It goes on because it's the law. This is why I've been opposed to it all along, and why I think it needs to be ripped out at the roots.
You're opposed having laws? Laws should be ripped from their roots? We are a nation rooted in law as opposed to tyranny which is the opposite by definition:
Definition of tyranny
1: oppressive power
// every form of tyranny over the mind of man
— Thomas Jefferson
especially : oppressive power exerted by government
// the tyranny of a police state
2a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler
//
especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
We could have easily remained the playthings of tyrants. We fought that off and have been trying an independent experiment instead. Rule of law. Laws created and maintained through an at least semi-democratic and -transparent process whereby the citizenry, at least in theory, ultimately rule.. Has this experimental model proven perfect? Of course not. Has a reasonable alternative suddenly suggested itself? No? Welcome to reality. Let's try real hard not to leave it again, shall we?
No one likes the ACA. That's a given. It was offered as a bullshit compromise to begin with. You don't get to claim that as a side.. as though someone had been arguing from some opposing position or was somehow blissfully unaware of that fact.
"It goes on" - In truth the pertinent law has been repeatedly challenged from the beginning with some change as a result. I agree that it's fundamentally flawed, but we disagree on the legal basis, not "because it's the law."
ACA is, and has always been, about funneling money to the insurance industry.
And there's it is. One could easily read that and conclude,
Hey, "the insurance industry" is simply a victim here. They didn't ask for this. Government did it to them! You (and others) clearly do this deliberately. Whether it's because you actually believe that nonsense remains in question, but it certainly appears to be the case.
"because they are too big! Not because government is hopelessly evil as described over and again by many here.
Letting the "free market" rule would just free them to do much worse much faster."
Asked and answered:
"because they are too big!" You appear to think that's not serious or relevant so simply avoid dealing with it altogether. Nonetheless, that is the ultimate reason - in every case - not just regarding government. All groups. All individuals. There's a natural limit in every case beyond which widespread destruction is predictable. Just as widespread death is a predictable result of (being/having) too little.
The only way to prevent businesses (or any other powerful interest group) from buying favors is to prevent Congress from selling favors. And the only way to prevent Congress selling favors is to remove their power to enact them in the first place. But you want to do the opposite. You want to increase the government's power over markets. From a corruption standpoint, that's like throwing gasoline on an open fire. Hint: if the government is corrupt, more government isn't going to get you less corruption.
Hint: That's bullshit and you know it. I absolutely do not "want to increase the government's power over markets." I want to address the genuine root of the problem which is obviously allowing a relative few to have too much.
If you really give a shit simply follow the money. No matter how you apply the lipstick, the corruption you supposedly wish to eliminate all STARTS with someone or thing that already has too much, bribing some trusted official in an attempt to grab more, ultimately at the expense of and deceiving the people. What obviously enables all this is having too much to begin with. Outlaw that. Tax it to death. Whatever. Do something instead of just continuing to bark at nothing of actual substance.
