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.
Yes it does, general welfare.
Is that how you perceive this?You have chosen to blame all for all problems, therefore you have no solution since all are wrong.Ah, it's all the "other" side's fault.Not "we", maybe "you" have though.Yep, especially when we have chosen to be this divided..It's easy to oppose everything, a lot harder to fix things.It's amazing, given the storybook come-back the GOP made in November, that they've already shot themselves in the foot so often, since resuming power.
Of course. How appropriate.
.
Nope, providing for the general welfare IS one of the enumerations.Yes it does, general welfare.
Why did I just KNOW thzt fallacious arguement was coming?
That line rdlatds to the General Welfsre of the NATION, not the individual citizens. Dcen if it did, the remaining portion of thst section goes on to explicitly list the items that make up "General Welfare and Common Defense". There are 18 of them. Healthcare is nowhere among them.
All 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.If you seriously think 50 states could have agreed on a national highwaay system without the federal govt,Why is that you think the states couldn't accomplish this via cooperation in pursuit of mutual self interest?So with your thinking there would be no national highway system,IMHO the "division" you are referring to is largely a product of top-down thinking, especially when the "top" comes from centralized (federal) power since pretty much anything it does is going to piss off vast swaths of the citizenry. *Real* solutions (those that are most often palatable to the majority of the affected) are bottom up and start with community->local->state, the federal level should only ever be involved as a last resort when the states don't have the wherewithal to address the needs of it's own citizens. Bottom-up solutions can be tailored to the specific wants/needs/traditions/relationships, etc.., of the affected and they can be replicated/modified elsewhere when/if they show promise, one size fits all cannot.Yep, especially when we have chosen to be this divided.It's easy to oppose everything, a lot harder to fix things.
.
The decades long federal involvement in healthcare imbroglio illustrates this perfectly, it has caused enormous market inefficiencies to develop, wasted vast amounts of resources and created a cabal of special interests that jealously guard their tax payer funded, politically leveraged privilege & power and as a result we have one half of the country constantly at the throats of the other half over a *problem* that could be most easily be *resolved* solely by the 50 laboratories of democracy at our disposal.
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed." -- Barry M. Goldwater
Any or all of those things can (and in cases already are) done at the state level per the dictates of the wants and needs of the citizenry of the individual states.mandated vaccines to eliminate polio etc for the public good, federal safety standards that make all cars much safer nowadays, etc.
Honestly I don't want them to "enforce" anything, the federal government has explicitly defined Constitutional responsibilities and it shouldn't be doing ANYTHING beyond them. The only reason government exists is to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry and instead what we get is constant violations of those things in addition to infringement upon the sovereignty of the states and the natural purview of localities. That's what remote, centralized power does and it's exactly the reason the founders saw fit to create a federal republic pursuant to the decentralization of power, we're going in the wrong direction and it is eroding our individual liberty, popular sovereignty and future prosperity.Or do you only want the feds to enforce things you personally like? Or do you wish they have no power to enforce the things I mentioned and the US be a weak mishmash with dumb states weighing the rest down?
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.and national vaccines without the federal govt,
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.you are simply a moron.
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..Without the federal govt there is no United States. It is becoming more and more apparent you morons want no or a severely weakened United States.
Fake News. LOLRepeal only will guarantee 60% majorities in the Senate and the House next fall, enough to guarantee single payer, and if Trump is still in office, he will sign.
He'll be going against the wishes of the folks who got him elected President. They never demanded 'Repeal & Replace.' They only demanded repealing Obama's catastrophe.
How so? I'm a Trump supporter, and i never demanded 'Repeal & Replace.' I only demanded Repeal. And every other Trump supporter i've talked to, feels the same way. It's the RINO wusses who've demanded 'Repeal & Replace.' I would be perfectly content with simply repealing Obama's catastrophe.
Why not be more vocal about it than?
We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.If you seriously think 50 states could have agreed on a national highwaay system without the federal govt,Why is that you think the states couldn't accomplish this via cooperation in pursuit of mutual self interest?So with your thinking there would be no national highway system,IMHO the "division" you are referring to is largely a product of top-down thinking, especially when the "top" comes from centralized (federal) power since pretty much anything it does is going to piss off vast swaths of the citizenry. *Real* solutions (those that are most often palatable to the majority of the affected) are bottom up and start with community->local->state, the federal level should only ever be involved as a last resort when the states don't have the wherewithal to address the needs of it's own citizens. Bottom-up solutions can be tailored to the specific wants/needs/traditions/relationships, etc.., of the affected and they can be replicated/modified elsewhere when/if they show promise, one size fits all cannot.Yep, especially when we have chosen to be this divided.
.
The decades long federal involvement in healthcare imbroglio illustrates this perfectly, it has caused enormous market inefficiencies to develop, wasted vast amounts of resources and created a cabal of special interests that jealously guard their tax payer funded, politically leveraged privilege & power and as a result we have one half of the country constantly at the throats of the other half over a *problem* that could be most easily be *resolved* solely by the 50 laboratories of democracy at our disposal.
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed." -- Barry M. Goldwater
Any or all of those things can (and in cases already are) done at the state level per the dictates of the wants and needs of the citizenry of the individual states.mandated vaccines to eliminate polio etc for the public good, federal safety standards that make all cars much safer nowadays, etc.
Honestly I don't want them to "enforce" anything, the federal government has explicitly defined Constitutional responsibilities and it shouldn't be doing ANYTHING beyond them. The only reason government exists is to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry and instead what we get is constant violations of those things in addition to infringement upon the sovereignty of the states and the natural purview of localities. That's what remote, centralized power does and it's exactly the reason the founders saw fit to create a federal republic pursuant to the decentralization of power, we're going in the wrong direction and it is eroding our individual liberty, popular sovereignty and future prosperity.Or do you only want the feds to enforce things you personally like? Or do you wish they have no power to enforce the things I mentioned and the US be a weak mishmash with dumb states weighing the rest down?
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.and national vaccines without the federal govt,
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.you are simply a moron.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..Without the federal govt there is no United States. It is becoming more and more apparent you morons want no or a severely weakened United States.
LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.If you seriously think 50 states could have agreed on a national highwaay system without the federal govt,Why is that you think the states couldn't accomplish this via cooperation in pursuit of mutual self interest?So with your thinking there would be no national highway system,IMHO the "division" you are referring to is largely a product of top-down thinking, especially when the "top" comes from centralized (federal) power since pretty much anything it does is going to piss off vast swaths of the citizenry. *Real* solutions (those that are most often palatable to the majority of the affected) are bottom up and start with community->local->state, the federal level should only ever be involved as a last resort when the states don't have the wherewithal to address the needs of it's own citizens. Bottom-up solutions can be tailored to the specific wants/needs/traditions/relationships, etc.., of the affected and they can be replicated/modified elsewhere when/if they show promise, one size fits all cannot.
The decades long federal involvement in healthcare imbroglio illustrates this perfectly, it has caused enormous market inefficiencies to develop, wasted vast amounts of resources and created a cabal of special interests that jealously guard their tax payer funded, politically leveraged privilege & power and as a result we have one half of the country constantly at the throats of the other half over a *problem* that could be most easily be *resolved* solely by the 50 laboratories of democracy at our disposal.
"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed." -- Barry M. Goldwater
Any or all of those things can (and in cases already are) done at the state level per the dictates of the wants and needs of the citizenry of the individual states.mandated vaccines to eliminate polio etc for the public good, federal safety standards that make all cars much safer nowadays, etc.
Honestly I don't want them to "enforce" anything, the federal government has explicitly defined Constitutional responsibilities and it shouldn't be doing ANYTHING beyond them. The only reason government exists is to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry and instead what we get is constant violations of those things in addition to infringement upon the sovereignty of the states and the natural purview of localities. That's what remote, centralized power does and it's exactly the reason the founders saw fit to create a federal republic pursuant to the decentralization of power, we're going in the wrong direction and it is eroding our individual liberty, popular sovereignty and future prosperity.Or do you only want the feds to enforce things you personally like? Or do you wish they have no power to enforce the things I mentioned and the US be a weak mishmash with dumb states weighing the rest down?
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.and national vaccines without the federal govt,
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.you are simply a moron.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..Without the federal govt there is no United States. It is becoming more and more apparent you morons want no or a severely weakened United States.
But the larger companies never had health insurance mandated before obamacare and they all provided health insurance to recruit and keep employee's and probably still will. What I see this effecting is employer's under 50.
Nope, providing for the general welfare IS one of the enumerations.
Failed none. Your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.Nope, providing for the general welfare IS one of the enumerations.
Did you fail both Civics and English in high school, or only one?
No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States. If not dumb states and especially dumb fucks like you would have argued it isn't needed and "govt has no rights" and you assholes would make everyone else suffer with polio still being around because of your selfish "rights" to fuck everyone else over.LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.If you seriously think 50 states could have agreed on a national highwaay system without the federal govt,Why is that you think the states couldn't accomplish this via cooperation in pursuit of mutual self interest?So with your thinking there would be no national highway system,
Any or all of those things can (and in cases already are) done at the state level per the dictates of the wants and needs of the citizenry of the individual states.mandated vaccines to eliminate polio etc for the public good, federal safety standards that make all cars much safer nowadays, etc.
Honestly I don't want them to "enforce" anything, the federal government has explicitly defined Constitutional responsibilities and it shouldn't be doing ANYTHING beyond them. The only reason government exists is to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry and instead what we get is constant violations of those things in addition to infringement upon the sovereignty of the states and the natural purview of localities. That's what remote, centralized power does and it's exactly the reason the founders saw fit to create a federal republic pursuant to the decentralization of power, we're going in the wrong direction and it is eroding our individual liberty, popular sovereignty and future prosperity.Or do you only want the feds to enforce things you personally like? Or do you wish they have no power to enforce the things I mentioned and the US be a weak mishmash with dumb states weighing the rest down?
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.and national vaccines without the federal govt,
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.you are simply a moron.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..Without the federal govt there is no United States. It is becoming more and more apparent you morons want no or a severely weakened United States.
Failed none. Your lack of reading comprehension is your problem, not mine.
The very first enumeration...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
That is not a lead in to the next 17; but stands on it's own. It's why it's legal and constitutional for the Congress to maintain an Air Force as they are burdened with the responsibility of providing "common Defence" for the nation. You're senile to think otherwise.
No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States..LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.If you seriously think 50 states could have agreed on a national highwaay system without the federal govt,Why is that you think the states couldn't accomplish this via cooperation in pursuit of mutual self interest?
Any or all of those things can (and in cases already are) done at the state level per the dictates of the wants and needs of the citizenry of the individual states.
Honestly I don't want them to "enforce" anything, the federal government has explicitly defined Constitutional responsibilities and it shouldn't be doing ANYTHING beyond them. The only reason government exists is to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry and instead what we get is constant violations of those things in addition to infringement upon the sovereignty of the states and the natural purview of localities. That's what remote, centralized power does and it's exactly the reason the founders saw fit to create a federal republic pursuant to the decentralization of power, we're going in the wrong direction and it is eroding our individual liberty, popular sovereignty and future prosperity.
"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." -- Thomas Jefferson
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.and national vaccines without the federal govt,
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.you are simply a moron.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..Without the federal govt there is no United States. It is becoming more and more apparent you morons want no or a severely weakened United States.
You keep dodging my point with bullshit. Reality is we need a strong federal govt and without it the United States wouldn't exist. I'm starting to think you are one of those "south should have won" confederate douchebags, or a putin puppet trying to divide the country. Either way you are a dumb fuck or an anti american piece of shit.No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States..LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.If you seriously think 50 states could have agreed on a national highwaay system without the federal govt,
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.and national vaccines without the federal govt,
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.you are simply a moron.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..Without the federal govt there is no United States. It is becoming more and more apparent you morons want no or a severely weakened United States.
Why would it be "essential" to "mandate" it? Do you believe that consumers don't want to prevent themselves and their dependents from getting polio?
Also you're apparently unaware that it is the States that have mandatory vaccination policies (with a handful allowing for religious exemptions) the federal government doesn't have such policies (the NVA only makes recommendations) nor has it ever had such policies, the only mandatory vaccinations that are required by the federal government are for military personnel and green card applicants.
Oh, is that what you call pointing out how specious each of your "arguments" are?You keep dodging my point with bullshit.No my contention is the federal govt was essential to mandate the vaccine throughout the United States..LOL, so your contention is that the polio vaccine wouldn't have been invented without national "standards" ? That's an odd theory given that the polio vaccine was invented before any national "standards" for vaccines. It's almost as if you believe that vaccines were invented to satisfy national "standards" instead of preventing diseases among consumers.We need national vaccines so we don't all have polio you moronAll 50 states don't have to agree, only states and their immediate neighbors, Europe (for example) was able to interconnect itself with highways without a unitary government and the nation states on that continent are FAR more diverse and have deeper division than our states do. The only thing you get with the federal government running things is wasted resources and inefficiencies.
Why do we need "national vaccines"?????? apparently you're unaware that consumers are the drivers of the quality, effectiveness and cost of what they consume NOT government, "national standards" only serve to inhibit innovation and cost reduction while facilitating graft and reduced competition.
Is that a white flag I see before me? why yes I believe it is.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Without the states there is no Republic, the trend has been to transform the Republic into a unitary nation state which is NOT The United States and what you're arguing for is a continuation (and acceleration) of that trend. I don't need people on the opposite side of the country to have a say in that conduct of my day to day affairs and I doubt those people want me having a say in theirs. The States are perfectly capable and uniquely situated to take care of the vast majority of the governmental needs of their citizens without involvement from the remote, self-serving, corruption soaked and inept organism that lives in Washington D.C..
Why would it be "essential" to "mandate" it? Do you believe that consumers don't want to prevent themselves and their dependents from getting polio?
Also you're apparently unaware that it is the States that have mandatory vaccination policies (with a handful allowing for religious exemptions) the federal government doesn't have such policies (the NVA only makes recommendations) nor has it ever had such policies, the only mandatory vaccinations that are required by the federal government are for military personnel and green card applicants.
Uh-huh, except you keep falling short with respect to explaining why we "need" a strong federal government for the United States to exist, especially since the Republic was born with a weak, constitutionally bound federal government and has existed and thrived for far longer in that state than it has with a *strong* (expensive, powerful, corrupt and interventionist) central government. The history of nation states is littered with the corpses of decentralized governments where the citizenry abdicated local control to a central power in pursuit of *good intentions* (See the Roman Republic come Roman Empire).Reality is we need a strong federal govt and without it the United States wouldn't exist.
Well at least you're starting to think which is an enormous improvement now if you could just summon up another neuron to join that other lil' fella perhaps you could manage to do it with some reason and evidence for a change.I'm starting to think you are one of those "south should have won" confederate douchebags, or a putin puppet trying to divide the country.
LOL, more ad hominem, perhaps you could switch to a different fallacy, just for a change of pace.... you're becoming exceedingly boring and predictable.Either way you are a dumb fuck or an anti american piece of shit.
Goes back nearly 100 years. The tax expenditure for employers to provide HC goes back until at least the 1950sThe debacle that is American health care is the result of collusion between insurance companies, big pharma, and politicians that has been 20+
years in the making. That's just pre-Obamacare. All Obamacare is/was is like a "stimulus" package for insurance companies and doesn't
fix a single thing that's wrong.
In other words: It's a big mess and will require a lot of work to fix.
Those crooks that are in Congress right now will not vote for things to fix healthcare because they are the ones that profit from the
corruption.
They need ousted and new rules written that if they take bribes they immediately are removed from office and do mandatory minimum 5 years Federal prison. Lobbyists caught bribing politicians, same sentence.
That's what fixing healthcare in the US really entails. It also would fix a lot of
other things.
It all started with a Congress under Jimmy Carter, he vetoed the bill and they overrode
him, and the real graft started
under Reagan's 2nd Congress. That's when they voted themselves immune
from
insider trading laws.
If those 2 laws could be rolled back, it would go a long way to people having
representation in government again.
Health insurance companies are 2/3 bigger than they should be.
Goes back nearly 100 years. The tax expenditure for employers to provide HC goes back until at least the 1950sThe debacle that is American health care is the result of collusion between insurance companies, big pharma, and politicians that has been 20+
years in the making. That's just pre-Obamacare. All Obamacare is/was is like a "stimulus" package for insurance companies and doesn't
fix a single thing that's wrong.
In other words: It's a big mess and will require a lot of work to fix.
Those crooks that are in Congress right now will not vote for things to fix healthcare because they are the ones that profit from the
corruption.
They need ousted and new rules written that if they take bribes they immediately are removed from office and do mandatory minimum 5 years Federal prison. Lobbyists caught bribing politicians, same sentence.
That's what fixing healthcare in the US really entails. It also would fix a lot of
other things.
It all started with a Congress under Jimmy Carter, he vetoed the bill and they overrode
him, and the real graft started
under Reagan's 2nd Congress. That's when they voted themselves immune
from
insider trading laws.
If those 2 laws could be rolled back, it would go a long way to people having
representation in government again.
Health insurance companies are 2/3 bigger than they should be.
Goes back nearly 100 years. The tax expenditure for employers to provide HC goes back until at least the 1950sThe debacle that is American health care is the result of collusion between insurance companies, big pharma, and politicians that has been 20+
years in the making. That's just pre-Obamacare. All Obamacare is/was is like a "stimulus" package for insurance companies and doesn't
fix a single thing that's wrong.
In other words: It's a big mess and will require a lot of work to fix.
Those crooks that are in Congress right now will not vote for things to fix healthcare because they are the ones that profit from the
corruption.
They need ousted and new rules written that if they take bribes they immediately are removed from office and do mandatory minimum 5 years Federal prison. Lobbyists caught bribing politicians, same sentence.
That's what fixing healthcare in the US really entails. It also would fix a lot of
other things.
It all started with a Congress under Jimmy Carter, he vetoed the bill and they overrode
him, and the real graft started
under Reagan's 2nd Congress. That's when they voted themselves immune
from
insider trading laws.
If those 2 laws could be rolled back, it would go a long way to people having
representation in government again.
Health insurance companies are 2/3 bigger than they should be.
But after Carter and Reagan with the unchecked lobbying is when prices really started to balloon.
No CBO score either.Well,
The GOP has whined about Obamacare (which I didn't want and I think it sucks) for six years.
Where was their plan ?
I mean honestly.....this is hysterical.
No plan, no concept of a plan, nothing........
