Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And when you add to it that every one of these people wear their Christianity on their sleeves, all while ignoring most of what Jesus taught, it becomes absolutely sacrilege. They ought to be ashamed, but they're really quite shameless. Especially when "Obamacare" is quite modest compared to just about every other civilized place. But it's more important, apparently, to SAY one is a Christian than to actually walk the talk.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I can say without a doubt, that the country *I* live in is markedly superior to America on healthcare. On nearly every measurable front!<< Amazing, isn't it?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///What about car insurance? We require car insurance/// A major theme in your arguments is the "false equivalency". We've seen it a few times over in World Events concerning the antics of symbolic ungulates. State required financial responsibility for drivers is not, fundamentally, the same as state compelled health coverage and I'm fairly convinced that a team of US judges will see it the same way very soon.
Originally Posted By Donny You know if you wanted a compromise in this whole health care debate just make Obamacare a choice not compulsory.I would be allot more impressed and I think it could still be the largest health insurer in the world.
Originally Posted By andyll <<State required financial responsibility for drivers is not, fundamentally, the same as state compelled health coverage and I'm fairly convinced that a team of US judges will see it the same way very soon.>> What about federally required flood insurance.... it's been around 40 years. What about the multiple SC decisions stating that any economic activity that happens in multiple states falls under the commerce clause.
Originally Posted By andyll <<You know if you wanted a compromise in this whole health care debate just make Obamacare a choice not compulsory>> It is at a state level. The exchanges are at a state level. States can also opt out of the individual mandates if they provide equivilent compliance.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>State required financial responsibility for drivers is not, fundamentally, the same as state compelled health coverage<< I never said it was the same. I pointed out that we have examples of state requirements for people to basically protect themselves because the state has a vested interest in doing so. Lame libertarian arguments aside, it costs us money when someone else drives without their seatbelt on and gets in an accident. So we have a law. It's not the same thing, but the precedent is there.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt A Federal judge (a Bush appointee) in Virginia has ruled that a key part of Obama's health care reform is unconstitutional: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12...&src=igw</a>
