ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[john9blue]

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

and yet you both have still not given any examples

here's a hint: "ford must sell cars with seat belts" is NOT a valid example because ford could choose to not sell cars at all.

"ford must NOT sell cars without safety belts" is the correct way to phrase that, and it does not disprove my point.

so give me your best shot guys, and remember your grammar lesson

[WILLIAMS5232]

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

a statement like this goes against everything that freedom stands for in my personal opinion.

i think this is the main area that creates all the issues between people who think like myself, and people with your thoughts.

"the govt gives us rights"?

i beleive the govt is supposed to protect the rights that we already have. we ( the people ) are supposed to give the govt it's rights to do that.

basically i think we have a right to live, and survive and not be told how to do it.
giving people a "right" to healthcare means, once the system starts to deteriorate, because of people not taking care of themselves, the govt will have to step in and regulate how they are taken care of, and this goes for everything really. so much for personal choice.

i don't want to be told what to do, how to eat, when to get checkups. it's a human right to resist, just as much as you think it is to have heathcare from your mighty govt that knows all things.

[patches70]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

A right, Woodruff, and you know this, is something that does not infringe upon another.

If you have a right to healthcare, then someone else must be compelled to deliver that care. That is not a right, it's something closer to theft. DUCY?

A right to free speech does not infringe upon anyone else. One may have a right to spout nonsense, but the person can't force anyone to listen or take not.

In the healthcare bill, those who cannot afford to purchase insurance on the exchange will then be eligible to get Medicaid, the government insurance plan for ole regular people. There are many doctors who will not accept new Medicaid patients because of the cuts in payments that Medicaid has been forced to do over the years.
I see no solutions in this bill that address that issue. Is the government going to make it illegal for doctors to do such a thing? To refuse new patients who have Medicaid? If so, is the government going to increase the Medicaid payments to doctors as Medicaid is the lowest paying of all insurance?

Obamacare is horrible. It's a convoluted mess at best.

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

Oh my, you should know better than that. Government doesn't give rights, that is not the job of government. Government is designed to preserve and protect rights, not give and take them away.
Your understanding of what is a right is seriously flawed. Only the Central Planning Collectivist believes that nonsense you just spouted.

The government absolutely can tell you HOW TO SELL IT

Are you sure about that? Is it illegal for you to, say, sell your services not for money but for something else? Of course, it's the law, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, then you must accept it and along with that all the government rules since they control the currency.

But can you simply trade things? Is that illegal? Could you go to your neighbor and tell him that you will sell your service mowing his lawn in exchange for two meals cooked by your neighbor?

You can go into any store, and if the owner or whomever is selling will accept what it is you wish to purchase with, then it is quite legal. For instance, you can paint a picture, take it to the local grocery store, stock up some groceries and offer to trade that picture you painted in exchange for the groceries you wish to purchase. The owner can, by all means, accept that painted picture as payment and it's a perfectly legal sale.

Barter is not illegal. Of course, most people won't accept such payment, but it's certainly not illegal and the government can't stop people from doing such.


Contrary to popular belief, Government is not the end all supreme power nor is it entitled to a piece of everything.

The government should have no rights not strictly allowed individual citizens because government derives it power from consent of the people. The people cannot consent to give something it does not already have. You don't have the right to tell your neighbor he must buy this or that (unless the parties have entered into prior agreements stating such), nor should the government.
For instance, the individual has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property. Thus, you can see where the power to form a police department derives from, to protect individuals, their families and their property.

[john9blue]

Are you sure about that? Is it illegal for you to, say, sell your services not for money but for something else? Of course, it's the law, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, then you must accept it and along with that all the government rules since they control the currency.

is this true? is there actually a law that says "you must accept currency for all trades you make"? how can that possibly be enforced? how do you determine the value of the things being traded?

[Woodruff]

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

a statement like this goes against everything that freedom stands for in my personal opinion.

i think this is the main area that creates all the issues between people who think like myself, and people with your thoughts.
"the govt gives us rights"?
i beleive the govt is supposed to protect the rights that we already have. we ( the people ) are supposed to give the govt it's rights to do that.

First of all, I believe you're misunderstanding my point (which is to display the ridiculousness of Phatscotty and Night Strike's definition of a "basic human right"). But aside from that, perhaps you can point out the right we have that the government doesn't consent to? You can use our government here in the U.S., if you'd like...or Soviet Russia...or Brazil. I don't care. Point out the right we have that the government doesn't consent to. Then, once you've completed that, explain how it's a right if you don't get to exercise it.

Thanks!

[Woodruff]

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

and yet you both have still not given any examples

here's a hint: "ford must sell cars with seat belts" is NOT a valid example because ford could choose to not sell cars at all.

"ford must NOT sell cars without safety belts" is the correct way to phrase that, and it does not disprove my point.

so give me your best shot guys, and remember your grammar lesson

I did give you an example - safety standards (of whatever type). Just because you don't like the example because it doesn't fit the very narrow definition that you want to use doesn't make it an invalid example. You just don't like it because it destroys your argument. This law doesn't change WHAT the companies are selling (which is still health insurance), it simply changes HOW they can sell it. Just like safety standards do.

[Woodruff]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

A right, Woodruff, and you know this, is something that does not infringe upon another.

If you have a right to healthcare, then someone else must be compelled to deliver that care. That is not a right, it's something closer to theft. DUCY?

A right to free speech does not infringe upon anyone else. One may have a right to spout nonsense, but the person can't force anyone to listen or take not.

If the government does not allow you the right to speak freely (i.e. "you do need permission"), then you do not have a right to free speech. This is made clear many times throughout history.

Obamacare is horrible. It's a convoluted mess at best.

You act as if I am a fan of ObamaCare. I am not, and have stated so regularly. I even voted for the third option in the poll.

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

Oh my, you should know better than that. Government doesn't give rights, that is not the job of government. Government is designed to preserve and protect rights, not give and take them away.

So tell me...what right do you have that you will still have if the government decides to take it away?

Your understanding of what is a right is seriously flawed. Only the Central Planning Collectivist believes that nonsense you just spouted.

So you have examples then, right?

The government absolutely can tell you HOW TO SELL IT

Are you sure about that? Is it illegal for you to, say, sell your services not for money but for something else? Of course, it's the law, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, then you must accept it and along with that all the government rules since they control the currency.
But can you simply trade things? Is that illegal? Could you go to your neighbor and tell him that you will sell your service mowing his lawn in exchange for two meals cooked by your neighbor?

Did I say anywhere that the government tells you explicitly how to sell everything? No, I did not. I pointed out that the government absolutely can tell you how to sell it, and does so all the time, through safety standards.

You can go into any store, and if the owner or whomever is selling will accept what it is you wish to purchase with, then it is quite legal. For instance, you can paint a picture, take it to the local grocery store, stock up some groceries and offer to trade that picture you painted in exchange for the groceries you wish to purchase. The owner can, by all means, accept that painted picture as payment and it's a perfectly legal sale.
Barter is not illegal. Of course, most people won't accept such payment, but it's certainly not illegal and the government can't stop people from doing such.

I never implied that you couldn't. This seems like a strawman you're trying to build up in order to tear it down. Did you want to address my actual point, or continue on with this farce?

Contrary to popular belief, Government is not the end all supreme power nor is it entitled to a piece of everything.

I agree completely.

The government should have no rights not strictly allowed individual citizens because government derives it power from consent of the people. The people cannot consent to give something it does not already have. You don't have the right to tell your neighbor he must buy this or that (unless the parties have entered into prior agreements stating such), nor should the government.
For instance, the individual has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property. Thus, you can see where the power to form a police department derives from, to protect individuals, their families and their property.

I agree. The difference here is between the terms "should" and "does". One deals in idealism (you) and one deals in reality (me).

[Woodruff]

Are you sure about that? Is it illegal for you to, say, sell your services not for money but for something else? Of course, it's the law, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, then you must accept it and along with that all the government rules since they control the currency.

is this true? is there actually a law that says "you must accept currency for all trades you make"? how can that possibly be enforced? how do you determine the value of the things being traded?

No, there is no law to that effect - bartering is perfectly legal. But yes, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, you don't have much option. I believe that's why it says "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" or somesuch on paper currency.

[saxitoxin]

This year, more people are insured, thanks to the health care reform act.

Again, nope.

More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. Groups that were already among the least likely to have coverage -- Hispanics, low-income Americans, and blacks -- have become even more likely to be uninsured.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152162/Ameri ... -2011.aspx

Further, this is the most recent data available as of this month, showing continuance of the year-end 2011 figures through July of 2012.

Remember: every single thing Player says has been conjured out of thin air. There's zero basis in reality for any of it. She arrives at a conclusion and assumes the facts must exist somewhere to support that conclusion so fills in the blanks. Psychologically, she isn't even aware what she's doing so should be handled gently, like a child or a retarded person.

[PLAYER57832]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

Why does nothing fit that definition? Rights are things that others have to do nothing for you to have.

Becuase no one is an island. By your definition, you have no right to eat, no right to sleep, no right to live.. at all. NOTHING is obtained by solely you.

But, hey, you have just given us a brilliant insight into why you so deeply misunderstand how the world works.

[PLAYER57832]

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

The part about not enabling someone else to sin. The Catholic church may also teach that providing the means to sin is just as sinful as the act (although I don't know their exact teaching). And your rights aren't being infringed upon simply because a company doesn't sell a particular product, especially when that product itself isn't even a right to have.

GREAT.. so you now support the Church of Christian Scientists right to forbid ANYONE from getting healthcare! That means ALL hospitals are illegal because they violate the Church of Christian Science, a number of Pentacostalists..and a few others, as well.

And no, I am not exaggerating. Many wars have been fought because simply allowing people to be Protestant.. or Jewish.. or Muslim .. or Atheist were seen as offending God. Excpet, see, in the US.. everyone has the right to their own religion, whether the Roman Catholic Church agrees or not.

[PLAYER57832]

This year, more people are insured, thanks to the health care reform act.

Again, nope.

Census data. Census data. You can refute it, but that is what the data shows.

Remember: every single thing Player says has been conjured out of thin air. There's zero basis in reality for any of it. She arrives at a conclusion and assumes the facts must exist somewhere to support that conclusion so fills in the blanks. Psychologically, she isn't even aware what she's doing so should be handled gently, like a child or a retarded person.

I did provide the source.

Apparently you consider me a serious threat.. else why would you take such serious steps to distort everything I have said.

[BigBallinStalin]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission.

In that case, Phatscotty, by your definition, we have ZERO basic human rights. There is NOTHING, no nothing, that fits your definition there. I'm sincerely sorry for you that you don't believe we have any basic human rights, but it would fit in very well with what appears to be your outlook toward your fellow man.

Not really. I can't speak for PS, but it seems he's trying to talk about negative rights, as oppose to positive rights.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are you sure about that? Is it illegal for you to, say, sell your services not for money but for something else? Of course, it's the law, if someone wishes to pay you in currency, then you must accept it and along with that all the government rules since they control the currency.

is this true? is there actually a law that says "you must accept currency for all trades you make"? how can that possibly be enforced? how do you determine the value of the things being traded?

Yeah, it's true. Federal reserve notes (i.e. those pieces of paper in your wallet) are legal tender. They must be accepted in exchange for whatever you're selling. It's illegal to refuse to accept US dollar bills in this country. You can't say, "sorry, but your paper is worth less over the years, so please pay me in gold, silver, or whatever," without eventually getting arrested.


AND, if you compete against the government's currency by minting your own gold coins, you'll get arrested for "counterfeiting." The government hates competition against its monopolies.

[WILLIAMS5232]

The government GIVES YOU YOUR RIGHTS. That's the fact of the matter. Without the government's consent, you have no rights.

a statement like this goes against everything that freedom stands for in my personal opinion.

i think this is the main area that creates all the issues between people who think like myself, and people with your thoughts.
"the govt gives us rights"?
i beleive the govt is supposed to protect the rights that we already have. we ( the people ) are supposed to give the govt it's rights to do that.

First of all, I believe you're misunderstanding my point (which is to display the ridiculousness of Phatscotty and Night Strike's definition of a "basic human right"). But aside from that, perhaps you can point out the right we have that the government doesn't consent to? You can use our government here in the U.S., if you'd like...or Soviet Russia...or Brazil. I don't care. Point out the right we have that the government doesn't consent to. Then, once you've completed that, explain how it's a right if you don't get to exercise it.

Thanks!

what are you asking really and why? i have a right to breath, i have a right to pick my nose... i can go jump in a creek if i like. there are many things i can do that the govt has no real bearing on. you don't need the govt to sleep do you? i mean i don't pay a tax on that...yet. People like you that think govt is the only answer to everything just really puts a bad taste in my mouth, now, if a govt provides a service, then i think yes, it has a right to tell you how to use it. but I don't think it should be able to tell you that you have to use it.

if you believe that health care is a right, we'll never agree. in my opinion, a right is not something that is given. its something that is taken away. mainly by govt. and people like you that think they know whats best for me. i can't help the time i was born in no more than i can help what country i was born to, but whenever, wherever i was born, i have the same rights as i have now,.... minus the ones that govt has taken from me.

[BigBallinStalin]

This year, more people are insured, thanks to the health care reform act.

Again, nope.

More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. Groups that were already among the least likely to have coverage -- Hispanics, low-income Americans, and blacks -- have become even more likely to be uninsured.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152162/Ameri ... -2011.aspx

Further, this is the most recent data available as of this month, showing continuance of the year-end 2011 figures through July of 2012.

Remember: every single thing Player says has been conjured out of thin air. There's zero basis in reality for any of it. She arrives at a conclusion and assumes the facts must exist somewhere to support that conclusion so fills in the blanks. Psychologically, she isn't even aware what she's doing so should be handled gently, like a child or a retarded person.

Good advice, but how can you counter her "I provided a source, it was derpaherp.com"? Or how about "I've got my facts straight, lemme just get back to you on those sources later, I think when my professor stops by, I'll ask"?

[jj3044]

Just for arguments sake (I really do want to hear counter arguments to this)...

Do you all agree that we all use the system at some point in our lives... at the very least at birth and/or death (and often times in between)?

Should we be penalized (taxed) for not paying into this system that we use?

[john9blue]

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

If the government requires that certain safety standards be met, they are requiring that a certain product/service must be sold in that manner. It's just as much a case of what will be sold as what can't be sold.

Yup, if you want to sell something, you gotta take a few governmental restrictions.

and yet you both have still not given any examples

here's a hint: "ford must sell cars with seat belts" is NOT a valid example because ford could choose to not sell cars at all.

"ford must NOT sell cars without safety belts" is the correct way to phrase that, and it does not disprove my point.

so give me your best shot guys, and remember your grammar lesson

I did give you an example - safety standards (of whatever type). Just because you don't like the example because it doesn't fit the very narrow definition that you want to use doesn't make it an invalid example. You just don't like it because it destroys your argument. This law doesn't change WHAT the companies are selling (which is still health insurance), it simply changes HOW they can sell it. Just like safety standards do.

we were talking about religious hospitals being forced to offer contraceptives. that is different from safety standards because safety standards merely prohibit unsafe products from being sold. please keep up

[Phatscotty]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission. A privilege, such as marriage or healthcare, is something that you need permission from a higher authority to grant you. I do not support any so called "rights" that involve taking something from anyone else. I simply view that as anti-Liberty, and that is not to comment on the level of importance or compassion for the need and how things should be redistributed, one way or another. It really is as simple as either it increases liberty or it decreases it.

Then I think that the fundamental difference here is actually what the value of a human life is to both of us here. Quick question... have you ever made a charitable donation? If so, what were the organizations and what did they stand for (or provide)?

I value human life just as much. I don't have anything against it, hold no animosity, no grudges. I might be pro-choice as for a woman deciding, but as for me I would do everything I could to dissuade an abortion out of convenience. I also value people's feelings very much. I spread happiness on a daily basis wherever I can, however I can. I am always conscious of other people, never intentionally hurt anyone's feelings, and try to treat others the same way I would like to be treated, and that is something I volitionally choose to be aware of on a daily basis.

As for Charity, I make charitable donations all the time. My full time primary job is at a Charity, and I am a crucial member on a team that helps our charity grow more every year. I won't name the charities, but we are up to about 12 different charities in total, all across the country. Probably weren't expecting that eh?

What defines a human right? Are you using the U.N. definition? or the Chinese countryside village definition? Why do human rights have to be so opposite of Liberty, the way you describe it? Is not Freedom and Liberty a human right in your opinion?

[Phatscotty]

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is.

That is simply a false statement, Night Strike. Demonstrably and easily false to the point that I must ask...do I really have to point out examples to you? Hell, what do you think that regulations requiring certain safety standards are? They're definitely mandating what product a business provides.

You're trying so hard to spin this your way that you're just turning yourself around.

there is a difference between government "demanding that a product/service must be sold" and "demanding that a product/service must not be sold"

give us some other examples of the government demanding that a product/service must be sold?

Woodruff is just looking for a fight

[Phatscotty]

So... nobody had a problem with what I wrote 2 pages ago? I was honestly anticipating having to defend my position a little more! And was kinda looking forward to it...

One note here... everyone against the law seems to be against it in principle ... but I have yet to see a feasible ALTERNATIVE being proposed here (at least in the last 20 pages) that would change an unsustainable system into something with better medical outcomes and improved access to care.

If someone did post an alternative a hundred pages or so back, then I apologize!

Going on memory alone, I believe several people made reference to France's system. However, basically any other country has a system that works better for most people than ours.

I thought that the US had 85-90% of its citizens currently covered by health insurance.

Close, but not correct. Census showed 16.3 people were uninsured in 2010 -- and that would have been higher if CHIP programs had not largely expanded. In other words, tax payers were picking up more of the insurance costs that insurers had dumped already.

Interestingly, 85-90% of those without health insurance also are without a Social Security number....

[Phatscotty]

Hospitals and businesses are just going to have to hire new people to do even more governmental paperwork.

Yeah, and the fact that they might have more patients is utterly irrelevant. They are just SOOO not looking forward to the ncrease in business as many more patients can now seek care. (except, all the hospitals in my region are quite happy about this law).

I'm sure they are, at the expense of EVERY SINGLE other sector. At least you are consistent

They day the healthcare ruling came out of the supreme court, yes a lot of hospitals stocks were up, way up, for the reason you somewhat correctly acknowledged, but...... Every other part of the health care sector tanked, with a few exceptions for the insurance providers who are big enough to sleep with the government in the fascist blanket. A big one was the medical devices sector, which lost billions of dollars immediately. Guess some people are gonna be laid off eh?

and separately, while business may be up, that does not necessarily translate into more profits. Obviously, medicare and medicaid and social security and all the rest of the gov't intervention will continue shortchanging HC providers by paying them less than they are supposed to get.

The stock market tanked as a whole the moment Obamacare was upheld. Try to finish these videos, as they break down the sectors and the impacts on each one.

[jj3044]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission. A privilege, such as marriage or healthcare, is something that you need permission from a higher authority to grant you. I do not support any so called "rights" that involve taking something from anyone else. I simply view that as anti-Liberty, and that is not to comment on the level of importance or compassion for the need and how things should be redistributed, one way or another. It really is as simple as either it increases liberty or it decreases it.

Then I think that the fundamental difference here is actually what the value of a human life is to both of us here. Quick question... have you ever made a charitable donation? If so, what were the organizations and what did they stand for (or provide)?

I value human life just as much. I don't have anything against it, hold no animosity, no grudges. I might be pro-choice as for a woman deciding, but as for me I would do everything I could to dissuade an abortion out of convenience. I also value people's feelings very much. I spread happiness on a daily basis wherever I can, however I can. I am always conscious of other people, never intentionally hurt anyone's feelings, and try to treat others the same way I would like to be treated, and that is something I volitionally choose to be aware of on a daily basis.

As for Charity, I make charitable donations all the time. My full time primary job is at a Charity, and I am a crucial member on a team that helps our charity grow more every year. I won't name the charities, but we are up to about 12 different charities in total, all across the country. Probably weren't expecting that eh?

What defines a human right? Are you using the U.N. definition? or the Chinese countryside village definition? Why do human rights have to be so opposite of Liberty, the way you describe it? Is not Freedom and Liberty a human right in your opinion?

Actually I am not surprised at all, and was hoping that was your response so I could bring up this point:

If you give to charities and treat people as you would like to be treated, why are you against the provision of this law expanding medicaid and creating subsidies for those that have a hard time affording insurance, and therefore do not have insurance (freeloaders aside)? What if you happen to fall on hard times, was laid off, and unable to purchase your own insurance? Wouldn't you want this program available to you?

This is a separate point from my last point of having to pay into a system that everyone uses...

[Timminz]

Has anyone mentioned yet that George Washington, himself, mandated certain purchases? Kind of gives an interesting twist to parts of this monstrously-complex discussion, doesn't it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... -mandates/

[Phatscotty]

I am saying healthcare is not a basic human right. We have to do a definition check right from the start though. A right is something you do not need from someone else, it's not something material, you do not need permission. A privilege, such as marriage or healthcare, is something that you need permission from a higher authority to grant you. I do not support any so called "rights" that involve taking something from anyone else. I simply view that as anti-Liberty, and that is not to comment on the level of importance or compassion for the need and how things should be redistributed, one way or another. It really is as simple as either it increases liberty or it decreases it.

Then I think that the fundamental difference here is actually what the value of a human life is to both of us here. Quick question... have you ever made a charitable donation? If so, what were the organizations and what did they stand for (or provide)?

I value human life just as much. I don't have anything against it, hold no animosity, no grudges. I might be pro-choice as for a woman deciding, but as for me I would do everything I could to dissuade an abortion out of convenience. I also value people's feelings very much. I spread happiness on a daily basis wherever I can, however I can. I am always conscious of other people, never intentionally hurt anyone's feelings, and try to treat others the same way I would like to be treated, and that is something I volitionally choose to be aware of on a daily basis.

As for Charity, I make charitable donations all the time. My full time primary job is at a Charity, and I am a crucial member on a team that helps our charity grow more every year. I won't name the charities, but we are up to about 12 different charities in total, all across the country. Probably weren't expecting that eh?

What defines a human right? Are you using the U.N. definition? or the Chinese countryside village definition? Why do human rights have to be so opposite of Liberty, the way you describe it? Is not Freedom and Liberty a human right in your opinion?

Actually I am not surprised at all, and was hoping that was your response so I could bring up this point:

If you give to charities and treat people as you would like to be treated, why are you against the provision of this law expanding medicaid and creating subsidies for those that have a hard time affording insurance, and therefore do not have insurance (freeloaders aside)? What if you happen to fall on hard times, was laid off, and unable to purchase your own insurance? Wouldn't you want this program available to you?

This is a separate point from my last point of having to pay into a system that everyone uses...

there is no part of me that feels that taking something from someone else because of how much I need it is part of treating people the way I would want to be treated. and another thing, there are a few provisions in Obamacare that are popular, had bi-partisan support, and even common sense (as I notice you are bombarding me with them) I don't think you hit me with the 26 year old still on mommies insurance plan (which just makes mom pay more) but I bet it was the next thing you'd bring up. My point here is these things could and should have been passed individually or in a smaller package, preferably one that did not require the Supreme Court to weigh in.....

Overall, it has nothing to do with how I feel or don't feel about someone who cannot afford insurance, and EVERYTHING with how I DO feel about states and federal governments which, in exactly the same way, cannot afford our current medicaid obligations, and have to borrow just to meet them.

Bankrupting us all and enslaving us all to debt in order to protect the least fortunate amongst us from going bankrupt is not the answer.

and if I happened to fall on hard times, then.....I fell on hard times. I would not expect to inflict my hard times onto someone else. And I really do not grant that "this program", in it's entirety, would fix any of my problems, but I do hold it creates more problems for others.