[TidesHoss32]

I have officially lost all faith in our government. I gave up on this bunch in Washington a long time ago, but FORCING healthcare on American people? And the IRS issuing fines of over $2000 if THEY dont approve of your healthcare plan? Someone tell me this is a nightmare. Or please tell me that I am wrong in the information Ive received. Ill welcome it. Government funded abortions (murder)? This is what the country has become? What is our greatest generation thinking right now? Well over 400,000 from this country alone gave their lives over 60 years ago so we can continue to be free, and not be FORCED to do anything against our will. Shame on Washington.

[thecavemaster]

I have officially lost all faith in our government. I gave up on this bunch in Washington a long time ago, but FORCING healthcare on American people? And the IRS issuing fines of over $2000 if THEY dont approve of your healthcare plan? Someone tell me this is a nightmare. Or please tell me that I am wrong in the information Ive received. Ill welcome it. Government funded abortions (murder)? This is what the country has become? What is our greatest generation thinking right now? Well over 400,000 from this country alone gave their lives over 60 years ago so we can continue to be free, and not be FORCED to do anything against our will. Shame on Washington.

Lighten up, Francis.

[Mr.Kimball]

Lighten up, Francis.

No, he's right. What is right and constitutional about being "forced" to buy something in this country.

What's next?

[thecavemaster]

No, he's right. What is right and constitutional about being "forced" to buy something in this country.

What's next?

"What is Armageddon"? Lighten up, Francis Jr.

[Mr.Kimball]

"What is Armageddon"? Lighten up, Francis Jr.

I prefer that you answer what is "right" and "constitutional".

[thecavemaster]

I prefer that you answer what is "right" and "constitutional".

If by your behavior, i.e. smoking and/or not wearing seat belts etc., you "spill over" costs to society that are unsustainable, I'm not sure "right" or "constitutional" apply. How 'bout this: all smokers sign a waiver that says, "I'm going to smoke, dadgummit, and when I get cancer, I agree to get no treatment that I can't pay for. I don't want non-smokers to have to pay for my habit." Don't that tickle your "personal responsibility" streak, Kimball?

[Mr.Kimball]

[FONT=System]If by your behavior, i.e. smoking and/or not wearing seat belts etc., you "spill over" costs to society that are unsustainable, I'm not sure "right" or "constitutional" apply. How 'bout this: all smokers sign a waiver that says, "I'm going to smoke, dadgummit, and when I get cancer, I agree to get no treatment that I can't pay for. I don't want non-smokers to have to pay for my habit." Don't that tickle your "personal responsibility" streak, Kimball?[/FONT]

As an avid, "anti" of tobacco use, I'm not so sure that I dont disagree with that.


But that is not the issue. It is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force anyone to have buy a good or service in this country.

[lawrencefan]

How about some personal responsibility for your own health care coverage?

[vundy33]

I smoke, and I love it!


But yeah, I hate this **** too.

[thecavemaster]

As an avid, "anti" of tobacco use, I'm not so sure that I dont disagree with that.


But that is not the issue. It is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force anyone to have buy a good or service in this country.

Driver's license? Hunting license? Fishing license? Paying for the privilege of doing the activity... not so far fetched removed from the situation at hand.

[Mr.Kimball]

Driver's license? Hunting license? Fishing license? Paying for the privilege of doing the activity... not so far fetched removed from the situation at hand.

Ah, but there is a huge difference. They cannot even remotely be compared to one another. The key word here is "privilege". All things that you just mentioned are elective situations/ activities that we have the "privilege" of participating in. When you get your driver's license it plainly states in the study manual that driving a car is a privilege and not a right. I'm correct on that, aren't I? No one in this country is forced to own/drive a car, fish for bass, or to kill a deer.

This bill plainly states that you must buy a product or service from a "private sector firm" for the only reason being that you have been born. That is neither "right" nor IMO, "constitutional". I guess we'll find out about the constitutional part as I suspect it's legality will be challenged by several states, from what I am understanding.

[thecavemaster]

Ah, but there is a huge difference. They cannot even remotely be compared to one another. The key word here is "privilege". All things that you just mentioned are elective situations/ activities that we have the "privilege" of participating in. When you get your driver's license it plainly states in the study manual that driving a car is a privilege and not a right. I'm correct on that, aren't I? No one in this country is forced to own/drive a car, fish for bass, or to kill a deer.

This bill plainly states that you must buy a product or service from a "private sector firm" for the only reason being that you have been born. That is neither "right" nor IMO, "constitutional". I guess we'll find out about the constitutional part as I suspect it's legality will be challenged by several states, from what I am understanding.

If a person rolls the dice, reasons I'm young, I'm careful etc. etc. and chooses to have no health insurance, does society, then, have an obligation to bail them out on that choice when often expensive emergency care is needed? If an adult refuses to carry medical insurance (for whatever reason) even though it is made affordable to them, how, then, is society to respond when that same person gets injured or ill?

[BillyB]

As an avid, "anti" of tobacco use, I'm not so sure that I dont disagree with that.


But that is not the issue. It is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force anyone to have buy a good or service in this country.

It's an additional income tax if you don't carry health ins coverage. If you choose not to, you will drive up the costs on the rest of us and I don't want to pay for an irresponsible decision to decline health ins. Those refusing health insurance drive up the costs of everyone else because:

* If you can't pay your health care expenses the rest of us will pay them through increased taxes or higher costs with the provider that has to eat the loss.
* The more in the underwriting pool the lower the cost for the rest of us.
* The individual mandate on the insurers to keep the cost of health ins down or risk a political backlash that would bring regulation and price control of their product.

[Mr.Kimball]

If a person rolls the dice, reasons I'm young, I'm careful etc. etc. and chooses to have no health insurance, does society, then, have an obligation to bail them out on that choice when often expensive emergency care is needed? If an adult refuses to carry medical insurance (for whatever reason) even though it is made affordable to them, how, then, is society to respond when that same person gets injured or ill?

First off, society already does that. In an emergency situation there is no hospital anywhere in this country that will refuse a person in a grave condition, and you know that.

Secondly, what is affordable, and what is not affordable? People have the tendency to buy all of the latest technological gadgets or participate in whatever expensive forms of entertainment they may choose, and then claim "insurance buying abilities" impossible. I know that you being a resident of eastern Kentucky, see blatant examples of what I am referring to. How do you measure the impact of someones failure to recognize priorities and then state what is affordable or unaffordable?


BTW, Massachusetts residents claim that their health insurance premiums have gone up since their state mandated program went into effect.

[Mr.Kimball]

It's an additional income tax if you don't carry health ins coverage. If you choose not to, you will drive up the costs on the rest of us and I don't want to pay for an irresponsible decision to decline health ins. Those refusing health insurance drive up the costs of everyone else because:

* If you can't pay your health care expenses the rest of us will pay them through increased taxes or higher costs with the provider that has to eat the loss.
* The more in the underwriting pool the lower the cost for the rest of us.
* The individual mandate on the insurers to keep the cost of health ins down or risk a political backlash that would bring regulation and price control of their product.

I'm not agreeing with that at all. It's only cheaper if those that particpate are of of a healthy nature. This is not a business that thrives on sheer volume driving costs down. This aint Sam's Club, where is costs the same for a manufacturer to delivery a fully loaded truck as it does a half loaded truck of products. Unhealthy particpants actually drive up the costs. It works in reversal to what you are stating.

[thecavemaster]

First off, society already does that. In an emergency situation there is no hospital anywhere in this country that will refuse a person in a grave condition, and you know that.

Secondly, what is affordable, and what is not affordable? People have the tendency to buy all of the latest technological gadgets or participate in whatever expensive forms of entertainment they may choose, and then claim "insurance buying abilities" impossible. I know that you being a resident of eastern Kentucky, see blatant examples of what I am referring to. How do you measure the impact of someones failure to recognize priorities and then state what is affordable or unaffordable?


BTW, Massachusetts residents claim that their health insurance premiums have gone up since their state mandated program went into effect.

Kimball, me and you probably agree on this: allowing people who are capable of accepting responsibility for their own lives to "opt out" harms the individual and society.... I would like to see welfare reform where a person who gets a job gets to keep certain benefits, which would, ultimately, lead to savings. As it is now, welfare recepients often "lose" money by going to work. We, as a society, could be much wiser in our policies.

[Mr.Kimball]

Kimball, me and you probably agree on this: allowing people who are capable of accepting responsibility for their own lives to "opt out" harms the individual and society.... I would like to see welfare reform where a person who gets a job gets to keep certain benefits, which would, ultimately, lead to savings. As it is now, welfare recepients often "lose" money by going to work. We, as a society, could be much wiser in our policies.

That is exactly right. Thus the mutitude of those recieving assistance benefits who are more than willing to work for cash. It also applies to many unemployment recipitants who dont attempt to find a job until the very last moment that they are not able to keep drawing their unemployment benefits. I have offered countless people over the years jobs that were at that time unemployed only to be told that if I had something open when they ran out of unemployment they might be interested. Also, you would not believe the amount of people that I have call, "not show up" mind you, asking for a job knowing that I may not be currently hiring someone. It's part of the process where you have to show your intent of finding employment. It's abused to no end.

[thecavemaster]

That is exactly right. Thus the mutitude of those recieving assistance benefits who are more than willing to work for cash. It also applies to many unemployment recipitants who dont attempt to find a job until the very last moment that they are not able to keep drawing their unemployment benefits. I have offered countless people over the years jobs that were at that time unemployed only to be told that if I had something open when they ran out of unemployment they might be interested. Also, you would not believe the amount of people that I have call, "not show up" mind you, asking for a job knowing that I may not be currently hiring someone. It's part of the process where you have to show your intent of finding employment. It's abused to no end.

In my opinion, we need to revisit the whole issue, take a long look at what behaviors we want as a society and find ways to make those behaviors more lucrative than their opposite. There will always be those who "dog" the system, no matter how devised, but I think smarter, more efficient programs can be designed if folks get on the same page and realize that "here's something for nothing" is bad for individual dignity and society.

[Hoot Gibson]

I have officially lost all faith in our government. I gave up on this bunch in Washington a long time ago, but FORCING healthcare on American people? And the IRS issuing fines of over $2000 if THEY dont approve of your healthcare plan? Someone tell me this is a nightmare. Or please tell me that I am wrong in the information Ive received. Ill welcome it. Government funded abortions (murder)? This is what the country has become? What is our greatest generation thinking right now? Well over 400,000 from this country alone gave their lives over 60 years ago so we can continue to be free, and not be FORCED to do anything against our will. Shame on Washington.

Don't lose faith, Hoss. There are many setbacks ahead for Obamacare and for the rest of his leftist agenda. More than 30 states are working on lawsuits asserting that the federal government cannot compel their citizens to buy health care insurance and these suits will be firmly based on several constitutional points, not the least of which is the Tenth Amendment. Some states have either already passed laws prohibiting the federal government from compelling their citizens to participate in Obamacare or are preparing to do so.

In addition, the Reconciliation bill has some rough sailing ahead in the Senate and the Senate Parliamentarian is likely to rule several parts of the bill ineligible for reconciliation, which will force the idiot Joe Biden to either overrule somebody who knows how to do his job or else make the House Democrats vote on the bill again, without all of the "fixes" in place.

[Joe Friday]

I have officially lost all faith in our government. I gave up on this bunch in Washington a long time ago, but FORCING healthcare on American people? And the IRS issuing fines of over $2000 if THEY dont approve of your healthcare plan? Someone tell me this is a nightmare. Or please tell me that I am wrong in the information Ive received. Ill welcome it. Government funded abortions (murder)? This is what the country has become? What is our greatest generation thinking right now? Well over 400,000 from this country alone gave their lives over 60 years ago so we can continue to be free, and not be FORCED to do anything against our will. Shame on Washington.

[COLOR="Green"]Hoot has pointed out the legal procedures being pursued by the states. Michelle Bachmann is a fighter and a strong conservative. She is leading the fight to repeal Obamacare! Now is the time to make sure we get a Republican majority in 2010 and 2012 and a Republican President in 2012. This is the time to stand up for what is right! Let's make sure this is not forgotten now and in November![/COLOR]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...re-reform/

[Hoot Gibson]

Driver's license? Hunting license? Fishing license? Paying for the privilege of doing the activity... not so far fetched removed from the situation at hand.

I hereby nominate this analogy for the Hall of Fame of Bad Analogies. Are you forced to drive a core? Are you forced to fish and does the federal government issue fishing licenses? Yes, your analogy is very far fetched. You can do better, can't you?

[thecavemaster]

I hereby nominate this analogy for the Hall of Fame of Bad Analogies. Are you forced to drive a core? Are you forced to fish and does the federal government issue fishing licenses? Yes, your analogy is very far fetched. You can do better, can't you?

Given the earller posts, I'm not so sure the "pay to play" analogy is that far fetched. You don't believe healthcare is a right, correct? If not a right, then what is it? Is it a privilege one gets if one has insurance? or cash to put in the doctor's hand? However, if healthcare is a right, then the analogy isn't worth thinking about. So, maybe you've changed your mind...

[Hoot Gibson]

Given the earller posts, I'm not so sure the "pay to play" analogy is that far fetched. You don't believe healthcare is a right, correct? If not a right, then what is it? Is it a privilege one gets if one has insurance? or cash to put in the doctor's hand? However, if healthcare is a right, then the analogy isn't worth thinking about. So, maybe you've changed your mind...

Of course health care is a right. You should be free to buy the best medical care that you can afford. If somebody else is willing to voluntarily buy health care for you, then you have a right to accept their charity. You also (should) have the right to purchase any type of health insurance that you want to purchase, from full coverage to coverage against catastrophic illness. Nobody has a right to force somebody else to pay for their health care.

Socialists have a very difficult time distinguishing between their property and the property of others and they also seem perplexed about the considerable difference between a right and a privilege.

As Lady Thatcher said, "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

[thecavemaster]

Of course health care is a right. You should be free to buy the best medical care that you can afford. If somebody else is willing to voluntarily buy health care for you, then you have a right to accept their charity. You also (should) have the right to purchase any type of health insurance that you want to purchase, from full coverage to coverage against catastrophic illness. Nobody has a right to force somebody else to pay for their health care.

Socialists have a very difficult time distinguishing between their property and the property of others and they also seem perplexed about the considerable difference between a right and a privilege.

You describe a commodity, my Brother, not a right. Rights are not bought and sold on the market. If a rich man lives, but a poor man dies, given their relative abilities to pay for "cadillac" healthcare, it is disingenuous of you to argue that that is a "right" in any sense of the word. Your nonsensical discussion of "property" and "considerable difference" notwithstanding.

[Hoot Gibson]

You describe a commodity, my Brother, not a right. Rights are not bought and sold on the market. If a rich man lives, but a poor man dies, given their relative abilities to pay for "cadillac" healthcare, it is disingenuous of you to argue that that is a "right" in any sense of the word. Your nonsensical discussion of "property" and "considerable difference" notwithstanding.

The concepts of private property and unalienable Rights seem to be foreign concepts to you, CM. Yet you bristle with indignation when anybody suggests that Obama's supporters are supporting a socialist. Given your confusion, I am beginning to see how you might support Obama and yet not realize that you are supporting socialism. It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[thecavemaster]

The concepts of private property and unalienable Rights seem to be foreign concepts to you, CM. Yet you bristle with indignation when anybody suggest that Obama's supporters are supporting a socialist. I think therein lies your problem...

Are you suggesting healthcare is property? Barack Obama is not a socialist as you use the term, my Friend. You selectively read the Founders, I'm afraid, if you read them at all... or do you simply take the talking heads' word for what they said and wrote?

[Hoot Gibson]

Are you suggesting healthcare is property? Barack Obama is not a socialist as you use the term, my Friend. You selectively read the Founders, I'm afraid, if you read them at all... or do you simply take the talking heads' word for what they said and wrote?

The money or goods bartered for health care is property. Health care is a collection of services that should be dispensed as the provider of those services sees fit. The federal government should not dictate both sides of such transactions, as it will do under Obamacare.

The Founding Fathers warned us about politicians like Obama, who would attempt to undo their good work, and they warned us about the type of lemmings that would follow such would-be despots.

[thecavemaster]

The money or goods bartered for health care is property. Health care is a collection of services that should be dispensed as the provider of those services sees fit. The federal government should not dictate both sides of such transactions, as it will do under Obamacare.

The Founding Fathers warned us about politicians like Obama, who would attempt to undo their good work, and they warned us about the type of lemmings that would follow such would-be despots.

Thus, from your own trembling fingers, healthcare is a collection of services, dispensed by the monied elite. (The connection between the monied elite and the ruling elite is fodder for another thread). Barack Obama is not Caesaresque, relevant because many of the Founders read and re-read the stories of ancient Rome. He seeks not tyranny nor to be a tyrant. The Founders warned us against tryants and would-be tyrants. Barack Obama doesn't want people to go broke because they get sick, die unnecessarily because they can't afford healthcare, lose everything because the Big Banks fail. As for the European rodents who practice mass migrations into the sea, perhaps they have eaten the cheese of your hackery.

[Hoot Gibson]

Thus, from your own trembling fingers, healthcare is a collection of services, dispensed by the monied elite. (The connection between the monied elite and the ruling elite is fodder for another thread). Barack Obama is not Caesaresque, relevant because many of the Founders read and re-read the stories of ancient Rome. He seeks not tyranny nor to be a tyrant. The Founders warned us against tryants and would-be tyrants. Barack Obama doesn't want people to go broke because they get sick, die unnecessarily because they can't afford healthcare, lose everything because the Big Banks fail. As for the European rodents who practice mass migrations into the sea, perhaps they have eaten the cheese of your hackery.

:lmao: Moneyed elite? How Marxian of you! Working to earn money to provide for one's health is not an endeavor limited to "elites." Is everybody who works to earn a living a "moneyed elite" to you Obama sycophants? Your constant drone of class warfare rhetoric would make Obama or even Marx proud!

[thecavemaster]

:lmao: Moneyed elite? How Marxian of you! Working to earn money to provide for one's health is not an endeavor limited to "elites." Is everybody who works to earn a living a "moneyed elite" to you Obama sycophants? Your constant drone of class warfare would make Obama or even Marx proud!

Oh, no, Hoot, not so fast. Big Insurance has board rooms. And those who sit at the table, in the soft leather chairs, and make decisions about who gets dropped and who gets care, these folks are not to be mistaken for those who work and receive insurance as a benefit. To understand that there is a monied elite, is that Marxist? Well, then call John the Revelator a Marxist. John the Baptist a Marxist. Paul the Apostle a Marxist. There is a monied elite. There was a monied elite. There will always be a monied elite.