If ObamaCare is so great

[Sir Elliot]

... why do you have to imprison people who don’t want to participate?

[pineapple skunk]

because the govt knows whats best for you

durrrrrr

[kstigs]

Right now the hospitals are footing the bill for the people who are unable to pay for health care, but the champions of Obamacare would rather the American taxpayers foot the bill instead. Seems like a good solution to me. Put a larger burden on the common man.

[Locust]

Nice copypaste, guy. You could've just quoted the article.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: If ObamaCare is so good …

I'll reply to your copypasta with a bit of my own.

Originally Posted by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/health-care-public-option_b_212187.html

any health care reform must include a "public option." This is an option for insurance that comes from the government, not from for-profit companies. Without it there really is no "reform."

This is a deal-breaker: no public option, then no anything, and we keep trying to get health care that works for the public instead of just taking our money to benefit a few.

Conservatives like to say that government is inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome, wasteful and can't compete with "the private sector." But NOW they're suddenly all worried that private businesses can't compete with government. The ONLY reason there is consideration of continuing the failed, greedy, destructive corporate insurance system is because the few who get rich off of it are paying off politicians to keep things they way they are.

This is about providing what is best for the people, not about watching out for corporate interests and the profits that get funneled up to a few people at the top. If business can serve the people better than the people (government) can, let them prove it by including a public insurance option in the health care reform.

And you won't be imprisoned for not choosing the public option, you'll be punished for not having any coverage at all.

[willisvillis]

Conservatives like to say that government is inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome, wasteful and can't compete with "the private sector." But NOW they're suddenly all worried that private businesses can't compete with government.

If the private sector is competing with the government in an industry, and the government is the only party that can make laws regulating that industry, then these worries seem logical to me.

This is about providing what is best for the people,

No it's not. It's about deciding who gets to exploit the taxpayer next.

[Locust]

Originally Posted by willisvillis

If the private sector is competing with the government in an industry, and the government is the only party that can make laws regulating that industry, then these worries seem logical to me.

There are plenty of examples of markets that the government has a presence in, and the private sector is still the biggest force. Before you ask me for examples, pretty much any industry has a government sponsored endeavor.

[TheDecline]

This health care is about control, not helping the people. Big government wants to control every facet of your life and this is a huge step twords that. And yet there are still mouth breathing retards out there who really think this was done for our benefit. It was done for the benefit of big government and big business just like everything else. Wake up people

[Sir Elliot]

It isn't competition when the government is immune from lawsuits and can dump unlimited funds into the government program creating no need for the program to actually be profitable, all the while making the laws and rules that everyone else has to abide by.

Ignoring that the Constitution doesn't allow for such activity, and ignoring the amazing ineffeciency of Medicare and Medicaid, and ignoring that government regulations have created many of the problems that exist in health care today.

But let's return to the main point:

If ObamaCare is so great, why do you need to imprison people who don't participate?

[TheDecline]

Originally Posted by Sir Elliot

If ObamaCare is so great, why do you need to imprison people who don't participate?

Thee control.

Think about what the gov can now tell you what to do if they are your insurgence provider. If you smoke, do drugs, eat fast food, own a firearm, drive a fast car, etc etc can all be regulated by the gov through your health care

This is a power grab, and the threat of jail forces people to comply and harasses the resistance that they know they will face.

[PhillGates]

Originally Posted by kstigs

Right now the hospitals are footing the bill for the people who are unable to pay for health care, but the champions of Obamacare would rather the American taxpayers foot the bill instead. Seems like a good solution to me. Put a larger burden on the common man.

Yep, its all about those haves and have nots. The high rollers don't want hand a few dollars down to need citizens so the Obama Admin. is making them do the right thing.

[Shade]

Originally Posted by PhillGates

Yep, its all about those haves and have nots. The high rollers don't want hand a few dollars down to need citizens so the Obama Admin. is making them do the right thing.

What? Since when did being successful in terms of wealth come with the obligation to be charitable? Not that charity is bad, but it shouldn't be obligatory.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

[Locust]

Originally Posted by Sir Elliot

It isn't competition when the government is immune from lawsuits and can dump unlimited funds into the government program creating no need for the program to actually be profitable, all the while making the laws and rules that everyone else has to abide by.

Ignoring that the Constitution doesn't allow for such activity, and ignoring the amazing ineffeciency of Medicare and Medicaid, and ignoring that government regulations have created many of the problems that exist in health care today.

But let's return to the main point:

If ObamaCare is so great, why do you need to imprison people who don't participate?

Of course the program isn't going to be profitable, that's the point. I know you economic conservatives don't think there's any justification for the government supporting an industry, because the private sector should be able to fund and be motivated to be in control of anything and everything.

But there's way more private interests in private health insurance companies, evidenced by the practice of systematically denying large claims and making you fight for your coverage, which most people don't bother to do.

When there's a public option people won't have to fight through all the bullshit to get simple healthcare, and more citizens will have a higher quality of life. All health service providers will accept the government-backed public option, so there's no hassle of finagling your way around the accepted providers under your plan like there is now.

You're right, it's not profitable, but that's a good thing. The health of the American citizen is the kind of thing our tax dollars SHOULD be going to.

You're a liability to the government's money if you're running around uninsured getting sick and getting driven around in expensive ambulances rushed to expensive hospitals, that's why everyone needs to be insured. Same principle as driving a car uninsured, it's not a hard analogy to get.

Originally Posted by Shade

What? Since when did being successful in terms of wealth come with the obligation to be charitable? Not that charity is bad, but it shouldn't be obligatory.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

If you're thinking this is "forced charity," well you've been paying "forced charity" for all your life in the form of taxes. They go to Social Security, paving roads that you might never use, and fighting wars that you probably won't benefit from. But paying taxes is part of living in civilization, so quit that tired bullshit.

[PhillGates]

Originally Posted by Shade

What? Since when did being successful in terms of wealth come with the obligation to be charitable? Not that charity is bad, but it shouldn't be obligatory.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. I'm talking about a typical behavior; people shouldn't have to view this (in a moral fashion) as manditory charity. I work my butt off and make too much to not be taxed for this thing, but regardless I don't mind paying a little extra for future medical treatment if it'll be cheaper in the long run

[kstigs]

Originally Posted by PhillGates

Yep, its all about those haves and have nots. The high rollers don't want hand a few dollars down to need citizens so the Obama Admin. is making them do the right thing.

First of all, your post has little to do with mine. I was talking about this health care bill and you switched gears and decided to talk about taxes and redistribution of wealth.

As for your post: Is forcing people to give up their hard-earned labor the right thing? Couldn't we just allow everyone to keep all of their labor? Wouldn't that be fair?

[PhillGates]

Originally Posted by kstigs

First of all, your post has little to do with mine. I was talking about this health care bill and you switched gears and decided to talk about taxes and redistribution of wealth.

As for your post: Is forcing people to give up their hard-earned labor the right thing? Couldn't we just allow everyone to keep all of their labor? Wouldn't that be fair?

Sorry...

I don't know why you guys are acting like they're about to flush your whole income; but if you are lucky enough your senator still may be able to opt out if they choose. Right?