The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[emilynghiem]

WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.

It's the most responsible thing.

Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.

It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.

but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.

that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.

 

[Spoonman]

can you imagine if the ACA had been launched by Bush. the problems with the website. the number of people being dropped. the admission of his health care chief after the fact they knew 93 million people would lose their coverage. after they have been denying that all along. the sticker shock. the low participation.

Do you think the liberals would have been bashing bush? do you think the liberals would have been critical of a democratic congress trying to stop the plan?

 

[dblack]

WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.

It's the most responsible thing.

Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.

It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.

but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.

that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.

Exactly. Its disturbing just how much 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' presumptions are being adopted in government these days.

 

[PMZ]

A.
If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.

There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.

One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.

B.
A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.

Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.

In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.

And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.

Does this help?

OK let me try to address A and B

A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.

A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?

B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?

this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.

The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.

I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)

Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.

Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999

Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.

You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.

What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.

The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.

Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.

If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.

that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.

It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.

We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.

You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.

Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible. It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.

This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?

 

[PMZ]

From the country of Vatican City.

i knew you were a hack. next

Learning is hard, isn't it.

 

[dblack]

A.
If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.

There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.

One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.

B.
A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.

Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.

In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.

And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.

Does this help?

OK let me try to address A and B

A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.

A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?

B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?

this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.

The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.

I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)

Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.

Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999

Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.

You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.

What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.

The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.

Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.

If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.

that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.

It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.

We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.

Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.

 

[PMZ]

WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.

It's the most responsible thing.

Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.

It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.

but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.

that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.

"it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"

You do realize I'm sure, that you are welcome to this opinion.

If you'd like to make it meaningful, the process is to ammend our Constitution, of course changing it to a different Constitution.

Have at it.

 

[PMZ]

OK let me try to address A and B

A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.

A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?

B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?

this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.

The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.

I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)

Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.

Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999

Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.

You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.

What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.

The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.

Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.

If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.

that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.

It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.

We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.

Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.

Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?

What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes? Don't they have rights?

 

[PMZ]

OK let me try to address A and B

A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.

A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?

B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?

this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.

The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.

I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)

Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.

Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999

Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.

You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.

What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.

The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.

Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.

If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.

that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.

It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.

We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.

Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.

Actually they are functionally equivalent. Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.

 

[PMZ]

I've never seen so many conservatives anxious to pay someone else's bills.

 

[dblack]

Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.

Actually they are functionally equivalent. Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

 

[emilynghiem]

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.

You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.

Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible. It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.

This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?

Hi PMZ:
1. driving a car on state roads is an optional privilege. so you enter a contract and agree to that with your license and laws of the state. insurance is required by the state, by agreement among the people who vote on that.

this was imposed through Congress and federal govt without vote by the people.

2. some states do have option to show ability to pay as a CHOICE instead of insurance.
so that is what these opponents are asking for, is the same freedom as before to cover their health care OTHER WAYS

3. people are paying for their own insurance to cover the liability if they hit other people.
you are NOT required to buy insurance coverage to cover your own car. You have a CHOICE to buy additional insurance, or pay for this yourself.

And I am not paying for insurance so "other people can get coverage for their cars without paying for their insurance" -- I am responsible for costs of damages *I* incur to others

However, this does bring up a serious point I believe should be addressed to pay for health care: currently lawabiding taxpayers are charged the costs of crimes committed by wrongdoers who never pay this back. surely we could use money spent on health care, education housing and food for offenders, and set up restitution for this to be paid back to pay for LAWABIDING citizens willing to work to pay back welfare until they stabilize. So

4. BTW I do believe we SHOULD hold citizens responsible for costs if they commit premeditated crimes, similar to paying for damaging someone else's car

I don't mind exploring this option if you are interested

Why not have citizens sign contracts upon turning legal at 18, that they agree to be financially responsible for X Y Z costs if they commit premeditated crimes, and spell out those costs. such as $5 million if you murder someone and are convicted as a premeditated crime, etc. or $50,000 a year for incarceration etc.

And each citizen agrees to work X years of labor to pay back the $5 million or whatever est. cost to the victims/survivors/taxpayers for their crimes.

So it would be like holding people responsible if THEY cause a wreck.

Why not hold people responsible for shootouts that put victims in the hospital or morgue,
and sign agreements in advance that if you cannot afford to pay for your crimes, then you agree to "trade places" in labor factories to work off your debts while workers who would LOVE to have your citizenship take your place so they can work an honest living while you serve your sentence working in prison.

Why not hold people responsible for the costs of crime and health care?
And use that money saved or paid back, instead of charging taxpayers more?

 

[emilynghiem]

Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?

What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes? Don't they have rights?

We follow the Constitution to agree WHICH of these laws are decided at the state level, WHICH at the federal level, and WHICH are private to be determined by business choices.

The key is we AGREE which level of law has authority over which issue.

With ACA we do not agree. People are using the federal govt as their substitute "church" to push their beliefs that could be pursued through their party or other political/business/charity affiliation. We do not all "agree" to stretch the Constitution
to 'give' this authority to federal govt.

If people do not CONSENT to change the contract, then it is unlawful to do so to THIS extent, and would require either Constitutional amendment or direct vote on state laws.
But is unconstitutional to change the Constitution to this degree, where the dispute is clearly RELIGIOUS in nature. The differences are basically between political religions.

If people AGREED to those changes, sure, you can make all the laws you want to; on whatever level the parties to the contract all AGREE is appropriate, local state or federal.

 

[emilynghiem]

" I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives"

Easy money. In the early years of the Obama administration, Republicans realized that the performance of their Bush administration was indefensible. So they launched a political strategy in the only way they could. 24/7/365 propaganda aimed at making the Obama administration seem even worse.

Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had. Improve our health care cost and effectiveness.

Republican strategists bet it all on this horse. They threw up every conceivable obstacle to his success and therefore America's success. A huge gamble with no way out if they failed.

They did fail. They have been searching since for an exit that doesn't exist. Just like Bush's holy wars.

Hi PMZ: What I mean is an analogy where Obama admits the ACA is unconstitutional.
And explains to LIBERALS or ACA SUPPORTERS in terms THOSE PEOPLE GET.
So EVEN THE SUPPORTERS agree it is "unconstitutional to impose X by federal govt."

Did the other analogy work for you?
When I compared the "responsibility of being able to pay for pregnancy/child BEFORE having sex"?
Just because it is the more responsible thing to do
DOES NOT GIVE federal govt authority to impose a mandate
REQUIRING that citizens show proof of ability to pay BEFORE having sex.

What do you think of this analogy?
Do you see what I am asking?

Thanks, PMZ
It is good to know there are Republicans who support ACA and see the good purpose.
Now, if we can just achieve that same good purpose WITHOUT imposing insurance
mandates, we'd be in business! Let's work on it, I am happy to keep troubleshooting the different conflicts with you, and I APPRECIATE YOUR REPLIES THANK YOU!

Please keep replying, I know we can use your feedback to resolve all these issues!

 

[emilynghiem]

WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.

It's the most responsible thing.

Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.

It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.

but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.

that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.

"it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"

You do realize I'm sure, that you are welcome to this opinion.

If you'd like to make it meaningful, the process is to ammend our Constitution, of course changing it to a different Constitution.

Have at it.

??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?

That was the point of this, did you answer that?

by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,

then would your answer be:
"go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"

Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?

 

[RKMBrown]

I am partisan in favor of progress for our country. My experience is that the Republican Party has abandoned that, simply because their inept performance has put them in survival mode, and they've abandoned even the pretext of serving the country over serving the party. I see the evidence of that as overwhelming.

I am a Republican. They historically have had a very useful and functional perspective that was a great balance with the Democrat useful and functional perspective.

That was abandoned when the dixiecrats, who have always been dysfunctional and anti-American, left the Democratic Party over the issue of equal rights for everyone, and joined the GOP. That’s when they left useful politics behind, and became anti-American.

That’s is not blind bias but observable fact for those unbiased.

There are many parties whose foundation leads them to be against American interests. Communist for example.

I see no reason for those interested in our success to support either Communism or Republicanism.

PMZ this is wonderful! Part of the reform plans, to set up vet housing with home health interns, was written by another community leader I volunteer with who is a Republican. she would certainly appreciate more support to get her plans to national attention.

Can you please help? Please see pdf file for Vet Housing authored by Gladys House
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

May I email you or contact you about how we could work together?
And propose alternatives to ACA that opponents can fund voluntarily without conflict?

Thanks! Gladys could sure use help from fellow Republicans who understand the
issues in depth as you do. This is amazing, thank you for sharing in detail.

Don't fall for it. The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views. The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats. Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.

PMZ may actually be bi-polar.

 

[RKMBrown]

A.
If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.

There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.

One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.

B.
A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.

Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.

In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.

And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.

Does this help?

OK let me try to address A and B

A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.

A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?

B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?

this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.

The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.

I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)

Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.

Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999

Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.

You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.

What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.

The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.

Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.

If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.

that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.

It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.

We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.

You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.

Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible. It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.

This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?

Are you incapable of discerning the difference between liability insurance and personal health care insurance? Granted the broken law that says hospitals must provide free care sets up the broken situation where not having personal health insurance is a risk to the rest of us. But that's not what ACA is, is it? ACA is not a law that makes us all have insurance to cover Hospital Emergencies, it is?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[emilynghiem]

Don't fall for it. The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views. The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats. Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.

PMZ may actually be bi-polar.

Hmmm, PMZ and I may be lost twins separated at birth!
People say "no way" can I be a progressive prochoice Democrat
when I sound like a conservative Constitutionalist.

We may be yin and yang.
If so, this could either go in circles or
"BANG" we could be like "matter meeting anti-matter"
and reality could implode on itself, creating a whole new world of possibilities....

PMZ are you a Marxist? Are you affiliated in any way with Dr. David Michael Smith?

 

[dblack]

Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.

It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.

but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.

that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.

"it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"

You do realize I'm sure, that you are welcome to this opinion.

If you'd like to make it meaningful, the process is to ammend our Constitution, of course changing it to a different Constitution.

Have at it.

??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?

That was the point of this, did you answer that?

by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,

then would your answer be:
"go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"

Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?

The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.

In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.

I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

Don't fall for it. The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views. The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats. Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.

PMZ may actually be bi-polar.

Hmmm, PMZ and I may be lost twins separated at birth!
People say "no way" can I be a progressive prochoice Democrat
when I sound like a conservative Constitutionalist.

We may be yin and yang.
If so, this could either go in circles or
"BANG" we could be like "matter meeting anti-matter"
and reality could implode on itself, creating a whole new world of possibilities....

PMZ are you a Marxist? Are you affiliated in any way with Dr. David Michael Smith?

It is true that many the differences of ideology between individuals can be explained away by the terminology one is saddled with. However, not in this case I don't think... You and PMZ appear to me to be complete opposites. But I welcome the effort of a closet libertarian, such as yourself, in attempting to right PMZ's ship so to speak. Hope you don't mind me calling your views on liberty as not dissimilar from that of libertarian views. You try the subtle approach Let's see if that works.