"They are not forced to buy insurance. Rather, they would finally be required to shoulder their portion of the health care system, which they eventually use
I, and other responsible citizens, are tired of subsidizing those who go without insurance coverage."

Your statement is illogical. The people who don't buy insurance can't afford it. What is going to magically occur to help them afford a tax or penalty? Will they suddenly have the money to pay this new tax or penalty? No. I, and other RESPONSIBLE citizens will still be shouldering the load for their healthcare.
Additionally, I am not forced to obey the speed limit. Nothing forces me to keep from robbing a bank. But I don't because of the consequences. It will be the...

Neither of those examples explains the necessity of forcing Americans to purchase a service. But I agree with you on the foreign travel. I do not believe that the government has the constitutional power to prevent me from traveling to any country. It is a wrong-headed law and should be repealed.

When you have some audio and video evidence, come back and speak with me. All you have is a leftist website sourcing a leftisit book and another leftist website. All that is proof of is rumor spreading. Look on the media matters website which is the source from the book and you will see that neither the slavery quote nor the James Earl Ray quote is nowhere. They were fabrications.

D Fayette: You demand Government compete, which is unfair competition.

Phylo: Unfair? If the private system is more efficient, because of the profit motive, they should have no trouble competing against a "bloated government bureaucracy". Isn't that the whole argument for private vs. public? That private, for-profit systems are more efficient?



It's not that they couldn't compete with them on a service level. The fact of the matter is that the gov't can operate at a loss and never go out of business whereas the insurance company would. I believe that was the argument being made. Just for clarification's sake.

"If this was the case then President Obama would have nationalized the banks and taken control of the car companies. This is what I am talking about you folks are using words that simply do not apply."

I didn't apply this to President Obama. As a matter of fact, I never mentioned the President in any of my posts. I was simply providing a definition of socialism for Repug as he seemed to have an incorrect one. I was trying to clarify. I cannot say that President Obama nationalized the banks. I can say that President Bush began the process of it by forcing some banks to take bailouts they did not want. Obama continued this process by making them pass a subjective "strength" test before he allowed them to pay back the funds. He...