Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63
That comment was directed at Riot as I was told that exact phrase when Obamacare passed. Only difference between the two now is the WI bill was upheld by the WI supreme court while I still have hope Obamacare won't be.
If Obamacare does stand up against suits challenging it, then I suppose it can be used as a precedent to maybe all U.S. citizens being required to contribute to a retirement plan using money that would have been used for SS and then phasing SS out. Require all citizens to maintain a food stockpile and thus no need for food stamps. Require everyone to have a job and no need for unemployment. Lastly require all parents to foot the bill for their own childrens' schooling and impose fines against parents whose children fail. I see how this may now work. The savings reaped from SS, welfare and education will surely offset any Obamacare subsidies. Only question is I thought Dems didn't want to intrude on one's private life? I guess healthcare and in the case of males, their foreskin doesn't count as 'private' in the mind of a DEM  |
I rarely find these "slippery slope" arguments very convincing.
People say ridiculous things like: "If you allow two women to marry each other, what's next? You have to let a man marry a goat?!?!
Or
"If you legalize pot, what's next? You have to legalize heroine too?!?!?"
They are usually ridiculous arguments. There are already many "government mandates" that have been in place for years in the United States. That sure hasn't led to a law requiring all citizens to "maintain a food stockpile."