Unless healthcare reform comes with tort reform, loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses, and jobs programs for the administrative staff who will be laid off -- healthcare is always going to "be a business" in the United States. There are too many common people invested in the system. It (the healthcare industry) is the largest employer in our economy, doctors have high malpractice fees and student loans which means they need to make a lot of money or otherwise we'd have the same doctor shortages that Britain and Canada have, so on and so forth. There are ways costs can be reduced though by making prices transparent, uniform, and reducing drug overregulation. Also by incentivising preventative care and disincentivising luxury care. 

I am totally in favor of that. In Portugal for example, the President doesn't have any executive power and calls forth the leader of the most voted party to form government. This government won't pass without having a majority in the parliment, wich often means alliances must be made.

In the US model, these consensus are not necessary because it's either one party or the other that has the majority in the senate and the president actually has executive powers. Though with that said, i was having issue with the electoral college system wich is think is very anti-democratic. When electing someone in democracy, every vote has to weight the same regardless of who you are and where in the country you live (aslong as old enough). That is what i find most offensive about the system. Just because i don't consider it democratic.

Anti-democratic is ideal, no group should have too much power in a representative republic and the electoral college is a good fail-safe for preventing voter fraud since swing states are monitored much more heavily ... (Just because the rest of the americans don't fall inline with the either of the coastal elites such as California or New York doesn't make them any less american.) 

Can a majoritarian decmoracy be trusted to hold the integrity of the judiciary branch such as holding up a precedent without having feelings sway court rulings ? No ... 

Can a majoritarian democracy be directly trusted with legislative powers where they have the ability to change national laws and the very consititution itself to protect the rights of the minority ? Absolutely not ... 

Do you try to renege on the state legislatures of their right to elect executive powers as granted originally by all other state legislatures ? Then how can a union be justified at that point if we don't want to if we don't respect the other member's states consensus ? 

A government needs to be consistent (need a constitution and a court), stable (keep feelings of the masses at bay), decentralized (respect notions of federalism) and seperated (have distinct branches) in order for a sovereign nation to prosper in peace and I believe the founding fathers understood tyranny better than anyone else ... (afterall they were the ones who designed our very institutions to indefinitely last) 

It is not by accident that all states have equal constitutional powers to ratify amendments ... 

B...but they said it'd stop liberals and the illuminati's attempt to use SJW's and Muslims to kill the white men! 

See, that doesn't make sense. If every vote is equal no group will have a bigger weight. They will have the same weight. But above all, they are all american's right? Why are you considering these groups above beeing americans? It makes no sense to me. That's what old monarchies and dictatorships do. You have special groups that hold more power in those systems and their voice carries more weight than the average people. Out of principle i disagree with that. Equality is the principle of true democracy.

I think the other things you mention are a product of the 2 party system and not spreading power accordingly. I also think the current system doesn't work because of those reasons. The power gets heavily dumped in just 2 parties. The judiciary system should be completely independant from the executive power. It's amazing how the president and senate designate who the top judges should be. Does that not stink of corruption to you?

Well... i can tell you that in the portuguese system you need 2 thirds of the assembly  to be in favor to make constitutional changes (it then has to go through presidential and court aproval). Governmants obviously put forth laws on their politics and these need to go through the assembly to be aproved aswell, but just require a majority. Not massively different than what happens in the US, but theres more parties and therefore the parties have to come to agreements that represent the people.

Tbh i don't understand the states thing. The states were lines drawn in a map. They were never individual countries with their own independance. The states are simply regions created for local government. I don't know what makes one think that state X is more important than state Y for an election.

And btw majority governments are totally legitimate because they represent the will of the majority of the citizens. 

It sounds to me that the system is lost in these virtual states rather than beeing focused in the country. It seems designed to create discord and divide, wich is why it keeps showing cracks. Again, this all made sense when information wasn't so acessable and there may have been need to protect some states, but now it's outdated. I really have to disagree.

Like... the part that says "keep the feelings of the masses at bay". Why? The masses are the citizens, they should be the representatives of the citizens. If the masses are complaining you should probably listen to them, not ignore them.

Oh... one other thing is saying that the system is made to compensate electoral fraud. That is also wrong in principle. The system shouldn't be trying to make those changes, voter fraud should be eliminated. Again, something that would be impossible to enforce in the past, but with proper overseeing could be enforced today. Unfortunely i can see how corruption could happen in certain states given the established local power may try to misuse it's power. But then that's where the police comes in... but again the FBI director is nominated by the guy the president nominates. It's a web of corruption if you ask me.

As an American I fully support your non-existent 1st ammendment right to look like a complete ••••ing idiot by not understanding how American healthcare system functions and why costs are so messed up here. 

I will clear up a few issues for you pathetic types who have no answers and feel the need to •••s on our healthcare system.

First we have to consider the way insurance works in America (I won't attempt to speak for foreign companies because I don't want to look as dumb as you just did and I don't want to do all that research right now). In America many insurer's are charging the government for your prescription medications, dental, vision and other medical services. These companies still have stages of coverage.

STAGES OF COVERAGE:

Deductible stage- In this stage of coverage you the beneficiary of an insurance plan are (in many but not all cases) responsible for the full cost of any prescriptions and medical services until the deductible is paid. The deductible stage starts at $0 and commonly ends at $500 but can be larger. Not all plans have a deductible stage for those that don't beneficiaries are in initial coverage until the costs th plan and beneficiaries pay exceeds the initial coverage limit for their plan.

Initial coverage stage- In this stage of coverage many procedures and meds fall in to payment categories where the beneficiary pays a flat copay until the cost that you and the insurance company pays reaches the coverage gap. This stage is often times very short especially if you have diabetes or a serious illness that requires regular maintenance medications or hospitalization - starts when deductible stage ends usually goes through $2,500 though some insurers and plans may offer greater coverage.

The coverage gap (yes, that's what insurance companies call it)- This is the point in the coverage where the beneficiary is responsible for a huge portion of their own procedures and medications costs. On many plans this isn't a particularly long stage, however since some medicines especially those pesky maintenance meds like insulin for  those who have diabetes cost hundreds of dollars. This makes it hard for many people to afford. There are options for people who can't afford their medications provided by the manufacturers of patients medications though not everyone qualifies for these benefits. This stage starts when the initial coverage ends and ends commonly around $5,000-$10,000.

After you run through those stages of coverage there is one final stage... Catastrophic coverage.

In catastrophic coverage the insurance company covers the majority of medical and prescription drug costs with tier copays for some services set to either a flat copay or a percentage... This has it's own set of inherit problems as some procedures and medicines are so ludicrously expensive that the beneficiary can wind up paying thousands for a single prescription or service in this stage... 

Most insurers plans reset at the start of the year (January 1st), but it gets far more complicated. There are crossover payments that I will not confuse you with and many intricacies that Vox news and liberal sources simply won't tell you about regarding the reasons why costs are out of control. There is also a very simple fact that many individuals will not see the coverage gap at all staying in initial coverage the entire year.

ACA - AKA: "ObamaCare":

When the government starts covering the costs and plans still operate in the same way the loser is the consumer. As you might have guessed by now I used to work for one of America's largest insurance companies. I KNOW EXACTLY HOW INSURANCE COMPANIES WORK. I also know why these things coat so much. R&D and non-payment (yes due in part to illegal immigration) all affect costs of American health care, but the biggest cost hike occured when Affordable Care Act started. I was still working for an insurance company when that happened. Employees received new information about how The ACA would impact our customers. In short plans were changed and coat shot up for nearly all medications.

Was this the fault of insurance companies? No, as manufatures of medications and hospitals were well aware they can benefit drastically by charging what ever they want for their goods and services by charging the government while using averages on a spreadsheet to declare that the insured won't suffer any repercussions of these greedy propositions they increased the costs of nearly everything. I actually applauded the •••holes who raised the costs of meds hundreds of percent and not because they raised the costs of meds by ridiculous amounts but because they DIDN'T LIE ABOUT THE REASON WHY THEY CHOSE TO RAISE THE PRICE!

It's simple it isn't cheap to make a medication but as the patents expire and generics become available costs decline... When the government intervened businesses (including hospitals) jumped on the money train. The ACA was and is indeed a disaster that raised the costs of medications to ridiculous highs. ACA isn't even as cheap as other plans were before the ACA was even implemented. Before The ACA plan premiums topped out at $90-$100 per month on more expensive plans while under the ACA plan premiums started at $100/mo! Since open enrollment in ACA plans started in October 2013 ACA plan premiums have increased by over 300% on average nationwide!

On top of those ridiculous increases in plan premiums medication costs continue to rise unhindered by the closure and shrinking of freemarket insurance. The government has all but a complete monopoly in the health insurance market and hasn't fixed anything they set out to.

The ACA has so far been a failure.

The electoral college was originally intended to give slave owning states more power. Every slave counted as 3/5ths of a person under the electoral college. This was to ensure that southern states couldn't be outvoted by the more populus northern states. 

We also have the senate to help make sure that the minority isn't steamrolled in today's system, and that is a good thing. Every state gets two senators no matter what their population. This means that Republicans have a natural advantage in the Senate, and can put a stop to bad bills that arise in the House. The problem today is that the filibuster has made it so that you need a supermajority to pass anything through the Senate. This means that a single sitting Senator can effectively veto a bill. The end result is that nothing gets passed unless it is a terrible bill that makes too many concessions. 

If the ACA just needed a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate it would have been a much better bill. It probably would have been a single payer system that doesn't step on the toes of anybody that doesn't want it. Instead we get this mandate that everybody is forced to buy insurance or pay a fine. That's no way to fix the system. It's just a handout to the insurance companies. Imagine if the government mandated that everybody must get their oil changed once a month. Mechanics would rejoice. 

I don't have health insurance and pay the fine, because I've only had to go to the doctor once in the past 9 years, so it'd be a complete waste of money for me. I'm not a fan of the individual mandate because that takes money from my pocket and I don't even get any insurance for it. That said, I'll support Obamacare until anyone comes up with a better solution. Republicans tried and their plan was complete shit! Far worse than Obamacare. What congress needs to do is come up with something radically better - not likely and there is no way in hell republicans will ever do that as they're too focused on propping up the rich, or they need to amend obamacare which is the best solution and is what was always expected to happen.

No one ever thought Obamacare passed and now we never have to do anything with healthcare again. Of course it is gonna need tweaks and improvements over the years as its effects are seen. But republicans are so anti-obama that they'd rather hurt americans and pretend like its obama's and democrats fault than work to improve obamacare. At this point republicans are in control of washington, anything bad happening in the healthcare insurance world is on them 100%. They can't blame democrats for anything, they are in control of the legislature so they own this. Trump says let obamacare fail, if that even would eventually happen, it would be on Trump and the republicans for the harm it would cause because they have the power to improve obamacare but they refuse to do it for political reasons. As always, republican motto of party over country.

That's simply not true, if all vote were equal the citizens in the state of California would have more say than they do now and smaller states such as the state of Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii and Idaho ... 

These are not special groups mind you, the United States of America is a federal 'union' formed between different states. The United States of America is not a 'unitary' state ... 

If the founding fathers with their wisdom foresaw that true democracy is foolish then so is the idea of equality and I wouldn't want it any other way if it meant keeping all of the other checks and balances we have such as the senate, filibusters and the state legislatures (their there in case congress goes corrupt) ... 

The consitution wasn't specifically designed with a two party system in mind, it's just coincidence that we have two dominant parties given the incumbent vs opposition mentality everywhere ... 

Complete indepedence ? What other option do we have to entrust SCOTUS appointments to ? Should we not trust SCOTUS appointments to the president and the senate who deal with such national matters ? Just how is it corrupt when it's specifically what the constitution states ? Do you propose that we have term limits for SCOTUS appointees ? 

The american system has one more check in place to make constitutional amendments compared to Portugal ...  

That is 3/4ths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment and only then does it go into effect. (Portugal is a unitary state, the same cannot be said for america) 

You don't because you can't see the ramifications behind it ... (How can just over a hundred people in congress understand and know what over 300 million people want ? The simple answer is that they don't.) 

If states are lines drawn on a map then that goes for most jurisdictions in the world ... (The states obviously do have some sort of independence from greater america if we look at how state legislatures play into national politics. What is greater america going to do if California, Texas, Florida, New York, New England and the Midwest all decided today to simultaneously secede from the union ? Are the rest of america really going tell all the most powerful states that they can't secede or risk declaration of war ? LOL) 

America has more than one identity FWIW ... (especially if we take a look at the civil war) 

And that is specifically why we should strive for an anti-democratic system ... (legitimacy is another issue altogether that can have different approaches, afterall how is the government of Saudi Arabia (absolute monarchy), China (single party unitary republic), North Korea (hereditary military junta), old Burma (stratocracy) any less legitimate than a pure democracy ?)

Just as masses should be representatives of the citizens so should the minority as well ... (just having a majority isn't healthy, we should strive for a consensus so that multiple parties can be happy with respect to governance)

Established local power may misue it's power ? LOL, first of all local governments do not have power to choose the president. That goes to the state legislatures as vested in the constitution and mind you states don't have to necessarily give it's citizens the power to vote for pledged electors, the state governments can take that privilege away in accordance with the constitution but they won't do that in favour of making the common people happy ... (for a lot of this 'corruption' that you call out, you don't seem to know that these things are decided by precedent) 

You say this exact thing on every political thread.