Obamacare Victims Revolt: ‘We Don’t have that Kind of Money’

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Black_Fox

No matter How you look at the ACA , it is Unconstitutional . The SCOTUS Knows that , but by Giving the Obama Administration an OUT by Calling it a Tax , they Rid themselves of having to do their Jobs of Upholding the Constitution .

Which should have sunk the ACA in the first place. It was passed without a separation clause. Any changes made to one part of the law should have deep-sixed the whole damn thing. But no, we have an Executive branch that ignored their oath to uphold the COTUS and only enforce laws passed by the Congress and deemed satisfactory by the SCOTUS *AS IT WAS WRITTEN.*

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which should have sunk the ACA in the first place. It was passed without a separation clause. Any changes made to one part of the law should have deep-sixed the whole damn thing. But no, we have an Executive branch that ignored their oath to uphold the COTUS and only enforce laws passed by the Congress and deemed satisfactory by the SCOTUS *AS IT WAS WRITTEN.*

We also have public that is refusing to do their duty.

(thats you and me)

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which should have sunk the ACA in the first place. It was passed without a separation clause. Any changes made to one part of the law should have deep-sixed the whole damn thing. But no, we have an Executive branch that ignored their oath to uphold the COTUS and only enforce laws passed by the Congress and deemed satisfactory by the SCOTUS *AS IT WAS WRITTEN.*

We also have public that is refusing to do their duty.

(thats you and me)

We have tried. Every election is supposed to be a revolution, a change to the government. 2010, 2012 and 2014 we gave the GOP more and more power in the House to get rid of the ACA. More and more the Democrats are *supposed* to be reading the tea leaves about their support. Now we have Trump.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

We have tried. Every election is supposed to be a revolution, a change to the government. 2010, 2012 and 2014 we gave the GOP more and more power in the House to get rid of the ACA. More and more the Democrats are *supposed* to be reading the tea leaves about their support. Now we have Trump.

I'm afraid that the situation won't change until a large percentage of the people are cold and hungry.

originally posted by: Joki42
Yup, I am a single male and make 1600 a month. The cheapest coverage I can get is $400 a month, $7000 deductible, and 50% co-pay. For me to have medical insurance I would have to live out of my car. This is forced enslavement, paying everything we have just for the right to live.

makes you wonder what ever happened to your RIGHT to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
of those 3 the first thing mentioned is life

if you need medical care to prevent you from dying then it should be free,in keeping with your constitutional right to life.

it says you were endowed with the right to life by your creator,so how can a lack of money or health insurance take away a right that your creator gave you?
so, either provide everyone with free healthcare or amend the bill of rights to reflect the fact that you have a right to life if you can afford to pay for it.

a reply to: Tardacus

makes you wonder what ever happened to your RIGHT to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
of those 3 the first thing mentioned is life

if you need medical care to prevent you from dying then it should be free,in keeping with your constitutional right to life.

it says you were endowed with the right to life by your creator,so how can a lack of money or health insurance take away a right that your creator gave you?
so, either provide everyone with free healthcare or amend the bill of rights to reflect the fact that you have a right to life if you can afford to pay for it.

My family Dr. pays $3,000 a day to belong to the hospital and work in the Dr. Office he is employed, this was 10 years ago, that means you want to take a 2 week vacation. That is 3,000$ X 10= 30,000$. Health care is expensive because the hospitals charge so much.

Out economy is based off of never ending growth and never ending dept.

a reply to: Tardacus

makes you wonder what ever happened to your RIGHT to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
of those 3 the first thing mentioned is life

if you need medical care to prevent you from dying then it should be free,in keeping with your constitutional right to life.

it says you were endowed with the right to life by your creator,so how can a lack of money or health insurance take away a right that your creator gave you?
so, either provide everyone with free healthcare or amend the bill of rights to reflect the fact that you have a right to life if you can afford to pay for it.

With the patriot act, nsa listening and receiving every communication, facial rec cameras for your drivers license pic, finger prints for concealed weapons permits, property taxes insure you never own your home, income tax is questionable, fed took the legislative branches power to coin money......... and now health care is a big pain in the a$$.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Black_Fox

If you wanna drive and own a car, you must have insurance

Why?

originally posted by: Black_Fox
Obummercare, if you don't, then you get a fine out of your taxes.

People that 'use things' should have insurance on them. Sounds reasonable? People that have never had insurance should be banned from hospitals right? Just like driving?

Do you get fined if you choose not to drive and get car insurance? No,no you don't.

So if you cant afford obummer care,cause your already poor, you should be fined?

So you don't mind paying for roads, but you do mind paying for something you absolutely will need at one point in your life?

You avoided the question, if your already to poor to afford obummercare, you should be fined for being broke?

No, you should be banned from hospitals. Or pay the bill. The reason this law exists is because poor people who did not have insurance found it reasonable to use services for free. Do you think that is acceptable? Guess what, now they have another affordable insurance plan. Unless there is some kind of point that Obamacare is beyond competitive and affordable compared to other plans. In that event, just take the even-cheaper insurance, and tah-duh, no fine.

Should the same apply to those who can't afford food?

Just to frame it in a manner one such as your self can understand, you do realize that being free means being able to survive?? Yet to survive you need the ability to forage for meat, which in order to kill an animal you have to pay the government in order to do so legally?

How about growing food? How many people who own land who choose to do it in their yards have been fined by the local government because if offended someone whom thought that it brought the property value down?

Yea, keep begging for someone to enslave you, because that's what you're are doing!

No, you're just delusional and want free food.

originally posted by: Nucleardoom

originally posted by: imjack
Why is Geico okay, but Obamacare not?

Oh ya, because Geico has a cute little gecko and Obamacare has the name Obama in it.

People are so surface level.

Sorry, bad comparison because the lizard isn't a compulsive liar.

Oh yeah, and you can keep your doctor.

Which lizard? The Geico™ or HRC™?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

ObamaCare vs. The Commerce Clause
by Richard A. Epstein
Monday, November 21, 2011





Looked at from the vantage point of the original Constitution, ObamaCare should be dead on arrival. But the New Deal transformation of long-established Commerce Clause jurisprudence has introduced a set of unprincipled (but fine-grained) distinctions that turn the law into a mass of linguistic absurdities that should lead ordinary people to question the collective sanity of the legal profession. From the straightforward prose of the Commerce Clause, Judge Silberman concludes (accurately) that “[t]oday, the only recognized limitations are that (1) Congress may not regulate non-economic behavior based solely on an attenuated link to interstate commerce, and (2) Congress may not regulate intrastate economic behavior if its aggregate impact on interstate commerce is negligible.”




www.hoover.org...


This Gentlemen Explains it well ...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Looked at from the vantage point of the original Constitution, ObamaCare should be dead on arrival. But the New Deal transformation of long-established Commerce Clause jurisprudence has introduced a set of unprincipled (but fine-grained) distinctions that turn the law into a mass of linguistic absurdities that should lead ordinary people to question the collective sanity of the legal profession. From the straightforward prose of the Commerce Clause, Judge Silberman concludes (accurately) that “[t]oday, the only recognized limitations are that (1) Congress may not regulate non-economic behavior based solely on an attenuated link to interstate commerce, and (2) Congress may not regulate intrastate economic behavior if its aggregate impact on interstate commerce is negligible.”

Yep were screwed.

a reply to: seasonal

One of the main things in the ACA paper work was that people were to be forced to pay for healthcare but never established how insurance companies were to be controlled over the prices of insurance premiums, that was left to the individual states insurance panel to do that and make sure that people would not get gouged.

Sadly like everything in America money talks and BS walk, states really never enforced insurance gouging and with soo much money been funneled by lobbyist to keep the panels gag and blindfolded now we see the side effects of faulty politicians decisions.

After all most programs and laws that our for the people politicians pass in Capitol hill are written by lobbyist lawyers ACA was not exception.

originally posted by: Joki42
Yup, I am a single male and make 1600 a month. The cheapest coverage I can get is $400 a month, $7000 deductible, and 50% co-pay. For me to have medical insurance I would have to live out of my car. This is forced enslavement, paying everything we have just for the right to live.

I just ran a quote for you, based on your zip code and assuming age 40.
Premium = $32 a month / Annual Deductible:Out-of-Pocket = $650
Silver level plan from Anthem Blue Cross of California.

a reply to: marg6043

Sadly like everything in America money talks and BS walk, states really never enforced insurance gouging and with soo much money been funneled by lobbyist to keep the panels gag and blindfolded now we see the side effects of faulty politicians decisions. After all most programs and laws that our for the people politicians pass in Capitol hill are written by lobbyist lawyers ACA was not exception

This seems to be the problem, they have the product and you need it, and may die without it. And THEY control the cost?

In Michigan the gas company has to jump threw hoops to raise the price, it's called regulation. And it works. They have to have a reason to why the costs need to go up, and how much.
I would think health care would be a similar thing. But I don't have a billion $ to bribe the entrenched above reproach senators and Representative.

a reply to: seasonal

Exactly, the regulation of prices under the ACA was left to the states, I have plenty of stories to tell about how insurance under ACA still discriminate under pre existing conditions, I have a friend that had to get a procedure and she had to buy supplemental insurance just to get the procedure done, the insurance she had no even her mammography was covered.

Still she end up paying over two thousand out of pocket just so they will cover for her 12 thousand dollar procedure and she is still waiting if they will cover or not.

Is a mess a big costly mess.

Clinton is aware there are issues with ACA. She is planning on making improvements, but doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. It does need to be cleaned up. I hope she will do it quickly if she goes into office.

a reply to: angeldoll

Clinton is aware there are issues with ACA. She is planning on making improvements, but doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. It does need to be cleaned up. I hope she will do it quickly if she goes into office.

Hillary with a net worth of 220,000,000 has done quite well.
I have my doubts that they get it.
I really wish we could fund a school teacher, plumber, police officer or accountant to run for pres. I have a feeling someone who balances a check book every month knows what's up.
I have very little confidence in a women who thought it was a good idea to keep confidential info on a unsecured server in her basement.

a reply to: angeldoll

You know that it was Hillary when she was first lady back in the 90s that brought up the Universal health care proposition and was shun down by the opposition even a task force was created for her plan, this was in 1993.

Her agenda was universal health care for all, pay by the government.

I wonder. . . .

a reply to: angeldoll

She can't "clean it up", because this THING is composed of over 23,000 pages of laws/regulations, and over 100,000 pages of rules that were derived from the regulations.

It has be thrown in the garbage and re-done from the ground up. will only take a couple of weeks to get uninsured covered and everyone else's premium lowered by 50%.

a reply to: carewemust

Sorry if I have trouble accepting that you know what she is and is not capable of. Of course it can be modified, and simplified. It will take a lot of brain power, time, and perhaps borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, but it can be done. It's essential that it be done, in fact. What is happening to some people is dreadful, but many others would be vastly worse off without it.