Answer a few questions for this conservative.

[Nevermind]

Under Obamacare, there is a huge fine for employers who have 50 or more employees, who don't provide insurance for them.
So if you have a small business with lets say 45 employees, why in the hell would you ever hire anybody else and subject yourself to a government fine? So much for small businesses growing.

Second, let us assume there are 100 doctors in the US. There are currently 200 people who go see those 100 doctors. Now under Obamacare, there are going to be an extra 75 people to go see those same 100 doctors. Now yes, my numbers are stupid, but Obama says "there will be no rationing of health care". Yeah, that doesn't work.

Next, Pelosi said in all her smugness last night, that heathcare is a right, not a privilege. Where in the constitution might I find that? Oh wait, it's not there. I have to eat. Should food not be a right? What about a car? Don't I have to get to work? Where does it end?

Last, where in the constitution does it say that I have to buy something the federal government is "selling", or face fines or incarceration?

[MurrayFiend]

I think if you're going to be a true conservative, you oughtta conserve the questions and especially the starting of threads.

[chickenona]

Hahaha @ Murray.

As far as health care being a right, nobody ever tried to argue that it's a constitutional right. It's a basic human right in a civilized society.

Money should not be a determining factor in whether someone "deserves" health care or not. Anybody who'd make it one is a shitty person.

[tin00can]

I think it's great that conservatives are suddenly becoming constitutional. And, whiny like democrats.

[SkyDog112046]

Hahaha @ Murray.

As far as health care being a right, nobody ever tried to argue that it's a constitutional right. It's a basic human right in a civilized society.

Money should not be a determining factor in whether someone "deserves" health care or not. Anybody who'd make it one is a shitty person.

First, define "healthcare". Is it as simple as giving someone basic services such as a regular exam, a dose of antibiotics or providing pain management? Or does it include things such as organ transplants, joint replacement, or certain procedures that would be considered voluntary?

If it is simply the first thing then I agree that everyone should have access to those things and nobody should be left to suffer. But able-bodied adults who make no attempt to support themselves, or people who come here illegally should not have access to to the higher cost procedures "simply because".

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Under Obamacare, there is a huge fine for employers who have 50 or more employees, who don't provide insurance for them.
So if you have a small business with lets say 45 employees, why in the hell would you ever hire anybody else and subject yourself to a government fine? So much for small businesses growing.

A good businessman will do whatever it will takes to make his business grow to earn more profit, including hiring more workers. A clueless moron with no business sense will not. It's obvious to which group you belong.

Second, let us assume there are 100 doctors in the US. There are currently 200 people who go see those 100 doctors. Now under Obamacare, there are going to be an extra 75 people to go see those same 100 doctors. Now yes, my numbers are stupid, but Obama says "there will be no rationing of health care". Yeah, that doesn't work.

Let us assume this is not a completely idiotic example. Nah, that doesn't work either.

Next, Pelosi said in all her smugness last night, that heathcare is a right, not a privilege. Where in the constitution might I find that? Oh wait, it's not there. I have to eat. Should food not be a right? What about a car? Don't I have to get to work? Where does it end?

I don't know. When did her opinion become law?

Last, where in the constitution does it say that I have to buy something the federal government is "selling", or face fines or incarceration?

Nowhere. What is the federal government selling us? Incarceration? Now you're being silly. This is why no one takes you seriously.

[TravisBickelsMohawk]

6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.

I think this is relevant to your argument.

[Nevermind]

Last, where in the constitution does it say that I have to buy something the federal government is "selling", or face fines or incarceration?

Nowhere. What is the federal government selling us? Incarceration? Now you're being silly. This is why no one takes you seriously.

[KneelandBobDylan]

Last, where in the constitution does it say that I have to buy something the federal government is "selling", or face fines or incarceration?

Nowhere. What is the federal government selling us? Incarceration? Now you're being silly. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Who was it that put the mandate into the bill in the first place? I can't seem to find it online.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Last, where in the constitution does it say that I have to buy something the federal government is "selling", or face fines or incarceration?

Nowhere. What is the federal government selling us? Incarceration? Now you're being silly. This is why no one takes you seriously.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs. ... /-1/ONCAPE

Why did Republican Senators change their mind on health care reform? Turns out that many provisions they oppose today they advocated 17 years ago.

It can be embarrassing to look at history. National Public Radio carried a story recently about a bill proposed in 1993 by Senate Republicans that was in opposition to Bill Clinton's health plan.

The Republican bill was introduced by 20 Republican Senators. Four of them still serve in the Senate: Orrin Hatch of Utah, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri. It proposed a market-based national health care system designed largely by Mark Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

One of the things the plan called for was an "individual mandate" — the requirement that everyone has to buy health insurance for themselves. Here is what Senator Hatch has to say about the individual mandate in the current bill:

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," he said. "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

Seventeen years ago, Senator Hatch proposed an individual mandate. Today he says it would take away our liberty?

What has changed from the time when conservatives thought it was the best way to make sure that no one could take unfair advantage of the system? As Pauly put it: "We called this responsible national health insurance. There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

This idea did not go away. Many years later, Republican governor Mitt Romney picked it up and put it into the current Massachusetts health plan. Why have the Republican Senators turned on it now?

There are other elements of the current bill that are similar to those in the Republican bill of 1993. Both the old Republican plan and the current bill call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage, or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments.

The many similarities between the bills make me wonder why Republicans are having so much trouble with the Democratic bill now in Congress. They talk about "death panels," big government, mandates, and "killing granny."

Republican Congressional leader John Boehner put it this way recently: "Look, our goal is to kill this monstrosity."

Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, says: "I think it's a sad testament to the state of relations among the parties that they've gotten to this point."

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.

The GOP's 1993 measure included some features Republicans still want Democrats to consider, including damage award caps for medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.

[Nemesis]

Hahaha @ Murray.

As far as health care being a right, nobody ever tried to argue that it's a constitutional right. It's a basic human right in a civilized society.

Money should not be a determining factor in whether someone "deserves" health care or not. Anybody who'd make it one is a shitty person.

Good point. What's even more hilarious is that people who have insurance are already paying for those who don't. When an uninsured person goes to the ER(that's the only type of health care they have usually)they usually don't pay the bill. Since the hospital has to raise their costs for services to pay for those that are uninsured it is passed along to the insurance company who in turn raise the premiums on the insured. So those that bitch about having to pay for someone else's health care and don't want any kind of a public option, you already are. Wouldn't it be better to have the public option so an uninsured person will spend less of your money by going to see a doctor and not the ER where the average trip is over $1000?