The GOP says "no" to healthcare coverage for many Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
SmarterThanYou said:
no, there is no state constitutional authority for them to require me to buy a product or service as well. I feel the same way about auto insurance, there is no authority for them to require it, same as a drivers license or yearly registration fee...
Click to expand...

So SmarterThanFew drives without a license or insurance? What about plates?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, there is no state constitutional authority for them to require me to buy a product or service as well. I feel the same way about auto insurance, there is no authority for them to require it, same as a drivers license or yearly registration fee. you morons want to continue to believe that the government is implementing all this crap to keep you safe if you want to. you are our own worst enemy. the state is bilking us of our hard earned money through all of this crap. I don't understand why you just don't sign your damned paycheck over to uncle sam on a weekly basis since you're all so fired up to hand him money.
Click to expand...

The government is insuring our safety by insisting people have auto insurance. Suppose you get injured by someone who has no money. Couple that with the current "pay or suffer" medical system along with welfare payments on par with third world incomes and....you may as well load the trusty 44.
 
apple0154 said:
The government is insuring our safety by insisting people have auto insurance. Suppose you get injured by someone who has no money. Couple that with the current "pay or suffer" medical system along with welfare payments on par with third world incomes and....you may as well load the trusty 44.
Click to expand...

At least he's consistent. I hate when cons say that it's overreach for the federal government but it'd be totally okay of the states want to do it.

It's bullshit justification for Romney's health care plan, and why it's totally different than Obama's.

At least he's not a hypocrite.
 
apple0154 said:
The scum bags know once the Affordable Health Care Act goes into full effect they can kiss that fight good-bye. Come 2016 they better revamp their party or be delegated a has-been political entity.

Obama's accomplishment hasn't been fully realized yet. Once the people actually experience affordable health care any opponent will be considered a dinosaur.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing, and Conservatives take advantage it all the time....


Americans have a very short attention span, once the AHCA is fully realized and people LOVE it, the Republicans will pretend they were always for it. Look at Medicare and how they opposed it, not they are scared to death to talk about it, and will pretend they were always for it.
 
Rana said:
Will you comply if the State does it instead of the Feds? In Alaska proof of insurance has to be in your vehicle at all times while driving. If you are stopped and have no insurance it results in a fine.
Click to expand...

Same here in Florida.
 
Hawaii has required employers to provide coverage for workers who are employed 20 + hours per week since 1974...
 
\(())/ said:
Hawaii has required employers to provide coverage for workers who are employed 20 + hours per week since 1974...
Click to expand...

Which you have tried to equate to a mandate that you personally buy something, or else.

Again, this is far more like the Japanese model than a more European centralized model. I would prefer to copy the Japanese model (prefer, look it up before you respond) than to copy a centralized European model.

I believe that the US is uniquely positioned to find an excellent solution by allowing states to come up with different solutions until we find the most successful ones and repeat them in other states.
 
\(())/ said:
I have? When?
Click to expand...

In the thread where you said Hawaii requires this and that it is the "same" as Obamacare. I pointed out that it was more like the Japanese model, you asked about it...

I can go on, but you have to be seriously and completely incapable of memory to continue in this vein.
 
Damocles said:
In the thread where you said Hawaii requires this and that it is the "same" as Obamacare. I pointed out that it was more like the Japanese model, you asked about it... I can go on, but you have to be seriously and completely incapable of memory to continue in this vein.
Click to expand...

Please, go on...link up.
 
\(())/ said:
Ah, it was Romneycare I asked if it was the model for....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...aii-the-model-for-Romneycare&highlight=hawaii
Click to expand...

And your answer when I pointed out the differences was:

Really? How so? Is that in my OP somewhere, since you think you read the stuff I post and claim I don't?


Looks to me like Japan has universal health care - or what US righties call "Socialism".
Click to expand...

To which I answered:

Japan requires all employers to supply health care, much like Hawaii. Unlike the more socialized European Model.
 
Damocles said:
And your answer when I pointed out the differences was: To which I answered: Japan requires all employers to supply health care, much like Hawaii. Unlike the more socialized European Model.
Click to expand...

So I didn't say what you claimed I did?
 
\(())/ said:
So I didn't say what you claimed I did?
Click to expand...

What did I say you said?

I simply pointed out that you had previously compared it with a "buy insurance or else" program. You did. I concisely and accurately described the thread contents in a few short lines.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Can you read? I didn't say there was one. I said, specifically, "The legal precendent for insurance mandates exist." Where did I mention either health care or the federal government in that sentence? I didn't. Learn how how to read dude.

Insurance mandates exist for those who drive automobiles and they exist for certain businesses, banks for example. These are established legal precedents.
Click to expand...

No such mandate specifically lists a group of big company winners and force you to purchase any of that insurance. All of the precedent is different than this, it is unique in the fact that the federal government creates a list of acceptable insurance companies from which you must purchase a product that the government chooses for you "or else".

All argument that "the right" supported it, ignores the two decades that passed between them playing with the idea and rejecting it long before Obama started carrying that water. I find it astounding that your argument would be that "the right" thought it was cool so we all should....

The right noticed all these problems they are bringing up, and dropped the idea mostly because of the idea that it may be unconstitutional to force you to buy something they elect for you after listing the "winning" companies you must purchase it from. Cronyism at its best.
 
Damocles said:
What did I say you said? I simply pointed out that you had previously compared it with a "buy insurance or else" program. You did. I concisely and accurately described the thread contents in a few short lines.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
... you said Hawaii requires this and that it is the "same" as Obamacare...
Click to expand...

Time for more dancing, Damocles?

Emi0l.gif
 
\(())/ said:
Time for more dancing, Damocles?
Click to expand...

I know you like to dance, but again I refuse. Yes, you said that through implication. Then you abandoned your thread when you found out that your assumption was wrong. You try to pretend your opinion doesn't show through because you try to avoid making direct statements.

Of course I noticed you ignored the other post where I actually described what happened in that thread. I'm pretty sure that's when you were putting on the dancing shoes.

I'll leave you to the dancing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top