Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Almost everyone will need healthcare or hospitalization before they die, very few will ever need a gun to survive.
It's even dumber, because the reason for the health insurance mandate is that without it, people who fail to purchase insurance will severely impact commerce--the insurance companies won't be able to afford to insure high risk customers unless low risk customers buy insurance as well. That's going to be the argument for the mandate under the commerce clause when it goes to the SC. Just how owning or not owning a gun impacts commerce, I'm not sure .
But hey! If you can lie, play games and mislead people all in the name of politics, why not!
All would be solved with single payer. Nobody would be "forced to buy" a product or thing, it would just be there, like fire departments, police, road maintenance, and schools. Everyone needs to see how silly her analogy is.
I know how badly lots of people wanted single payer, but they had a heck of a time getting this much passed, and what we have now is exactly what the republicans proposed as an alternate to the Clinton health care plan in 1995, and what Romney did in MA. The R's still fought it--listen to them now. The bill we have now was called the "free market" alternative to socialized medicine in 1995 (including the mandate) and now they're calling it the end of the free world as we know it. Go figure.
The really funny part--evidently the R's are putting together an alternative health care plan now, and it's pretty much exactly like the HCR reform bill, but without the mandate that THEY created in 1995 to make the thing work financially.
I know how badly lots of people wanted single payer, but they had a heck of a time getting this much passed, and what we have now is exactly what the republicans proposed as an alternate to the Clinton health care plan in 1995, and what Romney did in MA. The R's still fought it--listen to them now. The bill we have now was called the "free market" alternative to socialized medicine in 1995 (including the mandate) and now they're calling it the end of the free world as we know it. Go figure.
The really funny part--evidently the R's are putting together an alternative health care plan now, and it's pretty much exactly like the HCR reform bill, but without the mandate that THEY created in 1995 to make the thing work financially.
Romneycare failed and MA went greatly into debt funding it. Should the US just repeat that mistake?
As to how close you think the GOP proposed alternative will be to Obamacare, do you have a link to back that up or is this just conjecture?
It's even dumber, because the reason for the health insurance mandate is that without it, people who fail to purchase insurance will severely impact commerce--the insurance companies won't be able to afford to insure high risk customers unless low risk customers buy insurance as well. That's going to be the argument for the mandate under the commerce clause when it goes to the SC. Just how owning or not owning a gun impacts commerce, I'm not sure .
But hey! If you can lie, play games and mislead people all in the name of politics, why not!
Obviously you miss the point of the over-reaching of the so-called "commerce clause" to back up the federal government's jurisdiction in forcing Obamacare on the people.
It would be no different than if the federal government, prior to the civil war, attempted to use same so-called "commerce clause" to force people to buy slaves. Think about it.
It is a GREAT analogy when you think about it. Forcing people to buy health insurance IN CASE they get sick or hurt and they end up with big medical bills as a result TO PROTECT THEMSELVES against financial ruin is the same as......forcing people to buy a gun IN CASE they are confronted by a robber or murderer TO PROTECT THEMSELVES against physical injury and ruin.
Bottom line is in a FREE Country we should be FREE TO CHOOSE or opt out as we see fit for ourselves.
All would be solved with single payer. Nobody would be "forced to buy" a product or thing, it would just be there, like fire departments, police, road maintenance, and schools. Everyone needs to see how silly her analogy is.
Why do we assume people without health insurance can't pay their own way?
Forcing someone to buy something is unconstitutional. It's not even up for debate.
I have been to the ER more than once and paid with my own money. The problem arises if and when you get something serious. Cancer, MS, have a heart attack, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
