Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

Of course you don't know what to tell me. Because everything I said is happening actually is happening. The lies Obama told us about Obamacare are many and undeniable. No not everyone get's to keep their doctors. How many hundreds of thousands of Americans have been told the coverage is being cancelled despite Obama telling the nation we can keep the coverage we have? Anyone who understands economics can completely understand why this is happening. What flawed model of economics do you speak of? What observations specifically am I contending that simply aren't true? Because the economics model I'm using says if you do this to insurance companies this is what is going to happen to premium prices and low and behold that's EXACTLY what's happening. Here it is in a nutshell; In an attempt to buy votes, Obama and the dems are providing cheaper premium coverage for a few at the expense of the many.

The gist of the Republican argument is that the wealthy are, and deserve to be, a privileged class. That the people that they choose to economically enslave, deserve it. God loves plutocracy and aristocracy. The American and French Revolutions and Civil War were fought only to change who the plutocrats and aristocrats are, not to eliminate them.

That puts them in direct and irresolvable conflict with the present Constitutional democracy.

And reveals why they deny that Constitution. It's an inconvenient truth. Also why their future is the giant foot of the electorate planted directly onto their thinking part.

Now you're just babbling incorhently because you have no real counter argument. Guess I have to give you some credit. Obama undeniably lied. At least you didn't actually try to deny it, so kudos for that I guess.

You can't stand the truth. It's monstrously inconvenient to your lifestyle.

 

[PMZ]

No they're not. They're being forced to buy insurance from a cartel. It's not the same thing.

Cartel? Of private insurance companies? Pretty serious charge against them. Evidence?

It's in the design of the law. PPACA creates a limited list of acceptable vendors and plans. You could, technically, buy insurance other than that approved by the state, but you would be fined for doing so.

It makes available, products with adequate coverage. It discards those without.

It holds individuals responsible for their own health care costs.

It makes those that business chooses to under compensate, able to care for themselves.

It promotes competition between alternative suppliers.

Which of those things do you hate?

 

[dblack]

Cartel? Of private insurance companies? Pretty serious charge against them. Evidence?

It's in the design of the law. PPACA creates a limited list of acceptable vendors and plans. You could, technically, buy insurance other than that approved by the state, but you would be fined for doing so.

It makes available, products with adequate coverage. It discards those without.

It holds individuals responsible for their own health care costs.

It makes those that business chooses to under compensate, able to care for themselves.

It promotes competition between alternative suppliers.

Which of those things do you hate?

All of them, because they are all essentially Orwellian euphemisms.

It dictates 'adequate coverage' overriding personal decisions. That's not doing us a favor, it's cramming something down our throats we might, or might not, want or need.

It doesn't hold individuals responsible for paying for health care. It demands that they buy health insurance from government appointed vendors. That's a different thing entirely.

It doesn't make people able to care for themselves, it makes them dependent on subsidies from the state.

It doesn't promote competition. It stifles it by limiting our options to a list of acceptable state-approved policies. It squelches innovation when we need it most.

 

[PMZ]

It's in the design of the law. PPACA creates a limited list of acceptable vendors and plans. You could, technically, buy insurance other than that approved by the state, but you would be fined for doing so.

It makes available, products with adequate coverage. It discards those without.

It holds individuals responsible for their own health care costs.

It makes those that business chooses to under compensate, able to care for themselves.

It promotes competition between alternative suppliers.

Which of those things do you hate?

All of them, because they are all essentially Orwellian euphemisms.

It dictates 'adequate coverage' overriding personal decisions. That's not doing us a favor, it's cramming something down our throats we might, or might not, want or need.

It doesn't hold individuals responsible for paying for health care. It demands that they buy health insurance from government appointed vendors. That's a different thing entirely.

It doesn't make people able to care for themselves, it makes them dependent on subsidies from the state.

It doesn't promote competition. It stifles it by limiting our options to a list of acceptable state-approved policies. It squelches innovation when we need it most.

I fell out of my chair laughing at ''Orwellian euphemisms''.

''It dictates 'adequate coverage' overriding personal decisions. That's not doing us a favor, it's cramming something down our throats we might, or might not, want or need.''

Nobody knows who will be effected by pre-existing conditions. How, therefore, can any consumer ever make an informed decision on their value? Allowing insurers that out creates a shysters paradise. Insurance works by spreading risk, not ignoring it.

''It doesn't hold individuals responsible for paying for health care. It demands that they buy health insurance from government appointed vendors. That's a different thing entirely.''

In the Republican do nothing non-system of today, many people are encouraged to not be responsible for the cost of their health care. Just dump the consequences on others at the emergency room, or through bankruptcy. No risk. Now there is personal accountability. ''Government appointed vendors'' is merely a lie.

''It doesn't make people able to care for themselves, it makes them dependent on subsidies from the state.''

People who business chooses to not pay a living wage to can't take care of themselves. That's a given that has nothing to do with government.
''It doesn't promote competition. It stifles it by limiting our options to a list of acceptable state-approved policies. It squelches innovation when we need it most.''

Giving consumers reliable information always promotes competition.

I can't wait to hear the rationale behind ''It squelches innovation''.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obamacare is a dating service. It allows people to find whatever insurance fits their needs best. Would you deny the average person an informed decision?

It allows people to find whatever insurance fits their needs best.

Which is why people are getting cancellation notices on policies that already fit their needs.

They had inadequate coverage. Now they have adequate coverage. Tell us why you hate that.

They had inadequate coverage.

Sez King Obama.

Now they have adequate coverage.

But the King said they could keep the stuff they already had, if they wanted to........did he lie?

Tell us why you hate that.

Higher prices, less choice and bigger government!

 

[Bern80]

The gist of the Republican argument is that the wealthy are, and deserve to be, a privileged class. That the people that they choose to economically enslave, deserve it. God loves plutocracy and aristocracy. The American and French Revolutions and Civil War were fought only to change who the plutocrats and aristocrats are, not to eliminate them.

That puts them in direct and irresolvable conflict with the present Constitutional democracy.

And reveals why they deny that Constitution. It's an inconvenient truth. Also why their future is the giant foot of the electorate planted directly onto their thinking part.

Now you're just babbling incorhently because you have no real counter argument. Guess I have to give you some credit. Obama undeniably lied. At least you didn't actually try to deny it, so kudos for that I guess.

You can't stand the truth. It's monstrously inconvenient to your lifestyle.

What truth would that be? The bottom line is you haven't presented a shred of evidence for anything you've said.

 

[Antares]

They had inadequate coverage. Now they have adequate coverage. Tell us why you hate that.

Because adequacy is subjective.

It was. Now it has been defined.

By the Gov in its own subjective way, you aren't very good at this.

 

[PMZ]

Because adequacy is subjective.

It was. Now it has been defined.

By the Gov in its own subjective way, you aren't very good at this.

There is nothing less subjective than the law.

 

[freedombecki]

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?

The size of the bill. No bill should be longer than two pages nor 500 words, whichever is shorter. The laws were originally written so that anyone could understand them.

Now, legislators are writing bills so long they are obviously nothing but trouble.

Any legislator who submits a bill having more than 500 words in its entireity should be remanded to the stocks where he or she should be shackled to for no less than one week per offense.

And I mean it.

 

[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?

The size of the bill. No bill should be longer than two pages nor 500 words, whichever is shorter. The laws were originally written so that anyone could understand them.

Now, legislators are writing bills so long they are obviously nothing but trouble.

Any legislator who submits a bill having more than 500 words in its entireity should be remanded to the stocks where he or she should be shackled to for no less than one week per offense.

And I mean it.

Here's as good a reason as there is to eliminate conservatives from anything important like government and business.

 

[Jroc]

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?

The size of the bill. No bill should be longer than two pages nor 500 words, whichever is shorter. The laws were originally written so that anyone could understand them.

Now, legislators are writing bills so long they are obviously nothing but trouble.

Any legislator who submits a bill having more than 500 words in its entireity should be remanded to the stocks where he or she should be shackled to for no less than one week per offense.

And I mean it.

There's too many special deals and payoffs in that law, that's all it is a bunch of crony deals

 

[Bern80]

It was. Now it has been defined.

By the Gov in its own subjective way, you aren't very good at this.

There is nothing less subjective than the law.

Apparently not. It takes a rather subjective reading of the constitution to somehow interpret from it that the federal government has the authority to make citizens buy things.

 

[PMZ]

By the Gov in its own subjective way, you aren't very good at this.

There is nothing less subjective than the law.

Apparently not. It takes a rather subjective reading of the constitution to somehow interpret from it that the federal government has the authority to make citizens buy things.

The Constitution defines the bylaws for our government. It restricts them from legislation in certain areas of life. Those are called our rights.

It also, according to how it's words have been interpreted, doesn't give you, or anyone else other than the Supreme Court, any responsibility or authority to impose on anyone what you'd like it to say.

That's why we're a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And why each of us can vote for what we want. And a majority rules the government.

 

[freedombecki]

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?

The size of the bill. No bill should be longer than two pages nor 500 words, whichever is shorter. The laws were originally written so that anyone could understand them.

Now, legislators are writing bills so long they are obviously nothing but trouble.

Any legislator who submits a bill having more than 500 words in its entireity should be remanded to the stocks where he or she should be shackled to for no less than one week per offense.

And I mean it.

Here's as good a reason as there is to eliminate conservatives from anything important like government and business.

No wonder 20 states are talking secession from you patronization specialists in Washington DC who are after the Treasury's content without representing all the people.

All told, petitions have been filed on behalf of 20 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Many of the petitions invoke the Declaration of Independence's dramatic assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government."

States petition to secede from union - CBS News

And love him or hate him, even those who hate him the most know that this man has his ear to the ground:

“Here’s what’s really interesting. This is the difference between progressives and conservatives or libertarians. We say we want to secede. The progressives say I’m moving to France. We don’t want to move to France. We want to live here. We love it here. We love the Constitution. We want to live here, under our Constitution. You want to live in France. So when you want to make us France or China, we say there’s already that country. You should go try that country because you’ll love it,” Glenn said.
Secession talk grows to all 50 states ? Glenn Beck

Obamacare has divided the nation. Those who know their pocketbooks are being picked by usurpers in Congress are quite disinterested in being taxed without having their better interests represented and want out of the fraud-filled election process the Democrats who have been bragging about voting 30 times apiece for years have perpetrated on the nation. Many are so frustrated, they're saying they're just not going to take it any more.

Cheating at the polls and lying about nationality and bending the Constitution to perpetrate Marxist wealth distribution--which is aka pure communism just doesn't cut the mustard with the American citizen whose fathers died for being free from monarchs who had more crushing power over their lives than they deserved. You expect a free people to lie back for the full subjugation Obama would place us under the unloving hands of the United Nations whose members are screaming to wipe Israel and America off the face of the map? Perish the thought!

 

[PMZ]

The size of the bill. No bill should be longer than two pages nor 500 words, whichever is shorter. The laws were originally written so that anyone could understand them.

Now, legislators are writing bills so long they are obviously nothing but trouble.

Any legislator who submits a bill having more than 500 words in its entireity should be remanded to the stocks where he or she should be shackled to for no less than one week per offense.

And I mean it.

No wonder 20 states are talking secession from you patronization specialists in Washington DC who are after the Treasury's content without representing all the people.

All told, petitions have been filed on behalf of 20 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Many of the petitions invoke the Declaration of Independence's dramatic assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government."

States petition to secede from union - CBS News

And love him or hate him, even those who hate him the most know that this man has his ear to the ground:

“Here’s what’s really interesting. This is the difference between progressives and conservatives or libertarians. We say we want to secede. The progressives say I’m moving to France. We don’t want to move to France. We want to live here. We love it here. We love the Constitution. We want to live here, under our Constitution. You want to live in France. So when you want to make us France or China, we say there’s already that country. You should go try that country because you’ll love it,” Glenn said.
Secession talk grows to all 50 states ? Glenn Beck

Obamacare has divided the nation. Those who know their pocketbooks are being picked by usurpers in Congress are quite disinterested in being taxed without having their better interests represented and want out of the fraud-filled election process the Democrats who have been bragging about voting 30 times apiece for years have perpetrated on the nation. Many are so frustrated, they're saying they're just not going to take it any more.

Cheating at the polls and lying about nationality and bending the Constitution to perpetrate Marxist wealth distribution--which is aka pure communism just doesn't cut the mustard with the American citizen whose fathers died for being free from monarchs who had more crushing power over their lives than they deserved. You expect a free people to lie back for the full subjugation Obama would place us under the unloving hands of the United Nations whose members are screaming to wipe Israel and America off the face of the map? Perish the thought!

Republicans have divided this nation, as it is essential for them, given the disastrous results that follow them, to avoid extinction.

Finally real Republicans are fed up. There's a newspaper article nearly every week here in Naples FL, the epicenter of the Tea Party, about the rift growing between business and dixiecrats.

Republicans assumed that they could not get elected without the dixiecrats. Now they realize that they can't get elected with them.

It will be an ugly divorce as ugly is fundamental to conservatism but necessary.

It's clear that Hillary will be our next President so the right time is now for the split. Nothing to lose.

The GOP has to get back to its traditional focus on being friendly to business but not subservient. To be in favor of a strong, competent American government.

They have to support the best of business not the worst.

 

[dblack]

They had inadequate coverage. Now they have adequate coverage. Tell us why you hate that.

Because adequacy is subjective.

It was. Now it has been defined.

By the Gov in its own subjective way, you aren't very good at this.

There is nothing less subjective than the law.

The question is not whether law is objective or subjective, but rather whether the judgment of adequacy is subjective or objective. Since adequacy always hinges on the questions "Adequate for what end?" and "For whom?", it is always going to be a subjective judgment. Converting that judgment into objective legal criteria doesn't change that. What some of us find adequate, some of will find wanting.

 

[dblack]

The GOP has to get back to its traditional focus on being friendly to business but not subservient. To be in favor of a strong, competent American government.

They have to support the best of business not the worst.

This is a deeply ironic criticism in a discussion of ACA, possible the biggest sellout to business interests in my lifetime (rivaled only by the bankster bailout, also ironically presided over by Democrats).

 

[Bern80]

There is nothing less subjective than the law.

Apparently not. It takes a rather subjective reading of the constitution to somehow interpret from it that the federal government has the authority to make citizens buy things.

The Constitution defines the bylaws for our government. It restricts them from legislation in certain areas of life. Those are called our rights.

It also, according to how it's words have been interpreted, doesn't give you, or anyone else other than the Supreme Court, any responsibility or authority to impose on anyone what you'd like it to say.

That's why we're a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And why each of us can vote for what we want. And a majority rules the government.

No majority does not rule government as per the constitution the majority can't simply do whatever it wants (unless of course the majority repealed the constitution). It was also written EXclusively. Which does not mean the constitution lays out that which government can't do. It lays out specifically what government can do in Article I, Section 8. Meaning if it isn't spelled out the federal government can't do it.

I'm not the one imposing that which the constitution doesn't say. You are. You are the one insisting the constitution gives government the authority to make people purchase things insisting it is okay for government to impose that which you would like the constitution to say.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is nothing less subjective than the law.

Apparently not. It takes a rather subjective reading of the constitution to somehow interpret from it that the federal government has the authority to make citizens buy things.

The Constitution defines the bylaws for our government. It restricts them from legislation in certain areas of life. Those are called our rights.

It also, according to how it's words have been interpreted, doesn't give you, or anyone else other than the Supreme Court, any responsibility or authority to impose on anyone what you'd like it to say.

That's why we're a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And why each of us can vote for what we want. And a majority rules the government.

And a majority rules the government.

no it doesnt

 

[dblack]

Apparently not. It takes a rather subjective reading of the constitution to somehow interpret from it that the federal government has the authority to make citizens buy things.

The Constitution defines the bylaws for our government. It restricts them from legislation in certain areas of life. Those are called our rights.

It also, according to how it's words have been interpreted, doesn't give you, or anyone else other than the Supreme Court, any responsibility or authority to impose on anyone what you'd like it to say.

That's why we're a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

And why each of us can vote for what we want. And a majority rules the government.

And a majority rules the government.

no it doesnt

I think the majority rule argument, pro or con, misses the point. You have to look at it from their point of view - what is the alternative? Minority rule? I don't think that's what you're advocating, is it?

The thing is, even most staunch conservatives would prefer majority rule to an autocratic dictatorship. The question isn't whether government should follow the will of the majority when making decisions; the question is what sort of decisions should government be making in the first place, and that's where the Constitutional definition of government's scope and power is fundamental.

What most of us reacting to the 'we the people' sloganeering are bristling against isn't the idea that government should follow the preferences of the majority, but rather a fear of unlimited government. Because, often those trumpeting the 'will of the people' take the view that anything and everything the majority wants should be catered to by government.

This is why the exclusive/inclusive argument over Constitutional limits on government is so important. By the prevailing liberal view, the federal government can do anything and everything not expressly prohibited by the Bill of Rights in the name of majority rule. Conservatives, and moreso libertarians, want a tighter restriction that says government can only do the things authorized by the enumerated powers. These are radically different views, and central to our current political divide.