Bill To Make Fine $0 For Violating Dear Leader's Individual Mandate Passes...

[emilynghiem]

I disagree. Healthy workers and students make for a health society, If we have to drag you kicking and screaming a bit, we'll just count that as exercise.

Nonsensical Totalitarian blather. You Obamabots have no shame.

In this case what I have is a grip on reality, public health, and economics,

Yes, but even with the best system or solution in the world,
there is an element fundamental to human nature called
FREE WILL and consent to be governed.

So you still have to deal with that factor.

You can be the sexiest, best husband in the world, that every woman wants.
But if a woman doesn't consent to have sex with you, it's still rape if you force it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wonderful. Just keep adding screw up to screw up until the whole thing needs to be re-written from scratch, and we can put in the Universal Single-Payer healthcare we need but don't deserve.

Scrap the universal single too, just another worthless govt venture.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Overreaction. The right spanked too much, the left too little.

The Mandate is wrong. Period, end of story.

I disagree. Healthy workers and students make for a health society, If we have to drag you kicking and screaming a bit, we'll just count that as exercise.

Absolutely not. Govt should never force its populace to buy a product.

 

[emilynghiem]

Overreaction. The right spanked too much, the left too little.

The Mandate is wrong. Period, end of story.

I disagree. Healthy workers and students make for a health society, If we have to drag you kicking and screaming a bit, we'll just count that as exercise.

Curious PMY

A. Would you agree to these same arguments if they were used by prolife advocates to justify banning abortion, regardless of the people's opinions, and legally compelling women to have babies upon conception because they and the baby would be healthier by giving birth naturally rather than risks of abortion. And force this on people "kicking and screaming". Would you agree to that or argue this is imposing values without consent?

B. Also, where is the same commitment to enforce laws when it comes to
* illegal immigrants not following the laws or
* criminals who violate the laws.
If the problems was with insurance companies, why not hold them responsible instead of passing the costs to consumers who are argued as the victims of insurance companies?

Are you only insisting in enforcing THESE laws because it is EASIER to get "lawabiding citizens" to comply for political expedience; but when it comes to serious violators who cost taxpayers far more money (with either corporate or individual crimes), you don't go after them with the same "kicking and screaming" zeal because it's not so easy, is it?

So PMH is the degree and consistency of law enforcement only based on how easy the targeted audience is? And not based PROPORTIONALLY on the cost of the violations and who is directly responsible?

If you notice with sexual abuse, rape and abortion, instead of going after men equally at the point where the decision to have sex is either made freely or forced (which isn't easy to police) the prolife advocates target the issue of abortion which is all on the woman at that point. Not enough is being done to address rape and sexual abuse to prevent abortion.
Same with this health care business: instead of addressing prevention, which is people's personal choice and not easy to police, the focus is placed on insurance and govt which is after the fact.

So as with prolife beliefs, you can fight all you want to push your health care beliefs "after the fact" but it is not solving the root problem where it really begins. If you believe as I do, in solving or preventing abortion problems another way besides forcing bans, this is like how people believe in free market and liberty to pay for heath care and resolve disparity issues other ways besides forcing mandates through govt. It's not unlike prochoice, but applied to choices in ALL health care decisions instead of only choice in reproductive health without govt infringement.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Mandate is wrong. Period, end of story.

I disagree. Healthy workers and students make for a health society, If we have to drag you kicking and screaming a bit, we'll just count that as exercise.

Absolutely not. Govt should never force its populace to buy a product.

When we get it right you won't be, you'll just be paying taxes for it, like they do in other modern Western nations.

 

[paulitician]

The IRS Gestapo has just gotten more powerful and oppressive. Thank you Dear Leader. All hail Obama!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Mandate is wrong. Period, end of story.

I disagree. Healthy workers and students make for a health society, If we have to drag you kicking and screaming a bit, we'll just count that as exercise.

Curious PMY

A. Would you agree to these same arguments if they were used by prolife advocates to justify banning abortion, regardless of the people's opinions, and legally compelling women to have babies upon conception because they and the baby would be healthier by giving birth naturally rather than risks of abortion. And force this on people "kicking and screaming". Would you agree to that or argue this is imposing values without consent?

Having babies is less safe than an abortion, and if the regulations are passed by us in either case because it is better for the health of the individuals and society, I'm not very concerned if you are not on board or believe that they infringe upon your rights get a back-alley abortion or have a baby in the woods. The state has an interest in either case.

No one gave me a vote on the speed limits but by law I have to follow them anyway. Same thing.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Wonderful. Just keep adding screw up to screw up until the whole thing needs to be re-written from scratch, and we can put in the Universal Single-Payer healthcare we need but don't deserve.

That was the plan from the beginng.....but you are single payer idiot.......wow someone wjo wants to have the government have total control of their life, how do idiots like you get this way?

 

[g5000]

Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes | The Weekly Standard
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

Now this is how you go after ObamaCare. Instead of shutting down the government by an idiotic attempt to defund ObamaCare entirely, you slowly build consensus on problems which even some Democrats can go along with.

I hope it passes the Senate, but that is highly doubtful. Reid will spike it so it never comes up for a vote.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wonderful. Just keep adding screw up to screw up until the whole thing needs to be re-written from scratch, and we can put in the Universal Single-Payer healthcare we need but don't deserve.

That was the plan from the beginng.....but you are single payer idiot.......wow someone wjo wants to have the government have total control of their life, how do idiots like you get this way?

Total Control = the Doctor will see you now, kids have their shots, abortions are safe, and pregnant women get prenatal checkups. Oh the horror of it all.

 

[bedowin62]

Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes | The Weekly Standard
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

Now this is how you go after ObamaCare. Instead of shutting down the government by an idiotic attempt to defund ObamaCare entirely, you slowly build consensus on problems which even some Democrats can go along with.

I hope it passes the Senate, but that is highly doubtful.

actually moron Repubs wanted to delay obamacare; not kill it when the government shut down. repubs want to kill obamacare but that had nothing to do with the shutdown.

Democrats shut down the government rather than agree to a delay.

just days later when obamacare rolled out to a TRAINWRECK; dozens of Democrats asked for the kind of delay Republicans wanted; and of course your own inept community organizer has delayed his own legislation IN A DOZEN DIFFERENT WAYS

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[g5000]

Wonderful. Just keep adding screw up to screw up until the whole thing needs to be re-written from scratch, and we can put in the Universal Single-Payer healthcare we need but don't deserve.

That was the plan from the beginng.....but you are single payer idiot.......wow someone wjo wants to have the government have total control of their life, how do idiots like you get this way?

Total Control = the Doctor will see you now, kids have their shots, abortions are safe, and pregnant women get prenatal checkups. Oh the horror of it all.

Total control = You will see the doctor the government tells you to see, and you will pay what the government tells you to pay, and you will receive the treatment the government says you will receive.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nonsensical Totalitarian blather. You Obamabots have no shame.

In this case what I have is a grip on reality, public health, and economics,

Nah, you're just a run-of-the-mill Communist Obamabot.

Just keep lying to yourself, that's what you're good at.

 

[paulitician]

Giving the IRS more power is just wrong. But then again, it makes sense. This President has continuously used his IRS Gestapo to attack his political opponents. He should be Impeached for his awful IRS abuses.

 

[dblack]

Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes | The Weekly Standard
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

Now this is how you go after ObamaCare. Instead of shutting down the government by an idiotic attempt to defund ObamaCare entirely, you slowly build consensus on problems which even some Democrats can go along with.

I hope it passes the Senate, but that is highly doubtful. Reid will spike it so it never comes up for a vote.

Huh... consensus. Interesting concept. I wonder if the Democrats thought of it when they rammed ACA through with the bare minimum?

 

[emilynghiem]

Having babies is less safe than an abortion, and if the regulations are passed by us in either case because it is better for the health of the individuals and society, I'm not very concerned if you are not on board or believe that they infringe upon your rights get a back-alley abortion or have a baby in the woods. The state has an interest in either case.

No one gave me a vote on the speed limits but by law I have to follow them anyway. Same thing.

A. for abortion, so only because you CONSENT to those laws then you are okay with them.
I'm asking about if the prolife people pushed THEIR MANDATES that you DIDN'T agree with, and they used the same arguments about forcing you "kicking and screaming"

Are you saying you are only okay with political coercion when it's used to push policies or mandates "you agree with anyway" (so you are not the one kicking and screaming).

But do you admit that you AREN'T okay when the shoe is on the other foot, and some mandate you politically or religiously oppose is being pushed on YOU "kicking and screaming"

Are you okay with THAT?

B. as for traffic laws, the difference here is you CONSENT to be under those laws.

that is also the issue with the health insurance mandates and contracts formed by Congress obligating insurance companies and consumers to terms with each other they didn't sign to directly, but was done for us by federal reps without full representation or CONSENT.

again, a simple analogy I can make here is consenting to sex. Just because someone consented to have sex in the past or under certain conditions, does not give you carte blanche to have sex with them under any and all circumstances "just because they consented in the past"

what I find going on with this ACA and health care issue, is people keep citing things like state insurance laws, or the public already paying for hospitals, ER, medicaid, etc. and don't consider that people might consent to some things but not others. it is like once you agreed to X, then you can have Y and Z forced onto you too, since you already agreed to X.

Sorry I don't follow that reasoning.

PMH if all you are stating are "things you already consent to be under" you are missing the point of the argument.

Can you tell me some things you would NOT consent to be under, pushed by govt, that other people think are a great idea or solution that would solve the problems?

THAT would be the "equivalent" of forcing health care mandates on people through the govt without their consent, just because it is deemed a good idea or the best shortcut.

You've only listed things you consent to. What are things you don't believe in govt imposing?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Having babies is less safe than an abortion, and if the regulations are passed by us in either case because it is better for the health of the individuals and society, I'm not very concerned if you are not on board or believe that they infringe upon your rights get a back-alley abortion or have a baby in the woods. The state has an interest in either case.

No one gave me a vote on the speed limits but by law I have to follow them anyway. Same thing.

A. for abortion, so only because you CONSENT to those laws then you are okay with them.
I'm asking about if the prolife people pushed THEIR MANDATES that you DIDN'T agree with, and they used the same arguments about forcing you "kicking and screaming"

Are you saying you are only okay with political coercion when it's used to push policies or mandates "you agree with anyway" (so you are not the one kicking and screaming).

But do you admit that you AREN'T okay when the shoe is on the other foot, and some mandate you politically or religiously oppose is being pushed on YOU "kicking and screaming"

Are you okay with THAT?

B. as for traffic laws, the difference here is you CONSENT to be under those laws.

that is also the issue with the health insurance mandates and contracts formed by Congress obligating insurance companies and consumers to terms with each other they didn't sign to directly, but was done for us by federal reps without full representation or CONSENT.

again, a simple analogy I can make here is consenting to sex. Just because someone consented to have sex in the past or under certain conditions, does not give you carte blanche to have sex with them under any and all circumstances "just because they consented in the past"

what I find going on with this ACA and health care issue, is people keep citing things like state insurance laws, or the public already paying for hospitals, ER, medicaid, etc. and don't consider that people might consent to some things but not others. it is like once you agreed to X, then you can have Y and Z forced onto you too, since you already agreed to X.

Sorry I don't follow that reasoning.

PMH if all you are stating are "things you already consent to be under" you are missing the point of the argument.

Can you tell me some things you would NOT consent to be under, pushed by govt, that other people think are a great idea or solution that would solve the problems?

THAT would be the "equivalent" of forcing health care mandates on people through the govt without their consent, just because it is deemed a good idea or the best shortcut.

You've only listed things you consent to. What are things you don't believe in govt imposing?

Simple answer, there are lots of things I don't agree with but they are done anyway. When those things can be shown to a benefit to our society at large, that makes them easier to accept.

 

[emilynghiem]

Simple answer, there are lots of things I don't agree with but they are done anyway. When those things can be shown to a benefit to our society at large, that makes them easier to accept.

OK so let's group these in two or three levels or degrees
A. Low level imposition
we don't like paying traffic tickets ourselves but agree to use this system

B. Medium or higher level imposition that causes protests
EX: Prolife tolerating prochoice laws
Prolife believers that abortion is murder have to tolerate laws, decisions and actions that keep reinforcing otherwise.
So the prochoice position allows both prochoice and prolife to be practiced freely.
But every time a law is passed that forces prolife believers to pay taxes into abortion or birth control against their beliefs, they have to pay for lawyers, lobbyists and media outreach to push to DEFEND their beliefs they feel are already infringed upon, after the fact. so this causes an undue burden that is not on prochoice people who already have the laws in their favor, while the other side is constantly on the defense. This is not equal but is tolerated.

NOTE: even liberal activists who may tolerate abortion but DO NOT believe in the death penalty but believe THAT is murder, experience medium to high levels of imposition when the govt carries this out which they believe to be unconstitutional, as either cruel or unusual punishment or imposing or abusing authority without equal due process and defense.

C. Highest level imposition causing lawsuits and arguments for impeachment/secession

Where opposition is so great, people will NOT tolerate laws imposed, but consider this unlawful and a breach of govt duty and process, where people should be removed from office.

This is the level where the ACA mandates did the equivalent of passing a law as opposed to Constitutional principles of opponents as violating the Second Amendment.

PMH I still think you are only talking about impositions on levels A or B.

Can you name something that "other people would tolerate by their beliefs or think is more good than bad" but which YOU would start protesting on levels B or C, calling for separation from govt or removal of abusive officials from office, etc.

1. if you can name something, then that would be fair comparison instead of
trying to compare to lower levels like A.

2. With level B, I believe for some people, the issues with prolife in abortion/death penalty opposition can be as intolerable as with the objections to ACA. however with abortion/death penalty these things that people don't believe in are CHOICES that can be prevented from being imposed; with the ACA the mandates are imposed, even if you do pay for your health care other ways besides insurance, that freedom no longer prevents the penalty from being applied, so you can't avoid it without giving up liberty to pay other ways.

3. how about level C?
Can you imagine a law that would benefit more people, but YOU would object to imposing?
EX:
a. what if some party decided to crackdown on all deadbeat parents that don't pay child support and create a welfare burden on others. And passed a law where all fathers or parents were required to buy insurance, or show proof of ability to support a child, or pay fines into a govt acct to cover the cost of their kids up to age 18, starting from (a) the point of having sex (b) or the point of child birth.

the insurance could also cover any legal issues the parents are responsible for until their children turn 18; so if they have high risks their rates are higher, and this covers the cost of incarceration, prosecution, courts, damages, etc. in case of conviction or lawsuits.

b. what if the govt mandates on insurance and universal coverage required everyone to go through spiritual diagnosis and healing for unresolved or unforgiven conflicts, abuses, or issues that otherwise lead to mental or physical illness, or legal problems that cost more.

if this could be shown to reduce the incidence and costs of crime, disease, abuse and addiction, would you be okay with this being 'mandated' by govt as a requirement to reduce the burden on govt, taxpaying citizens, and/or society?

c. Rottweiler pointed out, what if someone passed a law requiring all citizens to carry guns and be trained to use them lawfully as with police. where studies have shown that arming all people in a district does lower the risk or rate of crime. (my version of citizens enforcing laws equally is not with guns but with signed contracts: to ALLOW districts to pass ordinances by consent of all residents in their district to civic association standards where residents AGREE to pay all costs including administration expenses incurred by any premediated crimes they are convicted of or else forfeit CITIZENSHIP. i believe this can be done voluntarily. But what if state or federal govt decided to impose it by mandate? that all citizens MUST sign agreement upon turning legal age to pay all costs if they commit crimes, or else agree to give up citizenship, get deported, and trade places with immigrants who agree to follow laws and pay for costs under those terms.)

would you agree to follow such a mandate as the above?

if none of these bother you, can you name something that would be as sacreligous to you as the ACA mandates are to Constitutional believers in free market and limited govt?