Can Obamacare be Fixed?

[PMZ]

As I've pointed out, a lack of insurance doesn't impose on anyone else.

As I've pointed out, full comprehensive insurance is the most effective way of achieving a healthy population.

I don't know why you believe that an unhealthy population is more competitive in the global market.

It's not the job of government to "achieve a healthy population". If that's your aim, we should start up state fat farms and mandate our diets as well. But that's simply not the kind of government I want. I can't imagine why you would.

" It's not the job of government to "achieve a healthy population"."

According to who?

You keep avoiding my question.

Who benefits from an unhealthy population?

Our global competition is the only one that I can think of.

 

[PMZ]

It doesn't matter if it can be fixed, it needs to go period.

As good a picture of Republicanism as I can imagine.

That's what the country was built to be A REPUBLIC.

And it is. A democratic Constitutional Republic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As good a picture of Republicanism as I can imagine.

That's what the country was built to be A REPUBLIC.

And it is. A democratic Constitutional Republic.

Art. 4
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

 

[PMZ]

That's what the country was built to be A REPUBLIC.

And it is. A democratic Constitutional Republic.

Art. 4
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Yes. That means no monarch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And it is. A democratic Constitutional Republic.

Art. 4
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Yes. That means no monarch.

unless that's what a democratic Constitutional Republic would want, that's why we are a republic with a Constitution that prevents this from happening.

 

[dblack]

As I've pointed out, full comprehensive insurance is the most effective way of achieving a healthy population.

I don't know why you believe that an unhealthy population is more competitive in the global market.

It's not the job of government to "achieve a healthy population". If that's your aim, we should start up state fat farms and mandate our diets as well. But that's simply not the kind of government I want. I can't imagine why you would.

" It's not the job of government to "achieve a healthy population"."

According to who?

According to me. The last thing I want is a government preoccupied with deciding what's best for me and pushing me toward it against my will.

In my view, government is there to make it possible for us to get along in a pluralistic society, free to pursue our own unique aspirations for our lives. Not decide what those aspirations should be and push us toward them against our will.

You keep avoiding my question.

Who benefits from an unhealthy population?

Our global competition is the only one that I can think of.

I guess my answer is, "I don't care". A nation is not a corporation. I certainly don't want it run like one.

 

[boedicca]

"You shall not covet anything that is thy neighbor's."

Ancient man organized killing parties to apprehend thieves intent on taking the nice things other people had.

Using the government to do your dirty work is lower than snakesnot, and it will come right back to your doorstep, because "You can't fool all of the people all of the time," to use a more pragmatic and contemporary quotation.

Indeed. Big Government Cronyism is actually worse than criminal mugging - because the government sponsors the Cronies, and makes their mugging legal.

That's why I'm grateful Judicial Watch is monitoring the situation in their Annual list of the 10 Most Corrupt Politicians in alphabetical order, 2012:

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
President Barack Obama
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius

Dishonorable Mentions for 2012 include:

• Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
• Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY)
• Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
• Gen. David Petraeus
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Ten Most Corrupt Politicians, 2012

Why are we keeping these people in office?

I can't believe that Al Gore isn't on the list.

 

[PMZ]

Art. 4
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Yes. That means no monarch.

unless that's what a democratic Constitutional Republic would want, that's why we are a republic with a Constitution that prevents this from happening.

Prevents democracy in favor of tyrannical minority rule?

That will never happen here. As of 1930 our Constitution prevents it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes. That means no monarch.

unless that's what a democratic Constitutional Republic would want, that's why we are a republic with a Constitution that prevents this from happening.

Prevents democracy in favor of tyrannical minority rule?

That will never happen here. As of 1930 our Constitution prevents it.

We aren't a democracy we are a constitutional republic. Nothing more or nothing less.

 

[PMZ]

unless that's what a democratic Constitutional Republic would want, that's why we are a republic with a Constitution that prevents this from happening.

Prevents democracy in favor of tyrannical minority rule?

That will never happen here. As of 1930 our Constitution prevents it.

We aren't a democracy we are a constitutional republic. Nothing more or nothing less.

You are only wrong believing that we have rule by minority.

We used to and gave it up in favor of universal suffrage democracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Prevents democracy in favor of tyrannical minority rule?

That will never happen here. As of 1930 our Constitution prevents it.

We aren't a democracy we are a constitutional republic. Nothing more or nothing less.

You are only wrong believing that we have rule by minority.

We used to and gave it up in favor of universal suffrage democracy.

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, bigrebnc1775, for stating that.

 

[Ava]

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?

Not according to Jimmy Carter.

He’s [Obama] done the best he could under the circumstances. His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.


A Truly Wicked Blow: Jimmy Carter Hammers Obama for Ineptness « Commentary Magazine

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Not according to Jimmy Carter.

He’s [Obama] done the best he could under the circumstances. His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.


A Truly Wicked Blow: Jimmy Carter Hammers Obama for Ineptness « Commentary Magazine

Last sentence

So it may be that Jimmy Carter has a right to sit in judgment of Barack Obama. Which is among the worst things that could be said about America’s 44th president.

That's going to sting.

 

[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?

Not according to Jimmy Carter.

He’s [Obama] done the best he could under the circumstances. His major accomplishment was Obamacare, and the implementation of it now is questionable at best.


A Truly Wicked Blow: Jimmy Carter Hammers Obama for Ineptness « Commentary Magazine

Last sentence

So it may be that Jimmy Carter has a right to sit in judgment of Barack Obama. Which is among the worst things that could be said about America’s 44th president.

That's going to sting.

So now you say that we should be paying attention to the guy who you've been saying is the second worst President in our history?

Next thing that we know, you'll be quoting Bush. The worst.

 

[PMZ]

We aren't a democracy we are a constitutional republic. Nothing more or nothing less.

You are only wrong believing that we have rule by minority.

We used to and gave it up in favor of universal suffrage democracy.

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are only wrong believing that we have rule by minority.

We used to and gave it up in favor of universal suffrage democracy.

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

 

[dblack]

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

 

[PMZ]

Actually I said nothing like that. We live in a country where the majority doesn't rule and the minority is protected. There by it's a Republic, with rule of law.

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Your first sentence is correct but irrelevant because it's never happened.

Your second is gobbledygook.

 

[PMZ]

That's gobbledygook. Someone decides. In a democracy it's the majority. In a plutocracy or aristocracy, it's a minority.

no one decides outside the restraints of the constitution and protection of the bill of rights . Sorry but your gobbledygook just got Constitutionally trumped

Constitutional limitations are what make democracy viable in a pluralistic society. Without them, letting someone you disagree with run things becomes intolerable.

Constitutional limitations have always been maintained and respected.

A good assumption is that democracy will give you personally, on the average, what you want, half of the time. That’s as free as life gets.