Obamacare Stands/Insurance Mandate, er, Tax Upheld

I have seen many a Republican point to the fact that Democrats voted for the war in Iraq and the fact that we found out later that the war was sold based on a lie makes no difference. I believe their exact argument was that the democrats had the opportunity to do their research before they voted so they had no cause to complain after the fact. Sometimes your own arguments come back to bite you.

Hey archer, would you support Obamacare if it was purely funded by either

a. a 5% payroll tax

or

b. a 5% sales tax.

And then the tax was increased as needed to pay the actual costs each year?

Just curious?

I think there is a big difference in your comparison. You can say the war in Iraq was a lie and discount the intel that we and allies had to work with. Fact... Saddam had a history of using WMD in his own country against his own people... again, that is FACT. You could say that the US and other allies had bad intel, but suggesting Bush staight up lied is just an opinion you can't back up with fact. Liberals love factcheck.org so I figured I'd let it speak to this as well :

Looking back, it is now clear that much of what is quoted in this ad was, even in context, false or misleading. To say Bush and the others "lied," however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong. The unanimous finding of the Intelligence Commission argues against that idea.

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-war_ ... sfeld.html
It's also a FACT that Obama said emphatically that the mandate was not a tax. He was either wrong and all of his advisors were wrong, or he lied in order to sell it to the people. Either way, it's not exactly a good endorsement of his "wise and transparent" presidency. If they were wrong about the tax, then is it not possible that they are wrong about the ACA being a good and well thought out bill? Or should we just trust that this additional government control over our lives isa good thing even though they were not smart enough to understand the mandate was a tax? OR, they knew good and well it was a tax but had to lie in order to sell it. There are only two choices, which is it?

And as for something coming back to bite, I'd say this new tax is just in time for the upcoming election (combined with rising unemployment and slowing economy). Nothing could have excited the GOP base more than this power grab.

archer wrote: I have seen many a Republican point to the fact that Democrats voted for the war in Iraq and the fact that we found out later that the war was sold based on a lie makes no difference. I believe their exact argument was that the democrats had the opportunity to do their research before they voted so they had no cause to complain after the fact. Sometimes your own arguments come back to bite you.

Funny... I was thinking the SAME THING this afternoon..."The democrats had the opportunity to do their research before they voted..." The GOP had whole staffs of people...(And I'm SURE the health-care industry lobbyists were pouring over it with a fine-toothed-comb and shooting all the talking points to the GOP...)

What makes even LESS sense now is that I hear folks like Boner on the news/talk show this morning talking about the "2700 pages" and "we don't know what's in it".... Uh, it passed on March 21, 2010... That's a little over 2 years, 3 months ago... And you want us to believe you STILL "don't know what's in it?" They trot out their same talking points that they were using in 2010... "Death panels" and all.... What hypocrisy...

LOL...yes, I would be in favor of funding the ACA with an across the board tax of some sort. However, I would prefer that we raise taxes enough to cover a single payer system. That is what I have always thought this country needs and would be of most benefit both to the citizens and the economy.

Thanks for the honest answer archer.

If they just took out the words: "OVER 65" from Medicare, and let people buy into it, it would solve a HUGE percentage of the problems with health care. But that would be too easy.

(It would also take away the b.s. about "Government telling you what doctor to go to, and what health plan you have to take", and all the rest of the silly neo-con talking points.)

Medicare is not an insurance plan, it is pre-paid comprehensive health care geared for older people with guaranteed health issues to end of life. I wouldn't have a problem with opening up medicare II to anyone under 65 if it was:

1: Optional
2. The Premiums were based on the full cost
3. Reimbursement rates to providers were negotiated not set artificially by the gov't thereby shifting costs.

OMG
I am shocked that did not trigger your standard "Bush lied about WMD" cut and paste. Welcome to the real world.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

archer wrote: I have seen many a Republican point to the fact that Democrats voted for the war in Iraq and the fact that we found out later that the war was sold based on a lie makes no difference. I believe their exact argument was that the democrats had the opportunity to do their research before they voted so they had no cause to complain after the fact. Sometimes your own arguments come back to bite you.

Funny... I was thinking the SAME THING this afternoon..."The democrats had the opportunity to do their research before they voted..." The GOP had whole staffs of people...(And I'm SURE the health-care industry lobbyists were pouring over it with a fine-toothed-comb and shooting all the talking points to the GOP...)

What makes even LESS sense now is that I hear folks like Boner on the news/talk show this morning talking about the "2700 pages" and "we don't know what's in it".... Uh, it passed on March 21, 2010... That's a little over 2 years, 3 months ago... And you want us to believe you STILL "don't know what's in it?" They trot out their same talking points that they were using in 2010... "Death panels" and all.... What hypocrisy...

When the point is so well proven, the lies about WMD's are a "given"...