Breaking News: Dems drop ‘deem and pass’ in favor of separate vote on Senate #hcr bill. Good. Meanwhile, Nova & SMC are tied with 5:23 left.
Breaking News: Dems drop ‘deem and pass’ in favor of separate vote on Senate #hcr bill. Good. Meanwhile, Nova & SMC are tied with 5:23 left.
Guess this means all the right wing hystrionics about how the freedom hating Democrats and Obama want to turn us into a Socialist Paradise that would make the Soviet Union look like a capitalist paradise is going to go away.
Naw just kidding, they’ll still be ridiculous.
David K:
If the government can force us to buy healthcare…what else can they force us to buy?
What can’t they force us to do?
What happened to a government of limited, enumerated powers?
If the government can force us to wear seatbelts, why before you know it we’ll be hustled off into concentration camps for disagreeing with the President!
Where was the right wings concern about limited government when Bush was in office putting in place invasive laws like the Patriot Act? What am I more afraid of:
1) Health care regulations being increased
2) The government being able to warrantlessly tap my phone or declare me an enemy combatant and hold me indefinitely without charging me with a crime?
Passing health care regulation doesn’t give them more or less ability to turn tyrannical about un-related things. In theory the government could ALWAYS do horrible things if we let them, but there is no connection to this bill and any of the scare monger scenarios you hear from the right wing because its ABOUT HEALTH CARE. The government always has the ability to pass laws that require things of its citizenry. Thats part of living in a society. If you don’t like that idea in general, if you think there should be more limited roles of government fine, make that argument. There is an honest argument to be made there. But health care reform isn’t going to turn us into a facist state, there isn’t even a clear correlation between the two things. You can’t just look at the fact that the government creates a law that you don’t like, you have to see if the law itself has any relation to future behavior that you are trying to relate it to.
If you buy a car you HAVE to buy insurance, the government has had that regulation in place for decades now, and yet surprisingly enough we haven’t become the next Soviet Union.
If the government can force us to wear seatbelts, why before you know it we’ll be hustled off into concentration camps for disagreeing with the President!
The government is not forcing you to drive a car. It’s a priveledge, not a right. (however I do oppose seat belt laws) The government is forcing us to buy health insurance purely as a result of being alive.
If you buy a car you HAVE to buy insurance
Actually untrue..it’s only if you DRIVE a car, and even then it’s not everywhere…that’s a state requirement, not a federal one, which means if you don’t agree you can move to a different state.
And I would also argue that since the passing of the first seat belt law, our lives HAVE become much more regulated by the government.
This bill marks a fundamental change in the relationship of the government and the people, and the American people realize this, even if you do not.
Gahrie – your argument seems to be that the proposed individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. (Apologies if I have misinterpreted it).
If this is the case, then it is odd – to say the very least – that the existence of an individual mandate in Massachusetts for a couple of years now has not generated any serious concern (let alone litigation) as to its constitutionality. Why is this?
[Disclaimer: I’m not taking sides, just asking the question!]