Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I don't believe your analogy correctly illustrates the issue.

It would be more like the citizen wanting all that on their sundae...and then the Government saying "well you have to pay for it"...and the citizens saying "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL".

Sorry...but things have to be paid for...the mandate pays for it. The other options are having a public option, or having single payer.

The people are going to have to decide...if they want all these provisions that they overwhelmingly support...they are going to have to decide how they want them paid for.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


...but there are some who may not wish to have the bowl of ice cream or the kick in the ass... Is it Constitutional to force them to take both? Furthermore, (and here's the one which I suspect I already know your answer to) how is it even remotely justifiable that you would have many who have their own bowl of ice cream, which they already paid for sitting on the table next to them, who are simply forced into taking the kick to the ass sans any reward?

The analogy was fine, accurate, and stands as such.

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I must not be a part of "most Americans" then.
Because I neither support the law or its provisions.

Health care is not the responsibility of gov't.

It's the responsibility of the citizens to take care of themselves.
So if that means they have to sacrifice their LCD TV to pay for coverage, so be it.
Or if the cable and/or internet is more important than healthcare, it validates my point.
Or the $100 cell phone bill.

Whatever.
If those things are more important than coverage, then people have their priorities in a jumble.
(and I completely understand the conspiracy against insurance/Big pharma too)

does this opinion of your carry over to the gov't using tax money to cover poor children or their poor parents? does it carry over to the gov't using your tax money to help build new hospitals, medical teaching, new equipment, drug and disease research???

to me, the gov't has enough money going into the healthcare industry from all sides and avenues.
the taxpayers have already paid for their healthcare right there!!! we pay so that the poor can get treatment that we can't afford to pay for ourselves or our children. we pay for the research and developement of new drugs, new and better equipment, and new cures! new hospitals, training for the doctors, the nurses, ect.

what you say is fine by me, but then, let the gov't pull all the taxmoney out of the system!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Makes perfect sense to me. They like the idea of the provisions, but don't want them forced on anyone. Especially if it means coming out of our paycheck.

/TOA

reply to post by burdman30ott6


They are already getting the kick in the pants, but are too stupid to realize it. Every time the uninsured goes to the hospital they must be treated. Every time they cannot pay for that visit the Government, and insurance companies do or the hospital has to take the loss raising the price of your premium. So now that you have been made aware someone is kicking you in the ass already do you want it hard or soft?

Hard we keep the status quo, soft we make it so that they can see a doctor without driving the costs up. Mind you this is going to cost us more for a little while. Because we have ignored the problem for so long and catastrophic care is more costly then preventative care but it will eventually level off as people become generally healthier with access to regular care.

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I must not be a part of "most Americans" then.
Because I neither support the law or its provisions.

Health care is not the responsibility of gov't.

It's the responsibility of the citizens to take care of themselves.
So if that means they have to sacrifice their LCD TV to pay for coverage, so be it.
Or if the cable and/or internet is more important than healthcare, it validates my point.
Or the $100 cell phone bill.

Whatever.
If those things are more important than coverage, then people have their priorities in a jumble.
(and I completely understand the conspiracy against insurance/Big pharma too)

Then why are my tax dollars going to pay for the lawmakers health insurance that oppose Obamacare? I want the same benefits they have; or are they somehow preferential Americans and the rest of us are just pawns in their elite game?

God it's lame to be reading all the cut and paste responses from this.....

www.rushlimbaugh.com...