re: #67 NJDhockeyfan

You’re looking at the analogy rather backwards. The jargon is that if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. So if you can afford one, you are not allowed to take advantage of the government (and tax-payer-funded) lawyer, you have to pay for them yourself.

If you can’t afford a lawyer, one is provided for you, in the same way that if you can’t afford to pay for health insurance, tax credits enable you to pay for it.

Incidentally, the analogy works even better for supporting the public option:

You pay tax money that goes to pay for public defenders for those who can’t afford to hire lawyers. Given that you’re willing to pay money to provide people who may in fact be criminals with lawyers, doesn’t it make sense that you’d pay money to provide those who can’t afford it, health care?