Why the individual mandate philosophically is right/ or wrong

[Zebo]

Forces you to buy a defective product from guys making billions a year. It's welfare for the riches. I'm sure the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves who sought to eliminate state/industry raping of the ppl.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The first point is only to notify you that such a requirement has nothing to do with my argument.

The second is simply hand wringing for no purpose. The government hasn't suddenly 'slipped its leash'. The fact that it would have such power dates back at a minimum almost a century now. You may not have realized it before, but it's always been there. I have no idea why finally tyranny has come to our shores because the federal government decided to do the same sort of thing it has always done, but in a less coercive manner than usual.

I'm trying to remember being taxed for not buying a service from a private company. I understand you prefer this state of affairs. I do not.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm trying to remember being taxed for not buying a service from a private company. I understand you prefer this state of affairs. I am not.

/facepalm

The government could have accomplished this identical objective through means by which you would have had far less say as to the outcome and far less of a guarantee of any services whatsoever. I understand that you prefer to have a heavier hand of government, and wish to be more thoroughly coerced. You should write your congressman and request that in the future they eliminate your personal choice as much as possible.

 

[Zebo]

/facepalm

The government could have accomplished this identical objective through means by which you would have had far less say as to the outcome and far less of a guarantee of any services whatsoever. I understand that you prefer to have a heavier hand of government, and wish to be more thoroughly coerced. You should write your congressman and request that in the future they eliminate your personal choice as much as possible.

Not the same. You have to have income to be taxed. You can 'opt' out. This is a mandate to buy regardless of income.

 

[fskimospy]

Not the same. You have to have income to be taxed. You can 'opt' out. This is a mandate to buy regardless of income.

Nope. If you have no income it is provided to you free of charge.

 

[xBiffx]

Nope. If you have no income it is provided to you free of charge.

But you are still required to engage in a transaction. You still can't just sit there and live.

 

[fskimospy]

But you are still required to engage in a transaction. You still can't just sit there and live.

Surely at this point you realize just how ridiculously far you're reaching.

 

[senseamp]

Forces you to buy a defective product from guys making billions a year. It's welfare for the riches. I'm sure the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves who sought to eliminate state/industry raping of the ppl.

Thank Joe Lieberman for lack of public option.

 

[Zebo]

Nope. If you have no income it is provided to you free of charge.

Not if you have assets. And you can't opt out. You can opt out of medicare or any other free program. Apples to oranges.

 

[fskimospy]

Not if you have assets.

Oh my god, is this really how far you are reaching?

Not to mention the government already taxes assets anyway, so once again it's no different than what it already does.

 

[BoberFett]

To a statist the ends justify the means. They're greasing up the slope and don't realize or don't care. The next time some Republican uses their own precedent in a manner they don't like however, you can be sure they'll be howling in disbelief. "Oooooh, those evil Republicans, how dare they force us to buy something from the 1%!"

 

[fskimospy]

Not if you have assets. And you can't opt out. You can opt out of medicare or any other free program. Apples to oranges.

You can not opt out of payments to medicare. You can most certainly opt out of this program by declining to use it. Come on people, listen to how ridiculous you sound.

 

[senseamp]

So anything that a current crop of politicians is does is blessed by the plurality of the people before they even know what may be done. Well that justifies most everything done where an election was held. Thanks for sharing.

That is our system of government, representative democracy, we entrust our politicians to vote on our behalf. Don't like it, move to ancient Greece.

 

[Zebo]

You can not opt out of payments to medicare. You can most certainly opt out of this program by declining to use it. Come on people, listen to how ridiculous you sound.

Yes you can. All passive income is exempt from medicare. ll capital gains is exempt. Not working is exempt. This will be oly tax in history you can't escape and it's sole criteria is being a US citzen.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes you can. All passive income is exempt from medicare. ll capital gains is exempt. Not working is exempt. This will be oly tax in history you can't escape and it's sole criteria is being a US citzen.

Truly, tyranny has come to our shores. Now the asset heavy trust fund babies that were electing to irrationally go without health insurance despite their wealth will be forced to do something about it. I suggest a march on Washington. (I would seriously pay to see that, it would be hilarious)

This is the sad part about the internet. With no responsibility for outcomes, people feel free to hold manifestly absurd positions.

 

[Jaskalas]

It is wrong because it is tyranny.

This is the sad part about the internet. With no responsibility for outcomes, people feel free to hold manifestly absurd positions.

Conservatives stand together on this. What one half of the nation believes is not a manifestly absurd position.

 

[Zebo]

Truly, tyranny has come to our shores. Now the asset heavy trust fund babies that were electing to irrationally go without health insurance despite their wealth will be forced to do something about it. I suggest a march on Washington. (I would seriously pay to see that, it would be hilarious)

This is the sad part about the internet. With no responsibility for outcomes, people feel free to hold manifestly absurd positions.

Insurance is a rip off in case no one ever told you - they don't pay out billions in salary and have the best building in town because they are running a charity. So yeah I'd think forced to giving money to some of the richest ppl in America instead of mypoor indebted doctor directly and cut out these super rich middle men is tyranny and immoral.

It's also unprecedented and immoral you are taxed merely for existence which you had no choice in.

You will see how aburd I am when the supremes bouces this shit right back in obamas face.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

/facepalm

The government could have accomplished this identical objective through means by which you would have had far less say as to the outcome and far less of a guarantee of any services whatsoever. I understand that you prefer to have a heavier hand of government, and wish to be more thoroughly coerced. You should write your congressman and request that in the future they eliminate your personal choice as much as possible.

How about they keep their noses out of this? That would do nicely.

 

[Zebo]

PPL want to know why HC costs so much look no further than insurance companies. When you financialize things it raises prices. This was true with housing when a hairdresser could get a $700,000 loan and homes went trough the roof. It's true with public education where every idoit can get a student loan, and now has to because costs are so high due to demand. And it's true with HC.

In the 1960s your parents wrote a check to the doctor. Middle class only had catastrophic coverage. Doctors were cheap. Bankruptcy due to medical costs was extremely rare. Today thanks to comprehensive coverage, which is just another form of finacialization, seeing a doctor is very expensive. Why? Because those who have a demand for health care now can (by law) always receive it like a house or education and HC like anything else follows supply and demand.

Why you think ANYONE that has UHC, which 'insures' everyone, has price controls and fixed wages?

Our 'uniquely American solution' of insuring everyone while not regulating the supply end will be a total fail.

 

[Jaskalas]

You will see how aburd I am when the supremes bouces this shit right back in obamas face.

Wouldn't be so certain that they are on the side of the people.

Folks at the Federal government level tend to look out for themselves.

 

[Zebo]

Wouldn't be so certain that they are on the side of the people.

Folks at the Federal government level tend to look out for themselves.

Many judges already have ruled it unconstitutional and thankfully there are 5 of the same stripe on the court. Done deal.

 

[cybrsage]

Why would you assume he would say the exact opposite of what he just said?

Because the government does not currently FORCE you to buy a bus pass. But those who say it is perfectly fine to be FORCED to buy health insurance or pay a fine also must say it is perfectly fine to be FORCED to buy a bus pass or pay a fine.

Do you understand now?

 

[cybrsage]

If you wanted a better bill you should have supported having the republicans actually participate more in the formation of the bill instead of refusing because it was headed by democrats(using a republican idea).

The democrats locked them (literally) out of the discussions.

A tiny step in the right direction is better than none. No pre-existing conditions alone makes the bill worth it.

I would agree, except that this one also takes a running dive backwards after the tiny step forwards. This law is akin to hacking off your arm as the cure to having a broken arm. Yes, you no longer have a broken arm, but the cure is worse than the problem.

Then add in the tiny part about it violating the Constitution...and well, there you go, and it has to go.

 

[cybrsage]

Edit: Actually lets explore your idiotic claim further. You claim that we spend so much on defense is THE reason we are in debt:
So - lets look at the last 3 years. In the last 3 years the debt has increased by $4.7 trillion dollars. Now - if we take your defense spending as fact and we spent an average of $1 trillion on defense over the last three years taht gives us $3 trillion dollars.

Ok. Now if we were to cut EVERYTHING - every last penny from the defense budget over those last three years. We have now saved $3 trillion dollars (ignoring possible side effects of adding hundreds of thousands of unemployed and any potential negative effects that removing your entire military might have)

We would no longer have any debt because without a military, we would be invaded rather quickly. Once the US no longer existed, the debt would be gone as well.

 

[cybrsage]

the gov alredy does this with car insurance. you have to have buy it to drive. and yes many many many people HAVE to drive

FED GOV....FED GOV...FED GOV

The states are ALLOWED to do this by the Constitution, the FED GOV is not. States are allowed to mandate insurance, the FED GOV is not.

Probably best for you to go back to paying attention to what's going on with Kim Kardashian. This topic has already been discussed ad nauseum. There is a very important subtle difference between the two types of insurance. Please read.

Not even a subtle difference. The difference between a state doing something and the fed doing something is a major difference.

im all for universal health care. bring it on we need it and our country will be a whole lot better with it.

I support any state which wants to create their own universal health care. The Fed Gov should not do it. Even the EU member nations do not want the EU to create a one size fits all healthcare plan for each member nation, run by the EU...they know it would both fail AND be horrifically expensive. The same goes with the US.