Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
I didn't expect you to answer that...I'm not here to debate Americans who already know everything.Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.
The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.
Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?
You were right the first time, it was a cop out.
If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.
The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.
You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.
"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."
No, that isn't what standing means
They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....
All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....
Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.
With a proper and successful HC system, there is no need to rely on your employer.
When will you Americans begin to want to understand how the world's best systems work?
Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
Sweden
By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...www.commonwealthfund.org
"Sweden’s health expenditure represents a little over 11% of its GDP, most of which is funded by municipal and regional taxes"
Get with the program on government run, universal HC and stop the bullshit attempts to deflect. from the issues.
I knew you didn't know what you were talking about a few comments ago....