Bull Ring @Penelope: States requiring Car insurance vs. Federal mandates on health insurance

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Dec 11, 2016.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    ADD francoHFW to Penelope's thread

    Can you prove that State laws on auto insurance
    are the same or different from Federal laws on health care insurance?

    Can we settle this argument?
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Hi Penelope and also francoHFW

    Thank you both for speaking up and taking responsibility for defending and explaining your positions.
    What you have convinced me of is that SOME people LIKE YOU
    DO NOT BELIEVE you have equal security of health care provisions and protections
    WITHOUT IT BEING GUARANTEED THROUGH FEDERAL GOVT AS A RIGHT.

    In fact, you believe this is so inherent, you do not think it requires a Constitutional process
    to amend and write it into the federal Constitution as a statutory right. You believe it is just natural common sense
    and does not need to be justified legally or politically.

    While I understand and respect the fact you hold these beliefs inherently,
    I still do not believe you or anyone else has authority to impose YOUR BELIEFS
    about health care and govt ON ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT,
    AND DUE PROCESS PROTECTING THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES THEY EQUALLY BELIEVE ARE INHERENT AS WELL.

    So what we have are TWO competing beliefs, which I hold are equally protected by law.
    Neither one can be imposed to the detriment of the other, if we are going to uphold EQUAL Constitutional
    standards and protections for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS of their beliefs or creeds.

    So I will include this point in letters to Congress members, the Texas Governor, and the new incoming President,
    that I will support a health care plan that recognizes, supports and protects EQUAL CHOICE to
    invest and manage health care at either the city, county, state, or federal levels where any taxes
    paid by taxpayers for health care can be paid at whatever level of govt those citizens believes represents their interests.

    I will further recommend that a system be set up through the federal reserve, for borrowing or lending resources to cover the
    demands of health care, where the citizens opting to manage their health care administration at that level work with
    their party or govt representatives to account for and cover those costs, so they agree what methods to use.

    If people cannot agree, I further suggest giving taxpayers the option of delegating taxes for health care BY PARTY,
    so that ALL beliefs can be respected and organized in large enough numbers collectively to support a plan without imposing on others.

    Some policies involving "conflicts in beliefs" I most STRONGLY recommend
    dividing by party in order to reorganize state and federal budgets to pay for health care:
    1. abortion, right to life, right to choice, birth control
    2. death penalty, restorative justice, restitution and rehabilitation
    3. drug policies, spiritual healing to treat addictions and abuse issues, and medical
    research to prove and provide alternatives to pharmaceutical dependence
    4. right to health care through either govt, business, free market, charity, nonprofit, educational,
    religious, political or secular institutions

    I believe that by recognizing and EMBRACING the different beliefs on this (and other issues)
    we can best protect and serve ALL citizens without discrimination on the basis of creed or belief.

    Thank you for your honest responses and attempts to explain your positions.
    I find that these are based on your beliefs, and cannot be changed by rational arguments.
    The same way atheists and believers cannot change their beliefs by arguing back and forth,
    neither can political beliefs be changed if that is what each individual believes by their nature.

    So I will recommend that this approach to including all beliefs, and protecting them from
    infringement by and on each other, be taken seriously by all members of Congress and Govt on ALL LEVELS.

    Thank you for contributing to this conclusion.
    I hope more govt officials will listen and come
    to accept and acknowledge the same.

    We can't change our beliefs nor force others to by govt mandates.
    So if I want my beliefs respected and protected by law,
    the same protections should be enforced for you and others of different beliefs equally.

    None of us has the right to abuse govt to force our beliefs on anyone else.
    So that's what I will report back to govt representatives and recommend
    a system of choice, between local and federal levels, and a system of investing and lending freely,
    so that any gaps in budgets can be resolved without forcing anyone to pay for policies against their core beliefs.

    francoHFW I will also recommend to both parties that
    * those who take a more conservative approach to limited govt
    focus on "VA and military reform" (including restitution for vet fraud or abuses of military contracts)
    to pay for health care services, reform and development with the money saved
    while
    * those who take a more liberal approach to govt managed health care
    focus on "prison and criminal justice reform and corrections" (including insurance fraud, medical malpractice,
    and corporate abuses of govt for private profit by conflicting insurance or pharmaceutical interests at taxpayer expense),
    to reduce waste, crime and corruption with spending on failed
    mental health and criminal corrections programs,
    and to REWARD districts and states with the public funds saved
    by investing those resources into building teaching
    hospitals, clinics and medical education and outreach programs
    to provide the services to meet the demands of their populations.

    I believe these reforms can be compelled as an alternative to the individual mandates.
    So that only those who COMMIT CRIMES can be compelled to pay restitution,
    and quit mistreating "all citizens as freeloaders" which is violating due process for
    law abiding citizens who committed NO CRIMES that warrant losing our liberties.

    I don't know if you will ever get this point francoHFW
    But I will put it out there, and hope that enough people will get it
    so we don't punish ALL citizens by losing free choice
    just because govt hasn't set up means of enforcing laws for ACTUAL VIOLATORS who are freeloading off the public.

    If we don't COMPEL govt to do this, to seek reimbursement from WRONGDOERS,
    the "politically convenient" shortcut will continue to be to PASS THE CHARGES AND DEBTS TO "law abiding taxpayers"
    and punish those who comply with laws. While the real criminals get away with costing us millions if not billions that govt fails to collect.

    If we are going after the freeloaders, we shouldn't punish the law abiding citizens and accuse the wrong people.
    I support better ways that target the actual wrongdoers, or else we won't deter the wrongdoers and abuses
    if we just "pass the cost to law abiding citizens" and make taxpayers PAY for the crimes of others!!
     
  3. HenryBHough
    Offline

    HenryBHough Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    25,284
    Thanks Received:
    4,226
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Oak Grove, Massachusetts
    Ratings:
    +14,594
    Actually there is at least one state that does not require purchase of automobile insurance. I recall that being the case in California but it has been many years since I was young and foolish enough to live there. The alternative was to post a sort of bond - "self insurance" with the DMV. Proof that you had enough cash in reserve to cover the cost of any judgement up to the mandated minimums required for all vehicles.

    It was very popular with companies having moderate size fleets of vehicles.

    I doubt this could work for "health insurance" as there is NO provision in the "self insurance" laws for subsidies to those not having the required minimum reserve.

    Wait...because I understand that liberals are unequipped to do event he most basic web search I will provide a link - but draw the line at writing instructions for using it:

    Alternatives to Car Insurance | DMV.org
     

Share This Page