The objective isn't to provide insurance to people.
It's to withhold treatment.
ie paying insurance companies is NOT the same as paying for health care provisions.
the insurance companies are not in the business of providing service or training any
doctors or nurses or building any clinics or facilities.
the govt made a mistake to force insurance providers and customers into a contract with each other under terms that we didn't agree to. Signed our names and ordered by law we pay under these terms.
that is not the job of govt to regulate our business or health care choices.
If federal govt is to be expanded to cover this field, then a Constitutional Amendment is required to pass to clarify or expand on the appropriate clause where the people or States can vote to give that power to federal govt.
No such amendment was proposed or passed before giving this authority to govt, first claimed under general welfare and commerce clause under a public health act being reformed, then argued before the Supreme Court that it was a TAX when the bill was NOT presented or voted on in Congress as a TAX which requires a different process to be CONSTITUTIONAL.
So the passage did not follow the Constitutional procedures but bypassed it by majority rule of one party over another which objected from the very beginning and was excluded.
So you wonder why this bill does not represent the American public -- it bypassed all the checks and balances put it place to make sure laws were passed by consent of the people.
This is pushing some national political religion by majority vote of THAT party,
and does NOT reflect either the consent of taxpayers forced to pay for it, nor the laws in the Constitution designed to limit and check govt from this type of political abuse.
I have not studied the Constitution in school since 8th grade, and it appears my 8th grade history teacher taught me more respect for Constitutional law, due process, equal representation and checks and balances, and the spirit of the law as "consent of the governed" since the Constitution is a social contract between people and government,
than President Obama learned as a graduate of Harvard Law School.
Maybe I should bet his law degree against my 8th grade education, that the ACA did not follow Constitutional procedures and the spirit of the laws, and see who admits what.
I hold that pushing this bill is teh equivalent of abusing the majority rule and party system to establish a national religion based on faith in singlepayer health care through federal govt by force not by choice, and lack of faith in any other way to pay for health care VOLUNTARILY such as by party that would be Constitutional and by public consent.
I'd like to bet 1 million to 10 million to Obama and the Democrat Party, and see how many people we can educate about the Constitutional principles and process our govt is under.
I think I could bet Obama 1 million, and then make a second bet that I could SOONER prove it can be proven that all people can reach a consensus on God and that science can prove spiritual healing can reduce costs of health care and crime to provide coverage to more people voluntarily BEFORE Obama would admit the ACA violates Constitutional principles.
I'd bet 10 million on that. Because the forgiveness it takes to prove a consensus on God and spiritual healing is necessary BEFORE the political changes take place as a result.
I'd love to make a public bet and have Constitutionalists go at it, trying to get Obama and the Democrats to admit the ACA is flawed, and prove we could sooner prove spiritual healing could reduce health care costs more effectively on a voluntary basis than ACA.
