Quote of the day
posted at 10:15 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“[M]ake all the promises you have to.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
 |
|
posted at 10:15 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
|
|
GreenRoom
- Giving Thanks To The Necessary Men
- The RACE Is On
- Health Care, Defined
- Yes On Dr. No!
- The Fort Hood Investigation – The Wrong Men For The Job
- An Unlikely Palinista
- OAD: Obama Adulation Disorder
- Why Are Democrats Holding Louisiana Hostage?
- Wade Rathke and the Myth of ACORN
- ObamaCare and 2010: Are Dems suicidal?
Hot Links
- Right Channels
- Left Channels
- War on Terror
- Cartoons/Satire
- Audio podcasters
- Entertainment
- Industry/Internet TV
- Hangouts
- Talkers
- Hot Air Affiliates
Feeds
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Umm, If you don’t buy your own, you get fined by the State. That’s a fact. You’re forced to buy heath care. Is that what Conservatives call Conservatism … Having the State mandate something of this nature? I don’t.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Thank You! It seems like most of the people that try to debate against the MA plan are very uninformed on what the actual plan is.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 11:38 AM
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 11:34 AM
His consistency is for generalization and attack. I’ve read his posts. His substantiation as you call it is to attack the personal. He then follows up with talking points. I hope that’s not the extent of his reasoning.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I’m no big Romney fan, but that quote is innocuous enough. “Make all the promises you have to” can refer to anything, ranging from potential appearances to whatever. I don’t think he was seriously encouraging his volunteers to lie about his positions on certain matters.
Laserjock on January 13, 2008 at 11:40 AM
You’re forced to pay for your own healthcare instead of going to the hospital and expecting free care on the tax payer’s dime. Get informed before you argue something you obviously don’t understand.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
American Thinker: Rudy Giuliani Should Be GOP Nominee
Final Scorecard
My final scorecard on these five issues is as follows:
On the war on terror, Giuliani is the best candidate; McCain is a distant second.
On immigration, Giuliani is the best candidate; Romney is a close second.
On the economy, Giuliani and Romney are equally strong; McCain is a distant third.
On health care reform, Giuliani is the best candidate; Romney is a distant second.
On Supreme Court appointments, all three candidates are equally strong.
In sum, Rudy Giuliani is the best choice among the three leading GOP candidates. He is not a “perfect” choice. His liberal social views and his messy personal life are hardly what we would like to see in a Republican president. Nevertheless, on the issues that matter most, he offers the most conservative policies and the most effective leadership.
Rudy Giuliani should be the GOP nominee for 2008.
Chakra Hammer on January 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
In short: I trust McCain, and he has leadership qualities. There are too many positions of his that make me unable to support him. It still puts him ahead of Romney, in my book.
Same for Rudy, just worse so on the issues. At least he’s real. I put trust and leadership high on my list of qualifications.
Fred: many flaws, but the best of all the poor choices.
My ideal candidate is Jeff Sessions..but, of course, he’s not running. Now I’m going up to ski some. I said I would not debate politics this week-end, and went against my better judgment and let my kids bring the lap top. Nice talking with you all. :)
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Duh. Besides being so proud of his father’s traditions, being the opportunist he is, Mitt has no backing to run in the Democratic Party against Democrats, though he does enjoy the endorsement from Daily Kos for more than one reason. Go figure.
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Whew. Not me. MCF, MCK, gang of 14 etc.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 11:45 AM
WTH? My comment did not make it through. This is the second time in recent memory that I have tried to link to a CNN story where this happened. I won’t go so far as to say that there is a nefarious plot afoot, but something is rotten
in Denmarkat Hot Air vis a vis CNN links.The title of the Romney story, as reported at CNN’s Political Ticker on January 9th was:
Romney Pledges to Win Michigan.
That was his promise. What a scandal!
Update:
I see that other commenters have been struggling with providing this link, as they try to provide context to Red State’s quote.
Perhaps Allah himself could link to the CNN story as an update since commenters are being precluded from doing so.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Scotth: Good talking to you and thank you for explaining your positions. My hope is that people don’t close themselves off to the stronger candidates that will likely emerge in the next few months. Slaughtering the substantive ones will leave us with the weakest common denominator. I’m not against reasoned discourse, but this juvenile joking and over-generalizations just makes our platform look inept. Some of these candidates that are trying to represent us are the worst stereotypes of our party’s factions.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Buy Danish:
Wasatch tried several times last night to post link. I had same issues as well. So much for context. CNN must be blocked on this site…. :)
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I think you’re right, and as I noted, I have had this problem before when trying to link to a CNN story. The only other possibility is that CNN has a mechanism in place that prevents its stories from being linked.
If anyone can get past that blocking mechanism it is Allahpundit.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 12:03 PM
That’s what makes him all-wise and all-knowing. How many goats do we need to sacrifice?
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I’m still looking for this “context” everyone is talking about. So far it’s been csdeven posting the word “jokingly” from somewhere, not as a spoken word but as a journalist’s perspective. As I recall, a journalist also also said Fred had a “sour look” among other things, and they were also wrong.
Again, I’d love to see the context that justifies the following consecutive words: “Make all the promises you have/need to”. There seems to be some confusion about whether it’s have or need, but either way, it’s still as I said: someone who proves himself to be a pandering politician with more interest in having the office than standing up for something.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:24 PM
He is pledging to win Michigan. That’s the promise. What Redstate did here is like what Simon did at Politico.
Even CNN doesn’t try to make it more than it is. That’s Redstate and those here who haven’t seen the context yet.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 12:30 PM
And George Allen said macaca, and context be damned!
GO FRED! STOP BUYING INTO SOUNDBITES! GO FOR THE ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE!
I just want to know when the Fredheads are going to acknowledge the height of their hypocrisy.
BKennedy on January 13, 2008 at 12:30 PM
When did “free” health care become a basic human right? What is next? “Free” cars so everybody can get to work? We already provide “free” housing and “free” food.
When I was in college, I worked at a convenience store because they provided health insurance. I had been told over and over again by my parents that only absolute morons live without health insurance. I know people who are self employed who also work 20 hours a week at grocery stores or Barnes and Noble so they can purchase cheaper health insurance for their families.
It’s a damn tragedy that some here think the government has to hold our hands and help us with seemingly every part of our lives. NO THANKS.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:39 AM
You describe yourself.
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 12:33 PM
FTFY.
BKennedy on January 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Okay, I’ve read that over about five times. In all seriousness, I’m asking if the context being accepted here is the word “jokingly”. Is there something else I’m missing?
Don’t you worry, buddy. Mitt will stick to his 90 second soundbytes that are perfect for your attention span, as opposed to Fred’s 17 minute speeches. And then when Mitt isn’t president, you won’t have to worry about listening to him giving the State of the Union. Hell, you’d shrivel up after just five LONG minutes! HORRORS!
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM
BKennedy, a response about the hysteria you went into over the “silly hat” thing on the politico site?
The two incidents seem strikingly similar to me. Well, except for the fact that the guy who spun the hat thing was a partisan democrat. The situations were intentionally spun to fit a favorite meta-narrative about a candidate. The meta-narrative on Fred was that he is old, cranky, and not a regular guy (snort–he was born in northern AL to a used car salesman dad. Definitely a silver spoon kind of fella)
The meta-narrative on Mitt is that he is the Stepford candidate who will promise to try to be all things to all people. Unfortunately his previous statements on gay rights, abortion, and gun control don’t fit with where he is positioning himself now. The “promise them anything” fits the meta-narrative too well, even if taken out of context.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You are a revisionist, BKennedy on January 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Considering Mitt gave a Faith in America Speech that Fred could fill the entire equivalent time of with “umms” and “ahhs” and “durrs,” I don’t think Fredheads have room to talk about speaking ability.
Fact is, Fred hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about because he’s better known for being a pretend DA than an actual Senator.
BKennedy on January 13, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Why don’t you put up the video of Mitt saying this, AP? I have seen it and it’s obvious to anyone who sees it that he was messing around with his workers. It was him joking around with them. Mark at Redstate also looses ALL credibility when he claims that Mitt has failed to win over conservatives. I could post all kinds of data that shows just the opposite. We can start with some good news for both Fred and Mitt here.
davenp35 on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM
1. Do you agree or disagree that the word jokingly was omitted from the Red State “story”?
2. Do you agree or disagree that the word jokingly is important to the story?
3. Do you agree or disagree that the story was reported without that context?
If Romney loses to McCain (with their help) will Red State claim that Mitt reneged on his “promise”?
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Thanks for that link to the grass roots survey. Interesting…
Where did you see the video of Mitt joking with supporters?
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Froghat’s a McCain guy I think. Or a Huckster.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Thus spake Slippery Mitt.
withoutfeathers on January 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM
That’s funny, you never answered any of my accusations, you are the one attacking. I laid out several areas that you demanded, and when I did, you accused me of using “phrases”.
Gun Control is now a catch phrase for you, because Mitt has been caught?
Mitt has answered, but he hasn’t acted. Like he said “promise anything”. What action has he taken? Words mean nothing, it is action that counts, and where is his action? (besides forcing people to take his health care plan with threat of imposing a fee or the “rack”). What Republicans has he helped get elected (as a great leader)? Oh wait that’s a knee jerk statement according to you. What national bills has he voted for, or wait, that’s a knees jerk statement? You are the slippery one. You call me out to make actual claims, and when I do, you call them “phrases”.
Your candidate is this, he coddles his sheep (oh wait those are just phrases), he doesn’t herd them…get it? He is not a leader.
You even miss the point of using words to paint a picture, bet you have problems with parables also, don’t you?
He was for abortion (another knee jerk), I guess you can’t argue anything about his record, it is all a knee jerk….unbelievable, I am beginning to see a pattern of the supporters of Mitt, they are totally blind. Really, think about it, the sheep analogy (I know you don’t understand analogy) is closer to reality then when I first proposed it months ago.
Here again is my direct challenge, to you, no catch phrases, no knee jerk, it is on video…did he or did he not in a debate with Kennedy claim not to be a conservative.
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Wasn’t Huck just taken down for “joking”?
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I think one of the commenters at Redstate posted it. I could be wrong. I’ll look for it again as well.
davenp35 on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Show me in Fred’s 17 minute speech on YouTube where he “umm”ed or “err”ed. He does that when people ask him questions, because he’s thinking about the answer. Sorry if he doesn’t have auto-preprogrammed responses like the average politician who promises anything he has to.
I would like to see this too. It could clear things up as easily as the video of “silly hat rule” should have cleared up that whole mess.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Somebody always has to pay. In one case it’s the taxpayers, (everybody), and in the other case it’s fellow insurance holders, which in a mandatory system is, again, everybody.
So in one case, everybody pays, and in the other case, everybody pays.
However mandatory insurance opens up another can of worms. The basis of it boils down to, “Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s irresponsible behavior? I shouldn’t, so let’s use the power of the government to mandate responsible behavior.”
Once you force people to behave in a responsible way to prevent risk to all, you open the door to forcing people to behave responsibly in other ways as well. For example, people who don’t have insurance might get sick or injured and incur a cost on society. Likewise, people who drink alcohol might get behind the wheel of a car and incur a cost on society. People might consume an inordinate amount of trans-fats and incur a cost on society. People might read violent books or play violent videogames, and due to an underlying mental illness, go insane and thus incur a cost on society. People might fall down a cliff while hiking in the woods. People might shoot themselves or others if they’re allowed to own firearms.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Thanks.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Mitt will win Michigan, that is a gimme. DailyKos is supporting him, his father was gov. for years, his roots and the liberals will support Mitt. Dumping huge cash into the voting machine, if he doesn’t win this one, he won’t win any state he is contested in.
I mean, this guy is breaking every spending record on campaigns. At this rate, he will outspend (by almost double) the total spent on the 2004 campaign by both the Dems and Republicans combined.
He certainly knows how to spend money…must have learned from the “Big Dig” and his knowledge that taxes and fees cover up a lot of sins.
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
I know. That’s why MA took a stand and told people they weren’t going to pay for their free healthcare anymore.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM
So the question becomes, is there any kind of behavior that we SHOULDN’T regulate in an effort to force people to avoid risk? Should we ban alcohol, loud music, violent fiction, guns—-is there anything we shouldn’t ban, and why not? And regardless of the answer, how is this entire train of thought, (the impact of Mitt’s healthcare plan on a free society), anything other than the epitome of liberalism?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Freedom is never free.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM
malan89, sorry but you seem incapable of grasping my point. Government mandates aren’t conservative. Sorry to sound heartless, but forcing hospitals to provide “free” high-cost medical services to those too irresponsible to obtain medical insurance or money to pay for said services isn’t conservative either.
Yeah, Romney’s plan may (or may not) be pragmatic for the times in which we live, but there is nothing conservative about it.
Romney should win Michigan in a slam dunk. He should win NV as well, because big business trusts him to be “pragmatic” on immigration and NV has lots of Mormons, who do vote almost as a bloc for Romney. I don’t think he has a prayer in the deep South though. I also think he’s the weakest candidate against Obama since the MSM could just crow endlessly about how the LDS church was RACIST…and that “was” might, you know, in inadvertent typos change into “is.”
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I agree with you 100% on that. But frankly, we’re never going to be able to stop the practice and Romney’s plan at least tries to curb it. Nobody likes the idea of mandates, but if I have a choice between making people that can afford to buy insurance to buy it and paying for their free healthcare out of my pocket, I choose the mandate.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Could you do me a favor and just say in your own words how many people get this “free” healthcare you keep referring to?
I do not click on links people post on message boards and blog comments for three reasons: 1) if you are so well informed on the subject you should be able to summarize the statistics yourself; 2)I am wary of spy ware and viruses, and 3) in my experience most people who link to sites to prove their points don’t have the first clue what they are talking about, have not read the sites themselves but only link to them because someone else did, and they have no idea what those links actually say.
How many people in Massachusetts who could afford health insurance got free medical care? Use whatever statistics you can find and summarize it here. I won’t click on a link, without a summary, because that would just prove to me that you haven’t taken the time to read it yourself.
Jaynie59 on January 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Do you consider yourself a conservative? Because I keep seeing you play the class envy card.
Conservative Voice on January 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM
My understanding is that if Massachusetts residents choose to go on without any health insurance and end up in an emergency room or the like, the costs could be garnished from their wages.
That sure beats confiscating money from the pay checks of Massachusetts residents in the form of taxes.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM
It’s the same thing as the housing bailout. Bush, Hillary, and Obama are all lining up to “help” people by playing with their interest rate resets or whatever. I’m highly suspicious that there are many people who are in danger of foreclosure who will keep their homes because of those silly programs. People who are going to pay their mortgages will pay their mortgages. People who expect the government to pay for their housing will wait for the government to do that.
The mortgage banks chose to offer loans to people who don’t think they should have to pay their own way in life. That’s the mortgage banks’ problem, not the taxpayers’ problem. Or at least it shouldn’t be. If you won’t pay for your house, you aren’t going to have a house. If you won’t pay to see a doctor, you shouldn’t be able to see a doctor.
Do we get ” free” movies in theaters complete with popcorn and soda? Do we get “free” cellphones? Do we get “free” visits to the day spa? Damn, then why do we tell people they deserve “free” doctor’s appointments?
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Buy Danish. That I could support. The problem is, it still won’t help the hospitals recoup costs from “undocumented” folks or welfare cases. But if the hospitals are given the ability to garnish wages to recoup costs for services, that will help move the dialog in the right direction.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Massachusetts was spending over $1.3 billion a year on “free care” for the uninsured.
Maybe you could rewrite that in your own words, without changing the meaning of that sentence.
Thanks in advance!
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM
What you call “welfare cases” are covered under Mitt’s plan. The only category that remains problematic are illegal aliens, but that is part of a broader problem. I’m not sure of how Mass handles those cases – maybe it comes out of the pot which covers people below 300% of the poverty level.
There is some very good info here on Mitt’s plan including this positive result:
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Alcohol has a huge impact on society. Not only can it kill innocent drivers, (sometimes entire families), it can also physically and mentally harm the children of alcoholics. Not only is there a link between alcohol and mental illness but even if an alcoholic makes it through their life without directly harming others, they often wind up with liver cancer or other alcohol related illnesses. Corporations also incur massive costs associated with alcohol, as the efficiency of hung-over employees is greatly reduced and employees who drink alcohol often have a greater rate of absence or tardiness.
Why should I have to pay for people who drink alcohol? Shouldn’t we ban alcohol?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Liquor taxes by State.
If the person with liver cancer or mental illness has no health insurance and ends up in the hospital you pay for it in the form of taxes.
I don’t understand how your argument is germane.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The only angst I have of a Fred presidency is the fear that the Fredheads will be no-stop, 24/7, reminding us of how wonderful he is, even if he does things that they are not in agreement with…..
…and, like a zombie, gloss over every foible come what may, while the rest of us are just trying to have a good day.
And, before you smarty pants beat me to it:
So with that out of the way we can (hopefully) proceed to have a debate.
First off, one should never wear politics closer than length of your arm.
By keeping politics an arms length away, one can remain objective and therefore criticize our consensually elected peers/human beings as needed.
So with that said, why don’t we start?
Oh that’s right… we have already maxed out the bandwidth available for that discussion.
So let’s start by eliminating the weakest candidate by virtue of who is the least liked candidate…
Simply put, Mike Huckabee is an aberration:
Watch for their responses below to confirm their ignorance of these matters.
So now, with the aberration out of the way..
…let’s vote for your favorite republican candidate, shall we?
Mcguyver on January 13, 2008 at 2:38 PM
What about people who smoke? If insurance companies in MA decide not to cover people who smoke any longer, will the people in MA be forced to stop smoking or else be fined and have their wages garnished because they can’t get insurance?
What about obese people?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Buy Danish, my point, and I believe Jaynie’s as well…..how much of that 1.3 billion in unpaid bills was rung up by otherwise responsible, employed citizens of MA?
See, if the vast majority of that 1.3 billion comes from treating bums and illegals who won’t join any plan and won’t care if the hospital can come after their wages (what wages? what identification number that helps you find my wages) then Mittcare won’t solve the problem. All it will do is add yet another intrusive government beaurocracy to the problem.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM
McGuyver, how would that make Fredheads any different from the die-hard W supporters, who say every stupid move he’s made was some brilliant Rovian plot, etc.
funky chicken on January 13, 2008 at 2:42 PM
The context that is being accepted is that the promise relates to his ability and inevitability of winning Michigan. I.e. promise the voters we can win. The jokingly is just a way projecting a sense of optimism with a sense of humor. The quote of his actual words on the phone is the evidence.
I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Why should I spend one more minute of time on you?
You don’t turn the nanny state around with one program. Do you get that or do you think you can continue to demand immediate change and it will automatically happen? There is a real world out there and republicans have to work with dems. And Mitt made progress toward the free market solution to health care.
If you cannot understand that reality, then don’t bother responding.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM
You don’t?
All of a sudden you’re arguing that people should be allowed to drink alcohol because they are taxpayers. That is the opposite of what you were arguing in regard to Mitt’s fondness for mandates. How far do those taxes on alcohol go towards reimbursing a family killed by a drunk driver? What percentage of those taxes compensate employers for late or absent employees?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM
The republicans are pushing AFFORDABLE health care. The dems want GOVERNMENT PROVIDED health care.
Mitt’s plan took the dems nanny state plan and moved it toward the free market. It is not a perfect plan, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Reaganesque or Clintonian?
Romney is all about image. That is why he appears to be the perfect conservative. He has completely divorced himself from any principles that his history has shown us he may or may not have and has donned the mantle conservative superhero.
It appears that he does this every time he wants to get elected to an office. He adjusts his image to fit whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. He makes all the promises he has to.
I see Romney as nothing more than a Republican Bill Clinton.
29Victor on January 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM
The answer is that prior to Mitt’s plan: all or most of it. That is precisely what Mitt is trying to fix, not exacerbate.
Have you read Jim Talent’s article that I linked to at 2:26?
Here’s another, where Mitt described the problem and his proposed solutions in 2004.
Here is a good overview from USA Today.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I am not arguing anything of the sort! You are making a fallacious argument and I am not going to spend the day chasing around red herrings and wild geese.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I think of him as the chameleon candidate.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Well, then, that was easy. FloatingRock 1, Buy Danish 0.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 2:59 PM
*chortle*
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM
For an explanation why my argument isn’t fallacious, check out my comment at 1:07.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM
It is a fallacious analogy because the point of the plan is not to “avoid risk to all”.
You are also using a slippery slope argument and taking it to extremes, like -
If you eat carrots eventually you will die.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Time and again slopes have proven to be slippery regarding these matters, but my point is hardly limited to the slippery slope affect, however valid those arguments would be. Requiring people to have insurance simply because they are alive, (a living-fee), actually leapfrogs in severity several of the other examples in my list at 1:07 and a few of my later comments. The reason is that being alive is involuntary, and many of the other behaviors are only voluntary. It is MORE intrusive. Banning other behaviors, or mandating them away, is based on the exact same logic as Mitt’s health-mandate plan, not an extension of it that logic. It’s not a slippery slope; it is an ice-skating ring.
I’ve often found that the people who appose the slippery-slope argument are those who enthusiastically support slippery slopes. I recall that a few months ago, Buy Danish, we had a discussion on this topic and you argued in favor of other forms of mandatory insurance as well as helmet, life-preserver and seat-belt laws. Do you deny that Mitt’s insurance-mandate is further down the slope from all of those others?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Updated.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Or the Mittens for that matter.
Mcguyver on January 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM
No one is talking about “banning behaviors”!
Once again: It is a fallacious analogy because the point of the plan is not to “avoid risk to all”.
‘
No I did not. Either you are confusing me with someone else or you are misconstruing whatever arguments I may have given. I can state with absolute certainty that I have not discussed life preservers at any time.
I have made a comparison between having to have liability insurance on vehicles and Mitt’s health insurance plan, and I stand by that comparison.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM
No, the point of the plan is to mandate responsible behavior in order to reduce the burden that freedom and liberty places on the whole of society. Why should society have to pay for the irresponsible behavior of a subset of the population? Whether it’s their decision or failure to acquire health insurance, or their decision to drink alcohol or smoke or their failure to exorcise and/or eat right?
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 4:59 PM
GASP!
I chalk it up to enthusiasm, nothing more.
madmonkphotog on January 13, 2008 at 5:35 PM
No it is not! Indeed, I could argue that if you have health insurance you are more at liberty to do whatever you wish, whether it be to eat, drink, or be merry.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 6:19 PM
With more money you are more at liberty to do whatever you wish. Guess the government should just take all our money and divide it evenly among us. Then we’d all have liberty, right?
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Really it is pretty simple, the ones who cannot afford insurance, can be covered by tax free organizations. You can set up a non-profit organization to take care of the welfare of the people. You will have plenty of support. The atheists always claim they give as much or more to society than “church” people. They can put up money to help the uninsured, others that are posting here think it is such a good idea it should be no problem getting people to volunteer their time and money to support such a worthy cause. All of you are so sure that is what society wants, ask them to voluntarily give. Then reality sets in and you realize that the problem is; just a very small group of people want to take our money for the “common” good…except the common good is always defined by the takers, not the givers.
Mitt comes from a place that demands you give, or you are punished…that’s a mandate.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains…there are a lot of Paul’s on this site today.
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Now that’s a fallacious argument.
And it brings up another interesting point. Our Constitutional rights limit the government, not private industry. Once insurance is mandated for everyone living, if the insurance companies decide to improve their bottom lines by requiring that policy holders give up smoking, drinking or other risky behavior such as skydiving, what recourse do we as citizens have?
Our rights are inherently weakened under such a regime, in more ways than one.
FloatingRock on January 13, 2008 at 6:46 PM
It’s not a fallacious argument at all.
Choice A: Drink too much, get liver cancer, have no health insurance.
Choice B: Drink to much, get liver cancer, have insurance.
Which option provides the most hope for the patient?
If we were talking about government health care like Hillary Care you would be correct. Taxpayers cover all costs of her plan and to keep costs down the coverage will have to penalize the insured.
Mitt’s plan is not a government plan, anymore than car insurance is a government plan merely because it is mandated that you carry it. The only mandate is that you have insurance. What insurance you choose is entirely up to you.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM
The very first time I heard Mitt speak was on the Tonight Show. I was kind of excited to hear what he had to say, because I had heard nothing but good things about him.
I was disappointed to find that he was completely full of crap. I didn’t even bother to watch the whole interview.
I have continued to be amazed that Rush and others have continued to call this guy a conservative. He is a joke.
Our party is in serious trouble right now. We have a great candidate, but people are too busy bickering to get behind him.
Fred Thompson ‘08
Dorvillian on January 13, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Quoting Mitt’s article in the Boston Globe (Nov. 2004):
BTW, you can view what URL the link will take you to before you click on it. Just scroll over it and look at your status bar on the bottom (in IE7). You might catch a case of liberalism from the Boston Globe, but you won’t be infected with spyware!
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Also works for Firefox.
Buy Danish on January 13, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3