Do you at all believe it to be corrupt? Certain aspects with it? Are there any specific corporations you believe to be corrupt and harmful? Which ones?
What issues do you have with certain corporations' business practices? Monsanto for example.
Do you believe in at least the idea of government regulations in business practices? Provided the regulation reach is limited? What purpose do you believe regulations should serve specifically? Where do you draw the line?
Hi Billy: I can answer as a Constitutionalist who is more liberal/progressive/prochoice. My conservative/Republican friends agree with me, and all think I am with the wrong party, ie Democrats. But I believe in equal inclusion, so I believe this can be accomplished from any position or party, and would especially hold Democrats to this standard who claim diversity.
1. what is ultimately corrupt is imposing a law against the consent of others while expecting them to pay for it, instead of taking that responsibility for one's own views.
that is like signing someone's name to a contract, expecting them to pay on it under penalty of law, while not paying for it when you were the ones passing it and pushing it.
so regardless of the content of the bill, no matter how good it is, with all the best solutions, it should be freely signed and enforced by consent of those expected to pay for it.
all it would take is ACKNOWLEDGING this, and the rest could be corrected from there
2. as for govt regulating businesses or any large collective entity; for the same reasons we enforce the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from abuses of govt as a collective entity with greater resources and influence and authority than a single person, the same protections should be enforced for ANY large group whether a nonprofit, business and in particular political parties that have become bullying machines, also the media. Any group should be required to redress grievances instead of colluding to silence the opposition.
if in the process of licensing businesses nonprofits or religious organizations to operate within a state, these entities were required to set up and follow some procedure for redressing grievances and protecting due process by resolving conflicts by consensus, then we could eliminate the need for excess regulations of each individual industry and field.
most issues could be resolved by people petitioning and answering objections directly.
and only cases that really involve national or federal level would become govt responsibility
3. as for solutions to ACA the first thing would be to remove the overregulated restrictions on exemptions that are abused or discriminating on the basis of religion or political favor.
open up the exemptions where anyone or any group can set up their own chioces for health care provided they neither impose policies or costs on others of other approaches. And make people and parties pay for their own programs, not impose on dissenters who believe in other approaches.
ex: a. reforming the criminal justice system, charging restitution for crimes back to the wrongdoers to pay back the public and u se those funds for education housing health care.
b. allowing charities to provide free spiritual healing to reduce costs of disease, treatment, and also crimes caused by mental and criminal sickness these methods have been shown to cure. in exchange for being exempted where they can build clinics and centers to serve all people, thus reducing the cost and burden on the public
c. rewarding citizens and businesses with taxbreaks for investing in medical education and internships, home health business co-ops, etc to serve Vets and the elderly poor or disabled
d. addressing past waste and abuse of taxpayer money by creating commissioned jobs for legal teams and law schools to assess damages and collect on behalf of taxpayers,
and use those resources and restitution paid back to taxpayers to fund training jobs and services in education, housing and health care. {NOTE: the corrupt spending by abusing military contracts
could easily pay for health care for more people without adding taxes or incurring future debts to taxpayers, but would cash in on getting past debts and damages paid back. If people don't have the money to pay back, then credits can be issued to pay for the labor to do the work that should have been paid for with that same tax money. And over time, by investing in work study programs and schools to provide services on a sustainable basis, the money made or saved can be applied back to pay off the debt tracked per project or case brought by taxpayers against govt or corporate abuses.}
In short, these ideas address the CAUSE and COST of health care, not just manipulating insurance to try to pay the costs 'after the fact.' And instead of adding more cost to what taxpayers have already paid and are still paying now, why not go after the money owed to taxpayers from past misspending, abuse and waste. and use that to pay for costs instead of charging more and more with no accountability.
these are just a few ideas. people should retain equal freedom to pursue the health care options of their choice which was never a duty ascribed to federal govt under the Constitution
if people wish to amend this to apply to health care it should be done openly and honestly using Constitutional rules people agree upon, not how it was done to circumvent consent.
in the meantime at the very least I would hold ACA supporters to pay for their own bill under their own requirements and quit imposing this on others who have other means of providing health care to more people with less bureaucracy or politics involved. to abuse the law and govt to impose such a biased law against consent of taxpayers is fraudulent. Where officials are basically falsely claiming to protect Constitutional duties, protect prochoice and equal inclusion while violating all those principles by imposing this bill as a fed mandate that penalizes opposing choices.
