- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,392
- Liked Posts:
- 5,207
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,533
- Liked Posts:
- 440
What's so socialist about it, it simply forces people to buy insurance from private industries. There's nothing socialist about it. But what else is so damn socialist about Obama?
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,533
- Liked Posts:
- 440
And that's not socialism, that's just bad policy, designed to make a good profit for the private industry.
supraman
New member
- Joined:
- May 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 8,024
- Liked Posts:
- 196
- Location:
- St.Pete, FL
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
You are wrong here with your assumption. You wouldn't know since you probably have not read what the bill entailed such as mandatory coverages along with managing profits and claims payments of insurers.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,392
- Liked Posts:
- 5,207
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
Sounds suspiciously like states forcing drivers to buy insurance for their cars. Ever thought about that, anti-Obama folks?
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,392
- Liked Posts:
- 5,207
Driving is a privledge. If you don't want to buy insurance, no one forces you to buy a car and insurance.
Plus, that is a state-level law.
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
The motives behind your concern are not lost on some of us. But needless to say this isn't just about you. It's about what is best for over 300 million people. At least that is the benefit I prefer to find hope in, greater health for the community means less chance of me getting sick or an epidemic breaking out.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
How about assuming control of all student/education loans? Or maybe assuming controlling share of GM?
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
This is 2012, the whole states vs federal law/responsibility thing has been a very grey argument for decades.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
How about the federal government telling which car dealerships will be allowed to stay open and which ones they were not going to support?
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
Prove me wrong, then put me on ignore all you want, Teabagger.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
I watched a documentary on Legal marijauna growers in California. Following the airing of the documentary, Several of them were raided and arrested by the feds. So they added that to the current incarnation of the documentary. Interviewed one of the guys who was arrested awaiting is court hearing saying, What he was doing was completely legal in the state of california he had a license and was not in violation of it, so he didnt fear being arrested by appearing on the documentary.
They also talked to the fed that spearheaded the operation to get the guys in the documentary his answer was simply "Its still against federal law".
So yes, i would say the federal government doesnt likely care what is legal or illegal in a given state. If a state says its ok but the fed doesnt the feds can still bust you, the allegedly sovereign state is unable to provide its residents protection from the federal government.
BigPete
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,010
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Belleville, IL
Which in my opinion is just one more really good reason to simplify everything and have more national governance of things. Why is it socialism if the federal government regulates all things related to driving a car but not when that the state of IL does it? (that was just one simple example - please look past the details and into the greater meaning)
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
I completely agree. In fact thats the only thing the state can do is make more things illegal or required within the state, they cant really circumvent federal law when it comes to expanding freedoms, so wtf is the point? I mean in my opinion thats where the bread and butter of having a confederation of independent states should shine is when one state says X is ok but another doesnt.
Id actually rather go the other way and dissolve federal law, because in that way smaller groups of people can create laws that apply to them and their lifestyle. (frankly I wish they would just do one or the other but I would prefer the de-centralized system). Either way you go you could shrink government and put less of a burden on the tax payer. We essentially would no longer need state governments if we went into a fully federal system, likewise we would just need the executive branch of the fed if we let the states just take care of their own business.
When it comes to things like foreign policy each state goverment can cast a vote. I mean why do we need a state government then more federal politicians. Theres no reason the state government itself cant be seen as the states representative we dont need to pay another few people to sit in a chair in washington and pay for their staffs on top of it. I could go on but you see my point.