Obamacare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

The difference is in the State's Constitutional right to pass certain laws & the fact that the federal gov't is forbidden to overstep it's well-defined boundaries. Requiring us to purchase a consumer product is an over-stepping of that authority. I'm surprised you don't see that.

 

It looks like a few of us were posting the same answer.

 

So you wouldn't mind being (deleted), as long as it was the state and not the feds. My point is, you're still being (deleted) lol

 

Point is, this is a country based on laws. We are expected to follow them all ("ignorance is no excuse"). We should also expect our governments to follow them. When that system breaks down, I am leaving.

 

From a practical standpoint, it is easier and more palatable to move to a new state than a new country.

 

So do I. Neither of us will be required to purchase any additional insurance. However, we both benefit from provisions that do not allow insurance companies to drop us when we get expensive health issues. We both benefit from not having to worry about pre-existing medical conditions. We both benefit from being able to keep our kids insured until they turn 26.

I think when you have to start arguing about rights, you are simply avoiding both the substance of the issue and anything else meaningful to what is at issue in the conversation. The uninsured are a huge problem in this country. If it comes down to an issue of rights, I would prefer the right to have health care. I'll worry about the right to refuse to have it much further down the road after I see what having it is like.

 

It sounds nice, the way you represent it, but think about some of the realities of the program we have seen. We are able to keep our existing coverage, provided the insurance company doesn't raise it's rates or make changes to existing coverage. How realistic is that? We were told we could continue seeing our preferred doctor but then it was revealed that wouldn't necessarily be the case. We were told cost would decrease then the CBO, after reviewing facts rather than BO-supplied data said lower costs would be impossible to sustain. Then there's the waivers and the red tape and everyhting else that goes along with it.
Let me ask the same question a bit differently. Why can't I exempt myself from every aspect of Obamacare?

 

No one is suggesting that you not have the right to have heath "care" (I think you mean insurance). However, why should that remove my right to choose what (if any) insurance I buy.

 

I've never cared for laws ...I let people with money worry about that (deleted)... lol

The feds laws trump the state's though... IMO

I doubt it, mostly since the system is (deleted) ...yet you're still here lol

 

True, and I considered that argument before I wrote my op. The follow-up would be:

What if all states decided to enact the exact same law themselves?

Would that make the law easier to accept? And yeah, I know... it'd never happen lol

 

I am sorry for you.

 

And that is the beauty of the system.

 

It happens all the time. But youre still here.

 

But not health insurance?

 

The government needs to cater to the folks on the lower end of the scale, not the upper tier. The problem today is greed, mega profit, and lawlessness, compliments of G.W. and the right wing elitists.

 

I'd agree, if you're gonna give money away, give it to the poor... it'll grow the economy as fast as you give them the money. They buy the products that allow companies to grow. Giving it to industry (Reagan's Trickle-Down theory) is a waste of resources, and bad policy.

Those that argue that giving money to the poor is socialism, yet think of that same amount of money being given to the industry is capitalism, are either lying to themselves or don't understand economics very well.

Companies make products for consumers. Consumers need money to buy those products. It does little good when the government gives money to a company to make products the consumers can't afford to buy (Trickle-Down theory). When consumers are given that money, they buy products and the company grows. Economics 101.

Is it socialism? Yep, both ways IMO, but giving money to the poor is way better for everyone than giving that same amount of money to industry.

 

Trickle down or supplyside has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be total BS as stated by Reagan's chief economic adviser Arthur Laffer. I think he called it a reverse pyramid scheme and that is exactly how it has worked for 30 years. But what are the Republicans still proposing? More trickle down economics. It's funny that corporate welfare is fine with Right wingers but letting low-income people keep more of their money is Socialism.

 

What you 3 goofballs are missing is this- when you give all the money to the poor you are taking it from someone else. With the businesses, you aren't really giving them anything you are allowing them to keep the fruits of their labor & initiative.
Giving money or "catering to the poor" as tomc advocates accomplishes nothing more than perpetuating their condition.
Business success is a multiplier to the economy not a drag to it as dr moen,phd believes.

 

I'm not against government subsidies entirely though, just the unnecessary waste of money given to the largest companies that don't need it, yet take advantage of them. I'd like to see those loopholes closed by adding a cut-off point for those programs. But, part of the problem is those companies give tons of cash to legislators, who are reluctant to pass measures that would do that, and also stop the flow of cash to their pockets.

I'm of the opinion that corporate welfare is a kind socialism, just as welfare for the poor is. Those that oppose socialism in general appear to ignore the fact that it is a part of every society. However small a part it is, it's still socialism, and to pretend you could eliminate all forms of it is ludicrous. I'm also of the opinion that economics-wise, welfare for the poor is a sure way to stimulate an economy whereas corporate welfare's effect on the economy is nearly insignificant... except to that company.

 

I think what you are referring to is Crony Capitalism:

Crony Capitalism is a term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

Sound like any economic system you know?