Are you being serious? Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
You really think they were trying to keep people OUT?!? 
ETA: you are literally the very first person I’ve ever heard in my entire life express the idea that the Berlin Wall was meant to keep foreigners out, as opposed to the universally-accepted view that it was mean to keep East Germans from escaping to the West.
There was a question mark at the end of Czarcasm’s sentence. He thought that’s what you were implying.
But seriously, your idea that the U.S. would get inundated by medical immigrants just as easily as Americans can switch states is beyond silly.
Card is revoked. You voted for Hillary, would have confirmed Garland, and upheld the ACA?
Convince me how any of that is “conservative.”
Ahh, thanks, I’d missed the “?”
I don’t know where either of you got the word “just” as easy. It’s not what I said.
What about Obergefell? I know that you personally support legal same sex marriage, but would you have sided with Roberts or Kennedy in that opinion?
Yeah, sure, but the old Block Grant Switcheroo. Give Texas the money with the firm suggestion that they spend it on medicine for poor folks, how long before they spend it on helping non-white people avoid the infectious contamination of voting booths?
Got a stopwatch?
No but you said:
It’s certainly a more legitimate concern at the state level because of how easy it is to move between states. Moving to the country is a significantly bigger task. You could also refuse entry for people with significant health problems at the federal level which would be illegal at the state level.
Rich don’t even have to move, if they actually wanted the cheap seat medical care the rest of us get. Just buy property in the appropriate state, and claim its your residence.
In a vacuum, voting for Hillary does not seem conservative, I grant you. But in the context of her opponent, I became convinced that on balance, the wiser vote was for her.
I don’t agree that the role of the Senate is to apply litmus tests in the way you seem to be hinting. The judicial philosophy Garland espouses is not mine, to be sure, but Obama was the President and it’s clear that the Constitution gives him the role of nominating justices. I don’t like liberal senators substituting their own preferences for a presidential nominee, but I should do it myself, because my ideas are better?
Finally, the ACA mandate was collected by the IRS and the subsidy payments were characterized as Advance Premium Tax Credits, and the government has taxing power. It’s not my role as a judge to substitute my ideas for good social policy in place of the enacted law.
So: yes, yes, and yes.
Why don’t they do that now, and claim states with no state income tax as their residence?
Your notion that “conservative” and “wise” are somehow synonymous is just as cute as can be!
For actual rich people, income tax is not a big concern, especially the much lower state income tax. They’ll make the bulk of their money on capital gains and dividends.
CA has lots of filthy rich people and a high income tax rate. We don’t see many tax fugitives, though, but I know a few personally, and they do the whole “move for 6 months + 1 day” thing and carefully limit their visits back here during that time.
Bottom line (ha!), I think the idea that the rich move to avoid tax is overplayed, but when they do, it’s still a PITA, and not just a matter of snapping up some scrub land in Nevada. Would that we all had such problems, though, huh?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone misread a question so severely. Thanks for the laugh.
The Massachusetts plan has been going on for eleven years. Health insurance is mandatory, actual law varies according to what the feds are doing, but about 97% of its residents are insured, and the Republican governor thinks Congress is full of idiots.
So, it existed prior to the ACA?
And people from other states did not overrun their borders with their diseased teeming millions bodies?
I don’t understand. According to what I read above, that was inevitable.
No, and it seemed pretty popular too, until it was tried at the federal level. Then it became a tool of Satan.
How can this be? I have it on good authority that such a system would break down in no time flat:
Sure, because states have plenary legislative authority and the federal government does not. Admittedly that’s not satanic, but that’s my basis for praising Massachusetts and rejecting the ACA as unwise.
I thought your basis was you were a callous, uncaring monster who wants to see poor people dying in the streets?