from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

you just garnish the wadges of people who owe money...case close.
It teaches them an important lesson...People see that happen to the guy down the street and they learn to get good insurance....problem ended.

But this is why I have a bot of trouble supporting Mitt...its the mandate issue...its totally unAmerican.

and to push the required mandate it as Mitt did means that at a very real level, the America Mitt seeks to bring is not the same America I seek to bring to the future.

If during the election i learn that Mitt has made statements that I believe are in support of this type of mandate idea...even on a state level, I will never vote for him...and I would hope he will lose ...

I also can see the problem with the mandate. The other option is to let people opt out of insurance (sign with understanding) and then allow hospitals and doctors to refuse them services, even in life threatening situations. Here lies the problem though--some life threatening illnesses, if not treated, can do a lot of harm to society--such as with the flu. This was the problem with "typhoid Mary"---Mary didn't get medical care and thereby a lot of people were hurt by it. (TB is another one of those dangerous ones as well as AIDS.)

This is why I give an "opt out" clause for religious reasons or for those who can prove they have enough means to take care of themselves. I am not sure what to do for those who just opt out because they don't want to cover the risk which is often the young as they are too immature to know better.

[alanmolstad]

Its called "freedom"

Back in the day, it used to be worth fighting for...


Now we seem to criticize people who want to be left alone...

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Its called "freedom"

Back in the day, it used to be worth fighting for...


Now we seem to criticize people who want to be left alone...

Yes, but are you willing to let hospitals turn away those who show no ability to pay? If you say yes--then that is total freedom.

[alanmolstad]

as Ron Paul pointed out (And he is the only real doctor in the race so he alone would know about this first-hand)...a hospital will not turn away people that are in trouble..like a accident or something like that.

But this is a free country, and we cant force people to take care of themselves to our standard.

It's up to people to earn money to get stuff they want.

When a person without any money shows up at McDonald's and asks for 3 Big macs a large coke and some fries,,,,does the restaurant have the right to kick them out?

I think so.



When a guy goes into a bar with no money and asks for a beer , does the bar have the right to ask them to go?....

I think so.


This country was not founded on the idea that government knows best, and that everyone must conform to the official "ideal" and they who do not get arrested.


Here's the deal with the Mitt/Obama healthcare mandate....
They will enforce it with the sword of the law.

That means that if you can't prove you have what some bureaucrat thinks is the "correct" type of insurance, they will sic the IRS on your behind....

Soon you will have people put in jail for refusing to get Mitt/Obama healthcare insurance....



Julie , you said that you would want there to always be an allowance for religion so that some may be excused from getting Government approved insurance.

But who says that is a justified reason?

In the end...that's just a decision someone pulled out of thin air.

What if i decide I just don't want to get insurance for my own reasons that i don't feel in the mood to share?
The answer to that is that some bureaucrat will have to decide my fate.

They may decide that I don't have to get insurance,
Or they may turn my name over to the IRS and try to get my money ,
Take my money right from where I work,
or out of my bank account...
They may even show up at my door with their hand out.

and if I still refuse to play along?
If Im not even interested it telling anyone why i dont want to get insurance?
If Im not even interested in addressing the question?

its to jail I go...

I will be booked, photographed...my name might be splashed in the newspaper...My reputation will be harmed.
The more I say "No, I don't want to" the more the government will try to make an example of me.

If I simply refuse to ever get insurance what is the greatest punishment the government has in their bag of tricks?

Long-term jail.

all this could happen in a future with the Mitt/Obama mandate.
and all this could happen and I was never sick a day in my whole life?

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

as Ron Paul pointed out (And he is the only real doctor in the race so he alone would know about this first-hand)...a hospital will not turn away people that are in trouble..like a accident or something like that.

The question I asked is would we be okay as a society to turn people away if they don't have some type of coverage? I think if people are free to refuse insurance, that hospitals should be free or doctors should be free to say no to those who show no way of being able to pay.

But this is a free country, and we cant force people to take care of themselves to our standard.

It's up to people to earn money to get stuff they want.

When a person without any money shows up at McDonald's and asks for 3 Big macs a large coke and some fries,,,,does the restaurant have the right to kick them out?

I think so.



When a guy goes into a bar with no money and asks for a beer , does the bar have the right to ask them to go?....

I think so.


This country was not founded on the idea that government knows best, and that everyone must conform to the official "ideal" and they who do not get arrested.


Here's the deal with the Mitt/Obama healthcare mandate....
They will enforce it with the sword of the law.

That means that if you can't prove you have what some bureaucrat thinks is the "correct" type of insurance, they will sic the IRS on your behind....

Soon you will have people put in jail for refusing to get Mitt/Obama healthcare insurance....



Julie , you said that you would want there to always be an allowance for religion so that some may be excused from getting Government approved insurance.

But who says that is a justified reason?

In the end...that's just a decision someone pulled out of thin air.

What if i decide I just don't want to get insurance for my own reasons that i don't feel in the mood to share?
The answer to that is that some bureaucrat will have to decide my fate.

They may decide that I don't have to get insurance,
Or they may turn my name over to the IRS and try to get my money ,
Take my money right from where I work,
or out of my bank account...
They may even show up at my door with their hand out.

and if I still refuse to play along?
If Im not even interested it telling anyone why i dont want to get insurance?
If Im not even interested in addressing the question?

its to jail I go...

I will be booked, photographed...my name might be splashed in the newspaper...My reputation will be harmed.
The more I say "No, I don't want to" the more the government will try to make an example of me.

If I simply refuse to ever get insurance what is the greatest punishment the government has in their bag of tricks?

Long-term jail.

all this could happen in a future with the Mitt/Obama mandate.
and all this could happen and I was never sick a day in my whole life?

Yes, I see the problem with throwing someone in jail for not having insurance. My question then still is--what do we do with those who are irresponsible and need medical care? Do we just continue to foot the bill? This is the problem we are having right now. How do you pose solving that problem? Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care? (And one thing I hate about Obamacare is he gives a free p*** to non-citizens while making citizens criminals.)

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103309]

Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care?

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not.

But we are not people's mother.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours!

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country....

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"


the idea behind the term "mandate" is that you have to do this...or else.

"Mandate" means enforcement
It means the IRS goes after you..

and if that don't work?
It means the cops are called.

And when the cops knock at your door and you don't get up to answer that knock?
They break it down...


Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different?


A man just wants to be left alone, who has done nothing wrong, will one day hear his front door getting kicked in?
That's Mitt's and Obama's America, not mine!

What government can do is provide for a means for people who wish to get insurance to get the cheapest insurance .

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms.
This is where Mitt went wrong, and this also is the reason Mitt will never be able to count on the Conservative voter.

Obama has his liberal base supporters always ready to go to the polls to vote for him, but Mitt will never have his conservative base supporters ready to vote for him in the same manner.

That is the problem here.

Mitt will always have this problem with his record and conservatives.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians.

Once again, Obama has a very good record on the same issues with the non-Christian/liberal voter. So once again Obama enjoys a built-in advantage over Mitt that mitt can NEVER equal in depth.

So where does this leave mitt's chances?
Only with the mood of the country against Obama due to the economy.
Thus Mitt has only that one issue to use to gain the support of the middle-of-the-road voter.

The problem with that is that there is a very good chance that a full year from now the economy might have picked up a bit.
Even a slight lowering of unemployment will be held up by the media as proof that Obama's recovery plans are working fine.

So I expect the economy to sorta pick up a bit , at least in the minds of the average voter, and that will take that issue more or less off the table.


This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

How do you pose solving that problem?

cheap insurance.
and get people signed up for insurance from birth, by making parents able to sign up theis new baby to be part of their own insurance plan from day one.

that means the the child grows up from the start understanding that a bit from every check they earn as a minor goes to their insurance.

Right now a minor grows up and is covered under their parents plan, so its dad's paycheck that gets the hit....and so the child never has a history of seeing that hit in their own paycheck, and thats the reason when the child goes off on their own that the very idea of allowing an insurance company to start taking money out of their paycheck is hard to swallow.

the kid at 19 thinks they are going to live forever and never get sick...so why lower their amount of cash with worthless insurance meant for old sick people?


that's why you have to get kids, even little kids used to the idea that insurance is a normal part of being safe , being covered.

A "mandate" is not needed.

but a bit of leadership and guidance is....

make the parents get a great deal of nearly free insurance for their child, and they will sign that child up for life-long insurance.

sign a child up when they are young, and most will never drop that coverage when later they grow up and become adults.
make insurance for their own children even cheaper if they stick with the same insurance their parents signed them up for?...and you have set up a situation where generation after generation will have an un-broken record of great insurance coverage for that whole family!!!!!....

[alanmolstad]

so I believe it should go like this..

You sign up your new baby with your insurance at birth.
you get cheaper insurance for your child for about the first 5 years, and after that its back to the normal changes.

But as the child grows and gets their first *** at age 15, or 16 or so, they would see that their insurance company takes a bit from each of their checks.

no untill the child reaches age 21 - 30 (or whatever age you signed the child up to be under the plan for) would that have the chance to drop that insurance, but we could make this hard to do, like point out that they may face a hard time getting other insurance that will cover their own children as cheaply.

then at the age when they are even first thinking about dropping their insurance, their parents would pull them aside and tell them that the whole family would get a slightly lower rate if they stick with the same plan, and if they sign their own future children up too!!!!!.


so we dont need a mandate to have everyone in a family covered for their whole lives....we just need the correct motivation!

true persuasion is like this,.,,,,it's more quiet.

You dont try to change people's actions, you try to provide a path that allows people to change it for themselves.

[alanmolstad]

In the natural world we find that there are two basic things that drive the actions of all animals.

"Fight" or "Flight"

Its the way this world is designed, either something is attempting to eat something, or something is attempting to not get eaten.

Strange as it may seem to some people, this very same principle works in the human world as well.
We find it running under the terms "Fear " and "Greed"

Its this 'fear and greed" that runs Wall Street.
It forms the basic foundation to all human actions.

Fear, and greed...

The Mitt/Obama plan appeals to the "fear" part.
"You do this, or else!"

I suggest that a better plan would appeal to our greed.
I suggest that a far better way to reach the goal of universal insurance coverage, is to appeal to the greed of each person.
make it in their own self-interest that they sign up for insurance.

appeal to people's greed!

Make it so worth their while that everyone will see the point in signing up and getting coverage.

heck, make it like AmWay is run, where when you sign up, and get your kids and grand kids to also0 sign up that there is a little kick-back to you...
The more people you get to sign up for insurance in your family, the more you save on your own insurance!.

Have a grandparent be the one to put the pressure on their adult children to get the same good insurance for that new baby.

that's the *** of the grandparent...not the government!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not.

And here lies the problem. When a person enters the emergency room, the emergency room cannot tell if the illness is life-threatening until they at least do a basic exam. Here lies the other problem---if people do not have insurance, and they know the hospital cannot turn them away without at least a basic exam----that is what the problem is today. We have people turning up to the emergency room all of the time and this is one of the reason hospital bills are so high---the hospital is covering the uninsured that go to the emergency room through the insured that show up at the hospital. In turn, insurance goes up. So, as long a hospitals CANNOT turn away those with no insurance, the problem continues.

But we are not people's mother.

Yes, but then your whole ideas for solutions comes down to telling people how to be parents. I don't see this working either.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours!

I wish it was that easy. If a hospital or doctor could turn away those without insurance or proof of how they are going to pay--yes, I would agree with you on this. The minute you tell a hospital they HAVE to care for the "emergencies" is the minute you make others foot the bill and you tell me I HAVE to pay for someone else. That isn't freedom either.

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country....

See above.

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"

No, I see a problem with this as well. For me, it would be better to allow someone to opt out or if they have an "emergency", then the society gets to garnish their wages to pay for their bill. For example, I think the person without insurance who shows up to the emergency room for care---society could say, okay, now the courts gets to figure out what part of your paycheck it is going to take to pay for this. I think that is the system I have heard about---where once you show up for care without insurance, than you get to pay for insurance PLUS a fine garnished from your paycheck. But I don't know Mitt's system that well, I do not livein M***.

Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different?

No, which is why I would opt for allowing hospitals to turn down those without insurance. That is total freedom for both the tax payer and the insurance payers. It is also total freedom for the person who chooses to be irresponsible to pay the consequences for their irresponsibility.

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms.

I can see where you are coming from on this. I just don't kow Mitt's system that well. He said he used the free-market system. That does mean it should have helped lower costs. But I also heard that he sees health insurance like car insurance which we have mandates for and which you can go to jail for if you drive and hurt someone without it.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians.

I can see that. But it is amazing to me that Christians would get behind "christians" who don't live christian values and go against someone who lives christian values but is more open minded to the real problems that we are facing--as noted above regarding what is currently happening in regards to our emergency room care and the cost to society.

This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.

[/QUOTE] Newt is rising in Iowa---I am not sure you are right about Mitt making it through the primaries.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so I believe it should go like this..

You sign up your new baby with your insurance at birth.
you get cheaper insurance for your child for about the first 5 years, and after that its back to the normal changes.

But as the child grows and gets their first *** at age 15, or 16 or so, they would see that their insurance company takes a bit from each of their checks.

no untill the child reaches age 21 - 30 (or whatever age you signed the child up to be under the plan for) would that have the chance to drop that insurance, but we could make this hard to do, like point out that they may face a hard time getting other insurance that will cover their own children as cheaply.

then at the age when they are even first thinking about dropping their insurance, their parents would pull them aside and tell them that the whole family would get a slightly lower rate if they stick with the same plan, and if they sign their own future children up too!!!!!.


so we dont need a mandate to have everyone in a family covered for their whole lives....we just need the correct motivation!

true persuasion is like this,.,,,,it's more quiet.

You dont try to change people's actions, you try to provide a path that allows people to change it for themselves.

I do think that having companies pay for insurance is not a good idea, but that we should have individuals pay and allow people to see the actual costs. This is what the Swiss do and it does lower costs because if someone could choose a $30,000 total coverage plan or a $5,000 major medical only--most people pay the cheaper and then pay for most things out of pocket. This does lower the costs dramatically. But M***. is a liberal state and so Mitt would have to work within that liberal parameters of what the M***. society wanted and if they want a more communist approach to health care, that is their choice--that is also freedom.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But I also heard that he sees health insurance like car insurance which we have mandates for and which you can go to jail for if you drive and hurt someone without it.

There is NO LAW that says you have to drive a car....so that means that you can require all sorts of things to cover the people who do decide to get a car and drive.

You can require insurance, you can require they are old enough
You can require they p*** a test
You can require they are tall enough...there are all sorts of things you have the power to do, because driving is totally and completely Voluntary!

But mandated insurance had a hold over you for just being alive...

You have no choice....

If you are breathing, you are forced to get insurance.

This is why Mitt's plan is nothing like car insurance.

car insurance is based on "FREEDOM"
Mitt's plan is based on "FORCE"

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

In the natural world we find that there are two basic things that drive the actions of all animals.

"Fight" or "Flight"

Its the way this world is designed, either something is attempting to eat something, or something is attempting to not get eaten.

Strange as it may seem to some people, this very same principle works in the human world as well.
We find it running under the terms "Fear " and "Greed"

Its this 'fear and greed" that runs Wall Street.
It forms the basic foundation to all human actions.

Fear, and greed...

The Mitt/Obama plan appeals to the "fear" part.
"You do this, or else!"

I suggest that a better plan would appeal to our greed.
I suggest that a far better way to reach the goal of universal insurance coverage, is to appeal to the greed of each person.
make it in their own self-interest that they sign up for insurance.

appeal to people's greed!

Make it so worth their while that everyone will see the point in signing up and getting coverage.

heck, make it like AmWay is run, where when you sign up, and get your kids and grand kids to also0 sign up that there is a little kick-back to you...
The more people you get to sign up for insurance in your family, the more you save on your own insurance!.

Have a grandparent be the one to put the pressure on their adult children to get the same good insurance for that new baby.

that's the *** of the grandparent...not the government!

I think getting people talking about how to get the best coverage is a good idea---but you have to be very careful how you go about this as what you think is motivation may not be motivation to another. There are enough people who just don't care about their kids that we already have a lot of problems as a result.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

There is NO LAW that says you have to drive a car....so that means that you can require all sorts of things to cover the people who do decide to get a car and drive.

You can require insurance, you can require they are old enough
You can require they p*** a test
You can require they are tall enough...there are all sorts of things you have the power to do, because driving is totally and completely Voluntary!

But mandated insurance had a hold over you for just being alive...

You have no choice....

If you are breathing, you are forced to get insurance.

This is why Mitt's plan is nothing like car insurance.

car insurance is based on "FREEDOM"
Mitt's plan is based on "FORCE"

I agree we are not forced to have a car, but we are not forced to go to the hospital either. I think the "mandate" should only come into effect when you "enter your car" so to speak by entering the hospital.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But M***. is a liberal state and so Mitt would have to work within that liberal parameters of what the M***. society wanted and if they want a more communist approach to health care, that is their choice--that is also freedom.

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....



So what do I think Mitt actually does 'respect?"
Not much,

I dont think for a moment he respects either the pro-Life of the pro-Choice side.
Rather I believe he manipulates both sides for his own political advantage.



What I see in Mitt is a guy who licks his finger and tests the political winds, and thats the direction he goes in.
Once Mitt sees the direction people are going in, he runs to the front of the line and leads the charge....

This means that Mitt actually has no core to his own views...
Mitt has nothing he 'stands" for.


When he sees the pro-Choice people are the growing in political power as a movement, he becomes pro-Choice and leads the pro-Choice ticket.

if he sees that the pro-Life people now are the growing movement, guess who is suddenly pro-Life?

In conversations he is now saying, "Oh I have always felt a great respect for the lives of the unborn"

and in a few years Im sure he will be quoted as saying > "Oh I have always respected the right of women to decide such matters in private"

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....

Interesting. I don't see Mitt as a flip-flopper but a person who worked with his cons***uents the solve the problems in a manner that THEY wanted. So, do you want a leader who forces his views on others or do you want a leader who forces your views on others or do you want a leader that represents YOUR views and works with others who do not support your views to solve the problems? I think that is what Mitt did in M***. He did what the people wanted. Now, as he runs, he runs based on what he thinks will work to solve the problems in this country. You do realize that the founding fathers compromised, right? Those ones who felt like freedom was so essential that they voted for the freedom for states to choose for themselves.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....


What I see in Mitt is a guy who licks his finger and tests the political winds, and thats the direction he goes in.
Once Mitt sees the direction people are going in, he runs to the front of the line and leads the charge....

This means that Mitt actually has no core to his own views...
Mitt has nothing he 'stands" for.


When he sees the pro-Choice people are the growing in political power as a movement, he becomes pro-Choice and leads the pro-Choice ticket.

if he sees that the pro-Life people now are the growing movement, guess who is suddenly pro-Life?

In conversations he is now saying, "Oh I have always felt a great respect for the lives of the unborn"

and in a few years Im sure he will be quoted as saying > "Oh I have always respected the right of women to decide such matters in private"

Well, if you think this election should be decided on abortion issues---then, by all means ****yze everything Mitt did said or voted on regarding abortion (although, I think his abortion votes have been pretty much pro-life.) I also don't see Mitt as bending to political pressure, but deciding for himself what he thinks is best and I see him as more moderate as myself. I am not like most "christians" who don't consider the life of the mother at all or see rape or incest as just tough luck.

I personally do not think that Roe vs. Wade is going to be undone in the next four years and I don't think we could get a much further leaning left president when it comes to abortion.

That said, I see the problems of this country centered more on the economy and if we don't get that figured out--maybe someday we will be owned by China and can adopt their one-child, abortion for all the rest, policies.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

.... I think the "mandate" should only come into effect when you "enter your car" so to speak by entering the hospital.

Thats not the plan that Mitt turned into law....

If you are breathing , you face a mandate to get insurance...
The current Obama law as planned has the IRS doing the dirty work of being the muscle to enforce the mandate.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Thats not the plan that Mitt turned into law....

If you are breathing , you face a mandate to get insurance...
The current Obama law as planned has the IRS doing the dirty work of being the muscle to enforce the mandate.

Are you sure? When do they discover the person does not have insurance? When do they "go after" them so to speak? I don't know the M***. law that well and I suspect, you haven't read it personally yourself either.

That said, if that were the case, the law could easily be tweaked to be that way. So, would you support a mandate the minute a person walked into the hospital for care? Would it then be okay to go after them for covering themselves?

[alanmolstad]

try to understand...the Mitt/Obama health care plan is totally based on the idea of the "mandate"

take away the mandate and the whole system they dreamed up falls to dust.

I say let it fall to dust.

Come up with a system that leads...that appeals to people.
Get universal coverage not by force of law, but by leadership and motivation...

thats the American way.!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

try to understand...the Mitt/Obama health care plan is totally based on the idea of the "mandate"

take away the mandate and the whole system they dreamed up falls to dust.

I say let it fall to dust.

Come up with a system that leads...that appeals to people.
Get universal coverage not by force of law, but by leadership and motivation...

thats the American way.!

You didn't answer my question. If a person has no insurance and walks into a hospital and is ready to let the community pay for them (which is what we have going on right now)---would you be okay to then insist, as a community, that that person pay a fine for not having insurance and mandating that they have insurance for the future as they have "gotten into the car" so to speak---they have used their freedom to use a service they did not have money to pay for??

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, would you support a mandate ....

Why do you have this fixation with the "mandate"?

why do you only see the answer in the use of a mandate?

why do you read my words and think for one moment I suggest a mandate when i have over and over told you clearly that the mandate is unAmerican, and will never work, and will lead to putting people in jail that were never sick a day in their life?

why always the "mandate" with you?

[alanmolstad]

one of the problems I have with the Liberals is that on the question of health care, they only see the "mandate" as the answer....

They dont step back and look at the problem as a whole, and set down a clear understanding of the type of future America they want to live in.

All they see is that if you want poor people to have insurance, all you need to do is p*** a law and force them to....

[alanmolstad]

I suggest, that the liberals put down the "stick"...and pick up the carrot....

[alanmolstad]

let me tell you about the type of future I seek on this issue: