"What are conservatives trying to conserve"?

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Make no mistake: I am firmly anti-abortion. Where we differ is that I do not want to give the government unlimited power over individuals to force current legislators personal morality on American citizens. You want government control. I want individual freedom.

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

because it's obama care. if it was bush care, she'd be against it. no, that's not really true.

thing is, it's got nothing to do with logic at all. it's illogical to complain if it's knocked down as unconstitutional, but the same people complaining about that ruling are all for other rulings-altho another group would argue that other rulings (such as roe v wade) are incorrect. you know, like gun control. it's constitutionally protected-but suddenly what was once so clear (privacy is a right, freedom of religion is a right) suddenly isn't quite so clear, is it??

bah, yet another type of argument used by both parties and their supporters. each uses the constitution to support their pov, and then tries to show why it shouldn't be used in others.

and those of us who try to apply it across the board....we're genuises or morons, depending on the particular topic and who agrees or disagrees. it's great.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because it's obama care. if it was bush care, she'd be against it. no, that's not really true.

thing is, it's got nothing to do with logic at all. it's illogical to complain if it's knocked down as unconstitutional, but the same people complaining about that ruling are all for other rulings-altho another group would argue that other rulings (such as roe v wade) are incorrect. you know, like gun control. it's constitutionally protected-but suddenly what was once so clear (privacy is a right, freedom of religion is a right) suddenly isn't quite so clear, is it??

bah, yet another type of argument used by both parties and their supporters. each uses the constitution to support their pov, and then tries to show why it shouldn't be used in others.

and those of us who try to apply it across the board....we're genuises or morons, depending on the particular topic and who agrees or disagrees. it's great.

well said. I just want less government. People have to live with their own choices and the government can't protect stupid people from making stupid choices. The less government involvement in my life the better.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because it's obama care. if it was bush care, she'd be against it. no, that's not really true.

Actually, yes, I was for the Obamacare plan when it was the Heritage Foundation-created Republican-offered Gingrich-care presented as a personal freedom, free-market solution by the GOP against Hillarycare in the 1990s.

The Republicans are just pissed they couldn't get it passed, and Obama stole their plan and did pass it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Why then do you support Obamacare? Last I checked supporting Obamacare doesn't involve individual freedom

Actually it does: the mandate, requiring individual personal responsibility for one's health care costs, rather than putting your cost on others, by purchasing your own insurance is a staunchly Republican- and conservative- created idea for the past 20 years.

The mandate = personal responsibility. No freeloading off others.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Actually it does: the mandate, requiring individual personal responsibility for one's health care costs, rather than putting your cost on others, by purchasing your own insurance is a staunchly Republican- and conservative- created idea for the past 20 years.

The mandate = personal responsibility. No freeloading off others.

I am not talking republican/democrat. I am specifically pointing out that on the one hand you want individual freedom from the goverment on one topic and then on another you want a government mandate. That is all. Thanks.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

I am not talking republican/democrat. I am specifically pointing out that on the one hand you want individual freedom from the goverment on one topic and then on another you want a government mandate. That is all. Thanks.

I am pointing out that being responsible for purchasing one's own health insurance, rather than living off everyone else's $$$ by us paying your costs of going to the ER when you're sick and uninsured, is plenty of individual freedom and responsibility. That is all. Thanks.

[Riot]

Here is an excellent analysis piece on the legislative history of the "individual mandate" - it's been around since Ronald Reagans first unfunded universal health care requirement mandate:

"The Tortuous Conservative History of the Individual Mandate"

... snip ...

Before we get to Stuart’s piece, let’s first step back and discuss the history of the individual mandate. It all started with a piece of legislation passed in 1986 by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed by Ronald Reagan, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.

(EMTALA was passed as part of a larger budget bill called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, which is best known for allowing those who have lost their jobs to continue buying health insurance through their old employer’s group plan.)

EMTALA, one of the great unfunded mandates in American history, required any hospital participating in Medicare—that is to say, nearly all of them—to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, including illegal immigrants, regardless of ability to pay.

Indeed, EMTALA can be accurately said to have established universal health care in America—with nary a whimper from conservative activists.

Continued ....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...idual-mandate/