Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[Bern80]

You seem to be struggling to find reasons that it won't do what it's designed to do. Let's just wait and see.

I'm not struggling at all. The basic principles of economics and its mechanisms are on my side. Not yours. Wait and see? We're already there. We already know the cost of premiums has risen. And basic economics already tell us what is most likely to happen. There's no reason to wait and see.

When is the last time in your memory that health care insurance costs have gone down? They never have. That’s under the system that you espouse. Good health as a privilege of wealth. There is absolutely nothing to recommend or support the doing nothing that conservatives want. We have by far the most expensive non system in the world, and, at best, it's effectiveness is mediocre.

Yet you stand in the way of any improvement.

As they say, lead, follow, or get out of the way.

No it isn't. Not agreeing with Obamacare does not mean I support the status quo. There are several things that contribute to our high health care costs. A big one, and you libs won't like this, is about personal responsibility. It's our damn fault that we spend so much in health because we do so much crap to our bodies that that's what it costs. I can tell you anecdotal after anecdotal story about kids I know who live basically off of sugar and were diabetic before they were 20. The reality is most individuals don't take real good care of themselves. The majority of our country is obese to one extent or another and guess what? That causes health problems. And your surprised that we spend more money per capita than any other country on health care? That and people like you continue to insist that we implement policies that further remove people from the financial impact of their health choices. If there aren't any financial consqequences to you, what do you care what those decisions cost?

My plan, in a nutshell is that we have policy that makes it affordable to simply pay for services rather than relying on insurance for everything and get to a point where health insurance is used more like auto insurance. This used to work back before the government icentivized business to make health insurance a benefit.

 

[Flopper]

Again, you can't ignore math. If the insurance companies are forced to avg. out the permiums in a given risk pool AND must charge those with pre-existing conditions that same as those without there is no mathematical solution that can occur other than for premium rates to go up. And again the discounts you are citing don't reflect a drop in actual premium costs. They reflect what the plans cost AFTER the subsidy. That's fine if all you're concerned with is reducing the cost to the consumer, but such a solution ignores the real problem of the high cost of insurance and service. It's a 'solution' that doesn't directly address the problem. Obama is basically saying, let's subsidize the individuals and we'll patch of the consequences of that bad idea as we go.

Then you talk about group insurance only going up a little as the result of ACA. As if that's some type of victory. How can it be when the goal was to make health care cost less?

I agree that adding people with preexisting conditions to a risk pool will increase premiums. However, I think you're missing a couple of points.

• Adding low risk subscribers will help lower premiums which is exactly what the individual mandate is all about. Of course some people will choose to pay the penalty in the first year. However, each year the penalty rises. By 2017 the penalty for most Americans will be $2,085. In my state a 30 year old male can buy a bronze policy with no subsidy at all for $164.50/mo. or $1974/yr. For someone with low income, the penalty drops but the subsidy rises so again it make no sense to pay the penalty to avoid having insurance.
  
• As the number of subscribers increase, the size of the risk pool will grow reducing premium costs. In itself, a larger pool size won't lower risk but it will reduce overhead and other costs while increasing profits.
  
• For companies that list on the exchanges, marketing cost will go down. The cost of listing on the exchanges are very low. No advertising is need and the application process is highly automated.
  
• Lastly the exchanges increase competition because the plans are standardized and you can see a side by side comparison of cost and benefits.

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really isn't, but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

AND the fact that insurance companies weren't that profitable relatively speaking. Their profit margins are usually in the single digits. Now you add on to their expenses all the beauracracy of Obama care and just the extra things they need to cover. Not only do they have to take in enough to get back to their original profit margins. Businesses just don't do what you're saying either. They don't ever say 'yeah, we're making enough money now, we'll start lowering the price of our product'. Businesses just don't do that. They will lower prices when there is excess supply, or when demand goes down, or cost of proudction decreases. There isn't excess supply, Obamacare is adding to their overhead and cost of what they must actually pay out, and demand is going up, not down.

We can only guess at what will happen to the cost and quality of healthcare but time will tell. I think it will be 2017 before there is a really good picture. One thing is for sure, there'll be a lot more people with healthcare coverage in a few years. I seriously doubt if it will meet the expectations of the administration but that's to be expected.

Premiums before the subsidy for Non-group policies on the exchange in my state are less than last year. However, the deductibles are about $500 more. Yearly out of pocket maximums are much lower. All the plans have more preventive care which are not subject to the deductibles.

 

[Flopper]

ny financial consqequences to you, what do you care what those decisions cost?

My plan, in a nutshell is that we have policy that makes it affordable to simply pay for services rather than relying on insurance for everything and get to a point where health insurance is used more like auto insurance. This used to work back before the government centivized business to make health insurance a benefit.

From the plans I have seen on the exchange, they certain discourage people from running to the doctor with trivial problems. Deductibles like monthly premium payments are on a sliding scale dependent on income. For even very low income earners, deductibles are about $500. At higher income levels they are $1,000 to $1500. Group insurance is a different ballgame. There are loads of low deductible plans which most people seem to prefer.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Open up the exemption to be nonrestrictive, where people are equally free to go through private charities or businesses to cover their own health care.

A. for public health per state, tie the costs of coverage to criminal justice reform, so that people are held responsible for incurring costs to taxpayers for damages from crimes or abuses, require that to be paid back as part of citizenship, and use those funds for health care

B. for programs people disagree on politically or religiously, such as insurance mandates, prochoice prolife or singlepayer, require groups to organize their membership to pay for their own policies. Starting with the ACA as written, requiring those who passed it and approve of it to pay for, support and manage it themselves by their own organizations.

C. for nonprofits and charities, give taxbreaks for businesses and individuals investing in medical education and training to pay for internships to serve the public to work off student loans; and for investing in research and assistance in spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and treatment

Basically remove the restriction on exemptions and make the ACA optional, where people have a choice of providing their own health care programs, and the main requirement is that they do not impose their costs but take responsibility. Only if people require something by law like insurance mandates are they required to pay for that policy themselves.

 

[Immanuel]

First, I just don't believe you're going to see this big influx of young healthy people who didn't have insurance into the market. I think the bulk of that demographic already has insurance. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, basic supply and demand doesn't bare that out either. Basically what you're saying is quantity demanded of the product is going to go up, right? Well when that happens price of said good doesn't go down. It goes up.

Now the opposite is true is well; if price goes down quantity demanded should go up. But price going down is something that has already happened in the insurance market. Not something that will happen in the future. The problem is it didn't go down because insurance companies lowered the price of their product. It went down and thus quantity demanded went up, because the price of the product got subsidized to a lot of people. So government has created an increase in quantity demanded and if you look at a supply and demand curve you'll see when that happens price goes up. Now when quantity supplied goes up, price goes down and I suppose one could argue the exchanges would be perceived as an increase in supply even though it really isn't, but again I just don't believe it's enough to counter all the other mechanisms that raise prices; the subsidies, quantity demanded, the mandated coverages, community rating mandate.

AND the fact that insurance companies weren't that profitable relatively speaking. Their profit margins are usually in the single digits. Now you add on to their expenses all the beauracracy of Obama care and just the extra things they need to cover. Not only do they have to take in enough to get back to their original profit margins. Businesses just don't do what you're saying either. They don't ever say 'yeah, we're making enough money now, we'll start lowering the price of our product'. Businesses just don't do that. They will lower prices when there is excess supply, or when demand goes down, or cost of proudction decreases. There isn't excess supply, Obamacare is adding to their overhead and cost of what they must actually pay out, and demand is going up, not down.

The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare? Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

 

[PMZ]

The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare? Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

If you think that employers running away from health insurance as compensation didn't happen until Obamacare you are grossly misinformed.

 

[PMZ]

OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.

What would you want to be changed?

Open up the exemption to be nonrestrictive, where people are equally free to go through private charities or businesses to cover their own health care.

A. for public health per state, tie the costs of coverage to criminal justice reform, so that people are held responsible for incurring costs to taxpayers for damages from crimes or abuses, require that to be paid back as part of citizenship, and use those funds for health care

B. for programs people disagree on politically or religiously, such as insurance mandates, prochoice prolife or singlepayer, require groups to organize their membership to pay for their own policies. Starting with the ACA as written, requiring those who passed it and approve of it to pay for, support and manage it themselves by their own organizations.

C. for nonprofits and charities, give taxbreaks for businesses and individuals investing in medical education and training to pay for internships to serve the public to work off student loans; and for investing in research and assistance in spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime, disease and treatment

Basically remove the restriction on exemptions and make the ACA optional, where people have a choice of providing their own health care programs, and the main requirement is that they do not impose their costs but take responsibility. Only if people require something by law like insurance mandates are they required to pay for that policy themselves.

You say return to the system that led to our health care costing 2X our global competition and mediocre effectiveness. Why? Why would we do that? It would be like committing economic suicide.

 

[PMZ]

The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare? Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

'' The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.''

To whatever degree what you want to be true, is, it would be reflected in their premiums from private health care insurance companies. Little risk, little premiums.

 

[Immanuel]

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

'' The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.''

To whatever degree what you want to be true, is, it would be reflected in their premiums from private health care insurance companies. Little risk, little premiums.

Not under Obamacare. By the way, there are no more "private insurance companies". They are now all puppets of the US Government allowed to make a profit as long as they capitulate to liberal ideals. If they don't capitulate, they don't exist.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

If you think that employers running away from health insurance as compensation didn't happen until Obamacare you are grossly misinformed.

The phenomenon has greatly increased since Pelosi shoved her prod up America's rear end.

Immie

 

[PMZ]

I see that you hate your country. Your privilege. But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum. We are going to keep solving problems as they come up. It's called progress. You don't like it because it makes the country better.

 

[Flopper]

The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. The ones without jobs will receive subsidies and end up increasing the cost of Obamacare.

So what is the benefit to society of adding people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance to basically another form of Welfare? Oh that's right, if you make them slaves of the government when they are young, they will remain as such for the rest of their lives.

Immie

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

Paying a fine of $2,000/employee plus discontinuing a benefit that most employees value is apparently enough of a reason for 94% of the employers to state that they will continue to offer health insurance to their employees.

IMHO, moving away from employer sponsored health insurance would be a good thing. Employer sponsored health plans began as a carrot to attract upper management and were not a significant part of compensation. Then the unions jump on the band wagon. As healthcare cost rose in 80's, insurance companies became much more selective and before long health insurance became a prime consideration for many employees. Since the ACA has done away with preexisting conditions and the cost of health insurance is no longer just a carrot but significant part of compensation, I don't see the need for it. It would be better to pay employees more and let them buy the insurance plan that best meet their needs rather than their employers needs.

 

[PMZ]

''The young and healthy with full time jobs already have insurance. ''

Some do, some don't. Companies are running away from paying that compensation as fast as they can get away from it.

''people who do not need and cannot afford health insurance''

Who does not need health insurance? Companies price health insurance based on risk. Insuring a group without risk would cost nothing.

What would you do if you were a young person w/o health insurance who required hospitalization? Die in the street?

The young and healthy do not "need" health insurance. Purchasing it is a gamble that they are going to lose. The chances they will need it are minuscule. So they are simply throwing good money away.

As for employers getting away from offering health insurance it is about time you woke up! They are getting away from it because liberals gave them the prefect excuse for dropping coverage by passing Obamacare. It is cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover their employees and employees supposedly can now buy insurance on the exchanges. Liberals gave employers an escape clause. Now employers don't have to cover employees nor are they required to give employees raises for the difference when they stop covering them. So you fools royally screwed the middle class. When my employer decides to stop offering health insurance, I will have to pay for it on my own, but my employer is under no obligation to increase my wages to supplement the additional costs to me. In other words you liberals just screwed the hell out of me.

Immie

Paying a fine of $2,000/employee plus discontinuing a benefit that most employees value is apparently enough of a reason for 94% of the employers to state that they will continue to offer health insurance to their employees.

IMHO, moving away from employer sponsored health insurance would be a good thing. Employer sponsored health plans began as a carrot to attract upper management and were not a significant part of compensation. Then the unions jump on the band wagon. As healthcare cost rose in 80's, insurance companies became much more selective and before long health insurance became a prime consideration for many employees. Since the ACA has done away with preexisting conditions and the cost of health insurance is no longer just a carrot but significant part of compensation, I don't see the need for it. It would be better to pay employees more and let them buy the insurance plan that best meet their needs rather than their employers needs.

Of course most employers are slowly but steadily reducing that compensation for employees but not upping other compensation. That makes the money that used to go to a large number of wealth creating workers available for a relatively few non wealth creating executive bonuses.

 

[Bern80]

I see that you hate your country. Your privilege. But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum. We are going to keep solving problems as they come up. It's called progress. You don't like it because it makes the country better.

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

 

[PMZ]

I see that you hate your country. Your privilege. But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum. We are going to keep solving problems as they come up. It's called progress. You don't like it because it makes the country better.

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

This country was founded as a plutocracy. It took we, the people, a couple of centuries of blood, sweat and tears to bring about democracy, the true freedom of being citizen decision makers.

Companies don't choose to be small and neither should governments. Both should be the size that they need to be to produce their products and satisfy their customers. And when democratic governments do a better job of satisfying their customers they get to keep their jobs.

We have always followed our Constitution in exactly the way that it prescribes. In other words, government has always stayed within the Constitutional by-laws.

Conservatives think that we are no better than they in falling for the propaganda that cult leaders know best what the founders were thinking. It just doesn't matter. We follow what they agreed to and wrote down in the Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

I see that you hate your country. Your privilege. But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum. We are going to keep solving problems as they come up. It's called progress. You don't like it because it makes the country better.

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

''You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.''

Classic. What does ''unintended'' mean?

Do you really believe that conservatives can predict the future? That is extremely cultish.

 

[Bern80]

I see that you hate your country. Your privilege. But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum. We are going to keep solving problems as they come up. It's called progress. You don't like it because it makes the country better.

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

This country was founded as a plutocracy. It took we, the people, a couple of centuries of blood, sweat and tears to bring about democracy, the true freedom of being citizen decision makers.

Companies don't choose to be small and neither should governments. Both should be the size that they need to be to produce their products and satisfy their customers. And when democratic governments do a better job of satisfying their customers they get to keep their jobs.

We have always followed our Constitution in exactly the way that it prescribes. In other words, government has always stayed within the Constitutional by-laws.

Conservatives think that we are no better than they in falling for the propaganda that cult leaders know best what the founders were thinking. It just doesn't matter. We follow what they agreed to and wrote down in the Constitution.

No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it.

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.

 

[Bern80]

I see that you hate your country. Your privilege. But most of us are not going to join your temper tantrum. We are going to keep solving problems as they come up. It's called progress. You don't like it because it makes the country better.

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

''You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.''

Classic. What does ''unintended'' mean?

Do you really believe that conservatives can predict the future? That is extremely cultish.

Unintended consequences are me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He told us the cost of insurance would go down, yet he passed measures that make the cost of insurance go up. So either he and you are too stupid to understand what increasing demand does to price or you knew and you lied. Pick one.

 

[PMZ]

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

''You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.''

Classic. What does ''unintended'' mean?

Do you really believe that conservatives can predict the future? That is extremely cultish.

Unintended consequences are me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He told us the cost of insurance would go down, yet he passed measures that make the cost of insurance go up. So either he and you are too stupid to understand what increasing demand does to price or you knew and you lied. Pick one.

He said that ACA was the first government measure since Medicare that addressed the 2X the cost, and half of the effectiveness, of our old non-system compared to our global competition.

You believe yourself capable of predicting the future.

It's your uneducated opinion vs years of analysis by experts.

I'm going with those who know vs those driven by politics.

 

[PMZ]

That's quite thoe load of crap. Our country? your the one who doesn't seem to get this country was founded on the concepts of individual freedom and limited government. And why there certainly problems that need solving, health care being one of them. Liberals show time and again they are horrible problem solvers. Simply because your solution to everything is usuall more government. You ignore the law of unintended consequences and you deny them when they stare you in the face.

This country was founded as a plutocracy. It took we, the people, a couple of centuries of blood, sweat and tears to bring about democracy, the true freedom of being citizen decision makers.

Companies don't choose to be small and neither should governments. Both should be the size that they need to be to produce their products and satisfy their customers. And when democratic governments do a better job of satisfying their customers they get to keep their jobs.

We have always followed our Constitution in exactly the way that it prescribes. In other words, government has always stayed within the Constitutional by-laws.

Conservatives think that we are no better than they in falling for the propaganda that cult leaders know best what the founders were thinking. It just doesn't matter. We follow what they agreed to and wrote down in the Constitution.

No it most certainaly hasn't. Just a couple off the top of my head. There's no provision in the constitution that allows for the department of education or really any of the social programs we have today. Everyone knew the Nw Deal was unconstitional and the only way FDR got it passed was by threatening to pack the supreme court with justices that would uphold it.

And no, our constitution does not say 'do whatever you gotta do to make society work'. Government, according to the authors of the constitution, was not meant to produce anything. The federal government's singular purpose was to defend the liberties of the people. That's really about it. They understood the folly of government being a business and why it doesn't work. Maybe one day you libs will figure out too.

The Constitution is very clear about interpretation. Your name wasn't mentioned.