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

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I have to call out francoHFW who may be intellectually honest and open enough
to admit what is wrong with this thinking behind ACA mandates.

francoHFW on this thread:

INSISTS that ACA mandates are justified because
"something had to be done"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16090003/
My response to francoHFW
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16090410/

I argue that laziness on the side of government officials (who can't figure out a better
way that doesn't violate Constitutional principles and beliefs, including states rights,
free choice, and due process of laws to prove citizens committed a violation before
depriving us of liberty) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
IE "COMPELLING INTEREST"

STATES HAVE RIGHTS, AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO ADDRESS
OBSCENE COSTS AND WASTE OF TAXES ON A FAILED MENTAL
HEALTH AND PRISON SYSTEM THAT *CAN* BE REVAMPED TO
REDIRECT TAXES SAVED TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

FAILURE OF GOVT OFFICIALS TO RESOLVE THIS IN ADVANCE
OF PASSING AND ENFORCING ACA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
JUSTIFICATION TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF LIBERTY,
DUE TO GOVT INCOMPETENCE IN FIGURING OUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION.


I hereby challenge francoHFW to justify how
failures of govt to come up with a Constitutionally agreed solution
(such as dividing health care where different groups can pay for reforms in SEPARATE ways
instead of imposing one way not everyone agrees to
and doesn't represent the BELIEFS of all taxpayers, thus VIOLATING our Constitutional rights)
constitutes a
* national emergency that isn't the fault of GOVT OFFICIALS
* compelling interest that isn't biased by GOVT OFFICIALS
where the GOVT OFFICIALS who failed to solve these problems
should be held responsible for the costs of their equally failed proposals
that violated Constitutional rights, beliefs, and ethical standards in
putting PARTISAN beliefs before Constitutional laws protecting
equal beliefs and representation of ALL citizens who cannot be
deprived of liberty without due process of law to show what
crimes WE committed. I can show you where GOVT OFFICIALS
like Obama, Congress and Courts imposed a bias in these ACA laws.

francoHFW
How are citizens who did not commit crimes and incur costs
RESPONSIBLE for contracts and mandates that other Govt Officials
believe in and imposed by their own political biases and ineptitude
in not finding better solutions that all sides would agree to (such as separating
funding and plans, so all beliefs are respected and protected from infringing on each other).

Why should citizens be taxed for the incompetent plans and mandates
forced on us by Govt Officials DESPITE OUR PROTESTS.

How is THAT OUR FAULT THEY REFUSED TO protect and include equal beliefs?

Are you saying that electing people to govt gives them the
right to override our Constitutional freedoms by abusing
Congress and Courts to pass and enforce such mandates
we opposed based on our beliefs that are violated by them?

Where in the Code of Ethics for Govt Service does it give
govt officials the right to impose biased partisan beliefs
to establish a national religion in violation of the Constitution:
ethics-commission.net
Because that's what you are promoting with this thinking:
that the belief in right to health care SUPERCEDES beliefs in
* states rights
* no taxation without representation
* consent of the governed
* civil liberties not being deprived without due process of laws
* no involuntary servitude except as a legal penalty for a convicted crime
* freedom of choice in personal decisions that govt is not authorized to intervene in, regulate or penalize
* neither establishing or prohibiting freedom of beliefs and religion
=================
RULES for this Debate:

A. either francoHFW has to convince me that there is NO OTHER WAY TO GET HEALTH CARE REFORM TO PASS Without the mandates.
in other words, my proposal:
B. to have EACH STATE revamp its own prison and mental health programs
so that the money saved pays for health care for the general population, including
* medical training and education programs with internships to serve in public health
* expanding more facilities in every district to provide local services so there isn't a backlog
* giving states and public INCENTIVE to cut costs of crimes in order to PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

has to be either proven to me to be WORSE than ACA insurance mandates,
or has to be proven to francoHFW to be a BETTER SOLUTION

or
C. We agree that people should have FREE CHOICE
which is what I was ARGUING About the mandates:
ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS MAKE THESE OPTIONAL
AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

So my argument is based on giving taxpayers an EQUAL and FREE choice of
funding either
A (forced insurance mandates),
B (forcing states to reform prisons and mental health programs to cover health care)
or C (free choice of either track).

While francoHFW keeps defending A only.

So who is right?
Someone arguing to leave ALL CHOICES OPEN.
Or someone like francoHFW mandating one only and PUNISHING
taxpayers for wanting to invest in the other choices IN ADDITION TO
THE ONLY CHOICE THAT WAS GIVEN THROUGH ACA.

francoHFW if you are right that mandating insurance is the only way
for the ENTIRE NATION, then let's make a MILLION DOLLAR BET:

If I can convince Obama, Cruz, Trump and Pelosi to leave it open to equal choice,
and organize the Democrats per State and across the nation to set up the exchanges
where these are tied with prison and immigration enrollment to manage resources
better SO THAT HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE COVERED BY WHAT WE ALREADY PAY.

Then YOU have to help raise 1,000,000 dollars toward the Democrats paying for this conversion.

If I am wrong, and mandating insurance is "the only way to get something done"
and reform will NOT get paid for by GIVING CITIZENS THE EQUAL CHOICE OF
revamping the state prisons, mental health, public schools, housing and/or immigration systems so that money we are already paying can be saved to pay for universal care without
charging taxpayers or depriving law abiding citizens of liberty and free choice.

Then I will help Democrats raise 1,000,000 dollars to pay for this massive reform.

Do you want to bet ONE MILLION DOLLARS
there is a BETTER WAY to pay for sustainable health care
than forcing insurance mandates on citizens who didn't commit crimes.

let me know if you want to bet, or concede now and admit
that people ought to have free choice in how to fix the problems!
 
Last edited:

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
62,604
Reaction score
3,844
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
I have to call out francoHFW who may be intellectually honest and open enough
to admit what is wrong with this thinking behind ACA mandates.

francoHFW on this thread:

INSISTS that ACA mandates are justified because
"something had to be done"

I argue that laziness on the side of government officials (who can't figure out a better
way that doesn't violate Constitutional principles and beliefs, including states rights,
free choice, and due process of laws to prove citizens committed a violation before
depriving us of liberty) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
IE "COMPELLING INTEREST"

STATES HAVE RIGHTS, AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO ADDRESS
OBSCENE COSTS AND WASTE OF TAXES ON A FAILED MENTAL
HEALTH AND PRISON SYSTEM THAT *CAN* BE REVAMPED TO
REDIRECT TAXES SAVED TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

FAILURE OF GOVT OFFICIALS TO RESOLVE THIS IN ADVANCE
OF PASSING AND ENFORCING ACA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
JUSTIFICATION TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF LIBERTY,
DUE TO GOVT INCOMPETENCE IN FIGURING OUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION.


I hereby challenge francoHFW to justify how
failures of govt to come up with a Constitutionally agreed solution
(such as dividing health care where different groups can pay for reforms in SEPARATE ways
instead of imposing one way not everyone agrees to
and doesn't represent the BELIEFS of all taxpayers, thus VIOLATING our Constitutional rights)
constitutes a
* national emergency that isn't the fault of GOVT OFFICIALS
* compelling interest that isn't biased by GOVT OFFICIALS
where the GOVT OFFICIALS who failed to solve these problems
should be held responsible for the costs of their equally failed proposals
that violated Constitutional rights, beliefs, and ethical standards in
putting PARTISAN beliefs before Constitutional laws protecting
equal beliefs and representation of ALL citizens who cannot be
deprived of liberty without due process of law to show what
crimes WE committed. I can show you where GOVT OFFICIALS
like Obama, Congress and Courts imposed a bias in these ACA laws.

francoHFW
How are citizens who did not commit crimes and incur costs
RESPONSIBLE for contracts and mandates that other Govt Officials
believe in and imposed by their own political biases and ineptitude
in not finding better solutions that all sides would agree to (such as separating
funding and plans, so all beliefs are respected and protected from infringing on each other).

Why should citizens be taxed for the incompetent plans and mandates
forced on us by Govt Officials DESPITE OUR PROTESTS.

How is THAT OUR FAULT THEY REFUSED TO protect and include equal beliefs?

Are you saying that electing people to govt gives them the
right to override our Constitutional freedoms by abusing
Congress and Courts to pass and enforce such mandates
we opposed based on our beliefs that are violated by them?

Where in the Code of Ethics for Govt Service does it give
govt officials the right to impose biased partisan beliefs
to establish a national religion in violation of the Constitution:
http://www.ethics-commission.net
Because that's what you are promoting with this thinking:
that the belief in right to health care SUPERCEDES beliefs in
* states rights
* no taxation without representation
* consent of the governed
* civil liberties not being deprived without due process of laws
* no involuntary servitude except as a legal penalty for a convicted crime
* freedom of choice in personal decisions that govt is not authorized to intervene in, regulate or penalize
* neither establishing or prohibiting freedom of beliefs and religion
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I have to call out francoHFW who may be intellectually honest and open enough
to admit what is wrong with this thinking behind ACA mandates.

francoHFW on this thread:

INSISTS that ACA mandates are justified because
"something had to be done"

I argue that laziness on the side of government officials (who can't figure out a better
way that doesn't violate Constitutional principles and beliefs, including states rights,
free choice, and due process of laws to prove citizens committed a violation before
depriving us of liberty) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
IE "COMPELLING INTEREST"

STATES HAVE RIGHTS, AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO ADDRESS
OBSCENE COSTS AND WASTE OF TAXES ON A FAILED MENTAL
HEALTH AND PRISON SYSTEM THAT *CAN* BE REVAMPED TO
REDIRECT TAXES SAVED TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

FAILURE OF GOVT OFFICIALS TO RESOLVE THIS IN ADVANCE
OF PASSING AND ENFORCING ACA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
JUSTIFICATION TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF LIBERTY,
DUE TO GOVT INCOMPETENCE IN FIGURING OUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION.


I hereby challenge francoHFW to justify how
failures of govt to come up with a Constitutionally agreed solution
(such as dividing health care where different groups can pay for reforms in SEPARATE ways
instead of imposing one way not everyone agrees to
and doesn't represent the BELIEFS of all taxpayers, thus VIOLATING our Constitutional rights)
constitutes a
* national emergency that isn't the fault of GOVT OFFICIALS
* compelling interest that isn't biased by GOVT OFFICIALS
where the GOVT OFFICIALS who failed to solve these problems
should be held responsible for the costs of their equally failed proposals
that violated Constitutional rights, beliefs, and ethical standards in
putting PARTISAN beliefs before Constitutional laws protecting
equal beliefs and representation of ALL citizens who cannot be
deprived of liberty without due process of law to show what
crimes WE committed. I can show you where GOVT OFFICIALS
like Obama, Congress and Courts imposed a bias in these ACA laws.

francoHFW
How are citizens who did not commit crimes and incur costs
RESPONSIBLE for contracts and mandates that other Govt Officials
believe in and imposed by their own political biases and ineptitude
in not finding better solutions that all sides would agree to (such as separating
funding and plans, so all beliefs are respected and protected from infringing on each other).

Why should citizens be taxed for the incompetent plans and mandates
forced on us by Govt Officials DESPITE OUR PROTESTS.

How is THAT OUR FAULT THEY REFUSED TO protect and include equal beliefs?

Are you saying that electing people to govt gives them the
right to override our Constitutional freedoms by abusing
Congress and Courts to pass and enforce such mandates
we opposed based on our beliefs that are violated by them?

Where in the Code of Ethics for Govt Service does it give
govt officials the right to impose biased partisan beliefs
to establish a national religion in violation of the Constitution:
http://www.ethics-commission.net
Because that's what you are promoting with this thinking:
that the belief in right to health care SUPERCEDES beliefs in
* states rights
* no taxation without representation
* consent of the governed
* civil liberties not being deprived without due process of laws
* no involuntary servitude except as a legal penalty for a convicted crime
* freedom of choice in personal decisions that govt is not authorized to intervene in, regulate or penalize
* neither establishing or prohibiting freedom of beliefs and religion
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
^ is that taking the Fifth Amendment ? ^

Are you really that chicken francoHFW
I will make this easy on you.

If you find someone to act as your proxy who
can speak for you where you AGREE that
you are wrong about the ACA mandates as the
"only way to get something done"
I'll let you off the hook.

If you and other supporters of ACA keep taking this chicken way out,
and not answering for the rights deprived of citizens by pushing this "belief in mandates"
then you and the entire Democratic Party should be sued.

Which side do you want to be on francoHFW
the people who support SUING to get the Democratic Party leadership to
PAYBACK TAXPAYERS the costs of ACA to invest in Singlepayer as restitution for passing unconstitutional mandates? or are you willing to take responsibility for BEING SUED,
for conspiracy to violate equal civil rights of other citizens?

Which side do you want to be on francoHFW?


If anyone else wants to answer for you, and is willing to petition
with me to Obama and Pelosi, Cruz and Trump, then on your
behalf I'm willing to accept a substitute who isn't afraid to speak out.

How much do you really believe your own arguments?
If you're not willing to take any responsibility for them!

so disappointing francoHFW was hoping to find a
pro-ACA supporter willing to explain this to me, but haven't FOUND ONE!!!!
 

Harry Dresden

Adamantium Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
71,551
Reaction score
10,610
Points
2,060
Location
Nv.
I have to call out francoHFW who may be intellectually honest and open enough
to admit what is wrong with this thinking behind ACA mandates.

francoHFW on this thread:

INSISTS that ACA mandates are justified because
"something had to be done"

I argue that laziness on the side of government officials (who can't figure out a better
way that doesn't violate Constitutional principles and beliefs, including states rights,
free choice, and due process of laws to prove citizens committed a violation before
depriving us of liberty) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
IE "COMPELLING INTEREST"

STATES HAVE RIGHTS, AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO ADDRESS
OBSCENE COSTS AND WASTE OF TAXES ON A FAILED MENTAL
HEALTH AND PRISON SYSTEM THAT *CAN* BE REVAMPED TO
REDIRECT TAXES SAVED TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

FAILURE OF GOVT OFFICIALS TO RESOLVE THIS IN ADVANCE
OF PASSING AND ENFORCING ACA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
JUSTIFICATION TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF LIBERTY,
DUE TO GOVT INCOMPETENCE IN FIGURING OUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION.


I hereby challenge francoHFW to justify how
failures of govt to come up with a Constitutionally agreed solution
(such as dividing health care where different groups can pay for reforms in SEPARATE ways
instead of imposing one way not everyone agrees to
and doesn't represent the BELIEFS of all taxpayers, thus VIOLATING our Constitutional rights)
constitutes a
* national emergency that isn't the fault of GOVT OFFICIALS
* compelling interest that isn't biased by GOVT OFFICIALS
where the GOVT OFFICIALS who failed to solve these problems
should be held responsible for the costs of their equally failed proposals
that violated Constitutional rights, beliefs, and ethical standards in
putting PARTISAN beliefs before Constitutional laws protecting
equal beliefs and representation of ALL citizens who cannot be
deprived of liberty without due process of law to show what
crimes WE committed. I can show you where GOVT OFFICIALS
like Obama, Congress and Courts imposed a bias in these ACA laws.

francoHFW
How are citizens who did not commit crimes and incur costs
RESPONSIBLE for contracts and mandates that other Govt Officials
believe in and imposed by their own political biases and ineptitude
in not finding better solutions that all sides would agree to (such as separating
funding and plans, so all beliefs are respected and protected from infringing on each other).

Why should citizens be taxed for the incompetent plans and mandates
forced on us by Govt Officials DESPITE OUR PROTESTS.

How is THAT OUR FAULT THEY REFUSED TO protect and include equal beliefs?

Are you saying that electing people to govt gives them the
right to override our Constitutional freedoms by abusing
Congress and Courts to pass and enforce such mandates
we opposed based on our beliefs that are violated by them?

Where in the Code of Ethics for Govt Service does it give
govt officials the right to impose biased partisan beliefs
to establish a national religion in violation of the Constitution:
http://www.ethics-commission.net
Because that's what you are promoting with this thinking:
that the belief in right to health care SUPERCEDES beliefs in
* states rights
* no taxation without representation
* consent of the governed
* civil liberties not being deprived without due process of laws
* no involuntary servitude except as a legal penalty for a convicted crime
* freedom of choice in personal decisions that govt is not authorized to intervene in, regulate or penalize
* neither establishing or prohibiting freedom of beliefs and religion
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Frankie!.....let me make you feel at home.....lol...

 

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
62,604
Reaction score
3,844
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
I have to call out francoHFW who may be intellectually honest and open enough
to admit what is wrong with this thinking behind ACA mandates.

francoHFW on this thread:

INSISTS that ACA mandates are justified because
"something had to be done"

I argue that laziness on the side of government officials (who can't figure out a better
way that doesn't violate Constitutional principles and beliefs, including states rights,
free choice, and due process of laws to prove citizens committed a violation before
depriving us of liberty) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
IE "COMPELLING INTEREST"

STATES HAVE RIGHTS, AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO ADDRESS
OBSCENE COSTS AND WASTE OF TAXES ON A FAILED MENTAL
HEALTH AND PRISON SYSTEM THAT *CAN* BE REVAMPED TO
REDIRECT TAXES SAVED TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

FAILURE OF GOVT OFFICIALS TO RESOLVE THIS IN ADVANCE
OF PASSING AND ENFORCING ACA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
JUSTIFICATION TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF LIBERTY,
DUE TO GOVT INCOMPETENCE IN FIGURING OUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION.


I hereby challenge francoHFW to justify how
failures of govt to come up with a Constitutionally agreed solution
(such as dividing health care where different groups can pay for reforms in SEPARATE ways
instead of imposing one way not everyone agrees to
and doesn't represent the BELIEFS of all taxpayers, thus VIOLATING our Constitutional rights)
constitutes a
* national emergency that isn't the fault of GOVT OFFICIALS
* compelling interest that isn't biased by GOVT OFFICIALS
where the GOVT OFFICIALS who failed to solve these problems
should be held responsible for the costs of their equally failed proposals
that violated Constitutional rights, beliefs, and ethical standards in
putting PARTISAN beliefs before Constitutional laws protecting
equal beliefs and representation of ALL citizens who cannot be
deprived of liberty without due process of law to show what
crimes WE committed. I can show you where GOVT OFFICIALS
like Obama, Congress and Courts imposed a bias in these ACA laws.

francoHFW
How are citizens who did not commit crimes and incur costs
RESPONSIBLE for contracts and mandates that other Govt Officials
believe in and imposed by their own political biases and ineptitude
in not finding better solutions that all sides would agree to (such as separating
funding and plans, so all beliefs are respected and protected from infringing on each other).

Why should citizens be taxed for the incompetent plans and mandates
forced on us by Govt Officials DESPITE OUR PROTESTS.

How is THAT OUR FAULT THEY REFUSED TO protect and include equal beliefs?

Are you saying that electing people to govt gives them the
right to override our Constitutional freedoms by abusing
Congress and Courts to pass and enforce such mandates
we opposed based on our beliefs that are violated by them?

Where in the Code of Ethics for Govt Service does it give
govt officials the right to impose biased partisan beliefs
to establish a national religion in violation of the Constitution:
http://www.ethics-commission.net
Because that's what you are promoting with this thinking:
that the belief in right to health care SUPERCEDES beliefs in
* states rights
* no taxation without representation
* consent of the governed
* civil liberties not being deprived without due process of laws
* no involuntary servitude except as a legal penalty for a convicted crime
* freedom of choice in personal decisions that govt is not authorized to intervene in, regulate or penalize
* neither establishing or prohibiting freedom of beliefs and religion
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Frankie!.....let me make you feel at home.....lol...

We've had about 6"- just enough to make it beautiful for Xmas. How are the fires and mudslides? lol
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
He'll just call you a hater dupe and run away
At least that requires more thought and typing than hitting his nose on the Z key.
No more freeloaders so pre-existing can be covered.
A. francoHFW Can you PROVE that citizens were "freeloaders"
BEFORE you abuse govt to deprive citizens of rights?
do you apply this same logic to
* depriving citizens of gun rights by treating them as criminals?
* depriving citizens of voting rights by assuming they are guilty of fraud?
* depriving citizens of "freedom of choice" in abortion because you don't want people abusing that freedom?

The rightwing is willing to throw out free choice in cases of ABORTION; are you against that "loss of choice" but willing to throw out free choice in cases of HEALTH INSURANCE.

What about Citizens who are COMMITTED to pay for their own costs, including the *FREE CHOICE to pay for insurance* BUT NOT FORCED by GOVT, because of not believing in federal govt MANDATING that citizens buy it.

Are you REALLY going to punish citizens for having beliefs
in BETTER WAYS to manage cost effective sustainable health care,
EXAMPLES:

People are not forced to fund
* Doctors Without Borders
* AmeriCares
* The Nurturing Network
* ST. JUDE'S CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
and look how effectively they work.


Nobody is forced to pay for "freeloaders" under programs
that work so well, people CHOOSE to contribute.

Why are you PENALIZING the people who believe in funding
cost-effective health care and medical programs VOLUNTARILY?


What crime is being committed, that you believe it is worth it to
PUNISH lawabiding citizens because of "freeloaders"
WHICH FREELOADERS?

AND WHY ARE YOU AND OBAMA TOO LAZY
to figure out a way to go after THOSE freeloaders?
Why is YOUR LAZINESS our problem?
That we have to lose OUR freedom because of YOUR intellectual LAZINESS???


B. Back to the prison system
ARE YOU APPLYING THE SAME LOGIC TO FREELOADERS IN PRISONS??

Can you explain why you wouldn't hold
* wrongdoers responsible for paying THEIR OWN COSTS TO THE PUBLIC
but you go after
* LAWABIDING TAXPAYING CITIZENS AND PUNISH US WITH
LOSS OF LIBERTY AND INCOME TO PAY FOR *** OTHER PEOPLE'S FREELOADING ***

Why AREN'T you and Obama going after THAT source of
BURDEN on taxpayers by FREELOADERS.

Why not focus on a system that HOLDS "freeloaders" accountable for
their costs INSTEAD OF GOING AFTER LAWABIDING CITIZENS
WHO DIDN'T CAUSE THESE CRIMES AND CREATE THESE COSTS!

Thanks francoHFW for trying to answer these questions.
If you can, you are the only one who has even bothered to try.
So Thank you!!
 
Last edited:
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Dear francoHFW if that's too long for you,
what about starting here:
A. if you and Obama agree with this plan
because "something had to be done"
then why not just require YOU and others
who AGREE WITH YOU TO PAY FOR IT.

if you believe it so much?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
62,604
Reaction score
3,844
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
Dear francoHFW if that's too long for you,
what about starting here:
A. if you and Obama agree with this plan
because "something had to be done"
then why not just require YOU and others
who AGREE WITH YOU TO PAY FOR IT.

if you believe it so much?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Isn't that the argument that Christians use, that Jesus is the only way?
So does that mean Christians have the right to impose that on the entire nation?
And penalize anyone who doesn't agree that that's the best way????
TRY and focus on HEALTH CARE. Only a universal system can and will work. My father the good doctor and philanthropist was for it since 1940, when he joined the Brit army to fight Nazis.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Ok so francoHFW has narrowed down the core of his BELIEFS about ACA to
1. it was the ONLY way to stop freeloaders
2. insurance mandates are the ONLY way to cover pre existing conditions
3. universal care "through govt" is the ONLY system that will work

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

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

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

the CORE of the programs are the FACILITIES and STAFF.

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

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

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

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

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

HOW IS THAT NOT FREELOADING OFF TAXPAYERS???
 

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
62,604
Reaction score
3,844
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
No idea what you are referring to. Tell your rep. Elections have repercussions- when Dems get 60 votes in the Senate. And control FINALLY for a few weeks.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
No idea what you are referring to. Tell your rep. Elections have repercussions- when Dems get 60 votes in the Senate. And control FINALLY for a few weeks.
If you and other Democrats have no idea of what CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES you are violating with ACA Mandates,
what business do you have advocating for it?

If you are "willfully ignorant" of any consequences!

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

????

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

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

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

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

This is truly outrageous!

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

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


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

What about DETERRENCE?

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

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

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

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

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


YIKES!
Voting for reps is NOT enough.
These bills must be checked instantly, not wait for 4-8 years to change.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,151
Reaction score
3,187
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Dear francoHFW
is there any way to compare the ACA mandates to a bill
that you would EQUALLY argue as I do that this should not be passed IN THE FIRST PLACE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

If we apply the same policy to both ACA and Iraq war spending
would that be fair, and would you agre e to hold separate parties responsible?
 
Last edited:

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
62,604
Reaction score
3,844
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
Dear francoHFW
is there any way to compare the ACA mandates to a bill
that you would EQUALLY argue as I do that this should not be passed IN THE FIRST PLACE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

If we apply the same policy to both ACA and Iraq war spending
would that be fair, and would you agre e to hold separate parties responsible?
60% of the Senate. Best social reform in many years. A tax. Tough.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top