Dear C0C0 (if you are still around) and RichardParker:
I read from your msgs that you are both well-established in business and/or politics.
Do you believe there is enough motivation or interest among people opposed to the ACA/insurance mandates to "unite" resources around free market solutions that DON'T require federal imposition on private health care and insurance.
Do you see viable solutions that could replace the contested legislation? What are your ideas on this?
Hey Em,
I'm not an American so I'm not informed enough on the matter to say. But it seems to me that this ship has long since sailed. As a Canadian, who benefits from publicly funded health care, I scratch my skull over why yanks have such a hard time with this concept. Are you opposed to Obama care?
Em, it was long overdue. Unfortunately, we will only see attacks on it until it has been in effect long enough to study. It is simple to.see who and what is up against it: ignorant people who no longer read or learn for themselves and money-hungry insurance companies who thrive on surpluses made by not treating people... Not to mention those surpluses are from the healthiest payers..oh the fucking irony..
Private companies or BUSINESS should never hold the keys to the nations health...the taxpayers putting money together in one central location will beat the private setup any day..thats why they are scared of it...
Prison privatization is a good parallel as to why not...
by RichardParkerHey Em,
I'm not an American so I'm not informed enough on the matter to say. But it seems to me that this ship has long since sailed. As a Canadian, who benefits from publicly funded health care, I scratch my skull over why yanks have such a hard time with this concept. Are you opposed to Obama care?
If people believe in it, I have no problem with them funding and being under those mandates. but not to impose it on people who believe in better solutions that are more cost-effective, respect religious views, and provide greater coverage. I do not believe in imposing fines/penalties but in rewarding citizens who develop better alternatives.
Because our Constitution guarantees equal protection of people's religious beliefs, I believe the separate Parties should be authorized to instill their own systems for their own members, and more populations could be covered.
As written, ACA excludes half the nation's beliefs in constitutional principles as NOT giving federal government this authority which belongs to states and to people on local levels instead. So it does NOT represent public interests. Because of that conflict, the legislation created more problems that totally distract from cooperating on solutions.
Sadly, the transitional legislation is neither what singlepayer advocates want, nor what freemarket health care advocates want. I think there are better ways to pay for public care by redirecting wasteful misspending or abuse of taxes through the prison system, for example, so it would NOT cost taxpayers more money than we already pay currently.
There are much better ways to provide universal coverage. The problem was that the opposition was splintered across different solutions. so the alternative would have to allow for all these different ways, not one solution.
Until these different groups unite in allowing diversity of choice, we are stuck with this thing that could be passed.Not only do the opponents not want to fund it, but even the proponents are exempting their corporate supporters, union backers and big Hollywood funders from the mandates, leaving the lawabiding citizens to carry the costs.
by wilfulPrivate companies or BUSINESS should never hold the keys to the nations health...the taxpayers putting money together in one central location will beat the private setup any day..thats why they are scared of it...
Prison privatization is a good parallel as to why not...
1. Actually I believe that reforming the prison system (to stop the abuse and waste of taxpayers money) IS the key to paying for health care and education, even by combining health care services WITH medical education.
2. the same way you don't trust big business, that is why people don't trust big government either. when it gets "too big" then you lose accountability.
to localize the accountability, the first step is to empower the local STATES to address their own populations including fixing their prison systems and budgets so the funding currently wasted there on CRIME and LAWBREAKERS is charged back to the wrongdoers instead of making LAWABIDING taxpayers pay these costs. then that money can be used for health care and education for LAWABIDING citizens.
3. I would sooner trust SCHOOLS to set up programs for training service providers in health and medicine, where in exchange for internships and scholarships to cover educational costs, the residents serve in public health clinics.
Such programs be set up through either state, business, charity, nonprofit, university or church schools. And give people and states the free choice how they want to organize their communities to serve their local populations.
Had the President pushed for this first, he might not have lost his audience. People could have paid for their own insurance through the free market WITHOUT federal govt trying to impose insurance mandates and regulations that mix "big business" with "big government" making twice as much mess to try to police.
Maybe I'm biased, being from Texas, where you have to set up solutions yourself and not rely on government.
1. The most prominent issue is over the insurance requirement of paying for birth control which some Christian businesses do not believe in. So that lawsuit is working its way through the courts.
Other arguments
2. in general different views of pro-choice and pro-life regarding 'abortion' and even "spiritual healing" would affect people's choices in health care and FUNDING policies, so federal govt is technically NOT supposed to be involved in such matters. States can make laws if the people vote on them, but not federal government. This is an ongoing issue that has never been resolved, and this bill brought it out in new ways.
3. I also found that people's views about federal vs. state authority and Constitutional limits amount to a "political religion" where the different political views by PARTY are as different and inherent to people's fundamental beliefs as "religious denominations"
so this issue itself makes me question why do we protect different religious beliefs, but not political beliefs from infringement by federal government.
I find this particularly disturbing, that people diminish the validity and equality of fellow citizens based on their political beliefs and party. If these were recognized as religions it would be unlawful for govt to exclude them.
What is the difference. Why is Atheism protected, but not Constitutionalism?
If these are not equally belief systems, then how is Govt supposed to determine which are protected or not?
4. As for the ACA, the restrictions on exemptions are limited to just "religious organizations" in existence since 1999 where the members share medical expenses due to their religious practices.
So why doesn't it count for people to believe in paying for health care through teaching hospitals, or spiritual healing, or reforming the prison system. Why is "health insurance" the only choice that is not penalized?
I understand if govt made laws requiring citizens/states to cover costs of health care, but don't agree that federal govt has authority to dictate HOW health care is covered since people have different religious practices or beliefs.