If ObamaCare is so great

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sir Elliot, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. ... why do you have to imprison people who don't want to participate?
     
  2. because the govt knows whats best for you

    durrrrrr
     
  3. #3 Arteezy, Nov 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2009
    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. :rolleyes:
     
  4. 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.

    And you won't be imprisoned for not choosing the public option, you'll be punished for not having any coverage at all.
     
  5. 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.

    No it's not. It's about deciding who gets to exploit the taxpayer next.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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
     
  8. 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?
     
  9. 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.
     

  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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.

    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.
     

  13. 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
     
  14. 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?
     

  15. 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?
     
  16. #16 Arteezy, Nov 10, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2009
    I never said anything about them flushing my entire income.

    Opt out of what if they choose?
     

  17. I'm talking about opting out of the public option, supposidly if a senator doesn't want the public option in their district they can opt out. Its not that clear though

    But I was just saying dude. Didn't mean to step on your toes.
     
  18. Sorry for snapping at you. I hadn't toked up all day, so I can get a little cranky. I'm all good now though. :D

    As for opting out of the public option, I didn't even realize there was a public option in this bill. And senators don't rule over a district. Senators represent their entire state and the entire state gets to vote for them.
     
  19. This doesn't really have anything to do with what I was responding to though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. The poster I was responding to seemed to be suggesting that the wealthy should have an inherent responsiblity to pay for the poor's healthcare by some unwritten law of morality or ethics, which makes no sense to me.

    Reading comprehension is a requisite for the reply button, for future reference.
     
  20. Locust,

    You'll find no objections from me about taxes being too high. The less money that the Sheriff of Nottingham seizes from the people the better off the people are.

    Government is the problem, not the solution. The less government in place, the more freedom we have.

    But goodluck with a multi-trillion dollar plan that's going to be run by the same folks running the DMV, the Post Office, Amtrak, and the War on Drugs. Even though every other time the government has gotten involved in trying to do things that the private sector should be doing it has failed catastrophicly... this time it's really going to turn out differently! For real!

    If the plan is so good, why do you need to jail people who don't want to be a part of it?
     

Share This Page