Video: If ObamaCare is so good …
posted at 12:15 pm on November 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Greg Hengler picks his favorite moment from the House debate on Saturday as the moment that Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) asked the question that could easily have been asked twenty years ago today at the Berlin Wall. If the ObamaCare proposal is so good, why do you have to imprison people who don’t want to participate?
We’ve heard from the best and the brightest all afternoon, and not a one of them have answered why it is that you have to criminalize people to coax them into a plan that’s so fabulous. It makes no sense. … The other side, with all due respect, with all the adjectives and all the flourishing speech, have failed to answer that question.
Why can’t they answer? They can’t. They need to force people into the system in order to spread the costs more evenly to everyone, which is why the House took the blatantly unconstitutional path of federal mandates for health insurance. They want to solve a problem involving 13% of the American population by burdening the 87% that doesn’t have the problem at all, rather than looking for a way to reduce health-care costs for 100%.
Ronald Reagan gave a brilliant speech in June 1987 in demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down this wall,” but he could just as easily have asked Gorbachev to answer this question: If Communism is such a benefit to its people, why do you have to force people to participate in it? The answer: Statism always requires force, and it always strips people of liberty. It always comes with handcuffs. That’s how we know it’s coming.
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 Next »
Except, of course, the commissars themselves are not forced to into the system.
notagool on November 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I love clueless liberals in the morning. They are so funny.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
The difference is that the power to levy an income tax was granted by constitutional amendment. It would be legal to assess a tax and exempt people from that tax if they had health insurance. Tax breaks for policy reasons are allowed, affirmative mandates are a whole different ball of wax. Plus, the main feature of your hypo is that no one would required to buy health insurance. Those who failed to do so simply would not qualify for the tax break. PelosiCare would be constitutional if they did it that way. They didn’t do it that way. If the Dems want this they will need to pass another constitutional amendment.
alwaysfiredup on November 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Maybe time for Hooverville II. Could call it “Tea Town.”
davidk on November 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I was there too. My boss, who is a member of congress, was there too. Your voice, and the voices of the thousands there with you, were heard loud and clear. Just not by the right people…
t.ferg on November 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM
You can imagine him, in another life saying “I was just following orders.”
lorien1973 on November 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I’m going to propose a law, that every adult has to use their vacation time each year to help build a monumement to the current president. Anyone who doesn’t agree, will be thrown in jail.
To which Bleeds Blue will reply:
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Kind of eerie, that this comes from the Declaration of Independence, and how much some of these passages are relevant to our current President, and Congress….
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Almost scary to me, how these are so similar to now.
capejasmine on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Enough Said.
Wolftech on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I have no trouble imagining him saying that in this life.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
As if they care. They found a talking point they like and they’ll stick to it until the bitter end.
Let the children play.
crr6 on November 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
So do our resident trolls support ditching the filibuster?
WashJeff on November 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Nods.
And spits tobacco juice on copy of NYT lying on the floor.
justltl on November 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Once the people of this Country figure they have been finally been pushed far enough and react, to preserve their hard-earned Liberty, they will not care what you may find specious. In fact I’m pretty sure some of them will be happy to show you how to shove “specious” up your a$$.
Liberty tends to roll over arrogant stupidity.
Yoop on November 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Actually, the CA governor pointed out this is a huge unfunded mandate to the states. The bill forces an expansion of Medicaid that the state has to pick up the tab for. CA was in the 8-9 billion range. Where is that money coming from?
Aviator on November 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I’m waiting to see if the bill actually becomes law. If it does, let’s talk.
WesternActor on November 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
How many times are you going to try to trot out that lie.
1) It wasn’t massive
2) It wasn’t illegal
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM
.
Who do you think I am, Charlie Rangel?
iurockhead on November 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Ask Eric Holder that question. He doesn’t think the Black Panthers or Bill Richardson should be forced to face any penalties … why should people who don’t want to buy communist health insurance?
darwin on November 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Not only is it so fabulous that the progressives had to up the ante from 1yr in jail to 5yrs! Apparently upon reflection they came to the conclusion that Americans might prefer 1yr behind bars to the benevolence of Obamacare. Think about that!
Archimedes on November 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Translated:
@#$%, brilliant comment that I can’t counter. Since I’m a liberal, and by definition a coward, I’ll just deflect the conversation to…talking point.
Seriously, do you tards ever express pride in what you believe in? It seems to me, your type just runs to the corner and quivers in fear, whenever someone touches a core belief of tarddom.
Man up, little one.
MNHawk on November 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Hell, if it’s so good, then why don’t the Dems mandate that all member of congress have to use it?
greggriffith on November 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
You don’t say?
daesleeper on November 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
That kind of thinking does not enter the equation while constructing such laws. Only reason and the US Constitution. Neither were considered much less followed.
I’m usually not the biggest fan of putting quotes down on these pages save the rare exception. I think this qualifies for its application.
Question and follow up:
Do partisan victories trump liberty? If not, what philosophical ideology should trump liberty?
anuts on November 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Yup! And I’m pretty damn sure that he’s not wanting to continue it to keep an eye on his buddies, the terrorists. Chances are, our phones are being tapped. Let’s not forget, that Obama also continues renditions, and other assorted items Bush used, and Libs hated. But if you’re a lib, and your lib prez uses them, it’s just fine, and dandy.
capejasmine on November 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again today: I’d rather go to jail than to consent to this abomination.
And I’m willing to say it to their faces!
newton on November 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
In this case, it’s enlightened statism. That’s different, right?
unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Worth repeating.
davidk on November 9, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I’ve figured out how to get around it. I’m going to push the “retirement” button on my company’s HR website the moment the Senate passes this gilded turd. I’ll make room for the fresh-faced liberal kid and I’ll make him pay for my healthcare. Revenge is delicious.
unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Playing here also CCR, and do you favor that ALL the laws in the land be obeyed? Do you favor that our immigration laws be obeyed? What do you think of the cities disobeying with their sanctuaries? Your obeying is rather selective isn’t it? Do you also favor those who drive without insurance be jailed also? I live in an area where lots of illegals drive without insurance and its against the law but they still get away with it. They just drive without a license.
garydt on November 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Democrats, not content with the old ways of making jobs disappear, are currently find new and exciting ways to do so.
lorien1973 on November 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Jail is freedom.
LibTired on November 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Keep the quotes coming. And keep repeating them.
That one’s outstanding.
BowHuntingTexas on November 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Obama probably never touched a pitchfork in his life.
But maybe the Secret Service could use some right now.
Steve Z on November 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM
And why do its authors exempt themselves from its provisions?
It takes a special type of delusional stupidity to think this is anything other than a full assault on American liberty. These people truly are enemies of this country and all it was meant to stand for.
RadClown on November 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM
The five boxes of freedom:
1. the soap box
2. the ballot box
3. the jury box
4. the witness box
and when those fail, the final box
5. the cartridge box.
sannhet on November 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM
You’re mistaken. Police protection and fire services are things that are one of the examples of a limited government service that’s appropriate.
Second, most police and fire protection are done at the lowest possible level of government – cities, towns, and villages. NOT the Federal government.
Third, if you don’t call the police or need the fire department, no one is going to knock on your door and say you’re not doing your part in utilizing a service you neither want nor need, and slap the cuffs on you.
englishqueen01 on November 9, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Interesting view. If the govt is justified in taxing for any reason, it is justified in taxing for all reasons?
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:18 PM
To put it more precisely. The constitution grants to govt certain, highly proscribed powers. It grants to govt the power to raise taxes in order to pay for those functions.
It does not grant to congress the power to raise taxes to support any wet dream the liberals come up with this week.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I want the poll tax back?
WashJeff on November 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
As I have stated repeatedly from Day One: Only a liberal can claim something is a RIGHT, and then turn around and offer legislation with punitive meaasures for those who choose freely not to exercise this right.
There’s your ad!
D2Boston on November 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Notice how the liberals band together for comfort.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM
What are you doing with a copy of the NYT? I hope you didn’t pay for it.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM
If you have to ask, then obviously you don’t care for the children.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM
But only if we are calling known terrorists residing outside the country.
Otherwise Obama would have expanded the program beyond what Bush used it for.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM
So, are you suggesting that there be no penalty if you break the law?
Bleeds Blue on November 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM
If the law itself is unconstitutional, hence itself an illegal act, those that wrote it should pay the penalty.
Again as I stated above…
Not only is it so fabulous that the progressives had to up the ante from 1yr in jail to 5yrs! Apparently upon reflection they came to the conclusion that Americans might prefer 1yr behind bars to the benevolence of Obamacare. Think about that!
If the statists wrote a law that said you couldn’t copulate with your unfortunate new wife, would you obey it? And would you think it reasonable to pay a penalty for failure to comply with an unreasonable ordinance?
Progressives, i.e. fascists always resort to the threat of force to impose thgeir will. It is implicit our 1st progressive presidents dictat, “Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.” - Woodrow Wilson. For all the supposed identity politics the left professes to embrace, it is the destruction of the identity of one’s self, individualism that they in the end are out to bannish.
This is straight out of STNG and the Oborg proclamation, “Resistance is futile, you will be” assimilated!
It is why Oborg like Bleeds Blue can only summon up Oborg talling points and progressive platitudes, he has imbibed the Kool-aid so thoroughly he is incapable independant thought.
BB, you need to look at the history of your progressive movement, and wake up to the totalitarian nature of it’s inevitable path. Her’s a refresher course for you on American Progressivism and its warm embrace of tyrannical dictators.
http://knol.google.com/k/john-ray/the-american-roots-of-fascism/1a2p9co02fh9a/3#
This is what you are trying to foist on us, an effort that can ony lead to penurious subjagation! If this comes to pass, here of all places, where will be left to run to, to escape the progressives vile intents?
Archimedes on November 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
That very same police protection must be funded to ensure your own protection which advances your own liberty. It is extremely unlikely (although at least definitely not proven) that this bill will further the cause of protection. It is completely and verifiably against the interest of liberty.
anuts on November 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
He is a liberal after all.
MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Actually they want us treated like children because they know better and if we’d just shut up and not care about our freedoms then they will get their liberal utopia enacted.
gwelf on November 9, 2009 at 1:30 PM
anuts on November 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Well played! When confronting statist verbal blather, Rand is most always the best counter.
Archimedes on November 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM
The tax requirement is constitutional.
There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to demand a private citizen to purchase a good or service they choose not to purchase. Add to that the penalties for not buying the good or service, and whole cartoon should be laughed off the floor.
In a sane world, that is.
Itchee Dryback on November 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
These leftists can never answer basic questions and it still amazes me. They either ignore you or call you names and yet they control the media,, what are they afraid of by not answering?
garydt on November 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Enough Said.
Wolftech on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Worth repeating.
davidk on November 9, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Again and again, from the roof-tops until the deceived can see the light.
Archimedes on November 9, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Is the tax requirement Constitutional? My understanding of the Constitution allows the Fed to raise taxes to pay the bills of the US and to carry out its duties under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. If health care isn’t an enumerated power then they can’t raise taxes to pay for it.
DerKrieger on November 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Do libs ever actually come out and defend what they believe in or just stick to character assault and name calling for those that don’t agree with them?
search4truth on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
As far as Barak Hussein Obama is concerned, he HAS no enemies outside the borders of the United States.
Lead a terrorist organization, or run a totalitarian state? You get an all-expense-paid ‘summit’ to tell Obama how many billions you want to get paid this year.
If you’re an American citizen who doesn’t want to “enjoy the benefits of the Workers’ Paradise,” You get five years hard labor. And that’s ASSUMING that you proclaim your undying love for Big Brother after you get out. Otherwise, it’s a life sentence.
logis on November 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM
The 16th Amendment validated income taxes.
Itchee Dryback on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Actually, when you consider all the tax cheats in the Obama administration, they’re making it pretty clear there is no penalty if you break the law.
So long as you have the right connections.
englishqueen01 on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
These leftists can never answer basic questions and it still amazes me. They either ignore you or call you names and yet they control the media,, what are they afraid of by not answering?
garydt on November 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Answer?—Reality!
Archimedes on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
People realizing just how full of sh*t and dangerous they really are.
englishqueen01 on November 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Well this does try to twist our tax system into creating a statist government. You don’t find it odd that the IRS is going to be heavily involved in ‘health care’ if liberal Democrats have their way?
gwelf on November 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
We need an artist to incorporate Obama’s “O” sign in a pair of handcuffs.
Josiah on November 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I don’t think there is any exemption from the tax if you carry insurance.
You have to carry insurance and pay the tax to cover those who “need help”.
Itchee Dryback on November 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Can we all just renounce our citizenship and become illegal aliens? Then we can avoid having to buy insurance and not have to pay any taxes or do any jail time.
rockmom on November 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You know taht this clip should be played on every news outlet several times a day for a week and that would end this fiasco.
royzer on November 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Too logical for the trolls on this site. I think they’re on the lower pay-rungs of the DNC/SEIU/Organizing for Odinglenuts astroturfers.
mr.blacksheep on November 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
You mean like the redundancy of “It’s Bush’s Fault”?
capejasmine on November 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Under this premise what limits the government from ‘gently’ forcing you to do anything?
How about a 10% tax that’s waived if you have less than 5% body fat? How about a 5% tax that’s waived if you __(insert government determined bad behavior or state of being here)__.
gwelf on November 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
They do that now in a way: “Lots of free $#!+ if you vote for the BO08.”
mr.blacksheep on November 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Apparently they are free to assign you a $4000 penalty if you fail to produce your ticket for the Policeman’s Benefit Dinner. Right?
How about we copy Japan, and force everybody to buy a new motor every 5 years?
How about municipal bonds. Who’s against municipal bonds? Buy $1000 in municipal bonds or pay the IRS $4000. That’s a bargain.
And we can’t keep selling our debt to China. Let’s keep it in the family. Buy 90-day T-bills or else. It’s the American way.
“Children” crr6 says. Yeah most of us here are lovable harmless kids. The most we’ll do is draw $250,000 in fines and a suspended sentence for felony tax evasion, because by nature we’re law-abiding rightwing schmucks.
However–
in your lust and greed your crew went and did something dumb. You went and legislated your way into the pocket of every American adult between the St. Lawrence and the Gulf of Mexico. You ordered everybody to pay thousands of dollars a year, like it or not, or get their wages garnished. When the American wage-earner wakes up to that mess, God help you. Most of them already don’t vote because they think politics is all bullshit. You think they’re gonna wait for a biannual federal election to square your armed robbery? Do you really think you can direct the American family budget by mail from Washington?
It’s not only the anniversary of the Wall coming down…when the Wall came down they hunted the Stalsi in the street like dogs and hung them from streetlamps.
Chris_Balsz on November 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Thats what we have liberal activist judges, to make and interpret the law as they see fit.
Congress has no right to exact a tax on the people for soemthing that is not a right aka HEALTH INSURANCE: something YOU purchase in case of your personal injury, not US paying for everone else.
dthorny on November 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Well, our
ELECTED LEADERSHIPpolitburo deems they do not need to pay these fines they are placing on WE THE PEOPLE? Then that makes this UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they are not mandated to purchase this crap, only us in the servant class.Hypocrite, thy name is democrat.
dthorny on November 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Hey all you HA lawyers!
Tell me about DUE PROCESS. Tell me how I can be imprisoned for failure to pay a fine/tax. Tell me what criminal code is involved.
Blacksmith8 on November 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Are they making this a felony? As in don’t buy health insurance then you lose the right to vote and the right to own a gun?
agmartin on November 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Is that a rhetorical question?
Blacksmith8 on November 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM
As always, this isn’t about you. The average liberal pays about as much in income taxes as he contributes to private charity. Moonbats have never respected any law, and you are not about to start with this one.
The utterly unique thing that’s happening now is that REAL PEOPLE are going to quit going along with this. The people who actually PAY the vast majority of taxes are going to stop.
This has happened a hundred times before in a hundred different countries. And the results are always, at best, both literally and figuratively depressing.
logis on November 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I’m ready for 3 hots and a cot
Jeff from WI on November 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I wouldn’t buy the NYT if it were the last toilet paper manufactured on the planet.
justltl on November 9, 2009 at 5:19 PM
The Caliber made an excellent (though kind of obvious) point, and all the responses, especially the ones about the Constitution, have missed it.
Ed’s question is: “If X is so good, why do you have to imprison people who don’t want to participate?”
You guys think this is a great question when X is “ObamaCare” and “Communism,” but when X is “The Legal System” or “Having a police force” suddenly it’s not such a great question anymore. I hope we all agree that having a police force is a good thing, and also that if funding for the police were on a donation basis, it wouldn’t be well funded. But if I fail to pay taxes that fund the police force, I go to jail.
And the answer to Ed’s question is obvious: because of the tragedy of the commons, there are some policies that are good and necessary for the overall benefit of society, but that people must be forced into. That doesn’t mean that EVERY policy is like that, but it does mean that just because you’re forced into something, that doesn’t make it necessarily bad, as Ed implies.
Also, everyone who is talking about the Constitution, that’s fine, but that’s not what this post is about. Ed poses his question independent of any Constitutional issues.
tneloms on November 9, 2009 at 6:00 PM
O/T if Obama was more generous man he would invite GWB & Laura to the memorial. They won’t be there and I’m willing to bet at the WH request. They make Bambi look bad
Willie on November 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Laughable if you think Americans will go to jail. Democrats, if you want blood, you can be obliged. I will NEVER pay a fine, OR go to jail or participate in this unconstitutional act so if you want violence, come get some but don’t be surprise when you and your “MESSIAH” end up on the business end of a hangman’s noose before this is over.
nelsonknows on November 9, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Speaking of toilet paper, I photoshopped this:
Ridiculing these cretins with photoshop is my therapy.
justltl on November 9, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Better than the NYT.
justltl on November 9, 2009 at 7:15 PM
If you want this answer on a Constitutional basis, fine.
ANY HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION VOTED ON BY CONGRESS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL…PERIOD.
(1). Article 1, Section 8 contains the powers granted to Congress.
Congress is NOT granted these powers in Article 1, Section 8.
The “General Welfare Clause” ONLY allows Congress to pass legislation pertaining to the granted powers named in Article 1, Section 8.
Thus, National Healthcare Legislation is illegal and unconstitutional.
(2). Because Congress has no jurisdiction over healthcare, this is a 9th and 10th Amendment issue, thus national healthcare legislation also violates the 9th and 10th Amendments.
(3). National Healthcare Legislation that FORCES people to participate and or fines them, or charges a punitive tax violates Article 1, Section 9, clause 3; “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
A Bill of Attainder has two meanings; 1, an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.
2. A punitive tax or fee.
There are at LEAST 8 more violations of the Constitution, covered in the House Healthcare Legislation, violating the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.
nelsonknows on November 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM
If Obama care is sooooooooooooooooooooooo good, why won’t the Dems let the public read it BEFORE voting on it?
If Obama care is sooooooooooooooooooooooo good, why did it take a late night, Saturday night at that, congressional session to pass it?
If Obama care is sooooooooooooooooooooooo good, shouldn’t the Dems be “proud of it” and want everybody to see it? Like a new baby?
Are the Dems ashamed of the bill? Sure looks like it.
DSchoen on November 9, 2009 at 7:35 PM
How you concluded that my comment warranted an answer on a Constitutional basis, I have no idea.
I specifically said that the issue that Ed raises in this post has nothing to do with the Constitutional arguments. Ed’s issue is one of policy. I and others rebutted his silly argument.
If you want to raise Constitutional arguments to ObamaCare, that’s fine, but they have nothing to do with Ed’s post or my comment.
tneloms on November 9, 2009 at 7:53 PM
My FACTS, had everything to do with this, National Healthcare legislation is ILLEGAL, PERIOD.
nelsonknows on November 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM
WRONG.
We don’t need taxes to have police. We need taxes to have paid police. We don’t NEED paid police, it just seems a welcome convenience.
Implied, hell. He asks why must people be forced into it at all, which prompted a spiel on the beauty of the corvee instead of an answer. The real answer is, that socialized medicine will so obviously work as badly as all other social services, that we are better off without it, and this is recognized by too many people for it to exist as a voluntary option.
It becomes about the Constitution when we bring the Constitution into it.
Chris_Balsz on November 9, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Yes, what you said has to do with national healthcare legislation. That does not mean that it is relevant to the point that Ed made. Nor does it mean that it is relevant to the comment that I made. Even though Ed and I were both talking about healthcare.
Ed made a point about national healthcare. The argument did not depend on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the bill. I was only talking about Ed’s argument. Your argument, while it may be correct, is not relevant to Ed’s point.
tneloms on November 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM
My premise was that a well-funded police force is a good thing, not that it is necessary. If you disagree, I think you are in the minority. Even if you disagree, maybe you do agree that a well-funded army is a good thing.
Assuming that you agree that there is *something* that taxes pay for that is worthwhile, then you should understand my point, which is that Ed’s argument would apply to that thing, but would not be very convincing. Just because a thing is good, that doesn’t mean that it will be well funded on a voluntary basis.
Are you objecting to my use of “implied?” I said that Ed implied that if people are forced into something, it is necessarily bad. Do you disagree that he implied this?
I understand this objection, as do most people. My only point was that simply asking, “If it’s so good, why do you need to force people into it?” is not enough of an argument. It sounds good, and it’s simple and catchy, but it’s not convincing on its own, because that question can be asked of things that we agree are in fact “so good.”
I am not sure how to respond to this tautology. I maintain that the Constitutional arguments are not relevant to Ed’s argument and to mine.
tneloms on November 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Or if you want to see their collective head explode, ask,
If health care is a right, why does anyone have to pay for it?
Of the “Bill of Rights” which one I’m I required to pay for under the penalty of jail or fine?
DSchoen on November 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM
This is what you are trying to foist on us, an effort that can ony lead to penurious subjagation! If this comes to pass, here of all places, where will be left to run to, to escape the progressives vile intents?
Archimedes on November 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I don’t believe I’ll be running anywhere, except to the sound of gunfire.I PREY and it will be fitty-twoers on the run.
huckelberry on November 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM
In the military following orders is what you do. You don’t say “Why,” you just do. Failue to do so can costs lives. Following orders is is so much part of the military milieu it hardly needs explaining.
But. If an order is illegal, you do not follow it.
davidk on November 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Nice use of hand cuffs to make a point.
Live free… go to jail.
Mojave Mark on November 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »