Yet another question for supporters of the mandate.....

[dblack]

...The question I'm asking here is why is it OK for government to force people sign up and tithe to state-approved insurance companies, but not ok for them to force us to join the religions that most people think are good for us? I don't see much difference in principle...

I don't know if you really sincerely asking a question as much as trying to make a statement. Calling it a tithe isn't accurate. A tithe is something that people give by choice to a religious organization. I see that you are trying to use logic to show that Obamacare isn't right but I don't think religion is a good example. The constitution specifically says that government cannot sponsor a religion.

But they can sponsor a business? Does that seem right to you?

The government does have the right to levy taxes.

What about corporations? Do they have the right to levy taxes?

 

[dblack]

the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ... as for the other thing of about the mandate ...

1. do we agree that the federal govt IS requiring that citizens BUY INSURANCE.
And that is contested as outside the limits of federal government, whether this is imposed as a tax or whatever the structure is.

Before the ACA, do you agree that citizens had LIBERTY to buy or not buy insurance, and not face any penalty, tax or fine by federal govt?

But now, there is a fine or tax penalty if we don't buy insurance NOW, not when we want it or need it, but even in advance of needing it.

And we must report this on our taxes or we get fined for it.

How is that NOT government forcing people either to BUY INSURANCE (which previously was a FREE CHOICE WITHOUT Penalty for choosing to pay for costs other ways)
or pay a fine/tax TO GOVERNMENT (ie not a choice to pay money to medical schools or charities helping to serve the poor, but only paying for either INSURANCE or paying the FEDERAL GOVT as the ONLY TWO CHOICES)

finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

NO the choice is NOT open to pay for "health care"
the choices are ONLY BUY "INSURANCE" or "PAY GOVT"

If other choices of "health care" were allowed without fines
WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS!!!

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THE WHOLE CONFLICT BEING OPPOSED.

ACA does *NOT* just require people to "buy health care" and "leave it open to free choice"

it DICTATES those choices and restricts them to just INSURANCE or FEDERAL GOVT

Anything else people want to use to pay for health care is FINED by PENALTY.

So Billy this is what we mean by comparing it with religions that force only "one way"
and don't allow freedom of choice. What is the difference between forcing the belief that INSURANCE is the "only way to pay for health care," or else you pay a fine to government.

If political parties did this with a religious belief, like saying Christian healing prayer works BETTER than AA so everyone has to use THAT or you get fined, they would scream.

Do you understand there are OTHER CHOICES that are NOT a crime
besides either paying for insurance or "pushing costs onto the public."

those are NOT the only two choices, yet any other choices is FINED by federal government.

how is that fair?

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

Emily, read this:

The fines, the individual mandate, the forcing of everyone to sign up, however you want to look at it was one of the republican ideas, lobbied for by insurance companies.

The sickening irony of this statement, apart from the fact that it's true, is that if the tables were turned - if the Republicans had passed ACA instead - Democrats would be bitterly fighting the individual mandate, far moreso than Republicans are now. They'd be howling non-stop about the corruption and collusion between Congress and the insurance lobby. But since they orchestrated the sellout, it's all good. Their hypocrisy is truly disgusting.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Grandma: Even if your argument was sound that Republicans are hypocrites,
that hardly justifies depriving all other citizens like me of rights to consent to a business contract, especially since I am not a Republican. Why are you punishing me for this?

RE: How does your gripe with Republicans allow you to violate my civil rights to agree to a business contract before I am compelled by law to "buy something or be fined"?


A. your Republican argument does not justify violating consent of all taxpayers, especially those who are not Republican or who are neither R or D and object to BOTH on Constitutional grounds

B. your leap in logic that health care requires mandating insurance but penalizes other choices

the government doesn't tell you what insurance companies you must buy from ... they give you a list of all the insurance companies out their and all the plans these insurance companies have to offer ... as for the other thing of about the mandate ...

1. do we agree that the federal govt IS requiring that citizens BUY INSURANCE.
And that is contested as outside the limits of federal government, whether this is imposed as a tax or whatever the structure is.

Before the ACA, do you agree that citizens had LIBERTY to buy or not buy insurance, and not face any penalty, tax or fine by federal govt?

But now, there is a fine or tax penalty if we don't buy insurance NOW, not when we want it or need it, but even in advance of needing it.

And we must report this on our taxes or we get fined for it.

How is that NOT government forcing people either to BUY INSURANCE (which previously was a FREE CHOICE WITHOUT Penalty for choosing to pay for costs other ways)
or pay a fine/tax TO GOVERNMENT (ie not a choice to pay money to medical schools or charities helping to serve the poor, but only paying for either INSURANCE or paying the FEDERAL GOVT as the ONLY TWO CHOICES)

finally you aren't paying the government anything...you are paying a private insurance company to have health care ... where ever you get this notion you are forced to do anything is beyond me ... if you don't want to buy a private plan then don't.. but deal with being taxed for it its that simple you have a choice buy health care or get taxed

NO the choice is NOT open to pay for "health care"
the choices are ONLY BUY "INSURANCE" or "PAY GOVT"

If other choices of "health care" were allowed without fines
WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS!!!

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THE WHOLE CONFLICT BEING OPPOSED.

ACA does *NOT* just require people to "buy health care" and "leave it open to free choice"

it DICTATES those choices and restricts them to just INSURANCE or FEDERAL GOVT

Anything else people want to use to pay for health care is FINED by PENALTY.

So Billy this is what we mean by comparing it with religions that force only "one way"
and don't allow freedom of choice. What is the difference between forcing the belief that INSURANCE is the "only way to pay for health care," or else you pay a fine to government.

If political parties did this with a religious belief, like saying Christian healing prayer works BETTER than AA so everyone has to use THAT or you get fined, they would scream.

Do you understand there are OTHER CHOICES that are NOT a crime
besides either paying for insurance or "pushing costs onto the public."

those are NOT the only two choices, yet any other choices is FINED by federal government.

how is that fair?

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

Emily, read this:

The fines, the individual mandate, the forcing of everyone to sign up, however you want to look at it was one of the republican ideas, lobbied for by insurance companies.

Why?

Because not everyone needs a lot of medical care. Younger people tend to require less expensive medical attention than the cost of their insurance. Older people tend to require more expensive treatments than the cost of their insurance. See, if insurance companies only insure the frail and chronically ill, they'll go bankrupt. Having generally healthy people in the program keeps it solvent.

A good idea, it'll keep the program going until we advance to single payer.

A. About your Republican argument:

1. so if Republicans who sell out to the insurance lobbies fail (because the other Republicans or Democrats stop them) but if the Democrats sell out to the insurance companies, then it's okay to blame the Republicans for this?

That makes no sense. Whoever passed it and supports it should be under it!
G if you agree to this contract signed with insurance interests, that's your agreement with them.

2. that's fine if YOU believe it is good enough, then YOU pay for it.

There are lots of ideas out there for covering health care.

Why just take this one and impose it on all people?

Why are you okay meeting the interests of INSURANCE companies, where people won't change the contract against THEIR interests,
but people won't change the contract for the CITIZENS whose names were signed to it who have EQUAL right to consent or dissent?

How is it okay to blame "some Republicans" if OTHERS were opposed to it?
So you are going to collectively punish ALL Republicans and ALL citizens because SOME Republicans originally supported this idea?

3. extreme analogy:
People say that slavery was not the fault of white people because blacks already enslaved each other before they were sold to white slavers.
The blacks did it first to themselves.

Is it okay to kidnap someone because someone else already did it and handed them over to you?
Is it okay to rape someone because someone else already raped them first?

Where are you getting this justification?

If people the taxpayers are saying NO THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT REPRESENT US,
then it doesn't matter who pushed what in the past. Half the nation DOES NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF THE BUSINESS CONTRACT MADE WITH BIG INSURANCE LOBBIES.
If "some Republicans" support this idea, maybe that is why they were stopped in the past, because it is unconstitutional to expand on the reach of federal govt without consent of the States and people.

If you agree to this change, that is your belief, but not all people agree who EQUALLY COUNT as US Citizens under the same laws;
if we all changed the laws and imposed federal mandates anytime "some people agreed" we'd be in big trouble.
that is why government and laws are supposed to be based on consent so they don't get abused like this!
We need to go back to respecting each other's consent equally, or we don't have equal justice or laws at all!

Note:
(a) If Republicans set it up on a state level, that is approved by that state.
It doesn't give federal authority to impose a system for all states without individual states
voting on it as Massachusetts did.

(b) Even if you consider Republicans to be hypocrites, and they pushed different forms of this concept on different levels such as voting on in a state (not the same as federal),

HOW does that justify imposing a contested policy on taxpayers?

We are not bound by whether Republicans are hypocrites or not.

We are bound by the Constitution, and this expansion and creation of new powers of government normally requires a Constitutional amendment to be voted on BEFORE such legislation is introduced.

Now that's FINE if people consent to business contracts with ANYONE.
ANYONE can contract with the SAME insurance lobbies to set up exchanges or discounts for their own organization or network, such as through party if Democrats want this program.

But implementing and mandating through "federal govt" for "ALL PEOPLE" requires
certain procedures.

Maybe that is why nobody passed it through the federal level before because of the process it would take to ENSURE representation. It takes a LOT of checks and balances, that were bypassed.

Obama and the insurance interests who agreed to this contract excluded half the nation; the half of Congress that voted no was predominantly conservative, based on Constitutional grounds that prevented things from going through before which are overreaching as this is.

If you and supporters of ACA believe in it, there is nothing wrong with setting up your own contractual agreement for rate discounts directly with big insurance companies.

But if you are going to require this for ALL TAXPAYERS then ALL CITIZENS have equal right and input into that contract before we sign our names to it.

You can think it is fair based on your "Republican" argument,
but how does that apply to me? I am not a "Republican" and I never agreed to this.

So why are you allowed to punish me as a taxpaying citizen
when I wasn't part of this "Republican" argument of yours?

How does your gripe with Republicans allow you to violate my civil rights to agree to a business contract before I am compelled by law to "buy something or be fined"?

B.

RE: Because not everyone needs a lot of medical care. Younger people tend to require less expensive medical attention than the cost of their insurance. Older people tend to require more expensive treatments than the cost of their insurance. See, if insurance companies only insure the frail and chronically ill, they'll go bankrupt. Having generally healthy people in the program keeps it solvent.

A good idea, it'll keep the program going until we advance to single payer.

I believe there are better ways of reducing costs of health care where it doesn't depend on insurance or insurance mandates. That is not the only problem and only solution. Yet it is the only choice "exempted" from fines and the rest are penalized.

Why aren't all the other choices equally an option to invest in? Why is insurance the only way, and all other forms of investing in sustainable health care are PENALIZED.

Examples: what is wrong with providing health care to more people by
* investing in medical schools and public health outreach directly
there are school programs where doctors get their education paid for by serving in public health in exchange, so it keeps the costs down and reaches people in communities

buying insurance does not invest in training or building service programs or facilities,
(unless the hospital system buys out insurance companies, which is happening more)

* having free choice of which nonprofits or medical schools and research to donate to,
or set up sustainable endowments where the investments in business pay for care on a renewable basis

* investing in medical research and FREE help with spiritual healing that has been shown to reduce costs of crime, disease and consequences of both.

buying insurance doesn't cure people of disease

these other methods have actually cured the root cause, and sometimes eliminate the need for expensive or invasive procedures.

All these other systems work by free market and voluntary participation.

If you believe in insurance religiously, that is your choice; but likewise if other people don't believe it should be the only option not penalized, we still have equal rights to believe in other solutions, especially those which respect free will.

Grandma, the programs I believe in which work the best by years of practice and experience, all work by free will. Many of these programs cannot work with govt regulations that "require" conditions, but must remain independent in order to treat and cure people by their own volition.

The solutions I have found demonstrate that the spiritual element of human nature which is essential to healing CANNOT BE regulated or mandated by government anyway.

Government programs should remain a free option for people to choose equally as other business, church or charities.

Only if someone commits a CRIME do they have to answer to government on a mandatory basis.

But here, wanting to keep the same free choice of health care we had before and have always had is NOT a crime. There is no reason to penalize free choice, especially without due process.

Insurance should remain a free choice, the same way I wouldn't recommend mandating "spiritual healing" to cut costs of crime and treatment for other diseases, EXCEPT in case where someone has already committed a crime or has been medically proven to be criminally ill where such diagnosis and treatement is required for public safety.

But even in those cases, the therapy must be freely chosen.
the most the state could do is require detention for life, or until the person is healed of their dangerous sickness as proven by medical tests, but cannot make someone go through the steps of spiritual healing because that is not how it works.

Health care will always require personal decisions and different standards,
so people should remain free to consent to their own contracts.

If federal govt can be used to set up a centralized system, it should be by consent of the people affected by it. Right now we do not have consent, so it is wrong to mandate this.

Thanks for your msg and response, Grandma.
I believe all your concerns can still be addressed by setting up free choice systems without contested mandates.
That would be more Constitutional and "equally inclusive" of all views and approaches to health care.
The people who believe in insurance mandates can work out contracts and exchanges under those terms.
People who believe in charitable hospitals, medical schools, and sustainable education and outreach can invest there.

I see NO REASON to penalize any choices. Only people who commit crimes can be subject to government terms of paying back their costs.
Anyone else who has costs should have freedom to work out or own terms of investing money into systems for paying.
As for helping other people, I still find the charitable programs to be the most effective in reaching the most people in need, where these cannot be forced by govt either.

 

[dblack]

Thanks, [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]. I lack the patience, and frankly the skill, to spell it out so well, but you've pretty much nailed my point of view on this and I really appreciate your post.

[MENTION=48087]bluesman[/MENTION] asked if I was sincerely asking a question or just making a statement. Hopefully I'm doing both. What I'm really hoping to do is wake up some of the people supporting ACA and get them to step back and look at the kind of government it creates. I'm pretty sure that most of them, if given the opportunity to see things outside the current political context, would see it as an abysmal development, and not something we should accept as the law of the land.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks, [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]. I lack the patience, and frankly the skill, to spell it out so well, but you've pretty much nailed my point of view on this and I really appreciate your post.

[MENTION=48087]bluesman[/MENTION] asked if I was sincerely asking a question or just making a statement. Hopefully I'm doing both. What I'm really hoping to do is wake up some of the people supporting ACA and get them to step back and look at the kind of government it creates. I'm pretty sure that most of them, if given the opportunity to see things outside the current political context, would see it as an abysmal development, and not something we should accept as the law of the land.

I think it is their general lack of faith or insight they could achieve the same goals any other way. I bring up the idea that they set up this system through the Democrat Party, since it has elected democratic structures from local to national, and all people who AGREE and BELIEVE in it can run it themselves. They seem to have no faith this can be done.

But that is where I believe this is heading. Jindal and other R are proposing free market solutions, so why not have those set up through their R networks? Why not have all people choose their programs to go through?

Mostly lack of faith and insight. They can't believe in it until they see it.
But we can't set it up to prove it works until enough people envision it to set it up.

they are only focused on using federal govt and resources to set this system up.
but at some point it should shift to just the people who agreed to it.

the sooner we organize people from all parties to reorganize and shift it in that direction, we can take this off the federal govt plate where it doesn't belong.

since liberals generally do not go through huge conservative christian networks to get things done like the republicans do, they use the federal govt this way. it is because they are divided from the right, and fear they will get trampled by the bigger bully so they cling to the federal govt to protect them.

we need to stop the bullying and support them in developing their own support systems instead of fighting them and making them afraid they can't do it on their own without federal govt.

i envision a system of microlending against debts the public is owed from corporate and criminal abuses of our tax money, and support solutions through education and business developments. we need to stop the fighting, separate the warring factions, and organize separate solutions we support each other on. instead of fighting like kids trying to get the parents on our side against the other. we need to FU grow up, and solve our own problems and quit harassing each other trying to make everything one way or another.

just a stage in our social development as a society, between being bratty spoiled teenagers who think we know it all, and independent adults with means and support to run separate households. people are in different stages of dependence or independence, and we need an education system that allows for different levels of representation since we're not all at the same level but have different needs and abilities. maybe the two parties can cover the different stage levels an dnot conflict with each other, like how middle school and high school is separate from college or grad school. people don't have the same access to experience and knowledge of govt or business laws, so we relate to govt differently.

we need to account for this difference or we will keep fighting like terrible two's and teens.
why can't we have separate tracks for all levels of social and political development?
a school system would allow for that, while offering training to move up the scale.
so we need tracks for citizenship and govt leadership instead of leaving it to bullies to rule.

thanks dblack keep asking sincerely and people will answer sincerely
it takes time to figure out where each of us is coming from
we're all working on that, thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

I AGREE that's a problem but don't agree with the insurance mandate as "the only solution' which makes it worse.
now because of the deadbeats which the GOVT failed to collect from,
you've passed a law that punishes ALL law abiding taxpayers collectively with losing our rights
because the govt failed to collect back from the moochers. why not have people using the public care
sign agreements to pay back costs or forfeit citizenship or labor to pay it back? why charge people who didn't do anything wrong?

The liberals are the ones blamed for why prison inmates aren't required to work to pay their costs.

That isn't fair to taxpayers either, much less to crime victims who don't get their education paid for!

Why do you respect the rights of criminals not to work to pay their costs (including hospital and health care bills)
but you expect to collect fines against the income of citizens who HAVEN'T committed any crimes and/or gone through due process to prove it?

Can you see that BOTH sides are upset and don't want to pay all this.
We just don't agree on the solutions, so why not each party or group set up their own solutions to fund?

If you don't believe that spiritual healing has really cured cases of cancer and schizophrenia that medicine alone couldn't help, you don't have to follow that. it is free anyway so you can't be made to pay for it.

And others who don't believe in insurance mandates can use free market investments to pay for health care, and set up charities or MICROLENDING to help those in need.

Grandma would you agree to replace welfare with microloans so the money is recycled?
What about investing in school and business development, to cover costs of services?

Would you agree to requiring those convicted of corporate fraud, govt waste or other crimes or abuses pay back their costs to the public so NOBODY is stuck with the bill?

It will take a lot more to cut the costs, and insurance does not address reducing or preventing the cost of crime and disease like these other programs do.

If you do not want to be forced to support those programs,
that is why people don't want to be forced to support yours either!

Can you see it's pretty equal, we just have different ideas for solutions.
Why not invest in all solutions and let everyone choose what they believe in supporting?
wouldn't that cover more bases, and respect equal beliefs and free will for everyone?

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

I have a question for you - why is it okay for some mooching deadbeats to skip out on medical bills, leaving the paying customers and taxpayers with your expenses?

Why is it okay for you to come into work sick and infect the whole workplace?

Why the fuck should I adhere to your magic sky fairy superstitions? They have nothing to do with healthcare. Didn't Jesus say, "Physician - heal thyself!"? I'm pretty sure that's what I read. I didn't see the godchild mandating what should be covered beyond having his disciples heal the sick at no charge. And occasionally bringing guys back from the dead. Cause god zombies are cool.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Bluesman: there is nothing to show that this couldn't also be achieved without mandating insurance. the people I know who support free market solutions also believe in including insurance, but as a free choice, not mandated by govt under penalty.

that is like saying I don't believe in choosing abortion, but I don't want govt to regulate that choice for me.
It is still better not to have an abortion but to prevent it, but I reserve the right to prevent this on my own.

But it is strongly opposed to have govt "impose laws or fines making that mandatory."
I don't believe a mandatory federal ban is necessary to make the right decision.

Do you see the difference in principle? THAT is what is being contested.

If we all agree murder is wrong, we don't argue with govt mandating that as law.
But where we disagree -- on something as NONCRIMINAL and subjective as "how to pay for health care"
-- who is to say what "choices of health care" govt should FINE or exempt?

People can buy insurance on their own, and as I pointed out to Grandma,
the whole Democrat Party can negotiate this ACA contract directly with insurers
and leave others out of it who don't wish to participate.

Since the Democrats passed this law and started this, maybe they should be required to take all financial responsibility for it. And if it doesn't meet what they promised to insurers or to consumers, the Democrat Party pays for the bailouts and the difference, not the American people who didn't agree to experiment at our expense,
but believe programs should be proved to work first BEFORE we invest in them.

Maybe those leaders should back the costs of this contract they signed.
or it is political fraud. either fulfill it or pay the difference. Maybe we should sue for that.

I raised this issue in another thread, but didn't want to hijack it - so here we go....

For those of you who support the individual mandate (or, for that matter, the employer mandate), why is it OK for government to dictate that we all buy insurance, even telling us which companies we can buy it from and what kind of insurance we are required to purchase, yet not ok for them to dictate our religious practices?

I'm not asking for technical authorization. I realize the Court has signed off on the mandates and, according to our current system, they pass Constitutional muster. But how do you justify the state's authority to force us to do business with their corporate cronies? I'd hope you'd all be appalled at the idea of the state forcing us to join government authorized religions, and tithe to them monthly - yet you seem to be ok with the idea of them forcing us to join insurance plans and pay them, even if we don't want the services they offer. What gives?

Right now you may not want services but if you have a serious health condition and show up at the emergency room, then you are going to get treated and you will not turn down the treatment. Then, if it is a serious thing like a stroke or heart attack and it costs a couple of hundred thousand dollars for treatment, you will get the treatment and then they will send you a bill. Generally the people who get the treatment in situations like that don't pay the bill and instead will just blow it off or include it in a bankruptcy. Then the hospital has to accept it as a cost of doing business which they pass along to the paying customers; the people who buy insurance. So when people say they want to "opt out", they are being honest. They want to "opt out" of paying for insurance. However, if they get cancer, they will change their tone and show up at the hospital. It is constitutional for states to require you to buy car insurance if you are going to drive a car and according to the Supreme Court, it is constitutional for the government to require that you buy health insurance also.

Personally, I would do some things differently but in my opinion Obama was able to get the law passed because of George W Bush. When we people see that we have trillions to spend overseas then it becomes common sense that we have enough money for poor people to have health insurance. Again, I would have done things a little differently but something definitely needed to be done and the republicans plan was to do nothing. Now the republicans are onboard with the idea of doing something about it but want a different plan. Even if the Republicans get control and change the law, they will not completely gut it. They talk big but when it comes to votes, they are all politicians. Government involvement in healthcare is here to stay and ultimately George W Bush was instrumental in creating the environment where Obama could get the law enacted.

 

[bluesman]

...The question I'm asking here is why is it OK for government to force people sign up and tithe to state-approved insurance companies, but not ok for them to force us to join the religions that most people think are good for us? I don't see much difference in principle...

I don't know if you really sincerely asking a question as much as trying to make a statement. Calling it a tithe isn't accurate. A tithe is something that people give by choice to a religious organization. I see that you are trying to use logic to show that Obamacare isn't right but I don't think religion is a good example. The constitution specifically says that government cannot sponsor a religion.

But they can sponsor a business? Does that seem right to you?

The government does have the right to levy taxes.

What about corporations? Do they have the right to levy taxes?

Actually, I used the wrong word. I should have said "authority" and not "right". As far as your "questions", I see that you are not looking for answers but just want to make a statement about Obamacare. The argument about the legality of Obamacare has been brought up already and ended up in front of a Supreme Court that is made up of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

If you want to know their reasoning, then read the text of their ruling using the following link:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/u...th-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”



See, the Supreme Court said that it was constitutional. As far as its wisdom of fairness, they left that to the voters. Obama campaigned on Obamacare and he got the votes. Congress passed the law and Obama signed it. That is just how it works.

I get it that you don't like Obamacare the same way I didn't like the invasion of Iraq. However, elections mean something in America. George W Bush had the authority to spend trillions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It works the same way now that Obama is president.

 

[dblack]

As far as your "questions", I see that you are not looking for answers but just want to make a statement about Obamacare. The argument about the legality of Obamacare has been brought up already and ended up in front of a Supreme Court that is made up of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

If you want to know their reasoning, then read the text of their ruling using the following link:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/u...th-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”



See, the Supreme Court said that it was constitutional. As far as its wisdom of fairness, they left that to the voters. Obama campaigned on Obamacare and he got the votes. Congress passed the law and Obama signed it. That is just how it works.

Actually, I am looking for answers to my questions. Because what I've heard doesn't line up. I'm specifically not interest in Robert's decision, which in my view was another sad concession to corporatism. My understanding of the general spirit of Democratic liberalism would have put it squarely against the kind of corporate sellout at the heart of ACA. And as I said, I'm confident that if the Republicans had passed it, Democrats would be fighting it tooth and nail. Is that really all this is about, just blind partisanship?

I get it that you don't like Obamacare the same way I didn't like the invasion of Iraq. However, elections mean something in America. George W Bush had the authority to spend trillions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It works the same way now that Obama is president.

I don't know how much you disliked the invasion of Iraq. I was out on the street - literally - protesting it. But if all this amounts to for you is another partisan pissing match, then maybe you've answered my question after all.

 

[bluesman]

As far as your "questions", I see that you are not looking for answers but just want to make a statement about Obamacare. The argument about the legality of Obamacare has been brought up already and ended up in front of a Supreme Court that is made up of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

If you want to know their reasoning, then read the text of their ruling using the following link:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/u...th-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”



See, the Supreme Court said that it was constitutional. As far as its wisdom of fairness, they left that to the voters. Obama campaigned on Obamacare and he got the votes. Congress passed the law and Obama signed it. That is just how it works.

Actually, I am looking for answers to my questions. Because what I've heard doesn't line up. I'm specifically not interest in Robert's decision, which in my view was another sad concession to corporatism. My understanding of the general spirit of Democratic liberalism would have put it squarely against the kind of corporate sellout at the heart of ACA. And as I said, I'm confident that if the Republicans had passed it, Democrats would be fighting it tooth and nail. Is that really all this is about, just blind partisanship?

I get it that you don't like Obamacare the same way I didn't like the invasion of Iraq. However, elections mean something in America. George W Bush had the authority to spend trillions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It works the same way now that Obama is president.

I don't know how much you disliked the invasion of Iraq. I was out on the street - literally - protesting it. But if all this amounts to for you is another partisan pissing match, then maybe you've answered my question after all.

I mentioned the Iraq invasion as an example of a president doing something that the country was generally divided about.

I provided the quote from John Roberts because he basically said that it was not his place to disagree with the voters.

You are asking sort of a constitutional question but it is not really a valid comparison. The government is not allowed to get involved in religion. That is something in the constitution. It is something that is specifically listed in the constitution. However, being compelled to have health insurance, just like being compelled to have car insurance, has nothing to do with religion so it is not a valid comparison. I know that is not the "answer" you are looking for while trying to make your point. We just have to agree to disagree and defer to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is how it works in America.

 

[dblack]

You are asking sort of a constitutional question but it is not really a valid comparison. The government is not allowed to get involved in religion. That is something in the constitution. It is something that is specifically listed in the constitution. However, being compelled to have health insurance, just like being compelled to have car insurance, has nothing to do with religion so it is not a valid comparison.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not, in fact, asking about the Constitution. I'm asking about the principles that guide the Constitution. One principle, in particular, that I find to be missing in action among today's partisan Democrats, is the notion that for-profit business shouldn't be colluding with government. And ACA is replete with that. I'm asking, what the hell happened???

And... I'll say this again... I'm asking you to think about how your views might be different if the Republicans had tried to pull this crap. Can't you see how Democrats would be - quite righteously, in my view - raising hell?

 

[emilynghiem]

The sickening irony of this statement, apart from the fact that it's true, is that if the tables were turned - if the Republicans had passed ACA instead - Democrats would be bitterly fighting the individual mandate, far moreso than Republicans are now. They'd be howling non-stop about the corruption and collusion between Congress and the insurance lobby. But since they orchestrated the sellout, it's all good. Their hypocrisy is truly disgusting.

Actually they already went through all that with the Iraq War, and no-bid contracts and other illicit dealings with military spending at taxpayer expense the anti-war folks did not agree to have any part in. Because it was more important to stand with the President during wartime, as an issue of national security and military morale, all these protests got silenced. But to the protestors, they were yelling constantly and not being heard, but called names -- assuming there was "no real content" to their objections but purely political "against Bush".

Unfortunately the Democrat candidates and leaders "pimped their vote" -- used them to get elected and then did nothing to collect back on all this contested misspending. So they did indeed reinforce that stereotype that all objections were "Bush haters for political points only" as people dismiss constitutional objections to ACA as "Obama haters for political reasons."

The shoe has been on the other foot, and this is the flipside to that bad karma working its way through until all the distrust is resolved.

If the anti-war activists on the REAL left (not the Democrat left we see in the media and in the White House) teamed up with Greens and Libertarians, the money or credits we could demand be paid back to taxpayers would easily pay off the costs of the ACA and bailouts.

I believe that should be on the Democrat leaders, who owe the public for their contract they forged with insurance interests, and owe their party members for anti-war representation.

Republicans also joined in the protests against Bush for Constitutional issues with the Iraq War, Patriot Act, as well as the unchecked billions in Katrina handouts and FEMA money that went into corrupt abuses and profits. (The conflicts with Katrina funding crossed over both parties: for example, Michael Berry (R) in Houston publicly protested Mayor Bill White (D) for making some $12 million deal in a conflict of interest.)

All these protests were silenced and just used to get candidates elected.

If people got together, on all these conflicts where we don't agree with govt wasting our money, and quit putting all our money on bullies to fight it out like puppets, we might actually get something done in demanding refunds or credits to go into corrections.

We should organize our own system of "federal reparations" similar to the federal reserve.
Some way of tracking the debts, damages and credits, and agree what to fund instead,
while paying lawyers or legal teams on commission to collect back the debts from wrongdoers who charged up all these insane costs at our expense. Why charge us for that?

 

[emilynghiem]

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not, in fact, asking about the Constitution. I'm asking about the principles that guide the Constitution. One principle, in particular, that I find to be missing in action among today's partisan Democrats, is the notion that for-profit business shouldn't be colluding with government. And ACA is replete with that. I'm asking, what the hell happened???

And... I'll say this again... I'm asking you to think about how your views might be different if the Republicans had tried to pull this crap. Can't you see how Democrats would be - quite righteously, in my view - raising hell?

yes, when liberals raised hell about the Iraq War contracts and govt colluding with unchecked corporate interests, I about got my head bitten off by people screaming at me over this. instead of hearing their grievances, they were dismissed as "unamerican Bush haters" as opponents of ACA are called "racist Obama haters"

this is political karma at its very worst. the people who yelled last time, act like they don't care this time; and the people who didn't care to hear it last time are screaming like hell.

I pray to God we learn our lessons from this, and do not do this to each other again.
people don't care until it happens to them, and we seem to be taking turns making the other half suffer. Two wrongs don't make it right, they just double the misery and distrust.

1. I mentioned the Iraq invasion as an example of a president doing something that the country was generally divided about.

2. I provided the quote from John Roberts because he basically said that it was not his place to disagree with the voters.

3. You are asking sort of a constitutional question but it is not really a valid comparison. The government is not allowed to get involved in religion. That is something in the constitution. It is something that is specifically listed in the constitution. However, being compelled to have health insurance, just like being compelled to have car insurance, has nothing to do with religion so it is not a valid comparison. I know that is not the "answer" you are looking for while trying to make your point. We just have to agree to disagree and defer to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is how it works in America.

1. not just the people were divided, but corporate interests were mixed in with the war spending that American taxpayers were paying for. the peace protestors who believed in civilian reconstruction and responsibility for collateral damages did not want to spend more money destroying hospital and social infrastructures in Iraq and elsewhere.

war supporters assumed these people are hypocrites because they are benefiting from the war and defense/security anyway. much like pro-ACA dismiss opponents, saying you are benefiting from this so just pay for it and quit complaining how it is set up.

the difference is there was no compelling pressure to force the ACA to be passed, time could have been taken to work out conflicts. in war time, in response to terrorist attacks, there was not time to argue how to respond, but something needed to be done so people compromised.

with ACA this could have been worked out by state and not rely on federal govt. But Obama wanted to validate his presidency; he didn't have anything to use as leverage so he relied on this. if you really cared about responsibility for costs to the public, the prison system would be the focus for cutting costs and redirecting more resources into public health, prevention and medical education and service facilities. but working on a state level doesn't win Obama any points politically as president on a federal level, so he used this issue.

He made it a pressing issue by creating arbitrary deadlines for paying fines if people didn't sign up. there wasn't this urgency before. it was created through the arbitrary mandates.

2. Judge Roberts was supposed to rule in terms of Constitutional interpretation. this is independent of people's agenda in what the program concerns. in trying to be nonpartisan, he ended up being partisan if he based his decision "in reaction" to that instead of sticking with the Constitution. if people want to change the interpretation of what is general welfare, and what is and what isn't within the reach of federal govt, then the proper procedure is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

otherwise I disagree with your third point that this does not involve religion.

3. how we interpret law and government is going to reflect our religious biases we have.

health care does involve religious biases no matter how secular you think you are.

the only way i can see being perfectly Constitutional in including, representing and protecting all religious views on this is to make them equally optional for people to choose.

Most people inside and outside government are not that objective.

Overall, I find that people's views of JUSTICE is equally determining of faith
as people's views of JESUS.

You either believe in equality, or you judge some people as less deserving than others.
You either believe in retributive justice or restorative justice.
You believe in consensus or you don't believe it is possible.

there is no way to get around religious biases in judgment in any law,
including secular government.

These cases happen to bring those biases out because they are more visibly or vocally divisive by beliefs.

The biases in our beliefs, our faith or lack of faith, and our "internal religious or moral values" ARE playing a factor in what we determine to be Constitutional and lawful or not.

We may not call it an official religion, but that factor is still at work.

that is why I believe consensus is legally necessary to settle these cases Constitutionally.
people have different beliefs, that will not change, and are never legally required to change their beliefs or be forced to compromise because someone else imposed their beliefs by law.

the govt is supposed to be neutral, and this bill is not neutral.

dblack points out it favors corporate interests. I agree there is a conflict of political interest where the president keeps putting the terms that the insurance companies agreed to above the objections and representation of the citizens who were made parties to that contract.
we should be treated equally and if not, separate and write our own contracts if we can't agree.

even if you don't see it as a religious difference, it is clearly a political conflict of interest where political parties did not agree, and one imposed their agenda on everyone else.

that is clear in the votes and the people defending this bill all leaders of one party.

so there is a partisan bias even if you don't call it religious.

that is enough to show it violated the Code of Ethics for govt service to put party agenda before duty to the Constitution to represent ALL people not just your party that elects you.

either way, it is a violation of Constitutional rights and beliefs.

just because you don't agree with the people whose rights are violated
doesn't mean those aren't protected equally under law.

I don't follow the Muslim faith, but I will respect when they complain of being
excluded or discriminated against. Some Republicans won't, but will only defend
Christians' religious freedom, but not the same for Atheists or Muslims.

to be fair and fully Constitutional we should equally protect all people's beliefs
even if we do not agree with them.

the rulings on this case and also all the gay marriage suits should reflect
consensus of the people in order to be neutral or all inclusive. taking sides
is going to discriminate against the people who aren't represented in the decision.
the govt is supposed to represent all people, not just views of one side to win
while the other side loses.

Constitutional protections are not just for the people of the majority vote.
but that's what we've become because we have not invested effort to
resolve these conflicts in full to reach consensus but keep taking shortcuts
trying to override the opposition by political power. that is not equal inclusion,
representation or protection of the laws. that is why we have lost our
Constitutional compass that was supposed to keep all interests checked and balanced.

If we don't believe that 'equal justice" and "equal protections of the law" are possible,
then we should strike the Fourteenth Amendment from the books.
And sandblast "Equal Justice Under Law" off the Supreme Court building.

We should not promise this by law if we don't even have faith consensus is possible that would include all views equally and resolve all conflicts so no one is excluded.

Either agree on a solution, or separate out and quit imposing one view on another.

 

[bluesman]

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not, in fact, asking about the Constitution. I'm asking about the principles that guide the Constitution. One principle, in particular, that I find to be missing in action among today's partisan Democrats, is the notion that for-profit business shouldn't be colluding with government. And ACA is replete with that. I'm asking, what the hell happened???

And... I'll say this again... I'm asking you to think about how your views might be different if the Republicans had tried to pull this crap. Can't you see how Democrats would be - quite righteously, in my view - raising hell?

yes, when liberals raised hell about the Iraq War contracts and govt colluding with unchecked corporate interests, I about got my head bitten off by people screaming at me over this. instead of hearing their grievances, they were dismissed as "unamerican Bush haters" as opponents of ACA are called "racist Obama haters"

this is political karma at its very worst. the people who yelled last time, act like they don't care this time; and the people who didn't care to hear it last time are screaming like hell.

I pray to God we learn our lessons from this, and do not do this to each other again.
people don't care until it happens to them, and we seem to be taking turns making the other half suffer. Two wrongs don't make it right, they just double the misery and distrust.

1. I mentioned the Iraq invasion as an example of a president doing something that the country was generally divided about.

2. I provided the quote from John Roberts because he basically said that it was not his place to disagree with the voters.

3. You are asking sort of a constitutional question but it is not really a valid comparison. The government is not allowed to get involved in religion. That is something in the constitution. It is something that is specifically listed in the constitution. However, being compelled to have health insurance, just like being compelled to have car insurance, has nothing to do with religion so it is not a valid comparison. I know that is not the "answer" you are looking for while trying to make your point. We just have to agree to disagree and defer to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is how it works in America.

1. not just the people were divided, but corporate interests were mixed in with the war spending that American taxpayers were paying for. the peace protestors who believed in civilian reconstruction and responsibility for collateral damages did not want to spend more money destroying hospital and social infrastructures in Iraq and elsewhere.

war supporters assumed these people are hypocrites because they are benefiting from the war and defense/security anyway. much like pro-ACA dismiss opponents, saying you are benefiting from this so just pay for it and quit complaining how it is set up.

the difference is there was no compelling pressure to force the ACA to be passed, time could have been taken to work out conflicts. in war time, in response to terrorist attacks, there was not time to argue how to respond, but something needed to be done so people compromised.

with ACA this could have been worked out by state and not rely on federal govt. But Obama wanted to validate his presidency; he didn't have anything to use as leverage so he relied on this. if you really cared about responsibility for costs to the public, the prison system would be the focus for cutting costs and redirecting more resources into public health, prevention and medical education and service facilities. but working on a state level doesn't win Obama any points politically as president on a federal level, so he used this issue.

He made it a pressing issue by creating arbitrary deadlines for paying fines if people didn't sign up. there wasn't this urgency before. it was created through the arbitrary mandates.

2. Judge Roberts was supposed to rule in terms of Constitutional interpretation. this is independent of people's agenda in what the program concerns. in trying to be nonpartisan, he ended up being partisan if he based his decision "in reaction" to that instead of sticking with the Constitution. if people want to change the interpretation of what is general welfare, and what is and what isn't within the reach of federal govt, then the proper procedure is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

otherwise I disagree with your third point that this does not involve religion.

3. how we interpret law and government is going to reflect our religious biases we have.

health care does involve religious biases no matter how secular you think you are.

the only way i can see being perfectly Constitutional in including, representing and protecting all religious views on this is to make them equally optional for people to choose.

Most people inside and outside government are not that objective.

Overall, I find that people's views of JUSTICE is equally determining of faith
as people's views of JESUS.

You either believe in equality, or you judge some people as less deserving than others.
You either believe in retributive justice or restorative justice.
You believe in consensus or you don't believe it is possible.

there is no way to get around religious biases in judgment in any law,
including secular government.

These cases happen to bring those biases out because they are more visibly or vocally divisive by beliefs.

The biases in our beliefs, our faith or lack of faith, and our "internal religious or moral values" ARE playing a factor in what we determine to be Constitutional and lawful or not.

We may not call it an official religion, but that factor is still at work.

that is why I believe consensus is legally necessary to settle these cases Constitutionally.
people have different beliefs, that will not change, and are never legally required to change their beliefs or be forced to compromise because someone else imposed their beliefs by law.

the govt is supposed to be neutral, and this bill is not neutral.

dblack points out it favors corporate interests. I agree there is a conflict of political interest where the president keeps putting the terms that the insurance companies agreed to above the objections and representation of the citizens who were made parties to that contract.
we should be treated equally and if not, separate and write our own contracts if we can't agree.

even if you don't see it as a religious difference, it is clearly a political conflict of interest where political parties did not agree, and one imposed their agenda on everyone else.

that is clear in the votes and the people defending this bill all leaders of one party.

so there is a partisan bias even if you don't call it religious.

that is enough to show it violated the Code of Ethics for govt service to put party agenda before duty to the Constitution to represent ALL people not just your party that elects you.

either way, it is a violation of Constitutional rights and beliefs.

just because you don't agree with the people whose rights are violated
doesn't mean those aren't protected equally under law.

I don't follow the Muslim faith, but I will respect when they complain of being
excluded or discriminated against. Some Republicans won't, but will only defend
Christians' religious freedom, but not the same for Atheists or Muslims.

to be fair and fully Constitutional we should equally protect all people's beliefs
even if we do not agree with them.

the rulings on this case and also all the gay marriage suits should reflect
consensus of the people in order to be neutral or all inclusive. taking sides
is going to discriminate against the people who aren't represented in the decision.
the govt is supposed to represent all people, not just views of one side to win
while the other side loses.

Constitutional protections are not just for the people of the majority vote.
but that's what we've become because we have not invested effort to
resolve these conflicts in full to reach consensus but keep taking shortcuts
trying to override the opposition by political power. that is not equal inclusion,
representation or protection of the laws. that is why we have lost our
Constitutional compass that was supposed to keep all interests checked and balanced.

If we don't believe that 'equal justice" and "equal protections of the law" are possible,
then we should strike the Fourteenth Amendment from the books.
And sandblast "Equal Justice Under Law" off the Supreme Court building.

We should not promise this by law if we don't even have faith consensus is possible that would include all views equally and resolve all conflicts so no one is excluded.

Either agree on a solution, or separate out and quit imposing one view on another.

First of all I must compliment you on the way you presented a well organized response.


1. I disagree with your presumption that there was a compelling reason for invading Iraq in response to a Terrorist Attack from Al Qaeda. Saddam was a secular leader and Al Qaeda would have killed him and everybody knew that. There was no immediate threat to US interests. However, if you want to have a debate about this, then we can do it on another thread. At this point this is just something about which we do not agree.

As far as there being "plenty of time", Healthcare costs are part of the budget problem and are dragging down our economy. Our economy is vital to our interests. Obama could have waited and there is no doubt that nothing would have changed. Obama got something done and now the Republicans will no longer be able to ignore it. Even if they do make changes, it will Obama who got the process started. Americans all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The framers didn't intend for there to be an aristocratic class that could go to the doctor and then a class who couldn't.


2. We have to agree to disagree. I don't think the constitution needs to be amended. Congress passed the law. The president signed it. The supreme court upheld it. That is the constitutional process.

3. As far as including religion, then I do agree that our country was founded on puritan Christian principles. There is little question that Jesus was in favor of healing poor people. That was the example he provided. America is a prosperous country and if we have the resources to spend trillions killing Iraqis then we have the resources to take care of poor people here at home. There is no reason that America should lag behind the rest of the world when it comes access to healthcare for the general population.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: 2. I still think the ACA can be amended to account for different political beliefs.
Just shift the mandates and registration system over to the Democrat Party,
make it where people can claim exemptions if they sign up for systems set up by another party.

The same system can be used to create a track for immigrants to become citizens
or for recovering convicts to integrate back into society on a plan to pay back costs with work-study credits or restitution for damages owed.

So if the Democrats want to replace welfare with microlending or a track for immigrants,
why not adapt this system for enrolling people, just like students in different schools.

Create a class system of moving upward, in order to receive govt benefits, so people
work through school and train for jobs to pay back their loans and keep it rotating.
We could replace the prison and welfare systems by setting up some school system
for citizens to become legally and financially responsible as an agreement on citizenship.

First of all I must compliment you on the way you presented a well organized response.


1. I disagree with your presumption that there was a compelling reason for invading Iraq in response to a Terrorist Attack from Al Qaeda. Saddam was a secular leader and Al Qaeda would have killed him and everybody knew that. There was no immediate threat to US interests. However, if you want to have a debate about this, then we can do it on another thread. At this point this is just something about which we do not agree.

As far as there being "plenty of time", Healthcare costs are part of the budget problem and are dragging down our economy. Our economy is vital to our interests. Obama could have waited and there is no doubt that nothing would have changed. Obama got something done and now the Republicans will no longer be able to ignore it. Even if they do make changes, it will Obama who got the process started. Americans all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The framers didn't intend for there to be an aristocratic class that could go to the doctor and then a class who couldn't.


2. We have to agree to disagree. I don't think the constitution needs to be amended. Congress passed the law. The president signed it. The supreme court upheld it. That is the constitutional process.

3. As far as including religion, then I do agree that our country was founded on puritan Christian principles. There is little question that Jesus was in favor of healing poor people. That was the example he provided. America is a prosperous country and if we have the resources to spend trillions killing Iraqis then we have the resources to take care of poor people here at home. There is no reason that America should lag behind the rest of the world when it comes access to healthcare for the general population.

YES I absolute DO agree that Bush's response with the Iraq War was subjective.
A. first, you don't have to agree with the decisions made, that were not based on holding the people responsible "directly accountable."

The violations of law that Saddam Hussein was held to can be views more as UN related, not directly US. This is debatable, some argue that it did tie in directly with threats to the US, but others don't agree and see it as indirect through the UN. Congress is supposed to answer to the Constitution, not UN laws, so this is debated.

Also, I know many people who tie in Iraq with FUNDING for terrorists, but again it is debated how connected this was to 9/11. I do believe that the chemical weapons not found in Iraq were almost certainly the ones that showed up in Syria.

However, there was no formal due process and agreement on this; even if you believe it is true, there were as many people who had other beliefs or reasons.

If people agree, they should pay for the costs of war and not charge to people who don't.
Same with the ACA.

B. Just because Congress voted doesn't mean all the people agreed to pay the costs,
and people do have religious beliefs about wars and the thresholds of when to
work out diplomatic solutions.

The same way I argue that people opposed to ACA have rights to fund different programs,
I absolutely do believe taxpayers should have the right to see the costs on Iraq contracts and decisions re-assessed, and reinvest the expenses they didn't agree to into programs they do agree on.

We could more than pay for health care with those same resources!

In general every party has its research on corruption and abuse of corporations or leaders linked to other parties. So why not use all these grievances to negotiate settlements to correct these wrongs.

Take each case of govt waste or corporate abuse or fraud, assess the debts and damages and who owes what, and credit it back to taxpayers to invest in corrections or other programs the petitioners and public agree deserve that funding!

I believe this is how we are going to settle our debts.

We may have to issue "credits" and finance the creation of jobs/factories, medical and military campuses, pay for education and training, all using "credits" against these debts.

If money is invested by taxpayers against these debts, I would encourage citizens to buy land as collateral and develop locally governed business districts so communities can learn to be self-sustaining. And hold the wrongdoers responsible for paying back these debts over time. People convicted of crimes, especially trafficking and immigration laws, can also have a program for paying or working off debts and investing in owning and managing communities along the border to provide opportunity to people without breaking any laws.

I don't see how we can pay back the debts from all this spending without creative refinancing, setting up microlending against the debts to build sustainable businesses and schools in order to break the cycle of poverty and dependence, that will pay back the costs over time and then generate revenue after that.

instead of paying bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers to keep the system going as is,
we need to start paying govt and mediators on a commission basis to collect back on our behalf and invest the resources into longterm solutions that correct and prevent abuses.

I believe this will get organized as people do, as we align to resolve common grievances and quit fighting politically to put one person or one party in office over someone else.

We have a difficult learning curve, but can't afford to keep losing our shirts this way!
So at some point we are going to figure out we need to work together and stop the waste.
=================
PS. Thanks for being on here and sharing your perspective of these other issues
that also need to be resolved.

if we even took one case here and there, and set up a model for restitution to taxpayers, then other groups could do the same with other cases.

No one person or party is going to be able to focus or fix all these problems.
We need to delegate the work to different parties to get it all done.

So it is vitally important to have support structure to follow up on all these abuses of govt, so we can cover them all. Not just complaining, protesting or lobbying to vote people in or out of office; but actually assessing and redressing the actual grievances damages and debts, and working out the costs to be reimbursed to the public, or credited by providing loans or jobs, or buying ownership of property and programs for training communities to develop their own economy and manage their own government on a sustainable basis.

That's where I hope humanity is headed!

I believe the networks of churches, schools, businesses, nonprofits and government programs can all work together by free choice.
The mandatory parts will be minimal, and most of it can be done freely. If we were more organized, and didn't waste so much of our resources,
we wouldn't have this demand on government to fix everything. As people get organized, that's who does all the work anyway.
so why not reward citizens with taxbreaks for investing directly in our own solutions and reforms, and move away from top down govt
that opens the door to bureaucratic abuse and waste. the key to accountability is local representation.
so instead of trying to focus all power into a central federal govt, just take the central laws that we all agree on,
and empower all citizens to enforce them locally so we don't have to depend on federal govt to have those rights.

I think most of this will rely on organizing people and resources through the educational systems
that can account for the different levels of development that people are in, so nobody gets abused for political controls.

We have the means of organizing localized government, we just have to quit abusing our resources to clog up the system with
problems, and start using it for solutions. We have the freedom to do it, but don't know how to work together yet to use all the tools at our disposal.
Taking an educational approach will help to organize people with like interests and social concerns, so those with working models and experience
can help others. Instead of just relying on campaigning for other people to run for office and try to legislate change through government.

We need to set up our own working solutions, and then use government to support that.
I am looking at the Party structures for organizing people around each issue and solution.
I think DriftingSand's "think tank" thread was focused on conservative free market values, but in general, I believe all people
of all views should get organized in networks, and work together collaboratively regardless which angle, issue or group we align with.

If you have some ideas, I think it is important for people and party of opposite perspectives to check and balance each other
so we don't overlook any objections or problems that should be solved.

With the right chemistry, instead of just "sharing ideas," I want to see resolutions and reforms written up and
presented through the parties. the more groups unify behind them, the more power and authority they carry.
so i think the solutions are going to come from diverse parties hashing out the issues, and resolving to focus on unified solutions.

that will change the political environment and we will no longer reward politicians with votes or support
for fighting against each other, but only elect and assign leaders who demonstrate ability to represent solutions across all parties.

I would even love to see the day we have a mixed ticket for President/Vice President,
where the VP focuses on internal domestic issues that overlap with state and local
and frees up the President to focus on national and international issues requiring full time attention.

if we quit fighting politically for TWO SECONDS maybe we could separate
and delegate out which issues different leaders are better suited to address,
and quit expecting one party or person to be in charge of all things at the same time.

we could do so much more with our resources.
people in other countries must think Americans are nuts to have this much
at our disposal and we waste so much of our liberties and luxuries fighting like spoiled brats
instead of cleaning up our rooms and making the most of what we have.

I hope to God we grow up within my lifetime, I would love to see it happen!

 

[bluesman]

First of all I must compliment you on the way you presented a well organized response.


1. I disagree with your presumption that there was a compelling reason for invading Iraq in response to a Terrorist Attack from Al Qaeda. Saddam was a secular leader and Al Qaeda would have killed him and everybody knew that. There was no immediate threat to US interests. However, if you want to have a debate about this, then we can do it on another thread. At this point this is just something about which we do not agree.

As far as there being "plenty of time", Healthcare costs are part of the budget problem and are dragging down our economy. Our economy is vital to our interests. Obama could have waited and there is no doubt that nothing would have changed. Obama got something done and now the Republicans will no longer be able to ignore it. Even if they do make changes, it will Obama who got the process started. Americans all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The framers didn't intend for there to be an aristocratic class that could go to the doctor and then a class who couldn't.


2. We have to agree to disagree. I don't think the constitution needs to be amended. Congress passed the law. The president signed it. The supreme court upheld it. That is the constitutional process.

3. As far as including religion, then I do agree that our country was founded on puritan Christian principles. There is little question that Jesus was in favor of healing poor people. That was the example he provided. America is a prosperous country and if we have the resources to spend trillions killing Iraqis then we have the resources to take care of poor people here at home. There is no reason that America should lag behind the rest of the world when it comes access to healthcare for the general population.

YES I absolute DO agree that Bush's response with the Iraq War was subjective.
A. first, you don't have to agree with the decisions made, that were not based on holding the people responsible "directly accountable."

1. the violations of law that Saddam Hussein was held to were UN related, not directly US. This is debatable, some argue that it did tie in directly with threats to the US, but others don't agree and see it as indirect through the UN. Congress is supposed to answer to the Constitution, not UN laws, so this is debated.

Also, I know many people who tie in Iraq with FUNDING for terrorists, but again it is debated how connected this was to 9/11. I do believe that the chemical weapons not found in Iraq were almost certainly the ones that showed up in Syria.

However, there was no formal due process and agreement on this; even if you believe it is true, there were as many people who had other beliefs or reasons.

If people agree, they should pay for the costs of war and not charge to people who don't.
Same with the ACA.

2. Just because Congress voted doesn't mean all the people agreed to pay the costs,
and people do have religious beliefs about wars and the thresholds of when to
work out diplomatic solutions.

The same way I argue that people opposed to ACA have rights to fund different programs,
I absolutely do believe taxpayers should have the right to see the costs on Iraq contracts and decisions re-assessed, and reinvest the expenses they didn't agree to into programs they do agree on.

We could more than pay for health care with those same resources!

In general every party has its research on corruption and abuse of corporations or leaders linked to other parties. So why not use all these grievances to negotiate settlements to correct these wrongs.

Take each case of govt waste or corporate abuse or fraud, assess the debts and damages and who owes what, and credit it back to taxpayers to invest in corrections or other programs the petitioners and public agree deserve that funding!

I believe this is how we are going to settle our debts.

We may have to issue "credits" and finance the creation of jobs/factories, medical and military campuses, pay for education and training, all using "credits" against these debts.

If money is invested by taxpayers against these debts, I would encourage citizens to buy land as collateral and develop locally governed business districts so communities can learn to be self-sustaining. And hold the wrongdoers responsible for paying back these debts over time. People convicted of crimes, especially trafficking and immigration laws, can also have a program for paying or working off debts and investing in owning and managing communities along the border to provide opportunity to people without breaking any laws.

I don't see how we can pay back the debts from all this spending without creative refinancing, setting up microlending against the debts to build sustainable businesses and schools in order to break the cycle of poverty and dependence, that will pay back the costs over time and then generate revenue after that.

instead of paying bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers to keep the system going as is,
we need to start paying govt and mediators on a commission basis to collect back on our behalf and invest the resources into longterm solutions that correct and prevent abuses.

I believe this will get organized as people do, as we align to resolve common grievances and quit fighting politically to put one person or one party in office over someone else.

We have a difficult learning curve, but can't afford to keep losing our shirts this way!
So at some point we are going to figure out we need to work together and stop the waste.

Thanks for being on here and sharing your perspective of these other issues
that also need to be resolved.

if we even took one case here and there, and set up a model for restitution to taxpayers, then other groups could do the same with other cases.

No one person or party is going to be able to focus or fix all these problems.
We need to delegate the work to different parties to get it all done.

So it is vitally important to have support structure to follow up on all these abuses of govt, so we can cover them all. Not just complaining, protesting or lobbying to vote people in or out of office; but actually assessing and redressing the actual grievances damages and debts, and working out the costs to be reimbursed to the public, or credited by providing loans or jobs, or buying ownership of property and programs for training communities to develop their own economy and manage their own government on a sustainable basis.

That's where I hope humanity is headed!

Well, it seems like you want the best for America. My guess is that we agree on fiscal responsibility.

I heard an interview on the radio yesterday. It was a former mayor of Houston who has written about government spending:

BOOK REVIEW & Conversation: 'America's Fiscal Constitution' by Bill White | The Rivard Report

His conclusion: America grew into the superpower that it is on a “pay as you go” plan, borrowing money only to preserve the nation, expand and connect the nation’s borders, wage war, and during severe economic downturns. When they borrowed, repayment was a front and center priority in the short years that followed.

What’s different now, White explains, is that both parties lack the political will to directly correlate spending and taxes. Our nation is borrowing money to pay for normal expenses – like Medicare. Meanwhile we continue with a wartime budget that was never financed through taxes. The problem is bipartisan, and White offers up bipartisan suggestions to get a conversation rolling. He maintains that while polarized leadership may have different desires when balancing the budget, history shows that if it’s a high enough priority for both parties, it can happen. And it would really help if the voters knew what to demand.