Mandatory Insurance is Wrong

We already have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the road without car insurance which is required by law because they can't afford it. What exactly is gonna be the punishment for those who can't afford to purchase health insurance?
its not quite the same thing .
buying car insurance is part of the contract you sign with society which allows you to drive a portentially dangerous machine while interacting amounst us .
no federal law says you HAVE to drive and buy car insurance thats a state function

In my view it's close enough to the same thing. It's based on the same idea: that you should be held accountable for something you haven't done yet, something you may never do. Mandatory auto insurance assumes you will cause damages to someone else and not reimburse them. Mandatory health insurance assumes you will get sick, rack up medical bills and not pay them. In both cases we're being treated as though we are guilty of a crime before we've done anything wrong. It seems to me a like a dangerous way to effect law. It turns "guilty until proven innocent" on it's head, and treats us all as eminent lawbreakers.

yes you may NEVER be responsible for damaging another persons car /property, but what if somebody else damages yours how do you get compensation if they dont have insurance ?...auto insurance is a two way street it protects you from others and protects them from you
im for mandatory auto insurance, against mandatory health insurance ,against telling any business owner how he should run his business what benefits he should provide and who he should or should not sell to .
insurance does nt stop you from racking up health bills if you DONT have insurance to get treatment you would have to pay first or sign a contract to agree that you will (use you house as a lean perhaps ) your statement is a redherring noboby will treat you with out some sort of contract or prepayment . if you own a business would you GIVE a service for free of course not why should a doctor ?
 
Last edited:
If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.


First of all, you need to provide your idea of sovereignty. Mine is supreme and independent control, fuck that for gov't or any other entity in this country. Let's get this straight - our gov't does not have supreme authority over us, much as the progressives would like us to believe. Over the past century or so they have gradually usurped a lot of power, but it was never really theirs and it can be taken away.

Don't understand this idea of control by insurance companies. They should be subject to gov't regulation like any other industry, the fact that said governance has been weak and ineffective is the fault of the gov't. If insurance companies are cheating people or lying to them, that ain't a question of sovereignty of those companies, that's an issue of bad governance.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying insurance industries have control over us now - but they will when we are required to do business with them. PPACA gives them, essentially, the power of taxation. We will be coerced to pay them in perpetuity, with no 'representation' other than a regulatory power of the state - a power they've have proven very adept at manipulating to their ends.
 
I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.


First of all, you need to provide your idea of sovereignty. Mine is supreme and independent control, fuck that for gov't or any other entity in this country. Let's get this straight - our gov't does not have supreme authority over us, much as the progressives would like us to believe. Over the past century or so they have gradually usurped a lot of power, but it was never really theirs and it can be taken away.

Don't understand this idea of control by insurance companies. They should be subject to gov't regulation like any other industry, the fact that said governance has been weak and ineffective is the fault of the gov't. If insurance companies are cheating people or lying to them, that ain't a question of sovereignty of those companies, that's an issue of bad governance.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying insurance industries have control over us now - but they will when we are required to do business with them. PPACA gives them, essentially, the power of taxation. We will be coerced to pay them in perpetuity, with no 'representation' other than a regulatory power of the state - a power they've have proven very adept at manipulating to their ends.


But we're not required to do business with them, we can instead pay the penalty, excuse me TAX, and not be covered, no? And we also have the choice of which insurance company to deal with, AND the right to change if we so desire. AND they will be required to meet certain conditions too, can't refuse people based on pre-existing conditions and so on. They have to refund money to their customers if they haven't paid at least 85% in benefits. That don't sound like sovereignty to me. I think you have overstated the case.
 
its not quite the same thing .
buying car insurance is part of the contract you sign with society which allows you to drive a portentially dangerous machine while interacting amounst us .
no federal law says you HAVE to drive and buy car insurance thats a state function

In my view it's close enough to the same thing. It's based on the same idea: that you should be held accountable for something you haven't done yet, something you may never do. Mandatory auto insurance assumes you will cause damages to someone else and not reimburse them. Mandatory health insurance assumes you will get sick, rack up medical bills and not pay them. In both cases we're being treated as though we are guilty of a crime before we've done anything wrong. It seems to me a like a dangerous way to effect law. It turns "guilty until proven innocent" on it's head, and treats us all as eminent lawbreakers.

yes you may NEVER be responsible for damaging another persons car /property, but what if somebody else damages yours how do you get compensation if they dont have insurance ?...auto insurance is a two way street it protects you from others and protects them from you
im for mandatory auto insurance, against mandatory health insurance ,against telling any business owner how he should run his business what benefits he should provide and who he should or should not sell to .

Sure. But again, the exact same argument can be made for mandatory health insurance. It 'protects' all of us from getting stuck with someone else's health care bills.

This is exactly the reasoning behind these laws that I find so problematic. Do you not see that this can be applied to nearly everything we do?

I was in NY a few weeks back, and as a midwestern boy, subways are still something of a novelty for me. Every time I was waiting on a train, I couldn't help thinking how little protection there was to keep the people waiting on the train from falling onto the tracks. I can be sort of clumsy and I actually worried some that I might bump into someone at the wrong moment and send them into the path of a train speeding into the station. Should I be required to carry insurance for that possibility?

That might seem a little ridiculous, but it's only a matter of degree. The same principles are involved. And as we're seeing, the principle will be applied to more and more concerns. Everything we do poses some risk to others. How much of our freedom will we give up in the name of security?
 
Last edited:
Just like Romney said, just go to the emergency room.

I am fucking tired of paying for uninsured mericans, so fuck Romney.
 
First of all, you need to provide your idea of sovereignty. Mine is supreme and independent control, fuck that for gov't or any other entity in this country. Let's get this straight - our gov't does not have supreme authority over us, much as the progressives would like us to believe. Over the past century or so they have gradually usurped a lot of power, but it was never really theirs and it can be taken away.

Don't understand this idea of control by insurance companies. They should be subject to gov't regulation like any other industry, the fact that said governance has been weak and ineffective is the fault of the gov't. If insurance companies are cheating people or lying to them, that ain't a question of sovereignty of those companies, that's an issue of bad governance.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying insurance industries have control over us now - but they will when we are required to do business with them. PPACA gives them, essentially, the power of taxation. We will be coerced to pay them in perpetuity, with no 'representation' other than a regulatory power of the state - a power they've have proven very adept at manipulating to their ends.


But we're not required to do business with them, we can instead pay the penalty, excuse me TAX, and not be covered, no?

That's a completely specious conception of freedom and I'm frankly surprised that so many people make it as a serious argument. If doing something entails a penalty, you are not legally 'free' to do it. Would you also argue that we are 'free' to run stoplights, rob banks or murder our enemies, as long as we pay the penalty for doing so?

And we also have the choice of which insurance company to deal with, AND the right to change if we so desire. AND they will be required to meet certain conditions too, can't refuse people based on pre-existing conditions and so on. They have to refund money to their customers if they haven't paid at least 85% in benefits. That don't sound like sovereignty to me. I think you have overstated the case.

The 'regulation' merely enforces conformity such that they will all be offering essentially the same products. So the freedom to choose an insurance company, without the freedom to choose NO insurance company, is moot. When the corporate state controls our health care, they will control us - fairly close to absolutely.
 
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying insurance industries have control over us now - but they will when we are required to do business with them. PPACA gives them, essentially, the power of taxation. We will be coerced to pay them in perpetuity, with no 'representation' other than a regulatory power of the state - a power they've have proven very adept at manipulating to their ends.


But we're not required to do business with them, we can instead pay the penalty, excuse me TAX, and not be covered, no?

That's a completely specious conception of freedom and I'm frankly surprised that so many people make it as a serious argument. If doing something entails a penalty, you are not legally 'free' to do it. Would you also argue that we are 'free' to run stoplights, rob banks or murder our enemies, as long as we pay the penalty for doing so?


Those things are against the law, and totally different from choosing whether or not to be insured. If I choose not to have insurance, I am breaking no law; I am totally free to make that decision. I see nothing specious about that.


And we also have the choice of which insurance company to deal with, AND the right to change if we so desire. AND they will be required to meet certain conditions too, can't refuse people based on pre-existing conditions and so on. They have to refund money to their customers if they haven't paid at least 85% in benefits. That don't sound like sovereignty to me. I think you have overstated the case.

The 'regulation' merely enforces conformity such that they will all be offering essentially the same products. So the freedom to choose an insurance company, without the freedom to choose NO insurance company, is moot. When the corporate state controls our health care, they will control us - fairly close to absolutely.


I do not understand you, of course we have the freedom to choose NO insurance company, that's what the tax is all about. And I suspect we will have choices to make in coverage, from basic minimal to maximum full coverages.

" When the corporate state controls our health care, they will control us - fairly close to absolutely. "

WHAAAAT? I don't think so man, that's quite a stretch. First off, the corporate state isn't going to totally control our healthcare, and even if they did that's a long way from controlling everything. But totally control? They don't get to drop your coverage. They don't get to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions or any other reason. And they've gotta pay out 85% of their revenue on benefits. That ain't total control IMHO.
 
I do not understand you, of course we have the freedom to choose NO insurance company, that's what the tax is all about.

Likewise, I'm not understanding your view. How can you say we have the freedom to do something if we are punished for it? As I asked earlier, would you also say we are "free" to run stop signs and rob banks? You seem to be operating with some different definition of 'freedom'. When I use the word, I'm referring to freedom in the legal, political sense - that you can do something without being punished or otherwise interfered with by government. What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.
 
Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

And if I do that you can penalize me. The premise of mandatory insurance is that I will, and that I should be punished for it in advance.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.

I'm not sure if you consider me a 'wingnut', but that's certainly not my position, either with regard to wanting to feed the poor, or thinking everyone else should pay my medical bills. So in this case you're just perceiving incorrectly. Try again.
 
Last edited:
Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.

What don't you get about that fact that we already have a law requiring car insurance and hundreds of thousands of people still drive without it because they cant afford it? How on earth is making a law requiring health insurance going to make it easier for those who already can't afford health insurance?
 
Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.

Oh dear God. This is perfect.
 
Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.

What don't you get about that fact that we already have a law requiring car insurance and hundreds of thousands of people still drive without it because they cant afford it? How on earth is making a law requiring health insurance going to make it easier for those who already can't afford health insurance?


For those that can't afford Obamacare, there's payment assistance. Many of those too poor for insurance are already on medicaid.

Further, the penalty clause is followed by a subclause that forbids the IRS from creating any means of or taking any action to enforce the penalty.
 
For those that can't afford Obamacare, there's payment assistance. Many of those too poor for insurance are already on medicaid.

And who decides if I can't afford it? Me? Or somone else?

Further, the penalty clause is followed by a subclause that forbids the IRS from creating any means of or taking any action to enforce the penalty.

And you believe that will stand? You believe Congress would pass a law with no intention of ever enforcing it?
 
Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

And if I do that you can penalize me. The premise of mandatory insurance is that I will, and that I should be punished for it in advance.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.

I'm not sure if you consider me a 'wingnut', but that's certainly not my position, either with regard to wanting to feed the poor, or thinking everyone else should pay my medical bills. So in this case you're just perceiving incorrectly. Try again.

Actually, the first statement says "we" should pay your bill in advance and then "penalize" you.

Why should you be able to run a tab on your healthcare bill just because I carry health insurance and will be forced to pay your bill?

And, then, even if you do pay it off, I'm still out because MY bill is higher because of the people don't pay their own.

My bills are higher because of the illegals who get free health care. Why is that fair?

That is socialism.
 
Actually, the first statement says "we" should pay your bill in advance and then "penalize" you.

what???

Why should you be able to run a tab on your healthcare bill just because I carry health insurance and will be forced to pay your bill?

I've never said I should be able to 'run a tab' on my health care bill. But likewise, you aren't - or shouldn't be - forced to carry health insurance.
 
Actually, the first statement says "we" should pay your bill in advance and then "penalize" you.

what???

Why should you be able to run a tab on your healthcare bill just because I carry health insurance and will be forced to pay your bill?

I've never said I should be able to 'run a tab' on my health care bill. But likewise, you aren't - or shouldn't be - forced to carry health insurance.

Grandma said -
If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

And if I do that you can penalize me. The premise of mandatory insurance is that I will, and that I should be punished for it in advance.

In other words, you should be allowed to run a tab because you SAY you will pay.

How many people should be allowed to get free health care because they SAID they would pay later?

While we're waiting for all of you who SAY you're good for your bill to actually PAY your bill, who is paying higher insurance rates and higher hospital costs because all those who are dishonest DO NOT pay?

Are there other products or services that allow you to do that?

For example, you can't go to the grocery store, load up and then say, "Don't worry, I'm good for it. I'll pay later."

Why should you be able to do that with health care?
 
Actually, the first statement says "we" should pay your bill in advance and then "penalize" you.

what???



I've never said I should be able to 'run a tab' on my health care bill. But likewise, you aren't - or shouldn't be - forced to carry health insurance.

Grandma said -
If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

And if I do that you can penalize me. The premise of mandatory insurance is that I will, and that I should be punished for it in advance.

In other words, you should be allowed to run a tab because you SAY you will pay.

No, I didn't say that in any words. Whether or not someone should be required to pay up front should be entirely up to the service providers. If you're banking on the EMTALA bullshit for your argument, it's largely a non-factor. But if you insist that it is causing a problem, if it's "forcing" stingy liberals to pay for "freeloaders", then we should repeal so they'll stop whining.
 
The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

If you don't want car insurance don't drive a car

If you don't want health insurance that's fine, too, you can pay the penalty tax if you have income.
 
If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.

No one has granted any sovereignty to insurance companies you moron.
 

Forum List

Back
Top