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

[P@triot]

I think that the Rotweiner continues to pretend that he lives in a country where each of us has our own Constitution that says whatever we want it to.

Aren't we glad that the founders were smarter than Rotweiner? Of course so is a box of hammers.

So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?

That's not what I said, is it.

That's exactly what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is not one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...

 

[PMZ]

So you are admitting that you don't know the difference between the federal government and state government?

That's not what I said, is it.

That's exactly what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is not one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...

What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.

It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.

 

[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 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?

" Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"

I don't. Can you explain the effective difference?

Sure. States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not. We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans. Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not. Some states have a higher cost of living than other states. Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.

We have a republic of states. The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons. Some states are rural, some are industrial. Some states have ports, some do not. Some states have a very high average income some do not.

In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas. Generally the states understand this. Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities. States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens. The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority. Big difference.

Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds? Or do you prefer they report to your city?

 

[P@triot]

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?

PMZ is knowingly lying. How many people share in his lies and ignorant views is completely irrelevant. After all, many people in Nazi, Germany shared Adolf Hitlers "assumptions". How did that work out?

Why don't you give it a rest tolerating lies and illegal activity?

 

[P@triot]

That's not what I said, is it.

That's exactly what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is not one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...

What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.

It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.

So if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that you no longer had 1st Amendment rights, you would consider that "constitutional" and you comply immediately by permanently shutting the fuck up? Really?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

See dblack? Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets. Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ? PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.

No we weren't. We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.

Did you really think it was free? It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.

As I stated before the solution to the hospital problem was 1) making them pay for their stay in the emergency room or send them to a free hospital/clinic, just as was done before or 2) force people to have, at a minimum, emergency care insurance to cover their stay at the hospital.

 

[PMZ]

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?

" Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"

I don't. Can you explain the effective difference?

Sure. States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not. We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans. Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not. Some states have a higher cost of living than other states. Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.

We have a republic of states. The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons. Some states are rural, some are industrial. Some states have ports, some do not. Some states have a very high average income some do not.

In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas. Generally the states understand this. Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities. States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens. The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority. Big difference.

Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds? Or do you prefer they report to your city?

Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small, independent countries of Europe, or the strong Union. So did Lincoln.

I personally think that they made the right choice.

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.

So the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) is for the federal government and not for me?

So the 2nd Amendment (right of the people to keep and bear arms) is for the federal government and not for me?

So the 3rd Amendment (no soldier shall be quartered in my home without my permission) is not for me?!?

You continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to read the Constitution

And you continue to prove over and over that you're too lazy to think.

All of those are prohibitions to government from regulating.

Right - for me. They prohibit government for me. So I can enjoy freedom - not so govenrment can.

I can see now why you crave marxism. You simply don't have the mental capacity to survive on your own.

 

[PMZ]

See dblack? Anything other than PMZ is in absolute control and we are accused of killing people in the streets. Because prior to OCA we were letting people die in the streets right PMZ? PMZ is nothing more than an authoritarian socialist troll.

No we weren't. We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.

Did you really think it was free? It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.

As I stated before the solution to the hospital problem was 1) making them pay for their stay in the emergency room or send them to a free hospital/clinic, just as was done before or 2) force people to have, at a minimum, emergency care insurance to cover their stay at the hospital.

I think that there are always people who need to be led into responsibility. Given that, why not lead them to the most effective responsibility?

 

[RKMBrown]

U

The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Only to our Federal Government. It spells out, among other things, areas of life that they have to stay out of. So they have. You don't get to write your own Constitution.

ROFL... ok that was the dumbest statement EVER RECORDED IN AMERICAN HISTORY... Gratz!

Prove me wrong. A good place to start would be a conviction of someone for violating the Constitution.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. You said, "[t]he Constitution doesn't apply to you."

apply - verb : to cause (force, pressure, etc.) to have an effect or to be felt. (Websters)

There are really just to many places in the Constitution where it lays out how the constitution applies to the people, hundreds. But I'll just leave you with the opening sentence:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perhaps you meant to say the bill of rights is a set of restrictions that mostly apply to the federal government and federal government workers, and also a set of statements about liberty that apply to the people.

Or maybe you did not mean to use the word apply at all.

 

[PMZ]

That's exactly what you said since you claim Obamacare is Constitutionally legal. The Constitution specifically cites the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government (delegated to them by the states) - and healthcare is not one of those powers. The fact that you don't know says it all...

What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.

It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.

So if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that you no longer had 1st Amendment rights, you would consider that "constitutional" and you comply immediately by permanently shutting the fuck up? Really?

If the government revolts from their service to us, our protection is to fire them. That revolt has never happened. They have always complied with their bylaws.

If, if, if.

I think that our plate is overflowing with real problems. We don't need to make up additional ones.

 

[PMZ]

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?

PMZ is knowingly lying. How many people share in his lies and ignorant views is completely irrelevant. After all, many people in Nazi, Germany shared Adolf Hitlers "assumptions". How did that work out?

Why don't you give it a rest tolerating lies and illegal activity?

Show me a lie Adolf. Your ignorance is not me lying.

 

[Peterf]

It is sad that this has to happen.

It's also sad that the GOP has convinced people of "death panels", "losing freedom" and all the other hysterical nonsense that you sheep believe, that have actually made you think you hate a law that is a Republican idea.

So yeah, it's sad that a campaign needs to be waged to combat such blatant misinformation.

Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?

The federal government now forces you to make a purchase. How is that not losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.

By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in <insert idiot socialized medicine nation here>, etc.).

You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...

Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.

I am but a foreigner so I missed the passing of the amendment to the US constitution which now allows the President to make laws as the fancy takes him. Sounds a bit like a dictatorship to me - but you seem to like it RDD 1210 so it must be OK:

 

[RKMBrown]

No we weren't. We were treating them for 'free' in hospital emergency rooms.

Did you really think it was free? It's the most expensive least effective treatment possible.

As I stated before the solution to the hospital problem was 1) making them pay for their stay in the emergency room or send them to a free hospital/clinic, just as was done before or 2) force people to have, at a minimum, emergency care insurance to cover their stay at the hospital.

I think that there are always people who need to be led into responsibility. Given that, why not lead them to the most effective responsibility?

But that's not what ACA does. Nor is insurance the most effective responsibility. HSA accounts where we each manage our own heath care via free markets and free decisions that we make with our own doctors is the best and most efficient means for people with the ability to make rational decisions.

Again, I would not have fought some basic insurance minimum managed by each state to cover the federally mandated hospital emergent care. Just as we cover inoculations via state programs.

However, ACA is not about leading people into responsibility. It's about free subsidized health care for the 51% and Illegals that were not previously covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and Military veteran benefits. In short it's about destroying our health care system entirely by swamping it. People who have no income or desire to work will be lining up for free artificial limbs. People who have worked their entire lives will be asked to fork over their income and assets to pay for the other people and get in line with them to spend their money on elective procedures.

 

[P@triot]

What I say about Constitutionality is as irrelevant as what you say.

It was the fact that SCOTUS said that it was Constitutional that counts.

So if the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that you no longer had 1st Amendment rights, you would consider that "constitutional" and you comply immediately by permanently shutting the fuck up? Really?

If the government revolts from their service to us, our protection is to fire them. That revolt has never happened. They have always complied with their bylaws.

If, if, if.

I think that our plate is overflowing with real problems. We don't need to make up additional ones.

First of all genius, we cannot "fire" them. Nobody can fire Barack Obama idiot. He has 4 years of guaranteed employment (unlike those of us in the real world) unless the Congress decides to properly impeach him for his endless violations of the Constitution.

Second - you didn't answer the question. If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow that you no longer have any 1st Amendment rights, does that make it so?

 

[P@triot]

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?

PMZ is knowingly lying. How many people share in his lies and ignorant views is completely irrelevant. After all, many people in Nazi, Germany shared Adolf Hitlers "assumptions". How did that work out?

Why don't you give it a rest tolerating lies and illegal activity?

Show me a lie Adolf. Your ignorance is not me lying.

You're entire participation in this thread has been one knowing lie after another. You know damn well that the federal government has no power to control costs of anything. You know damn well that the federal government has no power to force citizens to purchase anything. You know damn well that you're a devout marxist who feels entitled to what other people earn.

I could go on and on but everyone here knows that you've lied in every single post you've made.

 

[P@triot]

Your hero Romney campaigned on the idea that he only cared about 47% of the population. If we were the plutocracy that you favor, he would have won.

Here is a blatant lie. Romney never campaigned on a platform the he "cared" about anyone. Furthermore, even if he had, then the number would have been 53% dumb-ass because he was talking about the 47% that he couldn't win over

You're so dumb, you can't even get your lies right. Here is his quote genius:

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," Romney said.

There you go [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - I just proved you lied.

 

[P@triot]

Why did he go to jail? He thought that regulation didn't apply to him. He found out he was wrong. He found out that, in a democracy, the rules favor we the people.

First of all stupid, we don't have a "democracy". Jesus - Antares even threw you a bone on this one and you still couldn't learn from it?!?

You are not "we the people". You're the fringe minority radical that America hates.

"We the people" support and defend the U.S. Constitution while you cry about it like a little girl.

What do you call it when all citizens vote for their governmental representation? When all of their representation vote on laws? When the supreme court votes on adjudication? When juries vote?

Even after being shown indisputable evidence, the typical Dumbocrat pathological liar doubles-down on his lies and falsely claims (again) that the U.S. is a "democracy". We are a REPUBLIC and any basic web search in the world proves that he is lying.

 

[PMZ]

My

Wait - let me get this straight - you believe you're not losing freedom under Obamacare [MENTION=23461]RDD_1210[/MENTION]?!?

The federal government now forces you to make a purchase. How is that not losing freedom in your mind? I can't wait to hear this absurd explanation.

By the way - "death panels" are a 100% certainty and now that they've passed Obamacare, the left has even admitted as much. Perhaps you need to wake up to reality? When the federal government has limited funds and unlimited health issues to address, they will have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't (just like the do in Canada, just like they do in England, just like they do in , etc.).

You are one willfully ignorant buffoon, aren't you? Oh well, ignorance is bliss I guess...

Obama should make a law saying breathing oxygen is mandated. You idiots would hold your breath while claiming your freedoms are being taken away.

I am but a foreigner so I missed the passing of the amendment to the US constitution which now allows the President to make laws as the fancy takes him. Sounds a bit like a dictatorship to me - but you seem to like it RDD 1210 so it must be OK:

It would be a dictatorship and that's why our Constitution prohibits it. We, at least the majority of us, hold lawmakers accountable for their legislative results. We're about to fire a bunch who don't believe in the organization that they asked us to elect them to. Government.

Cleaning house we yanks call it.

More properly, cleaning House.

 

[RKMBrown]

" Do you not understand the difference between Federal management of health care and State management of health care?"

I don't. Can you explain the effective difference?

Sure. States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not. We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans. Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not. Some states have a higher cost of living than other states. Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.

We have a republic of states. The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons. Some states are rural, some are industrial. Some states have ports, some do not. Some states have a very high average income some do not.

In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas. Generally the states understand this. Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities. States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens. The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority. Big difference.

Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds? Or do you prefer they report to your city?

Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small, independent countries of Europe, or the strong Union. So did Lincoln.

I personally think that they made the right choice.

I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did. You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.