really catastrophic care insurance - at an extraordinary high cost?
Not only that, but after the $19,000 in paid out cost - the plan is only 70/30 copay!!

So why do supporters celebrate Obamacare?

Subsidies? You don't really pay because of subsidies?
Well...true if you are unemployed, or have a crappy job.
But what about the majority of Americans who have good jobs? Who don't get subsidies.
Is Obamacare really a means in which to make middle class people pick up the tab for the poor? At what point does it make sense NOT to get a good job?

Is Obamacare really health insurance??

It is a mix, and it depends on what plan you choose. First of all, you are wrong about the family deductible. If one person has met their individual deductible because of a major illness, the plan pays 100% as soon as the individual deductible has been met. Secondly, most preventative care is paid in full without any deductible being applied. As with any insurance, it is important to understand your situation to determine which policy will work best for you. I have a high deductible plan, and I am considered high risk, yet my yearly out of pocket costs are only between $1500 to $2500. I have an HSA to pay for those bills along with my vision and dental for myself and my kids. I get almost the entire benefit from the HSA tax write-off. I am also covered in the event that something bad and expensive happens. In the end, I pay around $6500 per year for all of my insurance and medical care including vision and dental. That is just for me. My oldest son now has his own coverage and my youngest costs me about $2000 more per year.

The problem many people have is that they just don't seem to understand just how expensive healthcare actually is, nor do they understand what it is that is driving costs through the roof, so they blame Obama. Here is the very basic math, and it should frighten you. We are now spending over $9100 per year per person in the US, for healthcare. That is $9100 for each of the approximately 80 years that we are alive. That means we are paying that for our kids until they can pay their own way, or we pay less when we are young and more as we age. The bottom line is that it costs an individual close to $750,000 over their lifetime for healthcare. Now think about this. With the average income being around $50,000 per household (not individual but household), that means the average husband and wife will earn approximately $2,250,000. They will pay $1,500,000 of that for healthcare. This is where the employer comes in because in most case their employer is covering the bulk of their health insurance costs, which is the bulk of their healthcare costs. The other thing to remember is that Medicare taxes cover some of that cost also, which is shared by the employee and employer over their working lifetime. But even with all that in mind, those numbers are mind boggling, yet so many people think they should get health insurance with a $500 deductible for $150 per month. Those numbers just don't add up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Obama care is inculpatory evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a crime is in progress" is the insane statement of the day.

 

[Greenbeard]

What is Obamacare?
Is it mandated health insurance, or is it mandated catastrophic insurance at health insurance prices?

What distinction are you trying to draw? These are marketplaces--they sell everything from relatively bare bones 60% actuarial value plans (i.e., bronze, which would be considered catastrophic yes) all the way up to Cadillac-esque 90% actuarial value plans (platinum). Obviously the latter cost more than the former.

But you don't have to pay an entire year's worth of premiums before you can start accessing covered benefits, I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

[Fishlore]

15 million Americans have gained insurance and the biggest obstacle against more is the refusal of state governments to allow coverage for poor people through Medicaid expansion. In 2013 there were scare stories about “rate shock”; but premiums came in below even the government's predictions. In 2014 the propagandists warned that huge premium increases were ahead for 2015; the actual rise was just 2 percent. Misinformation about the economics of ACA has been as fanciful as the charge that "death panels" would be convened to decide which senior citizens to kill off. Remember that one?

Republican opposition to ACA is ideological, not pragmatic. In the absence of facts to cite against the program, "facts" are just made up by propagandists. When those statements are debunked, ACA opponents simply move on to a new set of false charges. The real reason the GOP hates ACA is the same old reason which has caused the party to oppose socialized medicine since 1948. Republicans hate socialism. Social Security has been around since 1936, the most popular government program in American history, G. W. Bush was still trying to destroy the program in 2004.

The modest and very limited socialism in the USA isn't some sinister plan dreamed up by Joseph Stalin, it is part of the world-wide effort of advanced democracies to adjust to the drastically altered economic conditions which occurred in the 20th century. Those who claim to want to return America to the kind of government we had before electricity and automobiles don't seem to grasp that we can no more go back to the older forms of democracy than we can go back to gaslight and buggies. Most of them mean well or are at least sincere, but they just don't get it.

 

[warf]

But what about the majority of Americans who have good jobs? Who don't get subsidies.

If you have a job that does not provide health coverage you don't have a good job.

If you live in a state with a Republican governor and legislature don't blame Obama for the failings of your electorate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But what about the majority of Americans who have good jobs? Who don't get subsidies.

If you have a job that does not provide health coverage you don't have a good job.

If you live in a state with a Republican governor and legislature don't blame Obama for the failings of your electorate.

Blame the state government. Kasich fixed it for Ohio, and Herbert is trying to do so in Utah.

 

[Josf]

"The real reason the GOP hates ACA is the same old reason which has caused the party to oppose socialized medicine since 1948. Republicans hate socialism."

That is a useful example of cover-up. If those words are offered earnestly, honestly, honorably, truthfully, then the one who offers those words could, conceivably, explain more precisely what he, or she, intends to offer with those word choices.

The cover-up is based upon the idea that things are people, and therefore the cover-up is based upon the idea that things are responsible, and the cover-up is based upon the idea that things are accountable. The reason for the cover-up working this way is the reasoning that actual people are no longer held responsible, and actual people are no longer held accountable.

Step by grueling step, the cover-up can be uncovered in the words quoted above, offered by someone for some reason. I cannot claim to know the reason why someone parrots these words. I see no reason for me to claim to know why someone parrots these words, not unless someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that they are dishonest, then, if someone proves that they are dishonest, then the reason for parroting this type of cover-up story line is self evident: they are actively participating in the cover-up, and perhaps they have a vested interest in receiving some form of reward for helping cover-up the crimes done by the people who need their crimes covered up.

"...real reason the GOP hates...

If someone confesses that they, as an individual, are part of this GOP, and therefore they, as an individual, speak as a representative of the GOP, and then they claim that they, as a collective group of like minded people called the GOP, all, unanimously, HATE something, then that would constitute evidence proving the claim that the GOP hates something.

If no one in a group called the GOP claims to hate something, then the words offered in quotes are baseless claims, or false claims, or false accusations of a possible "hate crime" perpetrated by someone who claims to represent the GOP.

If no one fesses up to being guilty of this alleged hate crime, or if no individual is singled out as someone guilty of this hate crime, then this hate crime accusation, in writing, on a public access forum, is non-sense, unreasonable, pure fabrication of imagination, and having no purpose in reality, it is a part of falsehood, for lack of any substance whatsoever.

"...caused the party to oppose socialized medicine since 1948."

Again there is a reference to a group, as if a group had one mind, a single minded being, a thing with ideas, a thing with a capacity to oppose, a thing therefore capable of actions in time and place, however there is no way in which someone, an actual human being, is held to account for this claim of opposition. Furthermore, in those word choices, there are words that construct another thing, and this other thing is called "socialized medicine" which is, or is not, another party, whereby one party is opposed to another party, or one party is opposed to "socialized medicine" and this opposition has been going on, between these things, since 1948.

What happened in 1948? When did "socialized medicine" become a thing that inspires a party (a thing) to oppose "socialized medicine"?

If someone were to explain exactly what socialized medicine was, or was not, then someone might be able to accurately account for their individual connection to it, and someone can therefore understand precisely what it does to each individual precisely as it does whatever it does to each individual in time and place. What did socialized medicine do to you, or for you, precisely? What is it? Who, precisely, deserves credit for doing something good? Who, precisely, deserves credit for doing something wrong to you? Does it deserve credit? Does it inspire hatred?

If "socialized medicine" were a voluntary association involving the charitable gifts of individuals who are inspired to help less fortunate people receive effective, competitive, higher quality, and lower cost medical treatment in time and place, then who is singled out as the one individual, in time and place, who opposes such charity from such people offered willingly to such other people in desperate need of higher quality and lower cost medical care?

Name one individual as the one individual who is in opposition to generous giving of higher quality and lower cost medical care being voluntarily given to people in need of such care?

How does that individual who is opposing such voluntary generosity going to impose themselves in between the gift giver and the gift receiver in time and place?

I can offer my understanding of the situation from the experiences of at least one emergency room charge nurse. Individuals can be named by name in a serious charge of having perpetrated the crime of intervening as individuals oppose generous gift giving of higher quality and lower cost medical care between those who want to give such care and those who need such care in time and place.

There is plenty of information, a world of documentation, showing precisely who does what, where, and how, as these individuals oppose the free, voluntary, gifting of higher quality, and lower cost, medical care, from those able to give it, to those in need of it.

"Republicans hate socialism."

Most people I speak to who claim to be Republicans are people who fail to know the true meaning of socialism as socialism began to form as an idea. What most Republicans I speak to say about socialism - they say as individuals - and they often confess to me that they - as individuals - are speaking about Bolshevism. They confuse socialism with Bolshevism. Most Republicans are fed a false story about the rise of Stalin and the Bolsheviks as that group of criminals became known - infamously - as "The Communists" whose goal is said to be the complete take-over of the world under Communist Dictatorship.

Most Republicans I speak to are unable to see past that falsehood where a false connection is made between Stalinist Bolshevism and the term socialism. The actual leaders of Stalinist Bolshevism rejected socialism in fact. That is clearly documented as a fact, so most Republicans are led by that lie that Stalinist Bolshevism and Socialism are one and the same thing.

If most Republicans actually knew that it was American criminals running the American fraudulent Central Bank, who used American "tax dollars" (extortion payments) to finance the rise to power of the Stalinist Bolsheviks, then most Republicans would be able to actually hold the actual perpetrators of that crime to an actual accurate accounting, instead of blaming "Socialism" (a thing) for those crimes set in motion by those individuals who used stolen wealth (extortion payments called IRS "tax liabilities") to maintain a fraudulent central banking scam, to divide and conquer anyone stupid enough to buy into their fraudulent money pyramid scheme.

If most Republicans actually knew the original meaning of socialism, then most Republicans would have to rethink what they have been force fed by criminal frauds as so called information.

What exactly does one member of the Republican Party hate? What exactly does one member of the Republican Party claim as this thing called socialism?

I happen to have registered as a Republican so as to vote Ron Paul onto the Presidential election during the California Primary. I can therefore speak if someone asks for my individual appraisal of what socialism is, in fact.

Here is a start:
ANARCHISM.net The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews

Quote:_______________________________________
What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all.
_____________________________________________

If the idea is to find someone to hate, then one might start in the mirror. If someone is seeking something to hate, then it might be a good idea to understand precisely which thing is hated before someone accuses someone else of hatred.

"... the world-wide effort of advanced democracies..."

What is a democracy? Most people today claim that democracy is rule by the (criminal, immoral, despotic) majority, and furthermore that (criminal, immoral, despotic, and tyrannical) majority must be obeyed without question no matter how immoral that (criminal, immoral, despotic, and tyrannical) majority are in demonstrable fact proven by their criminal orders. Who, and why, did someone change the meaning of democracy?

Here is a start:
The Athenian

Quote:________________________________________
In the Athenian state, as in any other, we can distinguish legislative, judicial, and executive functions. The Athenian legislative branch consisted of two bodies, a Council of 500 and an Assembly of 6000. At first glance, this system resembles the American bicameral legislature, with a small, select upper house and a larger, more popular lower house. But this appearance is deceptive.

To begin with, neither the Council nor the Assembly consisted of elected representatives. The members of the Council were selected not by election but by sortition — i.e., by lot. In other words, the 500 Councillors were selected randomly from the (male) citizen population. (And no Councillor could serve more than two terms.)
The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority.

The Council's duties were modest. It exercised some judicial and executive functions, but its main job was to prepare business for the Assembly (which met less often). The Council was convened by its President — a post that rotated among the membership. And I do mean rotated: "every fourth adult male Athenian citizen could say, 'I have been for twenty-four hours President of Athens' — but no Athenian citizen could ever boast of having been so for more than twenty-four hours." (Hansen (1991), p. 314.)
________________________________________________________________

Democracy is the exact opposite of criminal majority rule, and socialism is the exact opposite of criminal communism financed through fraud and extortion as exemplified by the Stalinist Bolshevism example.

"Those who claim to want to return America to the kind of government we had before electricity and automobiles don't seem to grasp that we can no more go back to the older forms of democracy than we can go back to gaslight and buggies."

The American version of a Federation ended in 1787 when the criminal false "Federalist" party took over during their fraudulent campaign to "legalize" central banking fraud in the North and South, and at the same time these criminals "legalized" the African Slave Trade despite good people having already written clearly why such crime was unlawful right in the Declaration of Independence.

A true Federation (not a false one) is a free market government supermarket and in spirit that still works today albeit much less powerful because the criminals have effectively taken over government since 1787.

A start:
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

Quote:____________________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_______________________________________________________

Those who refuse to learn from the past, it has been proven often enough, are condemned to repeat it. Giving the criminals who take over government the extortion payments they demand ensure the demise of everyone under their power: the rise and fall of Empires, also knowable as The Business Cycle.

 

[Fishlore]

Obamacare is a futile attempt to make an honest woman out of a whore. America spends nearly double what other countries do per capita on medical care yet we don't finish in even the top ten in international comparisons.

The fundamental reason for our high cost, low quality Obamacare is that the ACA attempts to provide universal coverage through government subsidies to for-profit insurance companies. Those companies are, not surprisingly, the folks who wrote the law.

You don't need to be a macroeconomics expert to figure out that government subsidy of a for profit middleman is not the way to control costs. In a country as vast and heterogenous, with the tremendous spread of wealth distribution as the USA, the only model which works is "Medicare For All" single-payer.

Most Americans have already figured this out. Polls show a consistent 2-to-1 preference for single payer. There is no doubt that eventually the USA will follow the Canadian model, the only question is: how many billions will for-profit insurance corporations and Big Pharma manage to suck out of the American taxpayer before we wise up?

 

[Greenbeard]

The fundamental reason for our high cost, low quality Obamacare is that the ACA attempts to provide universal coverage through government subsidies to for-profit insurance companies. Those companies are, not surprisingly, the folks who wrote the law.

You don't need to be a macroeconomics expert to figure out that government subsidy of a for profit middleman is not the way to control costs. In a country as vast and heterogenous, with the tremendous spread of wealth distribution as the USA, the only model which works is "Medicare For All" single-payer.

I don't find this line of thought overly convincing. For instance, I'm in a self-insured employer plan (offered by a not-for-profit entity); with all the administrative insurance functions, including offering the insurer's negotiated rates and provider network, provided by a not-for-profit insurer; with access to the dominant provider entity in the region, to which I would likely go if I needed services, which also happens to be a not-for-profit organization. Yet that not-for-profit provider entity has some of the highest prices in the country and that not-for-profit insurer that contracts with it has some of the higher premiums in the country.

Nobody in that chain is profiting, in the sense of answering to investors or Wall Street. Yet somehow the highest costs, prices, and premiums in the country (and thus likely the world) have mysteriously entered the equation. Not-for-profits pursue margins as aggressively as anyone else, but it seems a bit simplistic to say the problem is profit.

More importantly, the very insurance companies you're talking about profit substantially from both Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S.'s existing examples of "single-payer." Single-payer advocates have some hard questions to answer about what exactly they're trying to fight, what exactly they're looking to achieve, and how exactly they imagine that will happen.

 

[Josf]

Voluntary associations work as competitive free markets where the best at doing what anyone wants done are rewarded with higher demand and therefore they are in the position to raise prices above any other competition for any reason they alone determine.

Involuntary associations work as competitive un-free markets where the best at deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence enslave everyone, including themselves, because the goose that lays the gold eggs (voluntary association and free market competition forcing the quality of life higher and the cost of life lower) is tortured first and then murdered as the worst of the worst consume posterity.

If that is not true then someone can demonstrate why that is not true.

 

[Fishlore]

I don't think we disagree about non-profits. Few indeed deserve the holier than thou image that the term "non-profit" implies. Because non-profits participate in the same economy as for-profits, they have the same incentive, whether the money saved by shaving health insurance is called "profit" or "retained earnings" by the IRS. The heart of the problem is that the health of the nation is the responsibility of the government and must be regulated responsibly because so much of its product is price inelastic.

We pay twice as much as other countries but rank 18th in outcomes. I agree with you that for-profit versus non-profit has nothing to do with that disgraceful fact.

 

[pauls]

If the federal government imposed a law that required everyone to buy a new electric car to defeat the rising pollution and health risks there of it would mirror the act and reasoning behind Obama care. The new car would be mandated to hold a family, travel at least 300 miles on a single charge at a cost of $120000. If you failed to buy the new car you would pay a "carbon tax of $1000 the first year and the tax would increase every year. If you had an income below some threashhold you would get a tax rebate to assist in the payments for the car. It would not matter whether you were old or young, male or female single or had 27 children; everyone would have to buy the car.

Is that a lawful act? (is it constitutional?) The answer is a resounding NO! Just as the Obamacare is not constitutional as a whole. Those who have been challenging Obamacare have carefully been selecting line items to challenge rather than the entire concept because the package provides more control over the populace and provides a vehicle to transfer poverty to more people. Democrats and republican have the same end goal; to enslave the American people.

Note: the constitution limits the power of the federal government - that is what it was designed to do. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to force the people to purchase anything - no matter how "good" it is for them.

It is an unlawful act and at least one state in nullifying it.

 

[Josf]

"Note: the constitution limits the power of the federal government - that is what it was designed to do."

If that were true then the warnings offered by Richard Henry Lee (6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled), George Mason (founder of the Bill of Rights), Patrick Henry (give me Liberty or give me death), Robert Yates, Luther Martin, John Lansing, and those claimed to be Anti-Federalists (which they were demonstrably not "anti" federalist) could not be true.

Their warnings were demonstrated as true in fact.

"Nowhere in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to force the people to purchase anything - no matter how "good" it is for them."

A direct tax payment between tax payers and claimed "authorities" of the counterfeited federal government is demonstrably a purchase for those investing in that form of "protection" from those racketeers running that involuntary association. Those who prefer not to pay the extortion payments (investments for some) are left with few viable options; that was very well explained by George Mason and many others.

"It is an unlawful act and at least one state in nullifying it."

Since early examples offered in examples such as the so called Shays's and Whiskey Rebellions, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and the so called Civil War (which was predicted by those warning against the "consolidation" in 1787), people were working at so called nullification; however the Judiciary Act of 1789 had already sown the seeds to reduce common law trial by jury nullification effectively which was known, once, as the palladium of liberty, or in more specific terms:

RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

Currently there are at least two states where people have focused in on the root cause of the criminal take-over of the former federation as those people in those States are returning to a freer market banking system.

 

[pauls]

The Enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the constitution:

Quote:_____________________________________________________
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
—Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
_____________________________________________________________End Quote

And the Supreme court ruling:

Quote:_________________________________________________________________
a statement on the enumerated powers by Chief Justice Marshall in the case McCulloch v. Maryland:[5]

"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."
_____________________________________________________________End Quote


Any law that steps beyond those boundaries is by definition an unlawful act. Such an unconstitutional act can and should be resisted in every way possible.

 

[Josf]

"Any law that steps beyond those boundaries..."

There are no boundaries for those who designed those words. If you think there are boundaries because you read boundaries into those words, then that is your personal subjective opinion. One of the chief reasons for opposition to those non-boundaries was the ability to construct meaning out of ambiguous language.

The original unifying constitution was less ambiguous as a voluntary mutual defense association was formed out of necessity during the aggressive war for profit (a crime against humanity) was perpetrated by the criminal British known as the Red Coats. Despite the so called boundaries written into the original constitution (Articles of Confederation) the criminals in America took over as they consolidated the many competitive voluntary, federated, states into one Nation State fashioned after the same criminal British monarchy. You appear to be left in the dark on this one; you are certainly not alone.

"Such an unconstitutional act can and should be resisted in every way possible."

Immoral acts, like the Judiciary Acts, Naturalization Acts, Alien and Sedition Acts, First Bank of the United States Act, and the Whiskey Proclamation were all criminal acts perpetrated by the criminals who crushed out American freedom while many people were still working effectively to preserve Liberty in America despite the fact that the criminals took over a working federation: replacing the working federation with a counterfeit version which was National, consolidated, all powerful (according to the new dictators), and involuntary.

The slave traders and central bankers joined forces, ensuring a Civil War, and they held secret meeting in Philadelphia, issued gag orders, and stole the government, legalizing slavery "Nation Wide" and set about constructing a (communist) Central Banking fraud.

You think that constitutes boundaries?

Had the criminals not taken over the federation could have (increased probability) remained federal.

Example:_________________________________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
_______________________________________________________________________

Source:
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

Note the formation of the counterfeit (kangaroo) court system (Judiciary Act) before the (false) promised amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The criminals knew precisely what they were doing while they did it, and that included removing common law trial by jury as far as their crimes were concerned, as they insulated themselves against any statutes (not laws) they themselves enforced.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

But what about the majority of Americans who have good jobs? Who don't get subsidies.

If you have a job that does not provide health coverage you don't have a good job.

If you live in a state with a Republican governor and legislature don't blame Obama for the failings of your electorate.

I live in Texas and I've never had a job that didnt provide healthcare.
In fact the majority of them paid for it completely.