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

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. This is only what you wish was true as it is your excuse for extremism. You wanting it to be true has no impact on reality.

Now liberty is "extremism?"

What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when, in fact, the opposite is true.

A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty? Be honest, what drugs are you on?

 

[PMZ]

Now liberty is "extremism?"

What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when, in fact, the opposite is true.

A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty? Be honest, what drugs are you on?

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care, gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.

 

[P@triot]

cost increases greater than inflation have never even slowed.

so once again, where does that perceived "problem" by you authorize the federal government to intervene?

scotus.

And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.

Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?

 

[dblack]

What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when, in fact, the opposite is true.

A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty? Be honest, what drugs are you on?

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health insurance, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.

 

[RKMBrown]

What's extremism is your presumption that more liberty is the result of fewer laws when, in fact, the opposite is true.

A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty? Be honest, what drugs are you on?

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care, gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.

But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it. He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.

 

[P@triot]

Check it out [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even liberals can no longer continue lying about Obamacare. You're one of the extreme radicals. I'm wondering how long you can keep perpetuating the lie before you finally cave to the truth as well...

Obamacare's Harshest Critics? Look at What These Liberals Are Saying

 

[PMZ]

so once again, where does that perceived "problem" by you authorize the federal government to intervene?

scotus.

And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.

Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?

SCOTUS ruled that it does. What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation. The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.

 

[PMZ]

Check it out [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - even liberals can no longer continue lying about Obamacare. You're one of the extreme radicals. I'm wondering how long you can keep perpetuating the lie before you finally cave to the truth as well...

Obamacare's Harshest Critics? Look at What These Liberals Are Saying

The truth of what?

 

[PMZ]

A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty? Be honest, what drugs are you on?

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care, gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.

But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it. He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.

ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance. The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.

All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage. They have since EMTALA.

 

[PMZ]

A law that forces people to buy health insurance, and forces people to provide subsidies to other people results in more liberty? Be honest, what drugs are you on?

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health insurance, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.

They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills, no matter what, are the extremely wealthy.

So insurance is no choice for the vast, vast majority.

I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs. So all consumers have skin in the game.

So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.

 

[dblack]

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health insurance, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.

They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills, no matter what, are the extremely wealthy.

So insurance is no choice for the vast, vast majority.

I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs. So all consumers have skin in the game.

So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.

Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we temporarily beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.

And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.

 

[PMZ]

You keep making this claim, but it's demonstrably untrue. ACA does exactly the opposite. It doesn't force people to pay for their own health care. It forces them to pay for health insurance, a scheme specifically designed share the burden of paying for health care. You're basically saying that black is white.

They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills, no matter what, are the extremely wealthy.

So insurance is no choice for the vast, vast majority.

I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs. So all consumers have skin in the game.

So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.

Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we temporarily beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.

And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.

Or, we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education. As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.

 

[dblack]

They only people that can afford to guarantee that they can pay their own health care bills, no matter what, are the extremely wealthy.

So insurance is no choice for the vast, vast majority.

I don't know any health care insurance that covers 100% of health care costs. So all consumers have skin in the game.

So there really is not an alternative available that satisfies your concerns.

Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we temporarily beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.

And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.

Or, we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education. As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.

Hair of the dog, eh?

 

[P@triot]

scotus.

And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.

Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?

SCOTUS ruled that it does. What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation. The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.

I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has nothing to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.

Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?

If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.

 

[RKMBrown]

A law that requires everyone to pay for their own health care frees everyone from the burden of carrying others.

Putting the health care of those that business does not a pay a living wage to on the table rather than forcing them into under the table health care, gives them the same freedom that you and I have and reduces the impact of their marginal health on the rest of us and keeps us all aware of the consequences of non living wages.

But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it. He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.

ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance. The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.

All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage. They have since EMTALA.

No reason to lie about it. You are not required. It's not a law that you have to do it. Nor is it a penalty. It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision. There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.

Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before. These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY. That is not living wage that is upper middle class.

So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.

 

[PMZ]

Of course there are alternatives. Most of them involve doing the opposite of what ACA attempts to do. First, we need to remove all the tax and regulatory incentives currently encouraging health care consumers to over insure. That means we get rid of all tax deductions promoting health insurance, employer provided or otherwise. Then, we use the Commerce Clause as it was intended and break up state regulatory fiefdoms currently controlled by the large insurance corporations. We do the same for the AMA's control over medical schools and doctor certification. In the meantime, while we're waiting for the health care market to come back into balance, we temporarily beef up the safety nets to take care of the people currently getting fucked over by the inflated market.

And more important than anything, we fight like hell to keep the established lobby of the health care industry from turning every single attempt at reform into corporate welfare serving their interests.

Or, we could do what works for the rest of the world. Consider good health in the same way that we value education. As a right and a competitive advantage. Not as a way to make more money regardless of the cost to others.

Hair of the dog, eh?

I seem to get this reaction from you whenever I suggest that we learn from the experience of others.

Why?

 

[PMZ]

And again (because you keep dodging this quesiton as well), where does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution? The federal government is only authorized to act on 18 specific enumerated powers. Healthcare (or any part of the private sector is NOT one of them). So please tell me where I can find in the Constitution the section which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter it.

Furthermore, you also keep refusing to answer this simple question: if the Supreme Court rules that you no longer have 1st Amendment rights, will you agree with the ruling and comply?

SCOTUS ruled that it does. What you wish the Constitution said doesn't enter the equation. The Constitution is what it is because nutballs with agendas can't change it to what supports their particular delusion.

I understand that. Repeating a reality over and over which has nothing to do with the question doesn't cover up the fact that you have now been exposed.

Please tell me what section of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare that it may alter the Constitution and add a 19th enumerated power to the federal government?

If you can't give me the exact section, that means you are wrong on your entire position that the Supreme Court ruling is what authorized the federal government to intercede on healthcare because of perceived cost issues.

Here's the thing. You can believe whatever you want about what the Constitution says.
What you can't do, is prevent the Executive and Judicial branches from enforcing any law passed by the Legislative branch that hasn't been found unconstitutional by the Federal Courts.

Carry on.

 

[PMZ]

But the ACA law does not force anyone to pay for health insurance, except the taxpayer who does not get it. He just gets to pay for subsidies for other people to get health insurance.

ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance. The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.

All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage. They have since EMTALA.

No reason to lie about it. You are not required. It's not a law that you have to do it. Nor is it a penalty. It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision. There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.

Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before. These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY. That is not living wage that is upper middle class.

So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.

From

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/fea...tions-on-assets-and-student-health-plans.aspx


" To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."

 

[RKMBrown]

ACA requires everyone to carry adequate health insurance. The penalty for not carrying it is a fine.

All tax payers subsidize the health care of full time workers not paid a living wage. They have since EMTALA.

No reason to lie about it. You are not required. It's not a law that you have to do it. Nor is it a penalty. It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision. There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.

Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before. These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY. That is not living wage that is upper middle class.

So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.

From

Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News


" To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."

Exactly. What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%? I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?

Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle. Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.

 

[PMZ]

No reason to lie about it. You are not required. It's not a law that you have to do it. Nor is it a penalty. It's a tax, see SCOTUS decision. There is no recorded criminal record for not having health insurance.

Further, ACA subsidies are for people who are not qualified for Medicaid, thus this is not the same as before. These subsidies have nothing to do with "living wage" the subsidies cover everyone making OVER living wage up to FOUR TIMES POVERTY. That is not living wage that is upper middle class.

So to both your points, FAIL and FAIL.

From

Income -- Not Assets -- Will Determine Subsidies In Online Insurance Marketplaces - Kaiser Health News


" To be eligible for subsidized coverage, your income would have to be between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person in 2013)."

Exactly. What part of my statement "above" poverty level to four time poverty level confused you when they said 100% of poverty to 400%? I mean it's funny and all as we always believed that libs did not understand percentages but gez whiz?

Also if you have a family of four, it's 90k, thus my statement upper middle. Not high upper middle, but upper middle nonetheless.

More learning for you.

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...-income-percentile-ranking-n1712430/page/full