As a matter fact it is a constitutional thing. What entity can determine how or what kind of insurance I get? Its bullshit. Leave it the private sector. At least then, you have competition. Do you remember the 20's and 30's? Look what happens when monopolies are in place. The people get fucked!
You say it's a "constitutional thing." I say if it is, it is so far from what should be our highest-priority "constitutional thing" that to protest it is dumb. People should be protesting PRISM or evoked auditory evoked potentials. (Not a typo.)
If you want to talk about losing constitutional rights, pick a good example, not a marginal example that you have to argue the truth off (Obamacare).
Violations of our IVth ammendment rights are absolutely clear and plain as day. There is nothing to discuss in terms of the facts.
The suppose conflict between Obamacare and the constitution is only clear to loud angry men with red faces who count themselves on the Republican-Libertarian spectrum of thought. I.e., it's not clear and plain as day. It's what's called "arguable."
I realize that YOU asserted that the conflict is a "matter of fact." Well, that tells me about you, not about the facts.
I'm curious as to which part of the Affordable Care Act these people are against?
(Please read the Wiki article on the topic)
Is it:
Guaranteed issue prohibits insurers from denying coverage to individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions.
or
A partial community rating requires insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to gender or most pre-existing conditions.
or
Minimum standards for health insurance policies are established.
or
An individual mandate requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs (such as Tricare) to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service or has a financial hardship (This is so everybody contributes except of course all the religious hypocrites that will file for exemption and push the costs onto others, when they go to the emergency room for assistance without insurance).
or
Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in every state. Each exchange will serve as an online marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).
or
Low-income individuals and families whose income is above 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they purchase insurance via an exchange. Those from 133% to 150% of the poverty level will be subsidized such that their premium costs will be 3% to 4% of income. In 2013, the subsidy would apply for incomes up to $45,960 for an individual or $94,200 for a family of four; consumers can choose to receive their tax credits in advance, and the exchange will send the money directly to the insurer every month.[32] Small businesses will also be eligible for subsidies.
Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level, and the CHIP enrollment process is simplified. However, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that states may opt-out of the Medicaid expansion, and several have done so.
or
Reforms to the Medicare payment system are meant to promote greater efficiency in the healthcare delivery system by restructuring Medicare reimbursements from fee-for-service to bundled payments. Under the new payment system, a single payment is paid to a hospital and a physician group for a defined episode of care (such as a hip replacement) rather than individual payments to individual service-providers.
or
Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's healthcare, usually through tax deductions. This is commonly known as the employer mandate.
Most likely people have been sold the story about businesses shouldering the burden. Businesses have a responsibility to the citizens of this country to provide a safe work environment and improve the quality of life of our citizens. The time for blind greed is over, for the good of all people in this country.
forcing citizens to subscribe to a medical system that some consider incredibly flawed is one reason. instead of taxes covering this, they go after the lower/middle class people who are uninsured. maybe I don't understand, but that seems like fleecing
how is giving a man the right to vote and forcing a man to pay a large percentage of his already heavily taxed income toward a health care system he would rather not have (and the policy will probably loop-hole it's way right out of paying that cancer treatment bill when the time comes but that's neither here nor there) in the same ballpark? You say forcing the policy is the key, like there heroes on one side of the issue who are battling to help the lower class. That is not how I see it. I see the game they are playing as
1. Human has toy rope
2. Dog plays tug of war and they struggle
3. Each time dog lets go a little to get a better grip, human takes more rope until his hand is virtually in dog's mouth. Dog could bite human but has been trained to never do that. Dog has no chance unless human shows mercy.
(You are thinking they are like the kind human owner who shows mercy)
I have to be honest, I haven't read it. I too would like to know what they are against however after reading your post I wonder why anyone would WANT government subsidies? I think we should have less government interference not more... I realize the intention is good but passing laws is not the way it should be done in my opinion. This is what creates a police state and removes liberties. Businesses have a responsibility to improve the quality of life? You almost had me there. lol. Work is a barter of skill for money. That is all. If an educated public finds sub-par working conditions they will not engage in a barter, there by forcing the employer to make necessary corrections to attract employees. Society should dictate this, not the government. Problem is were surrounded by idiots and in turn have legislated our way into slavery.
19 comments
3 GrandpaSkitzo 2013-09-21
Who started this campaign? Maybe it's part of the whole october takeover thingy?
3 Beowulf929 2013-09-21
https://www.facebook.com/truckerstoshutdownamerica?hc_location=stream
Her name is Zeeda. You can also find out more from the Guerilla Media Network. On the Pete Santilli Show, Pete interviews her and goes into further detail. Here is a link to the show. http://guerillamedianetwork.com/episode-513-chief-kessler-disciplinary-hearing-coverage/
3 louixiii 2013-09-21
Show the government that the people are still in control and when needed we will act as one
2 retrobuddha 2013-09-21
They will never do it.
2 [deleted] 2013-09-21
2 million bikers just rode to DC. Why not?
1 treerat 2013-09-21
The ACA originally surfaced as the Heritage Plan in 1989. It was introduced by conservatives and included the mandate.
The Republican party has spent most of its energy trying to defeat Obamacare, which they originated.
Sooner of later people will come to their senses and realize that single payer healthcare is the most affordable and efficient system in use.
Maybe then we wont have the 37th best healthcare system in the world. Good affordable healthcare is important for a healthy economy.
If we can afford to bomb Syria, we can afford to care for our citizens.
1 [deleted] 2013-09-21
It's called "Ride for the US Constitution" and of all the Constitutional issues we face, they think Obamacare is one?
Truckers: get a book.
1 Beowulf929 2013-09-21
As a matter fact it is a constitutional thing. What entity can determine how or what kind of insurance I get? Its bullshit. Leave it the private sector. At least then, you have competition. Do you remember the 20's and 30's? Look what happens when monopolies are in place. The people get fucked!
1 [deleted] 2013-09-21
You say it's a "constitutional thing." I say if it is, it is so far from what should be our highest-priority "constitutional thing" that to protest it is dumb. People should be protesting PRISM or evoked auditory evoked potentials. (Not a typo.)
If you want to talk about losing constitutional rights, pick a good example, not a marginal example that you have to argue the truth off (Obamacare).
Violations of our IVth ammendment rights are absolutely clear and plain as day. There is nothing to discuss in terms of the facts.
The suppose conflict between Obamacare and the constitution is only clear to loud angry men with red faces who count themselves on the Republican-Libertarian spectrum of thought. I.e., it's not clear and plain as day. It's what's called "arguable."
I realize that YOU asserted that the conflict is a "matter of fact." Well, that tells me about you, not about the facts.
-1 MDRoad 2013-09-21
I'm curious as to which part of the Affordable Care Act these people are against? (Please read the Wiki article on the topic) Is it: Guaranteed issue prohibits insurers from denying coverage to individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions. or A partial community rating requires insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to gender or most pre-existing conditions. or Minimum standards for health insurance policies are established. or An individual mandate requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs (such as Tricare) to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service or has a financial hardship (This is so everybody contributes except of course all the religious hypocrites that will file for exemption and push the costs onto others, when they go to the emergency room for assistance without insurance). or Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in every state. Each exchange will serve as an online marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible). or Low-income individuals and families whose income is above 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they purchase insurance via an exchange. Those from 133% to 150% of the poverty level will be subsidized such that their premium costs will be 3% to 4% of income. In 2013, the subsidy would apply for incomes up to $45,960 for an individual or $94,200 for a family of four; consumers can choose to receive their tax credits in advance, and the exchange will send the money directly to the insurer every month.[32] Small businesses will also be eligible for subsidies. Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level, and the CHIP enrollment process is simplified. However, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court effectively ruled that states may opt-out of the Medicaid expansion, and several have done so. or Reforms to the Medicare payment system are meant to promote greater efficiency in the healthcare delivery system by restructuring Medicare reimbursements from fee-for-service to bundled payments. Under the new payment system, a single payment is paid to a hospital and a physician group for a defined episode of care (such as a hip replacement) rather than individual payments to individual service-providers. or Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's healthcare, usually through tax deductions. This is commonly known as the employer mandate.
Most likely people have been sold the story about businesses shouldering the burden. Businesses have a responsibility to the citizens of this country to provide a safe work environment and improve the quality of life of our citizens. The time for blind greed is over, for the good of all people in this country.
4 gilgasesh 2013-09-21
forcing citizens to subscribe to a medical system that some consider incredibly flawed is one reason. instead of taxes covering this, they go after the lower/middle class people who are uninsured. maybe I don't understand, but that seems like fleecing
2 funnymanisi 2013-09-21
Oh it's certainly fleecing.
1 Kancho_Ninja 2013-09-21
You know, they forced the citizens to accept uneducated blacks voting.
They forced the citizens to accept women voting.
They forced the citizens to accept prohibition - and then repealed it.
They forced lots of things into the system, and not all of them were for the good of the people.
You establish a system, the best you can, then you tweak it until it works for as many citizens as possible while harming the least number possible.
A universal healthcare system is necessary.
It will never evolve on its own, because too many players are competing and colluding.
Force a policy into place, tweak it. If it fails, repeal it. It's that fucking simple. Just like prohibition.
1 gilgasesh 2013-09-21
how is giving a man the right to vote and forcing a man to pay a large percentage of his already heavily taxed income toward a health care system he would rather not have (and the policy will probably loop-hole it's way right out of paying that cancer treatment bill when the time comes but that's neither here nor there) in the same ballpark? You say forcing the policy is the key, like there heroes on one side of the issue who are battling to help the lower class. That is not how I see it. I see the game they are playing as 1. Human has toy rope 2. Dog plays tug of war and they struggle 3. Each time dog lets go a little to get a better grip, human takes more rope until his hand is virtually in dog's mouth. Dog could bite human but has been trained to never do that. Dog has no chance unless human shows mercy.
(You are thinking they are like the kind human owner who shows mercy)
1 Kancho_Ninja 2013-09-21
My kids don't want to eat veggies either and would prefer to just eat candy.
Sit down, shut up, eat your fucking greens. They're good for ya, you spoiled brat.
1 gilgasesh 2013-09-21
wow dude. you had a fucked up upbringing. enjoy your life, or at least try?
1 av1982 2013-09-21
I have to be honest, I haven't read it. I too would like to know what they are against however after reading your post I wonder why anyone would WANT government subsidies? I think we should have less government interference not more... I realize the intention is good but passing laws is not the way it should be done in my opinion. This is what creates a police state and removes liberties. Businesses have a responsibility to improve the quality of life? You almost had me there. lol. Work is a barter of skill for money. That is all. If an educated public finds sub-par working conditions they will not engage in a barter, there by forcing the employer to make necessary corrections to attract employees. Society should dictate this, not the government. Problem is were surrounded by idiots and in turn have legislated our way into slavery.
1 Kancho_Ninja 2013-09-21
Only if we can have more unions for the people to protect us from corporate fascists.
1 Daddo45 2013-09-21
If it's so damn great then explain why the politicians made them selfs exempt from it.