Posted by Kromey at 1:06am Jan 10 '11This version was passed under the assertion that it wouldn't break the bank. An assertion that was patently absurd at the time, and we're now seeing exactly that.
To say nothing of the blatantly illegal: The individual mandate violates the limitations imposed upon the federal government by the US Constitution. You know, that little piece of paper that keeps our government ... well, I would say "honest", but it's really "as honest as any laws ever could".
Yeah, I'm sure that's really helpful to the people who can't get insurance because they have a known expensive condition already.
This would be typical from a politician -- ignore pieces so you can argue against what obviously won't work, even though no one is suggesting that. Did you see the key word "regulated" in there? The obvious implication being that there would be, y'know, regulations. No one's saying that there wouldn't be one prohibiting the patently absurd practice of denying coverage based on "pre-existing conditions". Easier to ignore that and blast an idea no one's suggesting though, huh? It's absurd to argue against a generic idea (present in half a paragraph) because it didn't mention the particular specifics you're interested in.
Everyone knows there needs to be major reform of the entire health care sector. So your absurd accusation that Republicans don't want to do that is, well, absurd, especially when you remember one of the Democrats' own talking points throughout the health care debate: much of this bill was taken directly from Republicans' own proposals -- many of which had been shot down previously by the Democrats.
To say nothing of the blatantly illegal: The individual mandate violates the limitations imposed upon the federal government by the US Constitution. You know, that little piece of paper that keeps our government ... well, I would say "honest", but it's really "as honest as any laws ever could".
Yeah, I'm sure that's really helpful to the people who can't get insurance because they have a known expensive condition already.
This would be typical from a politician -- ignore pieces so you can argue against what obviously won't work, even though no one is suggesting that. Did you see the key word "regulated" in there? The obvious implication being that there would be, y'know, regulations. No one's saying that there wouldn't be one prohibiting the patently absurd practice of denying coverage based on "pre-existing conditions". Easier to ignore that and blast an idea no one's suggesting though, huh? It's absurd to argue against a generic idea (present in half a paragraph) because it didn't mention the particular specifics you're interested in.
Everyone knows there needs to be major reform of the entire health care sector. So your absurd accusation that Republicans don't want to do that is, well, absurd, especially when you remember one of the Democrats' own talking points throughout the health care debate: much of this bill was taken directly from Republicans' own proposals -- many of which had been shot down previously by the Democrats.
In addition to below - Kromey