Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'ObamaCare'

[Kal'Stang]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

Never do.

 

[Wiseone]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

This is what politics is all about the person not the issue, most people argue politics for the ego trip not the issue.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Where is it then? I get that you're pissed off but sayin finding a solution to what you consider to be one the worst laws ever created would be that simple, but then having no solution, makes you look pretty silly as an individual.

Just off the top of my head...

1: Reduce government regulations. Much of the cost derives from over regulation.
2: Reduce the ability to sue doctors for even the littlest of things.
3: Reduce copyright laws. The less time a corporation has of keeping things to themselves means that more people can figure out better, cheaper ways of producing medical items.
4: Actually make people pay thier bills. One way of doing this is stream lining court cases related to these instances.
5: Allow a competitive insurance market. I'm sure that everyones heard about insurance companies completely dominating the insurance market in specific areas, which allows them to drive the prices up.

There's five instances that if implemented properly would drive down health costs tremendously.

 

[whysoserious]

This President of ours just can't catch a break. He's only got grumpy States to deal with between Alaska now refusing Obamacare, 21 other states suing the Fed over it, another 7 which already have, Florida giving back billions for a high speed rail Florida doesn't want, Arizona suing the Fed over the border, Congressional Republicans threatening to shut down the government if cuts to the 2012 budget isn't enacted. Obama's having a tough year so far.

Regarding the OP, the best summary was this line:



That's what should have happened in the first place!

You talk a lot, but can you cite which part of it they say is unconstitutional? They don't talk about it on Fox, I bet, but on less partisan news sources they do.

So what part is unconstitutional and where is the issue?

**Hint**

This is law so it doesn't involve partisan BS. For instance, "I don't like this bill and it will kill jobs" is not the right answer.

 

[Wiseone]

Just off the top of my head...

1: Reduce government regulations. Much of the cost derives from over regulation.
2: Reduce the ability to sue doctors for even the littlest of things.
3: Reduce copyright laws. The less time a corporation has of keeping things to themselves means that more people can figure out better, cheaper ways of producing medical items.
4: Actually make people pay thier bills. One way of doing this is stream lining court cases related to these instances.
5: Allow a competitive insurance market. I'm sure that everyones heard about insurance companies completely dominating the insurance market in specific areas, which allows them to drive the prices up.

There's five instances that if implemented properly would drive down health costs tremendously.

5 bullet points? Do you really think that translates into anything meaningful? No when I say a solution I mean a solution, I don't mean a list of things I'd like to see happen. I mean a group of realistic and measureable goals, I mean a plan on how to get there, I mean an understanding of what can be expected year by year or quarter by quarter as the solution is put into place, I mean a list of possible pitfalls, I mean a clear understanding of how this system will work for each person who will use it, etc etc etc.

Now do I expect you personally to come up with something so complex that it actually could be voted on in Congress as a bill, no thats a task beyond any one individual. But I would expect some group, for example a think tank, the Republican Party, etc, to have created one by now if it were that simple.

 

[X Factor]

You talk a lot, but can you cite which part of it they say is unconstitutional? They don't talk about it on Fox, I bet, but on less partisan news sources they do.

So what part is unconstitutional and where is the issue?

**Hint**

This is law so it doesn't involve partisan BS. For instance, "I don't like this bill and it will kill jobs" is not the right answer.

The individual mandate is what the ruling focused on, but the enitire law was held unconstitutional, though, because of the necessity of the individual mandate to the law.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Do you disagree with any of those bullet points? If not then we as a people should start sending that kind of stuff to our legislatures. Via news media perferably. The ones that are suppose to make that kind of legislation workable.

That is something that I just don't understand. We as a people know what needs to be done, yet our representitives bring out bullcrap like Obama's HCR and we just sit back and think 1 of two things...(yes i'm sure that there are others...just naming the main two)

1: "Oh, more people must have wanted this...guess i'll just shut up."
2: "Oh what does it matter what I send in? The F'ing politicians will just do what they and thier bed buddies the corporations want done!"

It all goes back to what I have been saying for years now. We NEED to stop voting in the "Lesser of two evils" or the person with the "R" or "D" beside their name. We need to start voting in people that actually ARE moral and actually know how to do more than just suck the teet of whoever pays them the most. I applaud ANY govenor or politician that bucks the system and tells the rest of them to (basically, and crudely) go F themselves.

:rantoff:

 

[Wiseone]

Do you disagree with any of those bullet points? If not then we as a people should start sending that kind of stuff to our legislatures. Via news media perferably. The ones that are suppose to make that kind of legislation workable.

That is something that I just don't understand. We as a people know what needs to be done, yet our representitives bring out bullcrap like Obama's HCR and we just sit back and think 1 of two things...(yes i'm sure that there are others...just naming the main two)

1: "Oh, more people must have wanted this...guess i'll just shut up."
2: "Oh what does it matter what I send in? The F'ing politicians will just do what they and thier bed buddies the corporations want done!"

It all goes back to what I have been saying for years now. We NEED to stop voting in the "Lesser of two evils" or the person with the "R" or "D" beside their name. We need to start voting in people that actually ARE moral and actually know how to do more than just suck the teet of whoever pays them the most. I applaud ANY govenor or politician that bucks the system and tells the rest of them to (basically, and crudely) go F themselves.

:rantoff:

I don't know enough about how healthcare works in this country to disagree or agree, and I don't know enough about the healthcare law to agree or disagree either. But I do know when someone oversimplifies everything because they don't understand the issue fully and simplifying it is the only way they can pretend to have that understanding.

Also there is no "We the people" as a unified bloc when it comes to issues like healthcare, people are very divided on that issue, and no "the people" don't know what needs to be done. Most people haven't got a damn clue what needs to be done about most issues because they don't have the knowledge and experience required to actually understand them, and I include myself among them.

 

[whysoserious]

It all goes back to what I have been saying for years now. We NEED to stop voting in the "Lesser of two evils" or the person with the "R" or "D" beside their name.

No doubt. I feel like having the "R" or "D" next to names on the ballot should be banned. If you don't know who to vote for besides party then you shouldn't be voting for them.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The stuff that I listed are common sense items with which need no masters degree. We've all heard of the insurance premiums that doctors have to pay. We've all heard of how corporations try to keep things to themselves. We've all heard of doctors getting sued for even the littlest things. ...

Well, you get the idea.

I'm not saying that this stuff would be easy to implement. But the effects of implementing them properly should be obvious. At least to me they are.

Edit note: Changed one word due to my idiot brain thinking ahead of my idiot fingers.

 

[whysoserious]

The stuff that I listed are common sense items with which need no masters degree. We've all heard of the insurance premiums that doctors have to pay. We've all heard of how corporations try to keep things to themselves. We've all heard of doctors getting sued for even the littlest things. ...

Well, you get the idea.

I'm not saying that this stuff would be easy to implement. But the effects of implementing them properly should be obvious. At least to me they are.

Edit note: Changed one word due to my idiot brain thinking ahead of my idiot fingers.

Is the idea causing penalties for obvious pseudo-lawsuits? If so, I totally agree. If not, at least put caps on "punative damages". How much is "pain and suffering" worth?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Is the idea causing penalties for obvious pseudo-lawsuits? If so, I totally agree. If not, at least put caps on "punative damages". How much is "pain and suffering" worth?

I'd be happy with both of your suggestions being implemented.

 

[Renae]

Because I see access to basic medical care for all people that live in a country as a fundamental responsibility of the state.

Sadly, we don't live in a Socialist Commune, we live in a Republic dominated by Freedom and Personal Liberty. The idea that I am responsible for providing you with healthcare does not mix with the idea of personal freedom and liberty.

 

[Bullshytz]

We NEED to stop voting in the "Lesser of two evils" or the person with the "R" or "D" beside their name.
:rantoff:

"Lesser of two evils"? That's the problem...
people are divided due to who they think is the "Lesser of two evils".

We need to start voting in people that actually ARE moral
and actually know how to do more than just suck the teet of
whoever pays them the most.

Lmao... Is there such thing as a moral leader?

Morality itself is a complex perspective for each individual.
What one think is moral can be immoral to another person.

The sayin' "we can't please everyone" is truth to all political leaders.

 

[Kal'Stang]

"Lesser of two evils"? That's the problem...
people are divided due to who they think is the "Lesser of two evils".

I don't care if they're divided or not. Arguements are good for the soul. What I care about is whether they vote for someone that actually cares about the country and the people or if they vote for someone that just spin talks.

Lmao... Is there such thing as a moral leader?

Morality itself is a complex perspective for each individual.
What one think is moral can be immoral to another person.

The sayin' "we can't please everyone" is truth to all political leaders.

I'm talking about the kind of morals that are used in respect to how people do thier job. IE not taking bribes, actually doing thier jobs instead of pandering to big businesses, etc etc. Actually working FOR the country and its people.

BTW, I know you're new here but your avatar isn't really family friendly.....

 

[Bullshytz]

What I care about is whether they vote for someone
that actually cares about the country
and the people or if they vote for someone that just spin talks.

I think most Politicians do care for their country.
Problem is what they care about is not always what other may care about.

Try being a ranking political leader and
then try pleasing everyone that's when you'll truly understand the meaning of
"we can't please everyone".

I'm talking about the kind of morals that are used in respect to
how people do thier job. IE not taking bribes,
actually doing thier jobs instead of pandering to big businesses, etc etc.
Actually working FOR the country and its people.

Business is part of the country.
We live in a capitalism system which mean big business is important.

The balance of the people and big business is something political leaders
must work with all the time in order to survive in the political arena.

I understand you want a moral leader.
But once you reach a high position of leadership among the people.
What you believe is moral can easily be seen as immoral by others.

BTW, I know you're new here but your avatar isn't really family friendly.

That's your moral opinion.
But in my moral opinion my sexy boobies avatar is family friendly.

You see why I stated " You can't please everyone "
Even a simple picture of boobies can lead to disagreement.

BTW...
Sex isn't a sin and a sexy boobies avatar isn't going to blind you my friend.

LMAO... and you want a moral leader?
With your moral expectation...
you have a better chance at finding a virgin hooker than a moral leader.

 

[X Factor]

"Lesser of two evils"? That's the problem...
people are divided due to who they think is the "Lesser of two evils".



Lmao... Is there such thing as a moral leader?

Morality itself is a complex perspective for each individual.
What one think is moral can be immoral to another person.

The sayin' "we can't please everyone" is truth to all political leaders.

Did you say something? I was distracted. :mrgreen:

 

[Bullshytz]

Did you say something?
I was distracted. :mrgreen:

Lmao.. Not really.. I was watchin' porn. :beam:

 

[Whovian]

You talk a lot, but can you cite which part of it they say is unconstitutional? They don't talk about it on Fox, I bet, but on less partisan news sources they do.

So what part is unconstitutional and where is the issue?

**Hint**

This is law so it doesn't involve partisan BS. For instance, "I don't like this bill and it will kill jobs" is not the right answer.

The individual mandate is what the ruling focused on, but the enitire law was held unconstitutional, though, because of the necessity of the individual mandate to the law.

Correct. The problem for Obama here is that there was no 'severance clause' in the law that would uphold the rest is any individual part was invalidated. HAd the Dems been smart enough to include a severance caluse, the judge would have invalidated only the mandate, leaving the rest intact. He even cited the lack of this clause in his conclusion.