Do you believe health care should be a right?

Funny how Republicans fought to have universal health care as a constitutional right in Afghanistan and Iraq but hate to have it here.

Biggest hypocrisy anywhere.

 

So what is YOUR stance on universal healthcare (or a right to healthcare)? I know republicans are hypocrites...all politicians are hypocritical in one way or another, but if you were in congress, what would you want? I've learned that i can get a lot more real information from asking individuals who aren't in congress, and therefore have little to nothing to lose by being honest, then talking to people whose career depends on their ability to get people to like them based on what they say.

 

I have answered that question on other threads - unfortunately we continue to have repeat threads on the same topic but that's just how this forum operates. To repeat: I'm for universal health care. The same type we as taxpayers pay for in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Today Europeans have it because we financed the Marshall plan - it is one of the greatest ironies in human history that so many Americans enthusiastically paid (and continue to pay) for foreigner's health care but balk at doing the same at home. It is not only ironic, it is down right STUPID.

If I was in Congress I would call out each and every politician who votes to finance Israel's self admitted SOCIALIST health care but who vote against ACA and force them to answer for their hypocrisy and stupidity. For the record, I have done that on this forum but only one or two principled conservatives/libertarians have answered - they agree with my assessment of the right wingers. The rest of the the hypocritical right wingers do not have the guts, the principle, or the integrity to answer my challenge.

 

I can agree with the hypocricy of those in congress, but do you honestly think that a large bureaucracy would do a good job at managing something as complex as healthcare? Government can't even count votes correctly. There are literally hundreds of instances where the government has wasted billions of dollars on stupid programs, and they rarely ever make any useful advances in any field. You have an American flag as your pic, and yet you think that GOVERNMENT is the answer to the healthcare problem? Our country was founded on principles of LIMITED government. That is not to say that the federal government does not have an important role in our country, but it was states and individuals who worked together and were free to trade among themselves that built this country into what it is today.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the government would be good at running a healthcare system with over 330 million people? You believe in universal healthcare, but why on the level of the federal government? If Massachusetts had such a great plan, other states would have followed suit, people would have begun migrating there in order to get there great healthcare, but nobody was. Instead, we had a small group of men and woman in a city thousands of miles away (from me at least, I live in Washington state), whom I have never met or been able to talk to before, decide that me and the rest of the people in my state HAD to be like Massachusetts. They drew up hundreds of pages of legal garbage, and created thousands of pages of new regulations. These weren't doctors or healthcare professionals. Most of the men and women who had NO CLUE how a health insurance company really works, and very few of them even took the time to read the 900 page BS document they drew up. Sure, they created thousands of new jobs where people will now have to read through and interpret all of these rules and regulations that had to be written. The government created even more administrative jobs, for other people to take MY MONEY and decide where THEY thought it should be. Do you think that is a good idea on the scale of the federal government?

At the end of the day, it's ok for us to disagree on this issue, but to reiterate, our country was founded on the principles of smaller government, with more power given to each individual. My voice can be heard a lot louder in my state of about 9 million then it can be in a country of 330 million. If you thing universal healthcare is really a good idea, why not try to get into politics in your state and create a system where everybody is insured. If it's a good idea, you'll have lots of people wanting to come to your state, and your local economy will improve. If it's a really good idea, maybe other states will follow suit, but tweak your system a little bit. if it's a good tweak, people will go to that state, and you can copy there system, or try something else. The point is, though, you may not help as many people on the state level that you probably could on the federal level, but you also can't hurt as many people. You have to admit that universal healthcare would impact a lot of people (330 million), and the way that you are impacting them is to use force to make them conform to a system that you, and maybe a few other elected officials, think is good.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquent, it is force; Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master" - George Washington

 

The European Union is far bigger than the USA but it has no problem administering universal health care. A system paid for by USA dollars through the Marshall Plan.

Government health care works everywhere without exception. It is no more complex than the Pentagon's daily machinations.

If private health care is so good, why did 45,000 people die every year (over 900,000 in a 20 year period) because of lack of insurance?

Our Founders? They said to dissolve the standing army. Why don't right wingers demand that??

 

"Government health care works everywhere without exception" is a completely ridiculous argument with absolutely no evidence to support that statement. Saying "Government works well in some societies" is a fair statement, but saying that it "works" is subjective. Do you know anything about history? Russia, German, China..? Would you say that those government's worked "without exception"?

For your comment about the people dying, it's because PEOPLE DIE. It's part of life. You, again, made a statement that it is because of poor health insurance, but it could also be because Americans don't take care of there body. The obesity rate in the United States is MUCH higher than other countries (around 35%, compared to 25% in Canada). Secondly, 45,000 deaths a year is a relatively small price to pay in my opinion (although I'm guessing your just making numbers up...do you have any proof that that is the number?) How many people die in other countries because of poor healthcare? Well you probably aren't going to find those statistics in a country where government runs healthcare because that would make the government look bad, and they are probably not going to report deaths like that. They may deflate their numbers to make their country look better, as we KNOW Government has done before (look at governments like Germany and Russia in the past). But back to the 45,000. We are talking about 45,000 out of 330 million. And how many thousands of men, woman, and children's lives were saved because they were able to get the healthcare they needed in a hurry? How many medical devices and breakthroughs have been created here in America thanks to the market? Sure, our costs may be higher, but we also survive longer from things like Cancer. Cancer patients live, on average, 2 years longer in America than in European countries.

I'm kind of going out of order, but I want to quickly address your pentagons statement, because that IS an interesting point. You may be right that healthcare is not much more complex than the Pentagon's daily machinations (although that is very debatable...have you worked in the healthcare industry? How about the health insurance industry? How can you say that for sure). But I'll take your premise as true for a second. The reason that I am ok with the government running the Pentagon is because that IS there job, as it is laid out in the constitution. I would encourage you to pick up the constitution sometimes and give it a quick read and tell me where it says that the federal government should provide heatlhcare. I'm sure you are going to point out the 2 places in the constitution where it says the word "general welfare" but Madison said in a house floor debate in 1792:

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."

I'm not really sure what your last thing about the founders was, and how it pertains to healthcare, but I'm pretty sure that Madisons quote addresses it pretty well when it comes to what our founding fathers felt the Federal government's role in healthcare should be. You also never answered my question, why does it have to be federal, why not state? If it is a good system, other states will follow, people will move to the states where it is working, and move out of states where healthcare isn't working. If 30 states implemented universal healthcare, and it was so great, property values and the economies of those states would be greatly improved, and the other 20 states would have to figure out a way to compete with them. Why does it have to be the FEDERAL government?

 

One cannot be granted a 'right' to something which must be taken from someone else.

 

Are basic housing and food 'rights'?

 

Emergency healthcare should be a right without a doubt, if someone has a sudden heart attack I like to think most western nations will provide them with an ambulance and that should be a right. Here in the UK I love having the NHS and I'm sure if I was an American I'd want a universal healthcare system implemented too.

However, I am a big believer in democracy so while I believe a basic level of healthcare should be a right, if you guys don't want a universal healthcare system you have a democratic right to refuse the implementation of any such policies.

 

Do you know anything about history? Russia, German, China..?


Apparently, you have not read my posts on historical threads as you would know that my knowledge of history matches that of just about any college professor. As everyone knows, Germany's health care system rates far higher than the USA. So does socialist Israel. And as for Russia and China, we don't live there - we live in the USA which has far more resources that can be used to meet the needs of the citizenry, not just those of the wealth elites.


people die

Brilliant observation. The problem is that 45,000 died every year needlessly. Not so overseas due to their government having universal health care.


45,000 deaths a year is a relatively small price to pay in my opinion


45,000 per year comes to 900,000 over a 20 year period. While people like you feel this constitutes acceptable losses, to rational thinking people this constitutes a holocaust and a tremendous loss of productivity.



How many medical devices and breakthroughs have been created here in America thanks to the market?


Again, European countries such as France, Italy, and Spain have far higher ranked medical care services. This without benefit of market capitalism as people are put ahead of profits. They report ZERO losses of life. This is far better than the "acceptable" losses you applaud.



The reason that I am ok with the government running the Pentagon is because that IS there job, as it is laid out in the constitution.


Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that we need to fight in foreign wars or have military bases overseas. These do not protect the nation's vital interests but serve to perpetuate war and profit the wealthy elites of the military industrial complex. I'd like to see you prove to me that our Founding Fathers ever intended to enrich the wealthy through foreign wars.

The Constitution indicates that we are to be protected by well regulated militia - that term was understood at the time to be a well armed citizenry, not a standing army and a Pentagon designed to generate profits for the wealthy. Open up a history book and read the Constitution for confirmation of this truth.



Madison

The Commerce Clause does not limit the scope of Congressional authority on this issue. As Washington and Hamilton wrote, the scope is quite broad and without any defined limits. This was a point emphasized by JQ Adams and later used to create Progressivism by Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Thereafter FDR used this in his New Deal. The courts have ruled that Social Security is legally justifiable under this authority. It stands to reason that ACA is a legal extension of that authority.

So why not the States? Because the Commerce Clause applies to Congress - a Federal authority, not a State authority. You do not have sufficient understanding of the Constitution and this is why you are so confused on the subject.


I would encourage you to pick up the constitution sometimes


I did that in law school and got my doctorate on the subject. Therefore, it is of no further use for me to re-read something I know far better than you do.

 

We want universal health care. The right wingers use skewed statistics to show Obamacare is somehow unpopular. But it has been proven to have 45% approval with 6 to 7% of the people saying it doesn't go far enough. You may put me in that latter category.

 

Just a tip, if you're going to intelligently debate somebody, don't preface you're argument with telling the person your credentials or how smart you supposedly are (it's a much better idea to show that you are intelligent with your argument, which you haven't really been doing). Yes, I will concede that some countries may have a better healthcare system than the United States', but that does not imply that it will work everywhere and under any conditions. One HUGE difference between Germany and the U.S. is there population. Germany has a population of about 81 million, while the U.S. is over 4 times that size at 333 million. Each of those countries in Europe that have socialized medicine are significantly smaller than the United States. This brings me back to my argument that, if the U.S. does implement "universal healthcare" it should be within each individual state, not a federal government issue. You are also ignoring the other factors that contributes to America's poor health care, such as obesity. Aside from that, I think it's funny how you think we should look at Germany and Israel, but when I mention Russia and China, your response is "well we don't live there". Right, we live in America, the land of the free and home of the brave. A place where people were meant to be free from big government rule. If you knew anything about our country, you would realize (as I said before) that we were founded on the principles of small government.

I'm not going to argue this point, but tell me, what are you doing to help those people? If you wanted to help them, why didn't you become a doctor, or an inventor, or just figure out how to make enough money to help those people? Trying to force one group of people to take care of another is not admirable, or noble.

Do you know what a holocaust is? Are you kidding me? See, this is why you shouldn't preface your argument with your credentials, because it makes your arguments like this just make you look like a lying idiot. The holocaust killed millions of people in less than 10 years. You are talking about 900,000 people (supposedly, although you still haven't given me a source for this, >>>Flamebait Removed<<<over 20 years. Yes, this is a sad truth, but it does not give you or anybody else the right to force somebody to help them. If you want to help them, or try to convince people to voluntarily help them, that would be great. I love companies like St. Jude (and donate to them regularly) because I want to help people. I think everybody should help, but people like you who think you are helping by encouraging people to put a gun to Peter's head and force him to pay Paul are not helping.

Again, this "zero losses" must have also come from you ass, along with most of your points. Do you have any evidence that came from an unbiased third party to support you? By third party, I mean a report that doesn't come directly from the country's government.

Seriously? Ok, well I'm really sick of you bringing up this point cause it has nothing to do with healthcare, but you seem to also be lacking in basic debate skills, so I'll just acknowledge this point and put it to rest. I completely agree with you here. We shouldn't be fighting foreign wars to protect assets for big oil companies. We shouldn't be fighting any wars really. If we want to build a defense up at home, I guess I'm ok with that (even though we spend WAY too much on defense anyways), but I completely agree that we need to get out of other people's countries. I mentioned the bit about the pentagon because I was simply stating that defense is the primary purpose of our federal government (along with a few other things outlined in section ; but I was not implying that just because the government's job is to defend us means that they should be going out and using that power (although you later subtly imply that they should be with healthcare as it pertains to the commerce clause). Now, could you please stop bringing this up. I am not a conservative, I completely agree with you on this point, and most of all, I am sick of these random paragraphs on war when we are talking about healthcare.

The commerce clause was not meant to be unlimited in it's scope. The commerce clause is literally a single sentence, and you are only talking about one part of the commerce clause pertaining to regulating interstate commerce. Can you explain how providing healthcare falls under the umbrella of "regulating interstate commerce"? I'm glad you brought up social security, because it is a perfect example of how poorly government is at running things. It is projected to last til 2035 at the latest before it starts taking a huge chunk out of our GDP. My generation probably won't see our money, and if we do, we probably won't be getting any kind of real return on our "investment". But sure, this generation had a sweet deal. The commerce clause should be taken in context, and read in the way the founding fathers intended. As I mentioned in my quote from the last post, Madison never intended for congress' power to stretch very far, and he would turn over in his grave if he saw how far their power now stretched. Just because you went to school where teachers told you that the commerce clause should be interpreted as unlimited in it's scope doesn't mean that is how it should be interpreted. Please, just think for yourself, instead of just believing what people tell you. This is how our founding father intended the constitution (and federal government) be viewed.

"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

&#8220;If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.&#8221; James Madison, &#8220;Letter to Edmund Pendleton,&#8221;
-James Madison, January 21, 1792

&#8220;Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson

&#8220;When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson

&#8220;When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.&#8221;
-Benjamin Franklin

Based on your inconsistent and irrational argument, I highly doubt you went to law school and got a doctorate. However, if you did, this would make a lot more sense as far as your views are concerned. If you are a lawyer, or work in government, you stand to gain a lot from bigger government. That means more power for you. Every time congress passes a new law, they need more lawyers to interpret the dumb laws, and defend and prosecute the people who disobey it. Don't get me wrong, lawyers are a necessary evil (yes, I see most lawyers as ethically evil people...but they are very important, and I do have respect for some of them). Lawyers generally don't know a whole lot about the people that are affected by their ambition and greed. Don't get me wrong, everybody is ambitious and everybody is greedy, but when you give lawyers the power that YOU want to give them (by giving the federal government more power), they can be a very destructive force. Go read the constitution again, and please, just think about what you are reading from a new perspective. I will do the same if you can answer my questions in a sensible manner.

 

Just a reminder that it was you who wrote that I did not have knowledge of history and the Constitution. Therefore, do not make insinuations.

 

Apparently it was a justifiable statement. Mentioning the holocaust in conjunction with the United States healthcare. Telling me that Germany and Israel have great systems, but we should ignore Russia and China because we don't live there. Then pulling all these random numbers out of nowhere. Maybe it was wrong for me to say that you didn't understand history before getting some real points from you, but after hearing your points, with complete absence of evidence and reason, I stand by what I said on your knowledge of history.

 

"Random numbers' is a ridiculous statement since I have posted a link about 15 times in various threads to Harvard's study which show that the lack of health care insurance has caused over 900,000 deaths over a 20 year period. Over a 30 year period the number increases and matches the Armenian holocaust at the hands of the Turks.

Your knowledge of history and politics is next to nothing - typical of ignorant and controlled right wing mindlessness.

Trouble yourself to read some history and the Constitution before you try to debate any of it with me. Or better yet, have it read to you.

 

Because people have different approaches, standards and beliefs about health care,
this is best kept within groups chosen by affiliation, such as churches or even political parties as with singlepayer that not all people
can be under without fighting over gay and abortion issues etc. As long as people choose their own policies and rules for provision,
these conflicts can be avoided and resources shared under agreed terms.

 

Apparently Constitutional limits are interpreted two ways; to be fair and equally inclusive of people's BELIEFS, there should be AGREEMENT on each law applied per case.

For those who BELIEVE in limited federal govt and states rights, if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY give federal govt authority, it is RESERVED to the people or to the states; and a Constitutional AMENDMENT is required for PEOPLE/STATES to vote on this BEFORE changing an interpretation or application.

For those who believe that Congress can pass any such law until it is stopped by the Courts on Constitutional arguments, the ACA was pushed this way.
Unfortunately I don't see people taking responsibility for the COSTS and CONSEQUENCES for their beliefs.

Before pushing some legislation, assuming that "federal govt has authority until proven otherwise"
the people should AGREE who is responsible for paying for that interpretation until the conflict is settled.

It is not fair to push laws one way, and force opponents to pay when they voted and voiced dissent against it.

Ideally I would recommend enforcing 14th Amendment Constitutional equal protections, and not pass any such laws without consent of the public.
In order to meet the high standards of Constitutional principles, ethics and inclusion of all beliefs in representing all the people (not just one party)
I would urge conflict resolution to resolve all objections with legislation before passing it. That way, we can be assured that there are no partisan
conflicts of interest with the bill being overlooked for political gain, which is against the Code of Ethics for Government Service anyway.

This law was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, which shows it is still possible to write legislation that represents people regardless of party.
http://www.ethics-commission.net
Similarly we need to agree to enforce it consistently, and maybe we can have our govt back instead of political battles fought abusing govt at our expense.

 

What an excellent response. I see you've addressed ALL of my points clearly and concisely, as well as including the proper references to your ridiculous numbers. I don't have time to research what you said before. If you went to law school, you must have learned about the burden of proof, which lies on you since you are the one making the claims. You are extremely arrogant for somebody who can't even adequately respond to my points. You say my knowledge is "typical ignorant and controlled right wing mindlessness" but I could say the same for you and your liberal (practically marxist) stance. Now, I do have an open mind, and I have changed my views on many issues many times (in fact, I used to strongly support socialized medicine), but if you want me to change my mind, I need sufficient evidence or a reasonable argument, neither of which have been given. Simply saying that you are intelligent and I should therefore listen to you and believe you is far from sufficient evidence (although it sounds like that is sufficient evidence for you...but my guess is that the intellectual has to say something that conforms with your view of the world, otherwise you discard it without thought). If you decide to address my points in an intelligent and coherent way, I will gladly listen, but please lose your intellectual pretense.

Think. That's all I'm asking you to do...think for yourself, challenge your views (and mine), and argue intelligently without assuming that you know all the answers. An intelligent argument (in my opinion) does not require you to justify your intelligence, it requires you to justify your arguments. Justifying your intelligence by talking about it just means that you are insecure with your actual argument, so you need to justify it by saying that you are intelligent, and THAT is why it is correct.

 

Your reply displays a lot more sense and rationality compared to jakem's emotional and irrational ravings.

The Constitution also has a supremacy clause as well as necessary and proper clause. These have been used as the legal rationale for legislation such as those passed during FDR's New Deal. Previously, similar laws were passed under Republican Teddy Roosevelt. All of them based on the writings of John Quincy Adams who was well acquainted with the writings and beliefs of our Founding Fathers.

As for people's consent, this was granted for universal health care during the election of November 2008. It will be recalled that the DNC of August, 2008 made health care reform as Priority One:


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283



When people voted Mr Obama into office it was with this pledge in mind. Therefore, contrary to what so many believe or want to believe, consent for health care was granted by the voting populace. And whether right wingers want it or not, ACA is here to stay with many more lives to be saved as a consequences of its enactment.

 

I do not know how many more times I need to post this truth before you emotional and irrational right wingers will stop crying and ranting like children denied their morning milk.

Here yet again is proof as determined by a Harvard study (one endorsed by the medical profession) dealing with the needless deaths of 45,000 Americans every year due to lack of health care:


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard_study_finds_.php


These deaths constitute a holocaust whether an emotional and irrational pundit like you wishes to believe it or not. So that while you go into childish ravings because fewer are going to die, those of us who value American lives are rejoicing at the news that thousands of lives are being saved due to ACA.


As right wing Justice Scalia wrote in the Gonzalez v Raich case , Congress's authority over commerce is virtually unlimited. Interestingly he changed his tune because of his hatred for health care:



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/scalia-obamacare-precedent-reversal

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sca...rting-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform



If you are smart as you imagine yourself to be, I challenge you to prove to me that these two scholars are wrong. Let's see you display rationalism and legal reasoning, as opposed to your rants and ravings, to disprove these writings. Good luck with that one buddy.

 

lol well at least you gave me something to work with. You still didn't address many of my points on the intent of the constitution, at least you gave me some good information and reading material, and for that, I thank you. Scholars are not God (whom I don't believe in, but I talk about it as a concept), and their beliefs are not infallible. I don't care what a judge said, they have just as good a reason as any other person in government to grant itself more power. More laws means more power for the courts. You call me "emotional and irrational" and yet you are the one advocating an institution that has ONE way of obtaining money, that is through force. I am proud of who I am and what I do for my country. I help people, I don't advocate the use of force on others to help those whom I believe need help. You sir, are despicable for your advocacy of the use of force on others, and your lack of responsibility in the matter of helping others. You want to talk about it, you want to use force on Peter to help pay Paul instead of having the balls to stand on what you believe in and take some personal responsibility. Again, your efforts to advocate more government (which make no mistake, is nothing but force), is not a noble or valiant effort, but the efforts of a coward who refuses to take real responsibility. In any case, you have given me some interesting reading material that I will surely look into, and I will thank you for that. Have a nice day =)

 

Hi Mr Truth:
While the federal govt can mandate that people/states pay for their own health care instead of imposing the costs on the public federally,
I see nothing that makes the "ACA plan for HOW to do this" supreme, necessary or proper.

the problem was in federal govt trying to dictate HOW that is done, without vote or consent of people or the states clearly protesting
who BELIEVE otherwise. neither you nor I nor the Pres or anyone in Congress can abuse federal gov to impose what "you believe"
when this was not proven or chosen freely. that on its face is unconstitutional, before we even start to defend whose FAITH is right or wrong, which
isn't even an issue federal govt is supposed to impose.

this is where Obama imposed his beliefs that this was either the best choice they could do, or the best way to get there in the meantime.

Too many people disagree on both content and process
1. belief that the same programs would work better by VOLUNTARY not mandatory participation
2. failure to follow Constitutional procedures to prove that people consented to 'this plan" as necessary proper and supreme

it does NOT even cover all citizens equally, so how can it be supreme?

if this "plan" is NOT proven to people and not chosen freely, then it is being imposed by faith based justifications that it is a supreme plan

Mr Truth, even if it were as "right and true as God" not even GOD can be imposed on people as supreme
without violating the First Amendment. the people retain free choice to decide where something is not 100% proven and is based on faith in the program.

same with prolife arguments about life beginning at conception.
science has proven that each individual is unique upon the joining of the egg and the sperm
to create a unique set of DNA no other individual has.

yet this cannot be imposed on people by federal authority because of religious freedom and prochoice.

Here with ACA we have violations of beliefs on TWO levels, at least:
1. the content of the bill precludes and penalized the free choice of health care by mandating insurance as the only option to avoid taxation
so this is discrimination by govt on the basis of creed, even going so far as to regulate WHICH religious beliefs/membership count as exemptions,
or basically govt regulating by religion, and if you are not a member of a specified religious group that counts as exempted,
* you are penalized for exercising your beliefs in freedom to fund health care other ways besides the federal mandates on insurance
* whereas only people who believe this is or was the best way to implement reforms are using federal govt to impose these beliefs on others
(similar to putting a Bible cross or nativity scene on public property which imposes on people of different beliefs who reject or offended by the display)

2. the principle of the bill violates numerous Constitutional principles and/or beliefs if you don't agree with these arguments
a. the law that tax revenue bills must originate in the House in order to represent the people
b. the creation of a hybrid mix of private business with federal authority normally requires a Constitutional amendment to expand duties
of federal govt not specified which otherwise are reserved to the states or to the people
c. the abuse of federal govt to compel a business transaction or contract under terms that the parties did not consent to

3. I would also list violations of the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
because of the partisan agenda being placed above Constitutional duty to include and protect peopel of all views equally, instead of only reprsenting people who agree with this plan "as the best way" when this was not proven and chosen freely but faith based but imposed by force of law.

 

Dear Mr truth:
regarding saving 45,000 more lives per year

how many more lives would be saved by spiritual healing
which is free,
does not discriminate against people by faith or no faith,
does not interfere with deny or reject science or medicine,
yet has been demonstrated to help
heal people of cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and other physical diseases;
mental illness from schizophrenia, demonic voices and obsessions, addictions and abuse;
break the cycle of abuse crime disease and poverty to save lives and resources.

does this mean the federal govt shoudl MANDATE spiritual healing
because it would save more lives and resources to cover more of the population?

if you are going to mandate people buy insurance, which doesn't cure cancer but just pays for someo f the treatment of symptoms,
why can't people who believe in spiritual healing mandate that instead?

if spiritual healing remains voluntary, when it is FREE to access and would cover more people than ACA will,
what gives you or anyone the right to mandate insurance when it costs more and doesn't cover everyone.

NOTE: after people experience and understand how spiritual healing works (for FREE), they can share it with other people so the methods multiply for free and help more and more people. how many people once they are "saved by insurance" are able to replicate this same help to other people to save more lives?
And still, you are going to mandate insurance but not spiritual healing? because of "free choice" that CANNOT be legislated by govt?

[ps if your answer is that spiritual healing hasn't been proven to all people yet,
that's my same argument against imposing ACA mandates by law that "aren't proven or freely chosen either."
these are both faith-based beliefs and arguments; and if you can't see that because of your political bias,
then that is religious discrimination imposed by govt mandate, even before we begin to prove that spiritual healing works better to cut costs of health care.
you have already imposed a law where spiritual healing is not equally recognized as a free choice equal to health insurance,
but people of one belief are fined while people who agree with health insurance mandates are not imposed upon; this is not equal protection of the laws.]

 

Another idea: this reminds me of prolife advocates who believe the individual created upon conception has an inalienable right to life.
The problem is this cannot be proven without relying on faith based arguments, so it is kept as prochoice and not forced by law.

the same can be said of which methods to use to pay for health care.
if people have different beliefs, and these are not proven or freely chosen,
they are faith based and cannot be legislated or mandated by federal govt
without violating the Constitution. Similar to prolife laws that violate religious freedom and due process
because they are faith based, and people of other beliefs do not agree and cannot be forced by law.

 

A more restrained reply though still marked by emotionalism and innuendo.


force


Nobody forced President Obama into office, he was elected on the basis of the DNC platform. Health care reform was Priority 1 on that platform and he kept his word in promoting it. Congress exercised its right under the Commerce Clause to pass it. Nobody was "forced" to do so. The Supreme Court decided that this was an exercise of taxing authority. The Court is free to rationalize a law the way they see it. Imposing the law does not constitute "force" as it is an exercise of legal authority under the Constitution. Emotional responses such as ''You sir, are despicable for your advocacy of the use of force on others'' is nonsensical since the Court's conservative members agreed the authority used was proper.

your lack of responsibility in the matter of helping others


Again, another example of childish emotionalism and irrationality. I could point to the many placards on my wall which are rewards for years of community service but in your anger, hate, and disgust you'd only say you don't believe they exist.


force on Peter to help pay Paul

More irrationality. As I have noted on this and other threads, as people return to work this INCREASES society's productivity and generates more tax revenues. Without health care reform, the Republican created holocaust would have continued unabated. This would have meant more deaths and debilitations with less productivity and taxes generated. Too bad that so many of the far right fail to see that truth. Yet, these delusionals have no trouble with forcing taxpayers to finance Israel's health care through multibillion dollars in aid every year. Nor do these delusionals have any trouble when taxpayers subsidize Fortune 500 companies who deduct medical insurance costs on their 1120 forms. These two examples are proof that taxpayers have spent BILLIONS to subsidize health care but only for a select group - again, where have these critics been all these years??? Now that poor Americans are benefiting from ACA, all of a sudden such care is objectionable to these right wingers. No surprise given their delusionalism and lack of rationality.


Thus, the reply made above is yet another example of the pathetically weak position taken by the far right. One showing moral cowardice, a complete lack of principle, inconsistency in their ideals, ignorance, hostility, and lack of personal responsibility. Anyone who believe lives have not been saved can Google face of Obamacare or the innumerable websites that contain thousands of testimonials of people who have benefited from ACA.

Like it or not, ACA is here to stay just like Social Security. Notwithstanding the hostility from the far right, America is a better place for having both.