The Fight Against the Health Care Takeover

[Quantum Windbag]

I go on about facts because that's all that interests me. I've posted links in the past and the rw's studiously avoid them. I now post very few links concerning ACA. It is you who has made the wild-eyed claims, all based on ignorance, and it is YOU who has not proven your opinions to be true. Just the opposite - your posts prove that you have not read anything more enlightening or fact-based than fux, britebart, dredge, lushbo, beck.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, you got nothing? Seriously, you keep responding with screeds referring to "the facts" and accusing me of not understanding PPACA, yet you've consistently failed to point out anything that I'm factually wrong about.

If you think we have some key disagreement on the facts, then speak up. What is it? I assume you haven't answered yet because the facts, despite your droning to the contrary, aren't really in question. It's our subjective evaluation of the trade-off at the core of PPACA. Some of us aren't willing to trade off fundamental liberty for temporary (and questionable) promises of security.

Actually, you do exactly what you have done in this post - You cherry pick part of my post, ignore what I've said, accuse me of saying things I did not say and then say its up to me to hold your hand and lead you out of the dark.

I'll say this one LAST time -

You have the same choice that everyone else does. You can educate yourself, you can choose to make this work for you and your family, for yours and your family's future. (Actually, you sound very young and I understand you may not have a family and so, therefore, don't understand just how important health care insurance can be.)

OR - you can whine and bitch, strut around throwing childish little tantrums and making really stupid threats and demand someone else do your homework for you.

It looks to me like you've made your choice.

You and I are finished until and unless you can bring FACTS to the discussion. Because, even though you obviously don't know it, that's really all that matters - FACTS.

Can he also chose to make the Post Office profitable?

 

[emilynghiem]

You really don't know anything about ObamaCare, do you. If you did, you would know that you must buy your own health insurance unless you cannot afford it. You would also know that you don't have to buy health insurance even if you CAN afford it and have the option instead, of showing financial responsibility.

Dear LN: Can you copy a citation of the bill that says you don't have to buy insurance (even if you can afford it) and have the "option of showing financial responsibility."

This is new to me. I only read excerpts that mentioned the few exemptions allowed under special conditions. Where did you get that insurance is optional if you show financial responsiblity? Can you direct me to that information? Thanks

P.S. I think the conservative idea of taking responsibility for health care is having free choice of whatever means you want for paying for health care, NOT being mandated by govt to buy insurance. Just because people oppose federal mandates does not mean they deny responsibility for paying; they just want to follow the Constitutional limitations on federal govt and leave these decisions to the states or to the people, and push the control locally instead.

 

[editec]

Get it right!

There is no "health care" takeover.

What has been imposed are major changes in the regulations imposed on health care insurance companies.

Now if you want to complain about what REALLY occurred, then by all means, do so.

I've got a litany of complains about ACA that I'll be happy to share with you the MOMENT you actually understand what the law says.


Clearly if you think, as theoriginaltor of this thread thinks, that ACA took over the HC industry you know NOTHING about the policy.

 

[dblack]

Get it right!

There is no "health care" takeover.

What has been imposed are major changes in the regulations imposed on health care insurance companies.

That's closer - but still not quite it. The regulations are imposed on health care consumers as well. We are told what kind of insurance we can buy and from whom. And, of course, we are told that we must buy it or be punished for our insolance

Clearly if you think, as theoriginaltor of this thread thinks, that ACA took over the HC industry you know NOTHING about the policy.

ACA centralizes and consolidates control over how we pay for our health care. If you control the funding of an operation, you control that operation, period. The interesting bit about the health care takeover is that it's not, strictly speaking, a government takeover. Government is just the tool the insurance industry is using to establish its fiefdom.

 

[dblack]

I think the conservative idea of taking responsibility for health care is having free choice of whatever means you want for paying for health care, NOT being mandated by govt to buy insurance. Just because people oppose federal mandates does not mean they deny responsibility for paying; they just want to follow the Constitutional limitations on federal govt and leave these decisions to the states or to the people, and push the control locally instead.

I wouidn't call that a 'conservative' idea of responsibility - just a dictionary version. What luddly and the other ACA apologists are evoking is more akin to obedience - where being 'responsibility' simply boils down to following orders and then being absolved of responsibility in return for your servitude. It's the classic slave/owner relationship.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Like other rw's, you hear what you want to hear and ignore what doesn't feed your agenda.

Look in the mirror, tool.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?

Nothing can be done. That battle was lost the day John Roberts betrayed the Constitution and America. It was a clear case of judicial activism and will be quite a damaging one.

 

[dblack]

Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?

Nothing can be done. That battle was lost the day John Roberts betrayed the Constitution and America. It was a clear case of judicial activism and will be quite a damaging one.

Yeah... I'm not sure it was 'activism'. In fact, it would have almost certainly been called 'activism' if he'd struck it down - but I'm convinced that he should have. It would have been our first push back against the slide into corporatism. As it was, it may have been our last chance to stop it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Grandma]

Get it right!

There is no "health care" takeover.

What has been imposed are major changes in the regulations imposed on health care insurance companies.

That's closer - but still not quite it. The regulations are imposed on health care consumers as well. We are told what kind of insurance we can buy and from whom. And, of course, we are told that we must buy it or be punished for our insolance

Clearly if you think, as theoriginaltor of this thread thinks, that ACA took over the HC industry you know NOTHING about the policy.

ACA centralizes and consolidates control over how we pay for our health care. If you control the funding of an operation, you control that operation, period. The interesting bit about the health care takeover is that it's not, strictly speaking, a government takeover. Government is just the tool the insurance industry is using to establish its fiefdom.

Now those employers that provide insurance don't hand out several companies' plans to the employees. The employees have NO choice. "You guys are getting this company's policy." So the ACA has no effect on that. None.

By the way...
I've pointed out before that the "fines" aren't enforceable, it says so in the ACA law. So let's not make any more reference to that which does not exist, disinfoers. That goes for the "death panel" bullshit too.

As for the ACA being unpopular, more and more people are liking it. More young people like being able to stay covered on their parents' policies while they're starting out in the world and not making enough to buy their own. Women like not being charged more just because they're women. Everyone likes the "no pre-existing condition" clause. The working poor like that they will get discounts on their policies. And so on...

I can't understand how anyone could NOT like the ACA.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Being able to pay less and get better coverage is helping a lot of people. And, as we've seen, it has actually saved lives - such as those with ongoing catastrophic expenses.

I save every month but since I'm a liberal, that's a bad thing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I can't understand how anyone could NOT like the ACA.

I can.

Read the posts - Those who still have not educated themselves about the benefits and the lower cost say they're against it. Coincidentally, they're all rw's. LOL

 

[Dreamy]

Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?

Great topic. I must admit I have not paid close attention to other states. I live in Mass. "Loud groan

What became of these Amendment attempts:


House of Representatives Passes Amendments to Defund PPACA

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The last count I knew was that pubpots have introduced 34 separate bills to repeal the health care act. Needless to say, they did not offer up their own health care coverage, which we tax payers pay for.

We pay for congress to have almost identical coverage that they don't want us to have.

Interesting, huh?

 

[dblack]

The last count I knew was that pubpots have introduced 34 separate bills to repeal the health care act. Needless to say, they did not offer up their own health care coverage, which we tax payers pay for.

We pay for congress to have almost identical coverage that they don't want us to have.

Interesting, huh?

It is interesting. We offer health insurance as part of the compensation package for those serving in congress as employees. Citizens aren't, yet, considered 'employees' of government. If anything, we are the employers of government rather than its employees.

But for what it's worth, I agree with you - we shouldn't be providing them with insurance - employees or not.

 

[dblack]

Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?

Great topic. I must admit I have not paid close attention to other states. I live in Mass. "Loud groan

What became of these Amendment attempts:


House of Representatives Passes Amendments to Defund PPACA

Well, I have no confidence that Congress (regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans control it) will make any serious attempt to repeal PPACA. It's what they've all wanted for a long time.

 

[emilynghiem]

Being able to pay less and get better coverage is helping a lot of people. And, as we've seen, it has actually saved lives - such as those with ongoing catastrophic expenses.

I save every month but since I'm a liberal, that's a bad thing.

Dear LN:
1. The prolife legislation would also save lives. But I support liberals/democrats being against such mandates for prochoice reasons. the same reason i support conservatives/republicans for opposing these federal mandates for constitutional reasons. You can hold corporations accountable by enforcing the CONSTITUTION instead of regulating through more fed laws.
You can have health care reform by taking responsibility to the states/people not fed govt whose role is oversight of national security and cross-state institutions or issues, not things that are reserved to the states or the people. Similar to prochoice and marriage issues. These are religious and personal and belong to the people/states to decide. the Govt can overrule bad policies that violate Constitutional protections, but cannot dictate state laws.

2. As for your earlier quote, stating exemptions were given by showing "financial responsibility" where are you getting this? If people have financial ability to pay they are required to pay for insurance or pay the fine. The reason people are protesting is we don't have freedom to pay for our own health care using wahtever system we want; we are being compelled to buy private insurance and that is not the only way to provide health care.

Can you please explain where you got this from?

All i found were citations that exemptions were limited to certain religious conditions.
So it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to discriminate or regulate on the basis of religion, but that is what they are requiring in order to be exempted! Of course this is not only unconstitutional, but contradicts the Democrat Party's own stance to defend pro-choice!

Very interesting karmic twist. Suddenly I see prolife people in the shoes of prochoice people fighting against mandates from govt, even though these are argued as saving lives. And here I see prochoice people defending such mandates even though this is not prochoice. So now I hope you see what it feels like to be a prolife person being "blamed for killing people" because you oppose mandates. Prochoice does not mean pro-abortion and babykilling.

And being for freedom here, against the mandates, does NOT mean wanting people to go without health care and die. it means to find better ways to do this without govt imposition.

Can you please cite or explain WHAT PART of the ACA allows for people not to pay the fine or insurance if they show financial responsibility? For what? What conditions are required?

 

[emilynghiem]

I can't understand how anyone could NOT like the ACA.

I can.

Read the posts - Those who still have not educated themselves about the benefits and the lower cost say they're against it. Coincidentally, they're all rw's. LOL

Dear Luddy Neddite: NOT TRUE. I am a prochoice progressive Democrat, I am NOT a rightwinger. And I am opposed to this bill. I believe Democrats and voters who support it should TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and pay for it and be under its mandates VOLUNTARILY. And the Greens have the right to set up single payer and be under that. and the GOP/RW have the right to set up independent health care through churches, schools and businesses and be under that. Each person/party should fund its own policies and programs, not impose one way on others.

I am NOT a RW or GOP or conservative saying this!

I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and I happen to be an extremely liberal prochoice Democrat. I am so prochoice, I defend prolife views equally as prochoice, and believe the GOP opposition has the right to pursue their own programs and fund those (the same way I defend liberals and Democrats who want to be under this health care bill - fine, but you pay for it, and you can have it!)

Please don't think for one second this is a RW thing.
It is a ***Constitutionalist*** issue, and the far left Greens, the libertarians, and the other independents against corporate benefits off govt are equally against this bill. Either for prochoice reasons against govt mandates, or by separation of federal from state levels.

If you don't stand for and enforce constitutionality of govt, you hurt the credibility, integrity and authority of our nation.
It does not matter if you favor or oppose the policy, if it is unconstitutional it should be left to free and equal choice, not imposed; that is why I support both prochoice and prolife views from being imposed upon by bad laws that discriminate against one or the other. Same with this health care bill. people who agree or disagree should have EQUAL freedom and protection to pay for the policies of their choice.

Prove what works first, and what works best. Then allow people "free choice" to pay for the system of their choice.
not imposing it and then threatening them with fines.

If people would oppose illegalizing abortion and criminalizing women for it, why would you illegalize citizens over buying insurance?
Why is this administration so keen on having taxpayers pay for undocumented children and families, and making them LEGAL,
while making it ILLEGAL for lawabiding citizens NOT to depend on govt mandates?

Should we protest with T-shirts that say "We are all Illegal"?

My boyfriend even joked: maybe he should renounce his citizenship and become illegal. So he can get free benefits instead of being forced to pay! He is a moderate, he is not a Republican either because he is prochoice. This bill is not.

 

[dblack]

Now those employers that provide insurance don't hand out several companies' plans to the employees. The employees have NO choice. "You guys are getting this company's policy." So the ACA has no effect on that. None.

Sure it does. You can still elect to buy your own insurance - or, have none at all - regardless of what your employer offers, if they do.

By the way...
I've pointed out before that the "fines" aren't enforceable, it says so in the ACA law. So let's not make any more reference to that which does not exist, disinfoers.

Yeah... let's talk about this. Whenever someone hedges on this angle it's sort of funny, at first. But then I think about it, and those of you citing this part of the bill are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest. Setting aside the legalese - do you really believe that Congress would pass a bill they don't intend to enforce? Do you really expect the rest of us to buy it?

They included the bizarre wording deliberately. They did it to give cover to politicians and cheerleaders who don't want to admit that the law will, in fact, punish people who don't buy insurance. It's sort of like what they did with pretending the PPACA wasn't a tax increase. Until it was convenient from a legal standpoint to acknowledge it as such. All smoke and mirrors and, well - lies.

I suspect you'll ignore the above, but at least try to answer this: What do you think the government will do if large numbers of us defy the mandate? What will happen if we game it (as I intend) to maximum advantage?

I can't understand how anyone could NOT like the ACA.

Because some of us don't like being controlled by corporations via government.

 

[emilynghiem]

The last count I knew was that pubpots have introduced 34 separate bills to repeal the health care act. Needless to say, they did not offer up their own health care coverage, which we tax payers pay for.

We pay for congress to have almost identical coverage that they don't want us to have.

Interesting, huh?

Dear LN: The Democrat leaders and the large groups voting for this, ALSO are not under it. Unions and other groups got exempted in order to pass it. They are either exempted, or get better insurance paid for by taxpayers. Wake up dear!

Even the President who offered to be under it, OPTED, get it? he wasn't required by law, or threatened with a fine like the rest of us. The fact that he can OPT IN, is the benefit that we all want.

Again, I am a prochoice Democrat. I use this same argument when I ask Prolife people to back off legislation to mandate prolife policies. All I ask is the same way they have the CHOICE to be prolife, without depending on law, that is what I ask to give others.

If the bill is so good, give us the CHOICE to fund and opt into it.