Saint by Day, Devil at Night
To criticize the ACA I would point to the organized crime-like nature of insurance in general. Of course, Obama is not going to come break your legs if you don't pay. But someone could go their whole life without crashing a car while paying thousands of dollars to make another man rich. Insurance, as a business, has to be profitable or it wouldn't work. Spending your own money to bet against yourself and your health seems ridiculous.
Senior Member
Why?Originally Posted by Back
The individual knows best their living habits ... ie smoking, drinking, dietary, exercise, etc ... and can essentially control all of it.
So why should people who put effort into living healthy be forced to subsidize those who do not give a shit as far as personal self-responsibility goes.
Saint by Day, Devil at Night
We aren't quite to that point... yet. But two things I can think of are the vicissitudes of nature and community. Anyone in the tribe could get hit with a stroke of bad luck and we all pitch in to help take care of them.
Senior Member
The HUGE problem with Obamacare is that no one's done the work required to explain it. When asked about the specifics of it people are all for Obamacare. When asked how they feel about Obamacare, they don't like it. Of course a sizable portion of the people who don't like it feel that way because they don't think it goes far enough.
This congressman below is taking a lot of heat for this quote and he probably wishes he could take it back. Unfortunately it seems to sum up the republican position. Boehner didn't want the shut down. No reasonable politician wanted it, but they've let it go too far and have no idea how to get out of it.The answer, of course, is that most Americans have no idea what's in the law. In the Kaiser survey, 57% said they didn't have enough information to know how it would affect them. When they're asked how they feel about specific provisions, however, they're almost always thunderously in favor.
Here are figures from Kaiser's March 2013 poll:
Tax credits for small businesses to buy insurance: 88% in favor.
Closing the Medicare drug benefit doughnut hole: 81% in favor.
Extension of dependent coverage to offspring up to age 26: 76% in favor.
Expanding Medicaid: 71% in favor.
Ban on exclusions for preexisting conditions: 66% in favor.
Employer mandate: 57% in favor.
If you agree with those provisions, congratulations: You love Obamacare. Yet when respondents are asked how they feel about "Obamacare," they're against it.
The right has taken a lot of hits lately. They are adrift with no clear way forward. They lost on gay marriage (and they're losing on every social/religious issue), they've lost on obamacare (42 times, 2 presidential elections and the courts), and they've created a tea-party monster that they can no longer control.“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., [told the Washington Examiner]. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
The real fear they have right now is that Obamacare works.
Last edited by cwolff; 10-03-2013 at 02:21 PM.
Senior Member
Your bizaare Social Security non sequitur suggests you have nary a clue about what is being talked about. There has been no introduction of the poor "paying for" the benefits of Social Security.
The point (which you fail to get, because you're either purposefully obtuse or an idiot) is that Ayn Rand woul've starved without Social Security. It makes her opposition ridiculous, similar to how Paul Ryan would've never been the success that he is without Social Security benefiting his family.
I would say your logic is extremely flawed.. but I honestly can't find any serious logic in your arguments.
Last edited by Parkbandit; 10-03-2013 at 02:43 PM.
PC RETARD HALL OF FAME
Senior Member
Let's break it down further for you.
When without a certain thing you wouldn't have continued to live/be successful, complaining about that certain thing is ridiculous.
Senior Member
Have to go with bandit, your logic is heavily flawed, to assume that removing one variable allows you to predict an outcome with any certain is pure arrogance. No one can say what might happen if you change one small thing in a situation as dynamic as a persons life, for all you know it would have turned out exactly the same.
Senior Member
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.
What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business,and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred,or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Senior Member
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp
Snopes lists this essay as Outdated, since it was written in 2009 and references a different bill than the one that was actually passed.
Moreover, this guy should have been embarrassed to write this blog post, in that it has only the barest substantive basis and is mostly pure assertion.
My current items for sale or trade: Treasures in the Brambles.
Contact: Nuadjha (Discord and LNet), Briarfox@play.net
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
