BGFalcons82;608273 wrote:Not a government takeover, eh?? Hmmm....let's see:
1. Each and every breathing legal American is mandated to purchase a product or face a penalty. Well...hmmm...penalty. Weird word. When the AG's lawyers got ahold of the law, it morphed into a tax. During the lubrication process prior to voting, Obaman/Reid/Pelosi swore to Americans that it wasn't a tax. Which group is lying: the ones in front of a judge or the ones on TV selling this law? But I digress.
2. If it wasn't a takeover of the industry, then why did they need nearly 2000 pages to define what it is?
3. If it wasn't a takeover, why are health care providers restricted in what products they can sell?
4. If it wasn't a takeover, why are there mandates for insurance companies to insure people 1 day short of their 27th birthday on mommy or daddy's insurance plan?
The article proudly boasts that ObamaKare is not a takeover of the industry, then proceeds to name all of the mandates, restrictions, penalties and regulations that it requires. The only thing that doesn't make it a takeover is that private carriers are allowed to stay in business. If they all keep bleeding money and losing contributors, then it's only a matter of time.
As to point one; Even if Congress is mandating a purchase of health insurance this does not follow that government is taking over health care. In fact, the opposite is true. It is mandating that private health insurers get the money of consumers who can buy insurance. This, if anything, is a reaffirmation of private health insurance and trying to make it work by eliminating the free-rider problem. But again, it's easier to just make a sign and yell socialism because deep down we believe Barack to be a socialist when this really isn't true at all as his staunch liberal dream weavers are finding out with a bitter taste in their mouth
As to your third point, the government passes laws that places restrictions on products that in away that doesn't amount to a government all the time. A mere restriction on products alone doesn't amount to a government takeover as plenty of products have been restricted for medicinal use by the government for several years.
As to your second point, the number of page numbers has nothing to do with this bill being erroneous. In fact, a reasonable and fair minded Conservative FFT has weighed in on why the page number issue is in fact a non-issue in the past. So, perhaps defer to him. As it is just another talking point to deride the bill with a straw man argument.
As to your forth point, Again, not a government takeover as they go on the rolls of private insurance companies. It is another attempt ameliorating the free-rider problem and the expensiveness of individual managed care insurance not available until 2014 when more provisions in the bill become available to the public
You're concern is about the companies bleeding money and yet you and yours are taking the court the key provision that is sought to prevent this from happening; the personal responsibility provision; the requirement that healthy people don't push their cause onto others or else face a penalty to counter that cost. When Massachusetts mandated its citizens start buying insurance along with forcing insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, premiums went down 40%. Your concerns are unfounded but perhaps you should go buy a bag of gold, first aid kit and survivor seeds and go build a bunker in the woods and await the coming zombie apocalypse when the government infects everyone with the T virus from Resident Evil.
