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

[RKMBrown]

"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?

The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.

In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.

I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.

It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society. We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system. Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do. What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent. But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.

 

[PMZ]

??? 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?

The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.

In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.

I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.

It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society. We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system. Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do. What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent. But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.

Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?

Move! Dead simple. Dead effective. No risk. All your problems solved.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

 

[PMZ]

"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?

The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.

In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.

I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.

If you put the rest of us at risk for paying your bills, that's plain old irresponsibility. No other way to look at it.

Why should I be responsible so that you can be irresponsible?

 

[RKMBrown]

The sex analogy is quite appropriate, and highlights a real danger in making our freedoms dependent on our ability to insure others against the associated risks.

In my view, one of the primary functions of government is to manage and regulate the risks that the mutual exercise of our freedoms presents in a pluralistic society. It's not always necessary for someone to be harmed to warrant laws controlling certain behaviors. If an activity presents too much of a threat, we make it illegal (driving too fast through residential areas, for example). The key point here is that such decisions are the proper purview of government, not private concerns.

I think the move to 'outsource' this management of risk to private corporations, to tie our rights to our ability maintain an insurance policy, is a dangerous trend. Some states are pursuing this avenue regarding risks presented by gun ownership, or consumption of alcohol - requiring that gun owners or bar operators maintain insurance covering potential damages. This sets up insurance adjusters as the arbiters of our rights, rather than police and judges. It also makes our rights a function of how much insurance we can afford. All of this flies in the face of he fundamental concepts of equal protection and equal rights.

It also points out that all laws and government actions have recursive repercussions throughout society. We have a law that it is illegal to murder people, this causes us to form a justice system, we have to fund that justice system. Essentially, taxes paid and spent on the justice system is a form of insurance against any one of us committing murder for the purpose of putting us away if we do. What would be better is a system where all of the assets of guilty people are used to fund the system thus not penalizing the innocent. But there we have it, our system is somewhat backwards in so far as we have decided to punish the innocent with taxes as well as the guilty. Worse, if you are rich you get punished progressively for our wars on drugs, gangs, gun crime, etc.

Why does nobody here take the obvious solution to the problems that you can't stop whining about?

Move! Dead simple. Dead effective. No risk. All your problems solved.

Easiest way to tell you have a coward in a corner... They start begging you to leave.

 

[dblack]

Actually they are functionally equivalent. Both are strategies to dump the cost of your health care on others.

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

well from the healthcare standpoint it is all subject to government management

 

[P@triot]

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

You think PMZ is using logic?

Dumbicrats don't use logic (which is why they get annihilated in a debate with conservatives). They use irrational emotion. They feel about an issue, they don't think about an issue. And that is exactly why their policies are such catastrophic disasters.

 

[P@triot]

We insist on drivers having liability insurance so they can't impose the consequences of their irresponsibility on others don't we?

This is like a civics 101 class. Didn't you people go to school?

Once again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displays astounding ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. Clearly he never took Civics 101. Is it too late for us to sign him up? We can even split the cost just to educate this buffoon (hell, he expects us to cover the cost for him in life with everything else).

The fact that you don't understand the different between state government and federal government is simply unbelievable.

Republican Mitt Romney instituted "Romneycare" at the state level and it was perfectly legal. Obama illegally tried to take his concept to the federal level.

PMZ, sweetie, even Democrats are tearing you apart here. Do you notice you are 100% alone? Everyone who has weighed in as agreed that you are completely wrong (and astoundingly ignorant). Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[P@triot]

i knew you were a hack. next

Learning is hard, isn't it.

Actually, not at all. But the fact that you believe it is explains a lot!

 

[P@triot]

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.

Yet again [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] displaying the highest form of ignorance about the U.S. Constitution (which he has never read).

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states (look it up junior). Healthcare is not one of those powers.

Therefore, if you want the federal government controlling healthcare or imposing requirements on the people, you need to get the U.S. Constitution amended.

Good luck with that junior...

 

[P@triot]

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?

The Constitution guaranteed us freedom, stupid. It did not guarantee us safety.

If freedom scares you so much, Cuba is waiting...

 

[P@triot]

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Well, considering Obamacare is welfare, you sound like an irrational buffoon here.

Your entire position is that people who could not afford to pay for their own healthcare or pay for their own healthcare insurance were cheating the system and that's why Obamacare was needed (a disingenuous position to say the least since you live for people to cheat the system being that you're a die-hard marxist and all).

So if they couldn't afford insurance before Obamacare, how can they afford insurance after Obamacare by forcing them to purchase what they couldn't afford?!?

The answer of course is that Obamacare has devasted this nation with hundreds of billions in new taxes to pay for someone else's healthcare. It is the very definition of welfare.

Yes folks, [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] really is that stupid....

 

[dblack]

PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?

 

[RKMBrown]

PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?

Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats. He says he follows the constitution, but as far as can be seen he only follows it to find something to urinate on.

 

[dblack]

PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?

Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.

His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.

 

[RKMBrown]

PMZ is honestly arguing a position based on a different set of assumptions - assumptions that many, if not most, voters share. I see no point in partisan or personal attacks. Give it a break, eh?

Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.

His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.

First off that is a lie. Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state position that Mitt held as Governor for a Democrat State, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate. Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?

 

[dblack]

Honestly? He says he's a republican, but his positions are both authoritarian and also well to the left of most socialists and democrats.

His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.

First off that is a lie. Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state postion, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate. Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?

Sure, I get it. But the principle is the same, just a matter of scope. Romney's arguments for his state program were pretty much the same as PMZ is presenting here.

Anyway, you're missing the point of my comment. The partisan pissing match is just silly. Let's talk about the ideas involved and leave cartoonish lambasting out of it. Pretty please?

 

[RKMBrown]

His positions are approximately the same as Romney's.

First off that is a lie. Second, while one of his positions is somewhat similar to Romney's state postion, Romney was never a proponent of pushing Romney Care as a federal mandate. Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?

Sure, I get it. But the principle is the same, just a matter of scope. Romney's arguments for his state program were pretty much the same as PMZ is presenting here.

Anyway, you're missing the point of my comment. The partisan pissing match is just silly. Let's talk about the ideas involved and leave cartoonish lambasting out of it. Pretty please?

No it's not the same. Not even close. No it's not just a matter of scope. The differences between them are night and day, and the results are night and day. Structurally they had some of the same basic construction, but Obama built a partisan attack on the American People, vs Romney's bipartisan agreement in a democrat state. The important parts are completely different. Obama's plan is lies built on lies arranged to destroy our health care system. He said so himself. Presumably so that the next democrat dictator could save the day with single payer.

I'm willing to bury the hatchet. You'll have to talk to PMZ though he's the troll here.

 

[PMZ]

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

I think that I've explained about 100 times here that I have experience with countries that can only afford letting people die in the streets. What that leads to is unacceptable to me and most Americans.

The fact that people like you, Americans, are even willing to consider it is appalling, and is huge evidence at how fall we've fallen as a country from the scourge of conservatism.