The Barnyard

There's the matter of fairness. How is it fair for people to simply elect to let others pay for their healthcare because they both (A), elect not to have insurance, and (B), cannot afford to pay their medical bills out of their pockets?

The IRS is basically powerless to enforce the fine on those that don't get coverage, so I hope many people just don't pay and let the rest of you that want to pay for everyone, do so.

Both.

Hey, you folks wanted this bill, not me. I'm just going to 'conserve' my money and let you pay for it, as you wish.

I hope people allow you to do as you so desire - pay for other peoples healthcare without consequence for those that do not. So, thanks.

Why do you find that offensive? He is just adopting a position with which you obviously agree. If his rationale really offends you, then you should reconsider your support of the Obama plan. It is a prime example of leaving the "responsible among us to pay for everyone's care".

No, the Obama plan, which I only favor some parts of but that's irrelevant to this conversation, forces everyone(or imposes a small tax on, one could argue how much force that is) to have health insurance rather than taking advantage of the system to get care for free.

That's why, as I have pointed out, and many others have on this board too, the individual mandate was a conservative idea, proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, endorsed by the GOP and the US Chamber of Commerce in 1993 as an alternative to Hillarycare, bragged about by Willard Romney when he ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, and prior to Obama proposing the Affordable Care Act, introduced in a Senate Bill sponsored by almost all GOP senators in 2009 in an attempt to pre-empt Obama who they thought would propose a single-payer plan.

As a general principle...yes...but...as with Romneycare...at least one can argue for state's rights. There are 50 states so one does have an option to move. That's why I included the word "federal" in my statement. If this type of thought continues...that the federal gov. can just control the citizenry...then there is no way...zero percent chance...that our country will remain a free society. I'm really surprised that you can't see that...It doesn't matter how good Obamacare is or isn't...that to me is completely irrelevant. I just ask that everyone really think about the implications in the long term.

All the conservatives I know say Obamacare is socialism. So you read the Constitution to grant powers to the various states to implement "socialism?" If South Carolina takes over your business, like Hugo Chavez "nationalizes" things in Venezuela, that's OK because you can just move to another state?

That's what you just said, if you have an ounce of intellectual consistency.

Is that what you mean? Or are you willing to be intellectually dishonest to defend Willard? Or do you really not believe that the individual mandate is socialism?

It has to be one of those three things. Please explain.

.

I hope and pray this thing works out, but try as I might I don't see any way that is possible. Obama scares me to the core, but I don't want this plan or Obama to fail, but I see no way in hell both don't. Our current state of affairs are reflection of our governments inability to operate current social welfare programs and (considering the shape we're in) we take on this monster? Original hope and a prayer.

Every politician I've ever paid attention to lies. But what is the specific distinction you're referring to?

Wow. King Ward is now at TBS.

An old AST veteran.

On Obamas signature piece of legislation - Affordable Care Act, he stated it absolutely was not a new tax. He also stated absolutely no tax increases on families making $250k or less. Then, when his lawyers got into the SCOTUS they immediately defended this law based on taxing capabilities. It was sold to the American people, by our President, under a guise that it was not what it actually is

Nice try, but recorded history doesn't bear it out.

Obama claimed that his health care plan did not violate his pledge to not raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000. The penalty for those who don't buy health insurance was called just that, "a penalty." When the solicitor general argued the case before the Roberts Supreme Court, he claimed that the right to impose penalties and fees was protected under the Congress's broad power to tax and spend. The Roberts court agreed.

Now is that splitting hairs and trying to have it both ways by the Obama administration? Sure seems like it to me.

Now let's look at your claim that Willard was straight up with the people of Massachusetts on taxes for health care. He had promised not to raise income taxes to pay for his plan. So the plan implemented a "tax credit" for people who had health insurance. For those who still refused to buy it, it simultaneously implemented a "penalty"(Willard's term, not mine. Sound familiar?) consisting of losing that new "tax credit."

It would take verbal gymnastics worthy of Obama and Willard themselves to claim any difference in the practical veracity of their individual claims to not implement taxes in concert with health care reform.