An often misused quote from history.

Were all those who wanted to keep their health plan able to keep their health plan?

I give the American public more credit for intelligence than you do.

 

I didn't like it because of the mandate. Government does not have the power to force me into buying something. And that is what the mandate attempted to do. Either buy health insurance or get fined (oh and we'll make sure you pay that fine by making it a "tax"). That was what the mandate was about. That is what I objected to and made the whole thing unacceptable to me. Nothing else. I supported other parts.

So, when you say "The only reason anyone doesn’t like ACA is because of whose name is attached to it." you are wrong.

 

What mandate? You don't like ACA for something it doesn't have? That's a bit odd.

 

If you did not have it, you had to pay a penalty (tax). That is why you had to report it with your income tax. You can refuse to call it a mandate, if you want, but that is the reason many did not like it.

 

There is no mandate. Not sure how people don't know this.

 

It was removed by Trump. However, there are other reasons not to like it. I personally know of people who were forced to buy it, but could not use it because the deduction was too high. They no longer have it for the same reason.

 

Right...they couldn't afford to use it because of the deductibles and now that there is no mandate they don't have insurance at all. So, if they couldn't afford to get health care due to deductibles how in the hell are they going to afford to pay for any major medical expenses like cancer treatments or a major operation or ongoing expensive meds, etc.? Cancer treatments alone will be FAR more expensive than deductibles. Not a well thought out plan.

 

Eisenhower's statement about the so called "military industrial governmental complex".

 

Their "not well thought out plan" involved choosing between insurance which they would most likely not need and paying for more immediate needs like having a car to get back and forth to work, rent and food on the table.

 

Eisenhower didn't say that?

 

"Their "not well thought out plan" involved choosing between insurance which they would most likely not need and paying for more immediate needs like having a car to get back and forth to work, rent and food on the table."

Hahaha..."most likely not need"...until they do need it. Then who pays for all the medical bills? Certainly not them. Brilliant.

 

If you starve to death, don't have a house to live in and don't have a car to get back and forth to work, you have no future to worry about.

 

"If you starve to death, don't have a house to live in and don't have a car to get back and forth to work, you have no future to worry about."

Sounds to me they are so poor they qualify for Medicaid. Seems someone should educated them

 

There is a broad area in between where they do not qualify for Medicaid and where they cannot afford insurance.

 

I never said it wasn't a quote. This thread is about "misused quotes".

 

OICOK
Is it often misused then? Is there an important context that we should know about?. I just ask because Eisenhower is something of an icon to me. The last President we had that was an A Plus genuine hero on the world scale. He pretty much won WWII and then came home to fundamentally transform America and the world for the better. Our counterweight to Hitler in many ways

 

General welfare is also in the constitution. I would much rather lower federal taxes across the board for the federal government to provide national programs and defense while allowing states to increase their tax base as they see fit to provide what they deem beneficial to their citizens.

The Republicans and trump were spending more than Obama did after his first two years were battling the recession handed off to him by the last Republican president. So even ignoring the pandemic — which trump and his cult made significantly worse — they were still abusing the budgets.

As to me wanting a “teet to suckle” — I would benefit very little from social programs, I have saved enough to comfortably retire at 35, I am neither housing nor food insecure, I have great insurance that I pay almost nothing for, children are in private schools, student loans and mortgage are sitting at zero — I am just able to see that others are less fortunate than I am and am compassion and intellect to know there is a better way to do this to limit suffering. I understand that the Republican mantra of “I got mine, **** you” or “I suffered, so should you” makes many on the right blind to the unnecessary suffering of others. Government is the best way to achieve this.

 

The difference between me and you is that I dont push my causes and agendas on you to fund. You support collectivism and abuse the general welfare clause in order to force everybody else to align with the social agenda you feel strongly about.

Its wrong, just plain flat out wrong. Your positions are in stark contrast to the concepts of individual liberty and freedom. But you feel your making the world better (which i disagree with, i think you're creating a bunch of entitled dependents) so you feel validated.

I think your Robin Hood mentality and desire to force everybody to align with goals your forcefully apply to them through government will be this countries downfall.

The only thing progressives care about is force and control.

 

I disagree. Cheers

 

You don't desire to use government to force other people to financially support the causes you find socially important?

 

I do.

 

Might be for another thread, but I would say his "New Look" policies just about destroyed the army to their total dismay, and I'd posit that the US paid for Ike's leadership in Vietnam. The "New Look" kind of gutted the experienced NCO's in particular and shifted the footing -of the Army at least- away from real combat experience development toward push-button warfare. I think a lot of folks who were serving at the time couldn't believe one of their own could do a lot of the things he did. I think a lot of it was with an eye to the budget, but his speech about the MI complex was only 3 weeks before JFK's inauguration. Crazy time.

 

Push-button warfare was what just about everyone thought was the future of armed conflict back then and Ike was nothing if not forward-looking. He was also not alone in venturing into the morass that Vietnam turned out to be. The idea that we actually would fight these strange sorts of "limited" wars and actually throw thousands of our children into these sorts of conflicts where either side could easily turn the battlefield into a sea of radioactive glass in an afternoon wasn't something that either we or the Russians believed at the time

 

LINK

That you even attempted to portray as if there wasn't a mandate in the ACA is a perfect example of why there is so much division in the US. People can't be honest in their conversations.