Originally Posted by Dave89
You must understand, while the individual mandate is certainly objectionable to many conservatives and Republicans, they are not protesting it so strongly because they care so much about the $1000 they'd be fined if they didn't buy health insurance. The key objection to this mandate is that, if government can force you to buy health insurance, what can it NOT force you to do?
Verilli was completely unable to answer this question, and frankly it's a question many progressives never want to address. What are the limits to government power? Today it's healthcare. Who is to say tomorrow it won't be banning of foods with a certain percentage of trans fats? And then forcing people to buy fuel-efficient cars...
These are legitimate questions, and ones which should plague true liberals. Many who claim to be liberals denounced GWB as a "fascist", but they seem to be unaware of the slippery slope an individual mandate puts us on.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
One thing that puzzles me about this stance, do you think that the government in Massachusetts is abusing government power by having a mandate for health insurance?
The reason I ask is because I always hear, "well it's a state thing, so that's completely different, yada yada yada." Followed by an argument of states regulating commerce and federal power being misused... I'm not interested in that.
The question is, do you think it's a good or bad thing for a governing body in general (any state or nation) to have a mandate for insurance?