George Washington was a Socialist Too!

[carlfense]

Apples to apples? I guess I missed the part where Washington said that they would take tax money, put it in a huge pot (government controled), some people put a heck of alot more money in than others, and those that don't have any money will get the same (or similar) as those who put in the most, etc.

Huh? You do realize that this bill requires people to buy health insurance from private insurers correct? You do realize that it isn't socialized medicine? (I think this is what you are getting at anyways . . . Hard to tell.)

 

I do agree that they are both unfunded federal mandates, but they are not even close to the same thing. If you want to compare AUTO insurance (states rights?) to this G. Washington mandate, you would have more of a like comparison.

No. Washington's gun requirement is closer to the health insurance requirement. Both the guns and the health insurance are MANDATORY. There is no way to avoid them. However, auto insurance can be avoided simply by not owning a car.

 

Again, apples to apples. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't correct.

[74Hunter]

2 thoughts:

 

1) this should put to rest any argument against the 2nd amendment and the CITIZENS' right to own firearms.

 

2) the difference is it "required" all able bodied white men to do so, but it did not take a firearm from the guy who has 10 and give it to those who have none, and it did not require the wealthy or "cadillac plan-ers" (with the exception of union members, of course) to flip the bill for others. This took no taxpayer money out of the pockets of individuals and put it in government coffers.

 

Besides, I would assume that the overwhelming majority of the able bodied while males from that time period all had firearms (see Minute Men-Revolutionary War), so this would not be a big stretch.

 

Nice try, but apples to oranges.

 

Actually . . . regarding the bold . . . this is exactly what Washington did. He required SOME to spend money out of their own pockets to benefit the REST. Apples and apples my friend. Both are unfunded mandates. I'd be more happy about what Washington did than what Obama did . . . but both are requiring private citizens to do something that they may or may not want to do.

 

Edit: I think your strong feelings for gun rights, and your strong feelings against federally mandated health insurance might be clouding your thoughts. You said the majority of able bodied white males had firearms . . . well 5 out of 6 Americans have health insurance. Again, apples to apples. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

Apples to apples? I guess I missed the part where Washington said that they would take tax money, put it in a huge pot (government controlled), some people put a heck of alot more money in than others, and those that don't have any money will get the same (or similar)guns as those who put in the most, etc.

 

I do agree that they are both unfunded federal mandates, but they are not even close to the same thing. If you want to compare AUTO insurance (states rights?) to this G. Washington mandate, you would have more of a like comparison.

[carlfense]

 

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Actually, people are fined when they don't have insurance and the government doesn't purchase them insurance. Where are you getting this stuff? What government pot? You realize there is no government option in this bill, correct?

[Husker_x]

 

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Actually, people are fined when they don't have insurance and the government doesn't purchase them insurance. Where are you getting this stuff? What government pot? You realize there is no government option in this bill, correct?

 

What about the expansion of Medicaid?

[carlfense]

 

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Actually, people are fined when they don't have insurance and the government doesn't purchase them insurance. Where are you getting this stuff? What government pot? You realize there is no government option in this bill, correct?

 

What about the expansion of Medicaid?

 

I'm not entirely sure what the expansion of Medicaid is. The closing of the so called donut hole? Is there a higher income ceiling for Medicaid enrollees? I honestly don't know. I tried to read the bill and only made it about 10 pages before my eyes glazed over. All I know is from the summaries posted on Slate and CNN. Help me out?

[knapplc]

Apples to apples? I guess I missed the part where Washington said that they would take tax money, put it in a huge pot (government controlled), some people put a heck of alot more money in than others, and those that don't have any money will get the same (or similar)guns as those who put in the most, etc.

I'm not tremendously familiar with Revolutionary War Era politics, but I'm going to guess that most of the things the Federal government bought with tax money wasn't spelled out to the letter. And the disparate amounts of taxes that you're talking about are paid today, yet millionaires drive on the same roads as Joe Average. Not sure what you're getting at with this assertion?

 

I do agree that they are both unfunded federal mandates, but they are not even close to the same thing. If you want to compare AUTO insurance (states rights?) to this G. Washington mandate, you would have more of a like comparison.

 

I don't think you're ever, ever going to see a 1:1 analogy. Analogies are there to make a point. When we spend more time dissecting the analogy than discussing the broader, more important issue, the conversation is stifled. There may have been better analogies out there, but the point Carlfense was making was that even our "founding fathers" had unfunded mandates, despite what some pundits claim.

[74Hunter]

Apples to apples? I guess I missed the part where Washington said that they would take tax money, put it in a huge pot (government controled), some people put a heck of alot more money in than others, and those that don't have any money will get the same (or similar) as those who put in the most, etc.

Huh? You do realize that this bill requires people to buy health insurance from private insurers correct? You do realize that it isn't socialized medicine? (I think this is what you are getting at anyways . . . Hard to tell.)

 

I do agree that they are both unfunded federal mandates, but they are not even close to the same thing. If you want to compare AUTO insurance (states rights?) to this G. Washington mandate, you would have more of a like comparison.

No. Washington's gun requirement is closer to the health insurance requirement. Both the guns and the health insurance are MANDATORY. There is no way to avoid them. However, auto insurance can be avoided simply by not owning a car.

 

Again, apples to apples. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't correct.

I guess you're talking about a different bill than I. The bill I read stated something about a federal exchange, penalizing citizens that dont purchase insurance, penalizing companies that dont offer insurance to employees, taxing people with better plans, taxing services such as salon tanning, etc. Just where does that money go? Oh, thats right, to pay for those who cant afford it. But no, THATS not socialism.

 

And you must have not caught it where one of Iowa's congressmen (Harkin, I think, not sure) stated that this bill was the first step to the Single Payer system.

[74Hunter]

 

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Actually, people are fined when they don't have insurance and the government doesn't purchase them insurance. Where are you getting this stuff? What government pot? You realize there is no government option in this bill, correct?

 

What about the expansion of Medicaid?

 

I'm not entirely sure what the expansion of Medicaid is. The closing of the so called donut hole? Is there a higher income ceiling for Medicaid enrollees? I honestly don't know. I tried to read the bill and only made it about 10 pages before my eyes glazed over. All I know is from the summaries posted on Slate and CNN. Help me out?

 

So just where do you think that those who are too poor to purchase their own insurance will now get the money to purchase the mandated insurance? Or do you think that they will just pay the penalty for not having insurance?

 

I bet I know.

[carlfense]

"There may have been better analogies out there, but the point Carlfense was making was that even our "founding fathers" had unfunded mandates, despite what some pundits claim."

 

Thanks knapplc. That's exactly what I was shooting for.

[carlfense]

 

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Actually, people are fined when they don't have insurance and the government doesn't purchase them insurance. Where are you getting this stuff? What government pot? You realize there is no government option in this bill, correct?

 

What about the expansion of Medicaid?

 

I'm not entirely sure what the expansion of Medicaid is. The closing of the so called donut hole? Is there a higher income ceiling for Medicaid enrollees? I honestly don't know. I tried to read the bill and only made it about 10 pages before my eyes glazed over. All I know is from the summaries posted on Slate and CNN. Help me out?

 

So just where do you think that those who are too poor to purchase thier own insurance will now get the money to purchase the mandated insurance? Or do you think that they will just pay the penalty for not having insurance?

 

I bet I know.

As opposed to us paying for their medical care now? You realize that we are paying for them either way, right?

[74Hunter]

 

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Actually, people are fined when they don't have insurance and the government doesn't purchase them insurance. Where are you getting this stuff? What government pot? You realize there is no government option in this bill, correct?

 

What about the expansion of Medicaid?

 

I'm not entirely sure what the expansion of Medicaid is. The closing of the so called donut hole? Is there a higher income ceiling for Medicaid enrollees? I honestly don't know. I tried to read the bill and only made it about 10 pages before my eyes glazed over. All I know is from the summaries posted on Slate and CNN. Help me out?

 

So just where do you think that those who are too poor to purchase thier own insurance will now get the money to purchase the mandated insurance? Or do you think that they will just pay the penalty for not having insurance?

 

I bet I know.

As opposed to us paying for their medical care now? You realize that we are paying for them either way, right?

Yes, which is the only reasonable argument that this bill makes. The problems are that this bill does nothing to make healthcare more affordable, more plentiful, or better. Many think that it will do just the opposite.

 

Charging $12 for a couple of Tylenol or $5 for a box of Kleenex during a hospital stay are not gonna be changed by this bill. There are solutions, but this isn't a good one.

[74Hunter]

"There may have been better analogies out there, but the point Carlfense was making was that even our "founding fathers" had unfunded mandates, despite what some pundits claim."

 

Thanks knapplc. That's exactly what I was shooting for.

Understood. Not to be offensive, but I don't think that this is a good example to draw from. But it did give us a nice topic to discuss.

[knapplc]

"There may have been better analogies out there, but the point Carlfense was making was that even our "founding fathers" had unfunded mandates, despite what some pundits claim."

 

Thanks knapplc. That's exactly what I was shooting for.

Understood. Not to be offensive, but I don't think that this is a good example to draw from. But it did give us a nice topic to discuss.

 

It's not offensive at all (at least, that's not how I take it).

 

I think nobody here thinks this healthcare bill solves all problems. I think most of us are worried that it 1) solves the little or unimportant problems, if it solves any and 2) that it creates more problems than it solves.

[irafreak]

It is an annoying habit of politicians and activists on the right to loudly denounce almost anything they don't like as "unconstitutional"

 

This was in your original post...a quote from this article singling out people on the right pissing about the government mandate to buy healthcare and then state that GW mandated something as though he was a conservative...He wasn't and that was my sarcastic point. GW a NON-right/conservative mandated guns and non-right/conservatives mandate healthcare...I fail to see what this has to do with anything...

[carlfense]

It is an annoying habit of politicians and activists on the right to loudly denounce almost anything they don't like as "unconstitutional"

 

This was in your original post...a quote from this article singling out people on the right pissing about the government mandate to buy healthcare and then state that GW mandated something as though he was a conservative...He wasn't and that was my sarcastic point. GW a NON-right/conservative mandated guns and non-right/conservatives mandate healthcare...I fail to see what this has to do with anything...

Both are unfunded mandates. One is from one of the founding fathers. That's all.