Fundamental Change

[RavenHawk]

This is derived from another post (Im sure you all know which one). The next 8 posts are historical for completeness. So you can certainly comment on that and/or discuss what Fundamental Change means to you and what you think Obama means by it. Please feel free to use examples of Obamacare or 2nd Amendment or any other to illustrate. Just wait until Ive finished posting the historical background before jumping in…

Edited December 2, 2013 by RavenHawk

[RavenHawk]

Ninja, I really hope your joking about you thinking the congress is an enemy.

Nope. Parts of it are scheming against the existing government. That makes them enemies.

He ain't. He will be first inline to help when emperor Obama dissolves congress ascends the throne and declares himself ruler of all.

very funny but not constitutional.

[RavenHawk]

Nope. Parts of it are scheming against the existing government. That makes them enemies.

Yes, we know that. The Conservatives (the Party of NO) has been fighting these enemies of the Constitution.

very funny but not constitutional.

Thats the point. Obama studied the Constitution pretty closely. There are two reasons to do so. One is to protect it and perpetuate it. The other is to destroy and usurp it. Everything this President has done today is designed to usurp the Constitution which is fundamental change. Heres the big secret. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. The Socialists are doing what they do best and that is to destroy the existing government from within.

Edited December 2, 2013 by RavenHawk

[RavenHawk]

Everything this President has done today is designed to usurp the Constitution which is fundamental change.

maybe you'd like to elucidate your outlandish proposition.

[RavenHawk]

maybe you'd like to elucidate your outlandish proposition.

I think that it is self evident. It’s hardly outlandish. What comes to mind when you hear fundamental change? Coming from a Socialist, it can only mean one thing. Then we get Obamacare crammed down our throats. Only a Socialist would do this on this scale. Only the very ill want it yet Obama isn’t listening to the whole. He’s going to strap this on us whether we like or not because *HE* thinks it will be the best thing for us. Our Founding Fathers gave us a few documents, documenting the need to distance ourselves from that very same attitude. Then consider those 22 EOs on gun control. Here he’s trying to marginalize the 2nd Amendment. He has to in order to push more of his agenda on us. What do you think will happen if he tries his fundamental change and we still have our guns? A Constitutional President would avoid that scenario at all costs. You may be drinking the koolaid but there are millions of Americans that do not. Shouldn’t you be considering that to avoid a civil war? I would prefer seeing a national healthcare program that is Constitutional where everybody wants it. And if they didn’t, I would want to know why and make fundamental changes to national healthcare in order to preserve the Union and the Constitution. What is wrong with that? Why do you quaff the koolaid so deeply?

[RavenHawk]

What comes to mind when you hear “fundamental change”? Coming from a Socialist, it can only mean one thing.

Certainly nothing unconstitutional. And Obama is not a socialist. in any respect. I realize you make up your own definitions.

Then we get Obamacare crammed down our throats.

It was not crammed down anything. It was passed the way laws are generally created. By majority vote.

Only the very ill want it yet Obama isn’t listening to the whole.

wrong again. The UNINSURED want it very badly - which is why they are desperately trying to sign up.

He’s going to strap this on us whether we like or not because *HE* thinks it will be the best thing for us.

no. This was the fundamental issue in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

Then consider those 22 EOs on gun control. Here he’s trying to marginalize the 2nd Amendment.

not unconstitutional.

What do you think will happen if he tries his fundamental change and we still have our guns?

You're not making any sense at all.

Shouldn’t you be considering that to avoid a civil war?

in the US?!! you're seriously deranged.

I would prefer seeing a national healthcare program that is Constitutional where everybody wants it.

You and your republican friends had that opportunity and did NOTHING

And if they didn’t, I would want to know why and make fundamental changes to national healthcare

There is no national healthcare. Do you live in Canada or the UK?

[RavenHawk]

You are in complete and total denial.

Certainly nothing unconstitutional. And Obama is not a socialist. in any respect. I realize you make up your own definitions.

Fundamental change to the Constitution does not bring you pause? You have no idea of the meaning of the Constitution. To you it is some old meaningless document. Obama is the most Leftist President we’ve ever had. And I have not made up my own definitions. I’m merely removing one class of excuses. You don’t like it so you create others. Even after thorough explanation you refuse to understand. This just shows how much of a lost case you are. And people here (new and old), see this.

It was not crammed down anything. It was passed the way laws are generally created. By majority vote.

It was crammed down our throats. Did you ever pay attention to these town hall meetings? The people were rejecting this legislation. The PEOPLE! Do you not understand? This is not how laws are generally passed. It was passed by mob rule, not majority. When the extremes of Democracy rear its head, is time to put a stop to it. And I know that term goes way beyond your understanding.

wrong again. The UNINSURED want it very badly - which is why they are desperately trying to sign up.

Hello? There were some 30 million uninsured, right? Do you agree? Of those 30 million, you could divide that into three groups. A third is the wealthy that don’t need it because they pay out of pocket. Another third are the youth that don’t need it and can’t afford it. Yet it is this group that is needed to pay everyone’s way? That leaves about 10 million that are the sickest that want it and need it. As I said these are the very ill. Instead of targeting their needs, we’re going to ruin our economy of 315 million to accommodate these 10 million? That is your typical Socialist math.

no. This was the fundamental issue in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

This was not a fundamental issue in these elections. The fundamental issue was how the Obama machine demonized two Rinos that couldn’t turn out the base. If the issue was on Healthcare, Obama would have lost.

not unconstitutional.

Excuse me? How can you sit there and claim that those EOs are not attacking the 2nd Amendment? I guess YOU can because you are a Leftist lackey.

You're not making any sense at all.

Actually, I am making sense, if you understand history. So I guess you are admitting you do not understand history. Want do you think happens to a citizenry that cannot defend itself from its government?

in the US?!! you're seriously deranged.

You really don’t think it’ll happen? Why not? The minute you begin to think that it couldn’t happen is the minute you open the door for it to happen. But then you do not know history by your own admission. We should be learning from history to avoid such things and their causes. Obamacare is one of those. That’s Q.E.D.

You and your republican friends had that opportunity and did NOTHING

Perhaps so and they didn’t try to usurp power. They didn’t try to cram it down our throats. They have plenty of good ideas that the Socialists turned away. They wanted to target sectors and spend money wisely. They understood the dangers in the extremes of Democracy and turned away, but it appears that you do not care to understand that.

There is no national healthcare. Do you live in Canada or the UK?

And the sun doesn’t rise in the East and the sky ain’t blue on a cloudless day. If it is not national healthcare then why are we required to purchase a standard package? If it was not national healthcare then why couldn’t we keep the plans we have or to purchase anything we want including so-called substandard plans? Those that have or had coverage did not need coverage but that has been taken away. If they cannot purchase what they want, then that by definition is national healthcare.

Do you not understand that your pitch to sell Obamacare is not working? Another law suit has been brought forward that challenges Obamacare violating the 1st Amendment. And after that, there are others lining up. The next few years will see if Obama has successfully usurped and defeated the Constitution. So please tell me that Obamacare does not trash our Constitution? Please put yourself on record.

[RavenHawk]

Fundamental change to the Constitution does not bring you pause?

there has not been any nor is any contemplated.

It was crammed down our throats. Did you ever pay attention to these town hall meetings?

sorry laws are not passed by town hall meetings.

It was passed by mob rule, not majority.

no. it was passed by a majority vote. That does not have to be bi-partisan.

Of those 30 million, you could divide that into three groups.

No. you can't.

we’re going to ruin our economy of 315 million to accommodate these 10 million?

It's not "ruining" the economy. In fact, the cost of healthcare has slowed considerably. And yes, our WHOLE society has a vested interest in the health of ALL of it's citizens.

This was not a fundamental issue in these elections.

Not seeing this is perhaps why the Republicans lost.

Excuse me? How can you sit there and claim that those EOs are not attacking the 2nd Amendment?

Sure but they are not unconstitutional.

Want do you think happens to a citizenry that cannot defend itself from its government?

Not really an issue in the US

That’s Q.E.D.

That's pretty funny.

If it is not national healthcare then why are we required to purchase a standard package?

Insurance not healthcare.

If it was not national healthcare then why couldn’t we keep the plans we have or to purchase anything we want including so-called substandard plans?

Most. 95% of Americans will keep their plans.

Do you not understand that your pitch to sell Obamacare is not working?

I'm not 'pitching' anything. 1.4 million people are enrolled with web site problems. There will be multiple millions signed up very soon. It is working and working well and has been working with the parts that were instituted previously.

Another law suit has been brought forward that challenges Obamacare violating the 1st Amendment. And after that, there are others lining up.

This is no end to the wackos that spring up. Birthers, conspiracy theorists, etc. I'm not really surprised. The result will be the same.

So please tell me that Obamacare does not trash our Constitution? Please put yourself on record.

IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM, DOES OBAMACARE (the ACA) "TRASH" our US CONSTITUTION. IS that clear enough?

[RavenHawk]

there has not been any nor is any contemplated.

Are you that clueless? Obama constantly talks about making *Fundamental Change*. What does that mean to you? What do you think Obama is talking about?

sorry laws are not passed by town hall meetings.

This is true but to be honest. In order to listen to the people, shouldn’t the law reflect the desires and wishes of all the people? Obamacare clearly does not. If there is any question at all on such a huge law, shouldn’t it be prudent to put the brakes on? What do you call it when an unresponsive government passes unwanted laws? What usually happens to that government?

no. it was passed by a majority vote. That does not have to be bi-partisan.

Again true, but this is the prime example of the Extremes of Democracy. By this time, do you still not understand what that means? Shouldn’t it have been passed by bi-partisan support? If it was, then you wouldn’t have to resort to bald faces lies as you have been.

No. you can't.

Then explain further. How would you characterize the uninsured? How many don’t use it/need it and how many need it?

It's not "ruining" the economy. In fact, the cost of healthcare has slowed considerably. And yes, our WHOLE society has a vested interest in the health of ALL of it's citizens.

Really? As far as costs go, it is already costing people more in premiums and deductibles. The CBO has tripled the original estimate of the cost on the Budget. I wish you would stop parroting the party line for once and think for yourself. Reality and the world you live in are not the same.

Actually, this nation does not have a vested interest in *ALL* of its citizens. There are simply some citizens that do not benefit the whole. I am for end or life planning and care. But it’s none of my business or yours (and especially not government) to make that determination. That is up to the individual, doctors, and loved ones. This is a burden on society that should never be put on it. And Obamacare installs death panels for that explicit purpose.

Not seeing this is perhaps why the Republicans lost.

What you don’t see is that if Obama ran on healthcare, he would have lost.

Sure but they are not unconstitutional.

You really don’t understand what the Constitution is do you? Or how those EOs are an attack on it. That’s why you can sit there out of ignorance and tote the party line.

Not really an issue in the US

And how are we so special to escape this?

Insurance not healthcare.

Well, how do you get healthcare without insurance, eh? Unless you think that the majority of people are going to take the penalty tax and pay out of pocket, which is cheaper than buying a policy. I’m looking at Concierge Medicine myself. I’ll have to wait until the Employer Mandate kicks in next year.

Most. 95% of Americans will keep their plans.

You’re still trying to hold onto the lie? Give it up. Even the Administration has.

I'm not 'pitching' anything. 1.4 million people are enrolled with web site problems. There will be multiple millions signed up very soon. It is working and working well and has been working with the parts that were instituted previously.

People visiting the site don’t count. People signing up for Medicare don’t count. And you’re still far off from very soon. Among various other problems that are still occurring, they can’t even deliver the payments to the insurance companies. If your numbers are correct then there only needs to be another 11 million sign up. That’s pretty good considering that we already started off with 10% without insurance. Does that sound doable? Why the panic from the Administration if it is? There won’t be multiple millions signing up by the deadline, unless you are trying to pitch Obamacare.

This is no end to the wackos that spring up. Birthers, conspiracy theorists, etc. I'm not really surprised. The result will be the same.

I told you did not understand what the Constitution is. This latest suit, which the Supreme Court will address, is on violating 1st Amendment Rights. Obamacare cannot force a religion to go against its tenets. After 1 Jan, another suit will be brought because Obamacare will then violate the Tax Anti-injunction Act, which is also unConstitutional.

IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM, DOES OBAMACARE (the ACA) "TRASH" our US CONSTITUTION. IS that clear enough?

Coming from someone that has admittedly said that they do not understand what the Constitution is, this statement carries no weight.

[ninjadude]

Thanks for creating this thread.

Are you that clueless? Obama constantly talks about making *Fundamental Change*. What does that mean to you? What do you think Obama is talking about?

the question is what do you think - SPECIFICALLY. Generalisms about socialism are nothing but rants.What specifically are you going on about "fundamental change". Don't give me attitudes and philosophies. What specific policy/law are you on about? Otherwise you're just peeing in the wind.

In order to listen to the people, shouldn't the law reflect the desires and wishes of all the people? Obamacare clearly does not.

clearly it does. It is REPUBLICAN ideas. We had two presidential elections where it was a major issue. Clearly Americans want it and support it.

What do you call it when an unresponsive government passes unwanted laws?

unwanted by a tiny minority? they get their underwear in a twist. Not much else.

Again true, but this is the prime example of the Extremes of Democracy.

So now you're going to rant against democracy and our system of government? Is that what you really want to say? We can part right here.

Then explain further. How would you characterize the uninsured? How many don't use it/need it and how many need it?

A large percentage of the uninsured want health care insurance badly. If you've never been in that condition I can see you not understanding.

Really? As far as costs go, it is already costing people more in premiums and deductibles.

yes really. The ACA has already turned the macro overall cost of healthcare. It's been posted here on UM previously. It is NOT costing more except for a tiny percentage of people as a result of the ACA. Also posted here on UM. The increases in insurance premiums have happened for years, decades in fact. I can only suspect that you are very young or independently wealthy. This is nothing new. But the aggregate cost is going down. In my own case, it was calculated that the ACA specifically increased my premium by 50 cents a month. I can afford that so that my fellow citizens who are insured can get health insurance that will continue to turn the health care cost curve. You can call it misguided, altruistic, naive. But for now, I'm happy with it.

Actually, this nation does not have a vested interest in *ALL* of its citizens. But it's none of my business or yours (and especially not government) to make that determination. That is up to the individual, doctors, and loved ones.

actually it is. I'm sorry you don't see that. Societies that don't care are short lived. Societies have a history of taking care of the health of it's citizens.

What you don't see is that if Obama ran on healthcare, he would have lost.

he did. TWICE. and won, TWICE. Were you out of the country for 5 years?

You really don't understand what the Constitution is do you? Or how those EOs are an attack on it.

I'm very happy with the EOs adding additional regulation to the 2nd amendment. I believe it is an anachronism that should be repealed but not prohibited. Guns should be severely regulated.

And how are we so special to escape this?

there are more of us that you. To be blunt.

that the majority of people are going to take the penalty tax and pay out of pocket, which is cheaper than buying a policy.

Right up to the point where you have a major health issue. Then you are penniless. And bankrupt. That's not a fantasy or something that happens to just a few people. It's killing the middle class.

You're still trying to hold onto the lie? Give it up. Even the Administration has.

It's not. No matter how much you want to disparage it. Most people are unaffected by the ACA. period.

People visiting the site don't count.

If we were talking about that it would be billions. No, the number of enrollees is 1.4 million approximate.

This latest suit, which the Supreme Court will address, is on violating 1st Amendment Rights.

You mean the one they just dismissed? Kind of like birthers. No one cares anymore.

Coming from someone that has admittedly said that they do not understand what the Constitution is, this statement carries no weight.

I admitted no such thing.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Interesting isn't it?

Obsctructionism in the halls of governance under a republican government was treason, but under a democrat one it's patriotism.

[RavenHawk]

the question is what do you think - SPECIFICALLY. Generalisms about socialism are nothing but rants.What specifically are you going on about "fundamental change". Don't give me attitudes and philosophies. What specific policy/law are you on about? Otherwise you're just peeing in the wind.

You’re doing a real good job of trying to distract from the question here. Don’t pull this what do you think crap. I’ve been expressing that. This question is all about you. What do YOU think he means by his repeated statement that he will bring fundamental change? It must mean something? It doesn’t matter if you speak of generalisms or if you are more specific. If there is any question, we can explore further. There’s an old saying to goes, “whatever a man believes, determines what he does.” The attitudes and philosophies of this President are paramount to what his intentions are. Most people have been observing these things and not his charisma or celebrity.

clearly it does. It is REPUBLICAN ideas. We had two presidential elections where it was a major issue. Clearly Americans want it and support it.

Being a Republican idea doesn’t matter. When I’m trying to solve problems, I always come up with ideas that I know won’t work. That doesn’t stop me from considering them. That the Socialists took it and used it explains why the Republicans never implemented it. Just because Obama was elected twice does not mean they want or support Obamacare. People have been asked why they voted for Obama and yet have said they didn’t want Obamacare. When asked why, they replied that they just didn’t like the other guy. It had nothing to do with healthcare. I believe that most Americans still know that Obamacare is still an iffy proposition. Getting it passed was one thing but implementing it when there is no interest in it is something else. It’s like spending all of this money to throw a party and no one shows up.

unwanted by a tiny minority? they get their underwear in a twist. Not much else.

At least half (being conservative) of the American People are not a tiny minority. Only the few koolaid drinkers that I know personally and those on forums like this want it. The majority do not. Don’t try to say that most people think that healthcare needs to be reformed. That is a given but most people don’t believe that Obamacare is the way to do it.

So now you're going to rant against democracy and our system of government? Is that what you really want to say? We can part right here.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. You will not find the word Democracy in our Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence. You still do not comprehend what the Extremes of Democracy means. This is a rant by the Founding Fathers. This was a key concept in the writing of the Constitution. I’m standing up for our system of government. I do not want to see fundamental change to our system. There’s nothing wrong with it in the first place. Only a Socialist would think and say it is outdated. It was designed to be anti big government.

A large percentage of the uninsured want health care insurance badly. If you've never been in that condition I can see you not understanding.

What percentage? I have been in that situation. I was in my 20s once and I didn’t want insurance. I really didn’t need it. I also have lost jobs and went without. How many of the uninsured are the wealthy that seek Concierge Medicine? How many of the uninsured are those that have prior conditions? Why can’t you answer those questions?

yes really. The ACA has already turned the macro overall cost of healthcare. It's been posted here on UM previously. It is NOT costing more except for a tiny percentage of people as a result of the ACA. Also posted here on UM. The increases in insurance premiums have happened for years, decades in fact. I can only suspect that you are very young or independently wealthy. This is nothing new. But the aggregate cost is going down. In my own case, it was calculated that the ACA specifically increased my premium by 50 cents a month. I can afford that so that my fellow citizens who are insured can get health insurance that will continue to turn the health care cost curve. You can call it misguided, altruistic, naive. But for now, I'm happy with it.

If it’s been posted here before, then it is in conflict with reality. The result of the ACA is costing everyone more. My Premiums have gone up $80 and my deductable has gone from $400 to $4000 and that is in result of the ACA. Every day, I hear more and more stories like mine. I’m working up a new thread that will be titled “Tragedy of the Commons” and it will explain how misguided and naïve you are. At some point in the next few years, you won’t be so happy. I can just wonder what you will think then. BTW, I’m in my fifties and in this Obama economy, I’m barely getting by.

actually it is. I'm sorry you don't see that. Societies that don't care are short lived. Societies have a history of taking care of the health of it's citizens.

I didn’t say anything about not caring. I said the government shouldn’t be involved. Societies can also determine that it is caring for one to die in dignity rather than suffer and languor in misery. I said it should be the family that vests in that individual or not. If the family decides to assist the individual in living, then there can be targeted legislation that can help that doesn’t involve government infringement in forcing others to support the said individual.

he did. TWICE. and won, TWICE. Were you out of the country for 5 years?

Well, we now know what became of that promise. “If you like your doctor,…” But if he was truthful, he would have lost badly. That’s why he vested most of his energies into demonizing his opponents and confusing people with talk of gay rights, minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, etc. These things society would eventually regulate on its own anyway.

I'm very happy with the EOs adding additional regulation to the 2nd amendment. I believe it is an anachronism that should be repealed but not prohibited. Guns should be severely regulated.

Then you don’t understand what the Bill of Rights are for. They are not to put limits and regulation on the people, but to restrict the infringement of government on the people. Do you understand? Those 22 EOs violate the intent of the Constitution.

there are more of us that you. To be blunt.

That didn’t answer the question. And you are wrong. Most people in this nation are Conservative and many of those know and love the Constitution enough to know what they might lose and are willing to fight for it. They want their government back from Socialism. If there were more of you, then don’t you think that the opposition to Obamacare wouldn’t be so threatening?

Right up to the point where you have a major health issue. Then you are penniless. And bankrupt. That's not a fantasy or something that happens to just a few people. It's killing the middle class.

Isn’t that what insurance is? It’s a gamble. You’re gambling that you do seriously get ill. Hospitals won’t be allowed to turn you away. People will just go into Chapter 7. But paying these premiums and deductibles under Obamacare will cause more to go into bankruptcy sooner anyway. And premiums won’t be going down. The poverty line will rise and more will be subsidized by the government and taxes will have to go up but salaries will be going down. This is an ugly and unsustainable future if we keep going in this direction. Most normal (smaller) Socialist nations, they are just slowly collapsing. This nation as large as it is will quickly collapse under its massive weight. It will be so toxic that no one will even want to invade on economic reasons.

It's not. No matter how much you want to disparage it. Most people are unaffected by the ACA. period.

Now you are telling another lie to support the first one. Why should I do anything but criticize this lie? *EVERYONE* is affected by the ACA. If Obamacare survives intact after the next few years, I hope I’m around to see if you are still on this forum. If you haven’t retreated in shame you’ll probably spin one excuse after the other.

If we were talking about that it would be billions. No, the number of enrollees is 1.4 million approximate.

China making denial-of-service attacks would probably account for most of those billions. And what is the definition of “enrollees”? Are they all unique? How many get in under one account then it locks you out and you have to start all over. This will cut that 1.4 million down real fast. Of these enrollees, how many haven’t got a policy yet but have enrolled to receive an application now? Have they made their payment yet? This number is highly questionable. With it being so unsecured, how many will be signing up? Once a site is known to be compromised, it’s hard to get a good reputation back. And with the disclaimer that information on this site can be shared with the INS or NSA, who’s going to sign up? Not me say I, no matter how much I need insurance. I am just not that desperate.

You mean the one they just dismissed? Kind of like birthers. No one cares anymore.

I’m not talking about the Virginia-based Christian university (Liberty University). I’m talking about Hobby Lobby. There are probably a dozen like lawsuits out there. All the Supreme Court needs to do is listen to one or two. They can dismiss anyone they want and accept the ones that will best serve the case.

I admitted no such thing.

You’re reply speaks loudly that you have. From here, you are going to have to prove that you do understand the Constitution by intelligently discussing the points I’ve brought up. I don’t think you can.

[ninjadude]

You're doing a real good job of trying to distract from the question here. Don't pull this what do you think crap. I've been expressing that. This question is all about you. What do YOU think he means by his repeated statement that he will bring fundamental change? It must mean something? It doesn't matter if you speak of generalisms or if you are more specific. If there is any question, we can explore further.

since you won't give what you mean, it is a non-issue. Nothing to discuss.

Being a Republican idea doesn't matter. Just because Obama was elected twice does not mean they want or support Obamacare.

of course these things matter. You just don't understand.

That is a given but most people don't believe that Obamacare is the way to do it.

this is a proven lie.

You still do not comprehend what the Extremes of Democracy means. This is a rant by the Founding Fathers. This was a key concept in the writing of the Constitution. I'm standing up for our system of government.

again making something about nothing. Our system of government is what it is. You apparently don't like it but won't come out and say your Anti-American ideas.

I have been in that situation. I was in my 20s once and I didn't want insurance. I really didn't need it.

and you were playing russian roulette. Had you been in an accident or had a major health issue arise, you would be in the situation I described. And the rest of us would be paying for you.

If it's been posted here before, then it is in conflict with reality. The result of the ACA is costing everyone more. My Premiums have gone up $80 and my deductable has gone from $400 to $4000 and that is in result of the ACA.

but you can't PROVE it's from the ACA. It is more from normal yearly increases. In fact, the CBO has stated today, again, the ACA is turning the health care cost curve more.

I didn't say anything about not caring. I said the government shouldn't be involved

Your opinion. Mine is diametrically different.

Those 22 EOs violate the intent of the Constitution.

should the "intent" of the constitution as you believe was real then it should have appeared IN the constitution. But does not. Again, I am VERY happy with more gun regulation and even other parties trying to repeal the 2nd amendment in favor of more regulation.

That didn't answer the question. And you are wrong. Most people in this nation are Conservative

Sure it did. And most conservatives (who are not most - by any means) are not into actually working against our elected government.

This is an ugly and unsustainable future if we keep going in this direction.

your predictive talents are not in evidence.

Everyone is affected by the ACA.

repeating a lie does not make it true.

This number is highly questionable. I am just not that desperate.

No it's not. It's very conservative. And it's clear just how desperate you are to make the law look bad.

I'm not talking about the Virginia-based Christian university (Liberty University). I'm talking about Hobby Lobby.

the result will be the same.

[ninjadude]

This thread is pointless now. You claimed it was about some nebulous idea called "fundamental change" but won't explain want you mean. Instead you go on about your fantasies about the ACA and your misuse of the term socialist.

[RavenHawk]

since you won't give what you mean, it is a non-issue. Nothing to discuss.

This thread isn’t about me telling you what I mean. This thread is to elicit what does that phrase mean to you? What do you think Obama means by that phrase? As in “We Are Going To Fundamentally Change America”? I am simply curious. This is a simple question. If you don’t want to answer that is fine. It is understandable. The question is open to anyone.

of course these things matter. You just don't understand.

And you are wrong. Where the idea came from is non sequitur. The Republicans presented better ideas that were promptly rejected by the Socialists.

this is a proven lie.

The only lie is the one that you are perpetuating. But even this doesn’t matter as we will see in a few years. As I said before, passing a law is one thing. Implementing it is another. The nature of people will bring this crashing down.

again making something about nothing. Our system of government is what it is. You apparently don't like it but won't come out and say your Anti-American ideas.

Then you don’t know what “it” is. Seeing the Constitution being usurped is not nothing. Our system of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Socialist utopia. That you made such a statement and distancing yourself from the question shows you can not be trusted with acting responsible. You have no clue what the Extremes of Democracy means, but you live it.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ” – James Madison.

But I guess in your words, he’s a nebulous figure.

and you were playing russian roulette. Had you been in an accident or had a major health issue arise, you would be in the situation I described. And the rest of us would be paying for you.

We do that all the time anyway. That’s life. Even before the concept of insurance was first instituted, man survived without it. Real insurance was in a man’s hands, head, and guts. And we still are paying for those in that situation. The difference is that instead of the market dictating increases, government is forcing us through wealth redistribution, taking choice out of the hands of the people making all susceptible through poverty to that Russian roulette. That is the hallmark of Tyranny and anti-American ideas.

but you can't PROVE it's from the ACA. It is more from normal yearly increases. In fact, the CBO has stated today, again, the ACA is turning the health care cost curve more.

Yes I can. All insurance companies must comply with the ACA by offering these standard plans by 2014. Companies have been transitioning into these plans for at least the last two years. I suppose that now with the employer mandate, they have one more year to comply. But nope, these changes are not from normal yearly increases. Normal increases would be like $10 or $20 increase on the premium and maybe $50 on the deductable or $5 increase in copay, etc. Plus, the insurance company has stated that that is what they are doing. My insurance stated that they would take two years to fully comply by 2014. But if you wish, we can definitely wait until the employer mandate kicks in. But by then, I don’t think your apology will be acceptable.

Your opinion. Mine is diametrically different.

Absolutely! And if you watch those clips from that thread I created about the “Tragedy of the Commons”, you’ll see how you are wrong.

should the "intent" of the constitution as you believe was real then it should have appeared IN the constitution. But does not. Again, I am VERY happy with more gun regulation and even other parties trying to repeal the 2nd amendment in favor of more regulation.

But that intent *IS* in the Constitution. It is reflected by the Bill of Rights and explained by the Founding Fathers. And you being content about repealing the 2nd Amendment shows that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really mean nothing to you. You have repeatedly shown that you do not understand it and that it is more of an obstacle to you than anything else.

Sure it did. And most conservatives (who are not most - by any means) are not into actually working against our elected government.

Most Americans are Conservative or lean that way. That includes Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and even many Democrats (non Liberal/non Progressive). No it did not answer the question. When the government becomes tyrannical as this one has, it is the duty of the citizenry to remove it. To think that revolution cannot happen here as it does in the rest of the world is underestimating reality. You see, elected officials serve at *our* pleasure.

your predictive talents are not in evidence.

That’s true but this is one of those Spock/hammer analogies. A five year old would have no problem predicting this. If I prick my finger, it doesn’t take much to know that I will bleed.

repeating a lie does not make it true.

That’s what I should be telling you. You repeat it enough times. I suppose you have an excuse that shows how it doesn’t affect everyone? I believe that you’ve stated that everyone’s plan changes every few years. Is that correct? That means that once it changes, they can’t keep that plan anymore. Correct? Therefore they either have to be offered a plan from the employer that meets the standards that comply with the ACA or they have to purchase insurance through the exchanges. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell, right? If that is so, then that affects everyone. Q.E.D.

No it's not. It's very conservative. And it's clear just how desperate you are to make the law look bad.

Boy, how you like to dodge the questions. I think I can conclude that you are a very dishonest person in seeing how you respond. Your statements are all based on subterfuge. But anyway, I am not desperate to make the law look bad. It does that all on its own. Knowing now that you do not understand Natural Law, it is not surprising that you also do not understand human nature.

the result will be the same.

Really? That is so arrogant. Why are you so intent on throwing the Constitution out the window and replacing it with Socialism? If you succeed, how long will it take for you to realize the error in your choice? Never mind don’t answer that. Well, you won’t anyway. I just haven’t yet figured out if you are a willing stooge or you are just ignorant of the situation??

[RavenHawk]

This thread is pointless now. You claimed it was about some nebulous idea called "fundamental change" but won't explain want you mean. Instead you go on about your fantasies about the ACA and your misuse of the term socialist.

It was pointless from the beginning expecting an honest answer from you. As I mention before. Are you willingly blind to the truth or are you just totally unaware? It really doesn’t matter. If you wish to be honest, the offer is on the table. This is no nebulous idea. It is words directly from Obama. He has stated his intent multiple times. If you do not want to answer and state what you think he means, that’s fine too. Please just don’t act like an ar$e. You seem to be one that has something to hide?? Personally, I don’t care but I was fooled by your seemingly innocent request to split off onto a new thread. I don’t misuse the word Socialist. You are just afraid of the way I use it.

[ninjadude]

This thread isn't about me telling you what I mean. This thread is to elicit what does that phrase mean to you? What do you think Obama means by that phrase? As in "We Are Going To Fundamentally Change America"? I am simply curious. This is a simple question. If you don't want to answer that is fine. It is understandable. The question is open to anyone.

means nothing to me. a 10 second clip? Let me guess just before the 2008 vote, right? Campaign rhetoric about Democrats wining.

The difference is that instead of the market dictating increases, government is forcing us through wealth redistribution,

no, the exchanges are a free regulated market. Government isn't forcing.

Normal increases would be like $10 or $20 increase on the premium and maybe $50 on the deductable or $5 increase in copay, etc.

in your dreams. Like I said, our analysis shows 50 cents per month due to the ACA.

But that intent *IS* in the Constitution. It is reflected by the Bill of Rights and explained by the Founding Fathers. And you being content about repealing the 2nd Amendment shows that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really mean nothing to you.

Apparently not since you continually evoke the intent of the founding fathers. And yes I am very content with the repeal of the 2nd amendment. It's not written in stone or given by god.

Most Americans are Conservative or lean that way. That includes Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and even many Democrats (non Liberal/non Progressive). No it did not answer the question. When the government becomes tyrannical as this one has, it is the duty of the citizenry to remove it.

more fantasy land. I'll just bet you read the blaze, breitbart, townhall, faux news and the rest of the conservamedia too. This is a bubble you need to get out of.

I believe that you've stated that everyone's plan changes every few years.

nope. So much for your QED.

Why are you so intent on throwing the Constitution out the window and replacing it with Socialism?

Please don't use words where you make up the meaning.

[ninjadude]

It was pointless from the beginning expecting an honest answer from you.

Ask an honest question then. I haven't seen one yet.

[Rut Roh]

"more fantasy land. I'll just bet you read the blaze, breitbart, townhall, faux news and the rest of the conservamedia too. This is a bubble you need to get out of."

Nope nope nope... Cant use your conservamedia fall back position as an excuse.

NAILED IT!!!