Presidential election, 2016

[David Horn]

(12-31-2016, 12:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 01:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't want to do stuff to knock you down economically as I'd likely be knocking myself down in the process.

And yet you just said you were happy about policies that knocked me down economically.  Granted they didn't knock you down, you being retired and all.  That makes it pretty clear where you stand.

Let me try this.  I'm opposed to letting you  have free reign if, in the process, 100 others are hurt.  That's especially the case when you are not in any danger of penury and they are.

In this case, though, no one would have been hurt, if the administration had merely kept the policy of requiring proof of health insurance.  In fact, with Obamacare, they wouldn't even had to require proof of health insurance, since that was verified through tax law.

Instead, they used excessive regulatory enforcement to force people into employee status and take away peoples' control over their own lives, because the progressive ideal is to require everyone to live the way the government thinks they should, rather than the way they personally would prefer.

What insurance were you unable to use as a 'proof of insurance'?  Was yours an example of cheery picking ideal clients? Obviously, allowing insurance that only insures people who don't need a it and rarely if ever use it is not really broad based insurance.  It's a subsidy to the insurance industry.  Worse, it makes insurance impossible for others not as well positioned.  A word to the wise: never have a preexisting condition ... ever.

You can't have universal health insurance if you only insure the healthy.  Employer-based insurance has included that as a basic premise for decades.