Very simple, if a legal authority brings charges it is the duty of the people to prove guilt, this is done by a mandated trial, not a mandate by simple policy law, but the U.S. constitution, our social contract, we the people decided in the very beginning that innocence is to be presumed until proven otherwise and that defendents have the right to request trial, if such request is made at hearing then it must be provided by law, thus it is the duty of the government to pay for the costs associated with such. The difference with healthcare is that it falls in a catagory not compliant with the tenth amendment, it is neither a right or duty of the federal government to provide healthcare, thus it falls back to the states legally to decide whether said responsibility is to be taken on by that particular state government. This being said, a bill cannot make healthcare a right, only a constitutional amendment can, this is what makes it so great, if an amendment should pass, then that means the states have ceded said authority to the federal government via agreement and it would then become legal, unfortunately, we have politicians who don't want to go this route because it's harder for them.
I don't get that from his writings, moreso this is dealing with a bill created right, which is dangerously incompatible with our fundamental legal protocol. I'll let Gobie answer to his intent however.
Smoke screen, we're a country of laws. It's not up to you to determine what is right, then force the rest to pay for it.
So you think by calling them propaganda, you can marginalize their truth. Foolish thought little man. The Constitution limits the power of the federal govt to impose its will.
What makes you think the govt should tax everything, you have a lots preconceived notions about what it right. Foolish notions.
I'll bet you get a hardon when you type that word centralized.
You get what you give with me. You came into this acting smarmy and superior, all the while not knowing what you are talking about or caring about the consequences.
Are you kidding, I knocked you out of the park.
Years of study? HAHAHA, so you've just admitted you are all theory here, try getting some practical experience in the field, or learn how our government is supposed to work, then get back to us. Oh, and insurance exists to protect people's finances in catastrophic times, if we weren't here you'd be begging us to come back.
Here's a hint for you, don't insult someone's profession, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. You probably wouldn't know the difference between an indemnity company, an HMO, a PPO, or a traditional major med. policy, but you are going to assert yet another talking point so that you look "qualified" to join this debate.
Everything is stated in contract, how about if you give me some kind of payout to denial percentage since you've studied this so long and know all about it.:roll: Or better yet, show me an example of a reputable company denying someone who qualified, i.e. not a pre-existing condition, not a fraudulent claim, and actually covered, cause I can show you endless data of Canada, England, etc. doing such.
Yes, I do.
That's a governmenet created situation, not health companies.
Why, so it can be run by the typical idiot that runs government and non-profit agencies, face it, government run or non-profit = ****.
That you cannot sue the police should they fail to protect you?
Perhaps... but if, as you claim, the police were obligated to protect you (as opposed to just enforcing the law) and failed to do so, then you could use them.
Trial by jury, and all other associated rights, exist only because the government exists, as trials (et al) are a function of government. As such, these rights are necessarily a function of government, which necessarily requires taxation (of some sort) to exist.
The part you're missing is that government HAS to privde the means to exercise the right to a just trial, as the only way a jury trial can exist is through government.
No access to criminal courts, only a legally appointed authority has such powers under the founding of this country, the way the red-light camera companies get away with existing in the U.S. is to do everything from civil court and credit law, they basically coerce you to pay the fines with no criminal recourse, so they are allowed to operate in many states that way, it would be the same thing with free market trials.