- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.
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.
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!
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.
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.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.
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:
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.
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?
Because I see access to basic medical care for all people that live in a country as a fundamental responsibility of the state.
We NEED to stop voting in the "Lesser of two evils" or the person with the "R" or "D" beside their name.
:rantoff:
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.
"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.
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'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.
"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:
whysoserious said: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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?