The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[emilynghiem]

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction. If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.

Dear boilermaker55
Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.

That is wrong regardless of the outcome.

1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.

Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.

Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.

Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.

As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So why exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to promote an existing law?!? Has this ever been done with any other law in U.S. history?

They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they know it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.

Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[emilynghiem]

Tell the truth about Republicans and they feel constantly attacked. In between their lies about Obama.

You're an Obama Liberal. That means you can't tell the truth.

No, but it has to be presented to them through the right venue.
If it takes the President or party leaders to say it, then they can hear it and repeat it.
They just can't hear it from a source they don't trust, and don't have the same connection with personally.

Reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses who rely on their Elders to change a policy
before they are allowed to cite those changes.

 

[boilermaker55]

Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction. If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.

Dear boilermaker55
Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.

That is wrong regardless of the outcome.

1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.

Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.

Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.

Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.

As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So why exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to promote an existing law?!? Has this ever been done with any other law in U.S. history?

They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they know it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.

Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.

If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
those are dangerous biases on both sides.

If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.

If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.

This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.

Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction. If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.

Dear boilermaker55
Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.

That is wrong regardless of the outcome.

1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.

Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.

Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.

Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.

As the Dumbocrats on USMB love to crow about - Obamacare was passed into law by Congress, signed into law by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. So why exactly does the federal government have to piss away billions to promote an existing law?!? Has this ever been done with any other law in U.S. history?

They begged the NBA to help promote it and the NBA said yes. They begged the NFL to help promote it, and the NFL told them to go fuck themselves (doh!). So why are they so desperate to reach people through Hollywood and sports? Because even the Dumbocrats know this is a miserable failure, and they know it is going to be repealed eventually unless they can do major damage control and brainwash the masses (especially the young and impressionable - hence the NBA, NFL, etc.) that this is a "good" thing.

Super Bowl champ Baltimore Ravens getting paid $130,000 to promote Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[boilermaker55]

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.

If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
those are dangerous biases on both sides.

If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.

If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.

This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.

Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction. If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.

Dear boilermaker55
Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.

That is wrong regardless of the outcome.

1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.

Think healthcare costs are soaring Think again. - Dec. 4 2014
Premiums for private health insurance grew 2.8% last year, compared to a 4% increase in 2012. Low overall enrollment growth, greater usage of high deductible plans and other benefit design changes and the health law's medical loss ratio and rate review provisions contributed to the decline, the Centers found.

Consumer out-of-pocket spending -- including co-payments and deductibles or payments for services not covered by a consumer's health insurance -- grew 3.2% in 2013, down from the 3.6% growth in both 2011 and 2012.

Spending for physician and clinical services grew 3.8% last year, a slowdown from 2012 when spending grew 4.5%. Expenditures for hospital care increased 4.3%, slower than the 5.7% rate of growth in 2012.
Catastrophic failure.............I think not.
But then, having evidence shown to those like you are of no consequence.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.

If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
those are dangerous biases on both sides.

If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.

If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.

This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.

Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction. If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.

Dear boilermaker55
Regardless, it is not the authority of federal govt to dictate how citizens pay for health care,
unless they pass a Constitutional amendment or a state law the citizens vote on and agree on the process.
Here, there was not only disagreement but religious objection to using federal govt in this manner to bypass checks on govt. It was either wrongful as a violation of Constitutional laws directly, or indirectly by violating and discriminating on the basis of creed because of equal political beliefs that should have both been taking into account without excluding or favoring one over the other.

That is wrong regardless of the outcome.

1. slavery was still wrong although it allowed for the growth of the US industrial revolution and economy to dominate the word
2. taking over Hawaii was wrong and later apologized for officially by govt, even though it protected US security in the Pacific
3. if Christian spiritual healing were mandated for all citizens, that would reduce addictions, crime and disease
and save lives and resources, but would be wrongful by Constitutional laws and a violation of federal govt duties
4. rape can lead to conceptoin and birth of a lovely child, who is loved and cherished and brings meaning and purpose in life,
but the rape is still wrong and punishable by law. the outcome produced by a wrongful action does not justify breaching laws.

 

[hauke]

i live in germany

i can t even imagine

a country not having healthcare for everyone

thats not third world

for me it means the USA

is third world

with nukes

 

[emilynghiem]

i live in germany

i can t even imagine

a country not having healthcare for everyone

thats not third world

for me it means the USA

is third world

with nukes

Hi hauke
The interesting thing is that everyone understands that the US system
is built on providing these services through free market.

The conflict is
A. Extreme Constitutionalists argue that health care should NEVER
be done through federal govt which was NEVER designed for that
but the responsibility/decisions belong to People and States locally.

B. Traditional moderate Constitutionalists are willing to amend the
Constitution and set things up by the will of the people, but it has
to represent the taxpayers and can't be "mucked up" by corporate politics

C. Liberals (who may or may not respect the Constitution but just
believe in deciding things by elections, votes on laws, and lawsuits)
believe ANYTHING can be pushed as long as people vote on it.

Since A and C clash with each other, this messed up the process
that could have been worked out by B, without corporate politics.

And C used corporate politics to pass this law (while a mix of B and C
is what got it approved, while half of B and ALL of A are still
arguing it didn't follow Constitutional procedures and therefore
got "mucked up" by corporate politics not representing the people).

Thus, half the nation was NOT represented in the form this bill passed.
Sadly, NEITHER side got represented or what they wanted.

C. The Singlepayer advocates equally PROTEST this bill as paying off Corporate
Insurance interests -- But THOSE Corporate interests are what Obama and Congress
had to "make deals with" to get this form to pass. So Corporate Politics "mucked up" the process in B, and this
left out what both A and C needed to be represented so both of those are left out.

The only people happy with this are those that either are happy
with the Corporate Politics or believe the bill is a stepping stone.

So I would say at most half of B and at most half of C.

So half the nation (or more) are not happy with the
hybrid legislation that didn't satisfy what anyone wanted.

This happened because the push from C to override A
relied on Corporate Insurance interest and then
refused to compromise and correct points that A was willing to concede.

So we got stuck with a "transition" type bill that is not what
anyone wanted, like a litter of stray mixed pitbulls left on our doorstep
that nobody wants to mess with because everyone blames
someone else for what this thing is and how it got there,
when we really wanted something else, not this thing.

It is mainly used to threaten and blame people until somebody does
something about it instead of just complaining to get rid of it.

My suggestion is to split the responsibility between the two
parties that created this mess, and let them fix it by their
own systems, which they agree to be under and fund through
their party networks, and quit trying to mandate one way for the whole nation.

So the Singlepayer system can be coordinated by the Democrats,
Greens or whoever wants that; and the free market way of paying
as before through either choices of business, churches, charities,
nonprofits or govt can be managed that way; and the programs ALL parties
agree on can go through public govt, but anything they don't agree on
goes through party programs they set up nationally or statewide as needed.

It's like letting Democrats set up group health care for their members
under terms they can elect and vote on and fund; while letting
Republicans or Greens set up theirs. And they compete for members
by having the better more effective policies that are financially
sustainable and provide the choices those members believe in.

Something like that.

 

[boilermaker55]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country.
So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

Dear boilermaker55 But what I learned from interacting with proACA supporters here,
is they don't recognize their political beliefs or the political beliefs of opponents as valid much less equal.

If THAT is the "gauntlet" through which this ACA has gone through,
those are dangerous biases on both sides.

If I can even find ONE lawyer who can understand this argument about political beliefs (and I only found one columnist who wrote something in the newspaper asking to examine the political beliefs about right to health care)
then there could be a petition or lawsuit on NEGLIGENCE if the Congress reps or Justices failed to distinguish
a political belief or religion creating a bias in this law or process.

If no LAWYERS are able to address it, then I would include all LAW SCHOOLS as responsible for addressing breaches based on "not recognizing" political beliefs and religions equally when they train lawyers or judges to practice.

This SHOULD be taught in conflict resolution and mediation.

Does it not seem that the ACA went all the way through our political checks and balances and now, it is where it is by going through the gauntlet.

Dear boilermaker55: And this is where I am thinking to take an ASSESSMENT of the President, Court Justices, and Congress members who either voted on ACA and/or subsequent budgets or measures,
and EVALUATE which of them (1) recognize political beliefs (2) recognize their own biases (3) and are either able to remain neutral and include BOTH while deciding policies or (4) require ASSISTANCE to form a consensus to respect and include these political beliefs equally or (5) Do not see or believe in either one, and are not able to represent people except of their own political beliefs

I think this is a fair test for office. Just like testing if a doctor can distinguish the difference between two different types of cells if that is involved in a procedure requiring this distinction. If doctors don't know the difference between an artery and a vein, or a normal lung cell vs. a growth that doesn't belong there, and/or can't see the difference, etc. they shouldn't be performing surgery that requires this!

Why not ask for an evaluation of our Federal Officials and investigate the nature of this conflict
and how it can be resolved? I am happy to mediate in public or private so that anyone with a 'disability' to distinguish political beliefs from regular political differences can still hold their office and not be dismissed for negligence if they can work effectively with added assistance of mediation.

I believe in accomodations for those with disabilities, and am beginning to see this issue as either a conflict of beliefs
and/or disability to discern, and/or issue of personal forgiveness or unforgiveness which can be remedied with counseling or mediation to either heal or bypass the points of conflict and reach a consensus anyway.

The individuals that interpret the constitution for the citizens of the US ruled contrary to your belief.

 

[Teeje651]

Sen. Thom Tillis Employees shouldn t have to wash hands after using the bathroom

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...regulations-like-hand-washing-at-restaurants/

Tillis Restaurant workers shouldn t have to wash hands

Sen. Thom Tillis pooh-poohs hand-washing regulations MSNBC

Senator says restaurant employees shouldn 8217 t be required to wash their hands - The Washington Post

 

[emilynghiem]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

 

[P@triot]

God Bless this woman. I marvel at the grace with which she has handled this unacceptable nightmare. If it were me, it would have been a postal episode on a certain building on a certain street...

How One Nebraska Woman Lost Her Health Insurance Three Times Under Obamacare

 

[P@triot]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

 

[boilermaker55]

When there are horrendous abuses by Wall Street and all the bankers within the corporate banking system and what they get away with, compared to Civil forfeiture in the United States (read about the laws), then tell us how corporations and those inside the institute are not treated differently than others.
Social and Environmental Issues

MANN vs Ford An Epic Battle of the Ramapough Mountain Indians NDN News - Daily Headlines in Indian Country

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

 

[boilermaker55]

Inadmissible in courts

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

 

[P@triot]

Inadmissible in courts

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

What do "courts" have to do with any of this? Please try and pay attention? Nobody mentioned a word about a trial.

 

[emilynghiem]

Inadmissible in courts

Hi boilermaker55
to avoid trying to use polygraphs,
if court rulings were based on consensus
people would have NO REASON to lie.

They would only get what they want by telling the truth.
If you lie about what you want to be included in the decision,
if you omit information so the other side objects and won't agree until the truth is established,
if you lie about what your objections are and what it takes to correct them,
then nobody gets what they want.

So this would put the focus on getting to a solution
that satisfies the interests and conditions of both parties.

If parties are unable to cooperation to mediate and form a mutual agreement,
THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS CONTRACTING WITH EACH OTHER.
Why should I pay for such conflicts in court as a taxpayer?

Either write your contracts/agreement out by consensus the FIRST time,
go through mediation to resolve disputes that come up later,
or DON'T DO BUSINESS TOGETHER.

Go work with people who have the same BELIEFS and values,
and quit putting all this on the taxpayers.

Especially with political beliefs and putting these conflicts
through the legislative and court system where it affects public govt policies.

ALL those conflicts should be worked out in advance,
or keep those policies PRIVATE if people can't agree.

But don't take incompetent "inability to resolve issues" and make ME pay for it
and make ME be under whatever WEIRD laws or rulings come out of such INCOMPETENCE.

If politicians don't have experience, training or track record in resolving conflicts,
especially involving POLITICAL and Religious beliefs, THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE.

I wouldn't license or hire a doctor who couldn't perform a surgery without botching it up.
Why are people allowed to run for President and make decisions that affect the public
who have NO CONCEPT of conflict resolution, equal protection of beliefs, and consent of the governed?

That is MASSIVE incompetence. The COURTS and legal system have this problem also,
where lawyers and judges make careers off problems and politics instead of solutions that prevent them.
The more problems, the more opportunity to exploit those for career.

So boilermaker55 in case you didn't know this, as all the lawyers and judges I know admit this is going on,
there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with political party and professional benefit in the court system
that isn't about consensus and protection of equal interests, but is biased toward political interests of the dominant parties.

I know you must know this, because it is common knowledge.
everyone knows the justice system is sold out, but nobody wants to fix the big mess.

The best we can do is try to keep conflicts OUT of the court system
and resolve them directly among the parties to retain control.

Once you go into that system, there is no control or protection of the process.

So although Rottweiler's idea of polygraphs won't necessary work directly,
we DO need to set it up where people don't get rewarded for lying and taking the fifth at public expense.

We need to require people to respect due process and not obstruct justice,
in order not to impose legal costs on the public, as a requirement for citizenship.

so if you abuse the system then you can lose your citizenship,
and if you want to maintain you have to work with authorities to resolve grievances and crimes by
consensus with the parties affected, and pay restitution for any debts and damages caused.

there has to be accountability, and now it's just paying off lawyers to get you off the hook on any technicality
or "introduction of doubt" that can pass.

So this is worse than when the Reformation exposed the Catholic Church for selling indulgences
to "buy your way out of sins." Here we have a legal system that allows you to
"buy your way out of crimes and violations" under a mandatory system that the taxpayer is forced to pay for.

So that is worse than when churches were corrupt.
this is mandatory and we have to pay for the damages done while parties with influence can buy
their way out for political favors and leave taxpayers stuck with the costs and damages on our tab.

 

[emilynghiem]

My contention is, and history itself shows, money influences decision making in this country. So they are, in a way, getting consent from the government.

RE

Hi boilermaker55 Even more so than the level it is questioned now.
If laws were based on consensus, then no amount of money could buy out a decision to go one way over the other.
So corporations would have no bearing on decisions, that must reflect a consent of the governed, not the corporations.

Then you should also question with great regard the ruling of Citizens United.

??? RE "when money influences decision making"
whose consent are you talking about?

If corporations want to invest in programs that only affect them, that's private, and yes they have the right to do that by their own free choice and consent.

But when it comes to policies that affect greater populations, and especially taxpayers,
then NO the corporations should not have more say just because they fund someone's campaigns.

How is this consent? Because politicians consent to this game?
What about taxpayers? I don't consent to America being bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders.
Do you? Do you consent to this going on?

The only people I've seen consent to it are the ones who benefit,
YET THEY COMPLAIN when the SAME GAME goes against what they want.

So they don't REALLY consent, only when they win which isn't guaranteed.
So it's not really consent, but taking turns bullying, gambling and buying out one side and selling out the other.

The only real consent I would believe in is where people, both sides, AGREE to a policy.
If they all voluntarily AGREE by informed consent, and all conflicts are resolved,
I would respect that decision as representing the interests equally.

Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
and I find it is a well-written set of standards I believe should be uniformly enforced for all govt:
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

It's not impossible to form a consensus before passing laws.
In fact, I think it would cut down on bogus and manipulated laws
and force legislators to cut out the crap and resolve the real issues.

I think the first thing we need to do is is start a regular program of polygraphs for every member of Congress and the president and vice president. It would start when any candidate runs for office. That alone would send all the dirtbag scam artists and adulterers running back to the dark corners like the cockroaches they are. Then it would continue quarterly and cover each bill they had voted on up to that point (with questions like were you bribed at all, did you follow the legal process on the bill, did you vote with integrity, etc.).

And to ensure the polygraphers were honest, each political party (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) would have a few polygraphers on staff who would administer the polygraph to members of the other party while that party's own polygraphers would watch. So Republican polygraphers would administer polygraphs to Democrats while Democrat and Independent polygraphers watched to call out any shenanigans by the Republican polygraphers. With that many eyes from that many experts in the room, nobody would be able to get away with anything. Anyone failing a polygraph is immediately removed from office.

Would solve EVERY problem we've ever had.

Hi Rottweiler I don't think the real test requires a polygraph:
Require federal govt officials to be able to recognize and mediate between "political beliefs."
1. If they don't even acknowledge these are creeds to be respected and included equally by law,
they already fail the test. Being in denial is part of their belief, but it should not preclude the fact other beliefs are valid.
There are two other levels that they can pass with assistance:
2. If they acknowledge the conflicting beliefs of themselves and others,
and AWARE that they are SO biased towards some,
they have a "conflict of interest," and need to work with a mediator or partner on THAT issue
to make sure the representation on policy is inclusive and equal.
3. If they acknowledge these and can stay neutral without help, whether with or without a bias toward one side. And they have proof by forming teams of mixed reps from both sides (as acknowledged by the MEMBERS of that actual party/lobby as legit, and not token figureheads) who confirm that they CAN work with this candidate/leader.

For example, I know I am biased about compromising voting rights and legalization beliefs about pot.
I know I will go along with overruling things, when other people's beliefs don't agree.
On issues like these two, I would NEED to work closely with proponents to make sure
solutions include them, while NOT imposing burdens that I oppose on opponents that I CAN relate to.
I know I am onesided and need to be offset to be fair.

For gun rights/gun control and prochoice/prolife, I am able to stand separately for both sides
and support both in seeking equitable solutions that don't violate one or the other.
Also for pro or anti gay marriage, and for pro and anti-death penalty, I believe in separation
of these, and only agree to state sanctioned policies if there is CONSENSUS including both proponents and opponents.

I can handle those on my own and with equal assistance from both sides to form a consensus.

On the lopsided issues, I would have to go a bit farther out of my way
to include the people protesting that, on my own, I would just as soon dismiss
because it costs so much to avoid problems other ways. That would take a lot of
work, and until better solutions are set up than can be equally sided, these
issues are too lopsided, where the side pushing for rights isn't taking enough responsibility for that,
according to my beliefs, and thus appears to me to be pushing this onto the opposing side.
Other people don't see it as lopsided, so it would have to be proven first to make the sides more equal
going into the debate. Once the issues are proven, then I think I could be more even keeled about those.

So RW if I can assess where I stand on political beliefs,
and know where my biases are and when they risk not being fair/inclusive,
isn't it safe to assume that politicians in office should be able to do the same?

And if they can't, and here I am just a working citizen who went through the trouble to find out
what is going on with these political beliefs, and I CAN figure it out,
why can't they? Or why are they running the govt if they can't see a political belief or bias for what it is?

Why not make a checklist of political beliefs, and ask not only what side people are
on, but find a test measure or assessment for figuring out WHICH candidates and
leaders can be balanced and RESOLVE conflicts not compromise one belief for another.

Then people only have motivation to be honest.

Even if you lie, this will come out by requiring conflicts over political beliefs to be resolved by consensus.
So if you can't even imagine a solution that includes both beliefs equally,
then it's clear where you stand. If you are shown a solution and you reject it,
and can't come up with a better alternative than NO, that shows where you stand.

I don't know anyone who can fake and hide whether they can accept and work with
opposing beliefs. most people are completely transparent. And where they aren't this is exposed too, and they wouldn't get past the first round of questions....

 

[Ernie S.]

i live in germany

i can t even imagine

a country not having healthcare for everyone

thats not third world

for me it means the USA

is third world

with nukes

Feel free to comment on the politics of Germany. You are unqualified and unentitled to tell us how to run our country.Verstehst du?

 

[JoeB131]

God Bless this woman. I marvel at the grace with which she has handled this unacceptable nightmare. If it were me, it would have been a postal episode on a certain building on a certain street...

How One Nebraska Woman Lost Her Health Insurance Three Times Under Obamacare

Again, you wingnuts killed the Public Option, and then complain when private insurance can't make up the difference.

It's Obama's fault she didn't do her research on her insurance carriers?