Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.
It's the most responsible thing.
WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.
It's the most responsible thing.
Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
A.
If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.
There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
B.
A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.
Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
Does this help?
OK let me try to address A and B
A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.
You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.
Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
From the country of Vatican City.
i knew you were a hack. next
Learning is hard, isn't it.
A.
If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.
There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
B.
A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.
Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
Does this help?
OK let me try to address A and B
A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.
You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.
Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.
WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.
It's the most responsible thing.
Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
OK let me try to address A and B
A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.
You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.
Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.
Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.
Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
OK let me try to address A and B
A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.
You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.
Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
That's wrong as well. For the same reasons.
Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.
Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
Not having someone else's idea of 'adequate' insurance coverage doesn't impose anything on anyone. Racking up bills and not paying them does. You're working on the assumption those are equivalent, but they aren't.
Actually they are functionally equivalent. Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.
You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.
Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible. It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.
This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?
Are you saying that we each ought to have the freedom to determine how effective the brakes should be on our cars?
What about all the casualties of inadequate brakes? Don't they have rights?
" I'm thinking to host a 500-1000 dollar contest to anyone who can come up with a working analogy that even President Obama recognizes, and explains the resistance from Republicans and conservatives"
Easy money. In the early years of the Obama administration, Republicans realized that the performance of their Bush administration was indefensible. So they launched a political strategy in the only way they could. 24/7/365 propaganda aimed at making the Obama administration seem even worse.
Obama realized that our health care delivery and insurance non-system was the biggest obstacle to global competitiveness. He vowed to accomplish what no other President before him had. Improve our health care cost and effectiveness.
Republican strategists bet it all on this horse. They threw up every conceivable obstacle to his success and therefore America's success. A huge gamble with no way out if they failed.
They did fail. They have been searching since for an exit that doesn't exist. Just like Bush's holy wars.
WTF? When you pay insurance premiums the entire point is that the insurance company is being paid to spread risk. You are paying a fixed premium that covers your costs be they lower, average, or unaffordable by you.
It's the most responsible thing.
Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
"it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
You do realize I'm sure, that you are welcome to this opinion.
If you'd like to make it meaningful, the process is to ammend our Constitution, of course changing it to a different Constitution.
Have at it.
I am partisan in favor of progress for our country. My experience is that the Republican Party has abandoned that, simply because their inept performance has put them in survival mode, and they've abandoned even the pretext of serving the country over serving the party. I see the evidence of that as overwhelming.
I am a Republican. They historically have had a very useful and functional perspective that was a great balance with the Democrat useful and functional perspective.
That was abandoned when the dixiecrats, who have always been dysfunctional and anti-American, left the Democratic Party over the issue of equal rights for everyone, and joined the GOP. That’s when they left useful politics behind, and became anti-American.
That’s is not blind bias but observable fact for those unbiased.
There are many parties whose foundation leads them to be against American interests. Communist for example.
I see no reason for those interested in our success to support either Communism or Republicanism.
PMZ this is wonderful! Part of the reform plans, to set up vet housing with home health interns, was written by another community leader I volunteer with who is a Republican. she would certainly appreciate more support to get her plans to national attention.
Can you please help? Please see pdf file for Vet Housing authored by Gladys House
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
May I email you or contact you about how we could work together?
And propose alternatives to ACA that opponents can fund voluntarily without conflict?
Thanks! Gladys could sure use help from fellow Republicans who understand the
issues in depth as you do. This is amazing, thank you for sharing in detail.
A.
If you choose a behavior that interferes with my freedom by stealing my stuff, killing me on purpose or by accident, just as extreme examples, society imposes on you unpleasant consequences. Just like responsible parents teach children.
There are millions of those laws because people are very creative in thinking of ways to prey on their fellow humans.
One way that people in the past preyed on others is to avoid responsibility for the cost of their own health care. They discovered that we as a society are adverse to them dying in the street so would pay for their health care when they needed.
B.
A way that insurance companies preyed on people is to not do their job, spreading risk, by avoiding insuring anyone with a risk. A pre existing condition.
Another predatory action is to employ someone full time without paying them a wage sufficient to live on.
In service to democracy, the ACA strives to eliminate these and other behaviors that deprive the majority of their right to the pursuit of happiness.
And it enhances competition in the health care insurance marketplace.
As I said, I had trouble understanding clearly enough your question.
Does this help?
OK let me try to address A and B
A1. If the point is to hold people responsible for paying for their health care,
--> why not let them do so in the manner they choose instead of insurance only.
A2. Since dictating that insurance/govt only is "taking away" their freedom without any proof they committed a crime (ie collective punishment, punishing those who WERE paying for themselves and others as well, by assuming ALL people needed this penalty/mandate)
Then isn't the resulting OUTCRY the "unpleasant consequence" of violating rights and freedoms of lawabiding citizens without due process by removing their freedom by govt?
B. If the "insurance companies" are the ones at fault
then why punish the citizens by making us buy into and pay into this system?
this reminds me of when I was arguing about collective punishment and war.
The war against Iraq govt and terrorists ended up hurting the lawabiding citizens
and victims of these corrupt and abusive militants who hijacked their govt from them.
I don't believe in collective punishment, but holding the actual wrongdoers responsible NOT punishing the victims!
(ie by taking rights/freedoms away from the individuals due to the abuses of the wrongdoers)
Otherwise, it causes the protests and disruptions as in A. Because it is assuming and punishing citizens who did not commit the offenses along with the ones who did; and all people have the right to "due process" BEFORE having rights/freedoms taken away by govt.
Instead of allowing and rewarding other choices for "people to pay for their own health care" the only choices enforced were either (a). buy private insurance which isn't guaranteed to cover ALL costs or ALL people yet it is mandated by govt (b). pay fines/penalty to govt (c). belong to a qualifying religious organization since 1999
Because imposing this mandate violated the rights of citizens who did not consent to this "private business contract with insurance companies" forced by govt under penalty of law,
that is why we are seeing the outcries.
You can say that these people still have the right to petition and change the law.
But that is after the fact. It is still being imposed in the meantime. So we do not have equal rights or protections under the law. The people who consent to the contract have their interests represented; while the ones who do not are now forced to go through legal or legislative measures to "get their freedoms back". So this is not equal.
What would be equal is putting the ACA on hold until all sides agree, and are represented.
The main argument against this is that ALL laws should be done that way.
And yes, they should.
Only if people AGREE to majority rule making something law should that stand by consent.
If they did NOT agree but wanted to resolve conflicts first before passing a law,
then the law should not be enforced without first resolving those conflicts/objections first.
that WOULD be more consistent with equal protection of the laws / equal representation.
we have not been following the laws but were bypassing consent by majority rule.
And it has been escalating and escalating. Roe v Wade and gay marriage is another such issue that has never been resolved. Immigration and the death penalty. Now the ACA.
It doesn't make it right just because we violated the consent of the governed in the past.
We are down to admitting we need to stop drowning people as witches as a test of guilt, just because we did all the others that way.
We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?
Every single law ever passed imposes responsibility on those who would impose their irresponsibility on others, given the chance. If they continue to choose irresponsibility, the law imposes consequences.
You people act like Obamacare is the first law ever passed.
Freedom from responsibility is only allowing the irresponsible to prey on the responsible. It lowers the freedom of the majority in service of a minority.
This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?
Don't fall for it. The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views. The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats. Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.
PMZ may actually be bi-polar.
Hi PMZ it's still not the federal govt's place to impose buying private insurance.
It is more responsible not to have sex if you can't afford the pregnancy or baby.
but it's not federal govt's place to impose laws penalizing you for having sex
"unless you show advance proof" you can pay for a baby if pregnancy occurs.
that would be the most responsible thing, but not govt's place to mandate.
"it's still not the federal govt's place to impose"
You do realize I'm sure, that you are welcome to this opinion.
If you'd like to make it meaningful, the process is to ammend our Constitution, of course changing it to a different Constitution.
Have at it.
??? what about the analogy of federal govt imposing the mandate about sex?
That was the point of this, did you answer that?
by your answer, if some majority decided to pass a mandate requiring citizens
to show proof of ability to pay for a pregnancy/baby before having sex, or else
pay a penalty to govt to cover the costs,
then would your answer be:
"go pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn this law imposed by federal govt"
Would you really accept the law just because it was passed by majority rule?
or would you say it was outside federal authority to pass such a law?
Don't fall for it. The guy knows what to say to draw you in... then a min later he's back to full on Marxist views. The guy is a quintessential 74year old neo-con dixiecrat with marxist leanings claiming to be a republican while complaining about neo-con dixiecrats. Yet nearly every opinion he provides is a party plank of the democrat party that would be blessed by Marx himself.
PMZ may actually be bi-polar.
Hmmm, PMZ and I may be lost twins separated at birth!
People say "no way" can I be a progressive prochoice Democrat
when I sound like a conservative Constitutionalist.
We may be yin and yang.
If so, this could either go in circles or
"BANG" we could be like "matter meeting anti-matter"
and reality could implode on itself, creating a whole new world of possibilities....
PMZ are you a Marxist? Are you affiliated in any way with Dr. David Michael Smith?
Let's see if that works.
