Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You happily empower the private sector to deny you benefits even though your only recourse is more expensive than what you were denied.
I'm not quite sure I understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but I've noticed you have an odd sense of "denied". You can't be denied something that wasn't yours to begin with, or otherwise owed to you by mutual agreement. If an insurance company refuses to pay for health care expense that a policy holder is promised, they've committed fraud and legal action is warranted. Also, who exactly do you think populates "the private sector"? The private sector IS 'we the people'.
With the government you have the right to lobby those in power directly and to fire them if you don't get what you want.
If your interests don't enjoy majority support, this is only effective if you're politically connected or very wealthy.
Greedy HMO's are exempt from law suits so no, you can't sue them for denying you health care.
Plenty of grass roots movements have ousted politicians from power. Why can't you do the same thing if they refuse to address your legitimate grievances?
The Federal government does not "control" anyone and it doesn't infringe upon your "liberty".
But let me ask you this. On what basis do you argue that the ACA is doing a better job of healthcare delivery than pre-ACA? How is forcing people to prepay for healthcare a better plan than the option to have medical savings accounts that would accomplish the same thing but remain in the control of the people who established them?
Can you say for a fact that it was NOT government meddling and mandates that has contributed dramatically to healthcare costs becoming unaffordable for those without insurance? If so, how do you explain the dramatic increase in medical costs that occurred at precisely the same time that Medicare and Medicaid went into effect in the 1960s?
Can you say for a fact that it is necessary to force everybody into a government controlled and mandated system rather than to focus on the relatively very few who really could not afford healthcare insurance?
Can you explain how and why some people support a program that has now been exposed to produce almost none of the benefits it was supposed to produce and they KNEW that it would not when they advertised it? And that it is now a fact that it was sold to us with a whole bunch of intentional lies? How does any American condone that?
Can you say for a fact that the federal government that requires an enormous bureaucracy on top of the delivery system will provide better and more affordable healthcare than that same delivery system would have done privately without the additional expense of that enormous bureaucracy?
But let me ask you this. On what basis do you argue that the ACA is doing a better job of healthcare delivery than pre-ACA? How is forcing people to prepay for healthcare a better plan than the option to have medical savings accounts that would accomplish the same thing but remain in the control of the people who established them?
Rising healthcare costs in the US are due to two reasons: Technical advances, and Big Pharma and insurers are soaking you dry.
Okay folks both those on the left and right, a gentle reminder that this is the CDZ. It is not personal but I will ignore posts that focus on blasting one side or another of the political spectrum and the assinine comments about this side or that wanting something hateful as well as other ad hominem and personal insults. I will report the most grevous violations.
I am appreciating the few who are actually focused on the topic and are consciously or naturally following the intended CDZ guidelines. And I suggest that those who take every post they don't agree with as a personal accusation and those who cannot post without using ad hominem or personal insults go elsewhere or start your own thread out of the CDZ where you can say whatever comes to your pointy little heads or fragile sensibilities.
Now back on topic.
I know some of you have insisted that it is an unrealistic hope and will never pass Congress or the White House, but let's explore the pros and cons anyway. This is a thread focused on what we would want in a new and improved Constitution of the USA--what we think would clear up misunderstandings, fuzzy interpretations, and/or makes things better. So let's pretend it could be possible.
PROPOSAL:
Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.
This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.
Pros and cons of this proposal?
Just as a new member browsing around, I think the suggestion sounds reasonable for the preamble. It sounds more like today's language than the original.
I certainly wouldn't trust existing "bureaucrats" with a new constitution, but we might be able to elect delegates who could the job.Only the lazy victims of propaganda and the truly ignorant and possibly neo-anarchists actually believe that today's bureaucrats are as capable of creating a Constitution as the Founding Fathers were. The rest of us concentrate our efforts to work within the system and make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.
PROPOSAL:
Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.
This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.
PROPOSAL:
Except for immediate response to provide security and help prevent immediately loss of life, the federal government will be prohbited from using the taxpayers money or obligating the tax payer to provide any form of charity or benevolence or entitlement to any person, group, entity, or demographic. Any such government activity would be initiated and managed at the state or local level only.
This provision would not prevent the federal government from receiving, coordinating, and dispensing personnel, services, and provisions donated by the states or private sector for ongoing relief efforts following large scale domestic or international disasters.
Congress shall make no law that does not alleviate the living and income conditions of those on the lower rungs of society most. Congress shall from time to time request and receive, from institutions with the required scientific skills, information on both the implementation of the foregoing principle, and the actual state of income and wealth inequality, and inequalities related to living conditions, as well as suggestions as to possible remedies to any inequalities, persisting or worsening, found to be detrimental to the General welfare. Congress is required to respond to, and act upon, this information and recommended remedies. Congress shall lay significant, progressive taxes on incomes above thrice the poverty level in order to narrow any persistent and widening gaps, and to correct historical and still persisting historical wrongs, particularly those arising, both historically and currently, from racism. Any federal spending to the benefit of any demographic shall go to the worst-off sections of society, or the worst-off quarters of the country, first and foremost, and to better-off sections or quarters only in inverse proportion to their being better-off.
Thing is, we have to stop shaking our heads up and down whenever Obama tells us something is broken.
He said our immigration policies were broken, and he knew how to fix it. He removed the borders and granted citizenship to anyone who touched base.
We had the best health care in the world. No one was denied care, and we enjoyed Dr./ patient confidentiality. Nothing was broken. But Obama told us it was and he knew how to fix it. Now we have out of reach insurance, hospitals that can turn you away, and millions in hidden fees and taxes, our patient records are fodder for any hack with a computer, and the government has taken control of 1/6 of our economy.
Now he wants you to believe our very foundation, what constitutes America's way of life is broken and he knows how to fix it.
He's a take control kind of guy. Your basic civil rights are what he wants to control next.
There is nothing wrong with the Constitution of the United States that blowing the dust off of and putting it back into operation won't fix. If you give him an inch he'll take it as a referendum to dismantle the whole thing and replace it with his own. Please don't.
Who in Congress do you deem wise enough to determine who is and who is not 'worse off'?
And how do you equate liberty with giving the federal government ability to takes whatever it wants from private resources in order to remedy wealth inequalities?
The President, as commander in chief, will have authority to deploy the U.S. military and/or other security personnel as necessary and prudent to protect the U.S. citizens and/or their property from immediate threat or attack from foreign aggressors or domestic terrorism. Congress should be notified immediately of such action, and must give consent for other than immediate defensive action.
Any deployment of American troops into combat or hostile situations other than immediate defensive action will require consent of Congress, and no troops may be ordered into combat without a declaration of war from Congress.
make sure that our elected officials abide by the existing Constitution.
