Well, because nobody is imposing anything by force - just enacting legislation using the mechanisms that are permitted by the constitution & legislative practice. So, citizens should use the constitutional means at their disposal; exercising their vote at the next & subsequent elections.

Did anyone read the bill yet?

Anything in it for the middle-classes?

This is a genuine question - I'm not going to read it!

Dingell admitting, at least for him, this is about controlling the people. That's what I respectfully seek your opinion on.

Yep. The middle class get coal. And restrictions. A beefed IRS to enforce your "choice".

Oh, and if you can't afford to buy your mandated by force premiums, you can get a tax credit. It's "subsidized". To which I ask, if we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, where does the money come from? It's a sham.

Think you mean Mao or Stalin or Castro

Got asked that twice already on this thread I'm not *that* new, got 100+ posts under my belt Seriously, die thread, die!

Of course the middle class gets coal. That's all we ever get. We make too much money to qualify for 99% of entitlement programs, yet we're poor enough that we have a hard time getting by, and we have to subsidize the poor. This is just another way to tax the middle class, or we'll be forced to pay a fine or go to jail I hope this bill loses in court and then maybe we can get our states' rights back from the feds

Depends what you mean by middle class.
But, just to name two provisions that could help middle-class people; coverage of people with pre-existing conditions, and extension of coverage of young adults up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans...

Those whose womenfolk don't wear large-hoop earrings.

No, I don't think that is Mao or Stalin or Castro in his photograph....

In Politics as a Vocation Max Weber defined a state as that entity which has a monopoly on violence within a given territory. That definition has generally been accepted in the arenas of philosophy of law and political philosophy since he propounded it.

The fact that the mechanisms used to enact legislation are constitutional does not prevent them from being an imposition by force (or by threat of the use of violence, which is tantamount to that).

You're going for judicial interference in the political process here, are you?
What makes me think you've opposed it previously?

Well, I would say the middle-income bracket, and that must be any family grossing between 40k and 80k... maybe - I'm just guessing.

The pre-existing condition clause sounds good, but it's forcing insurance companies to take on "risky" people (in insurance terms). Surely the insurance companies will just push up premiums for everyone?

My opinion is that this quote certainly seems to be exercising Planet Wingnut Blogosphere. Not sure who the 300 people are who he's talking about, though.

Probably - that's why we should have gone for single payer.