Requiring health insurance is a enforcing conservative values

[DiamondDave]

I believe you have no idea what "conservative" means.

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

Is that why conservatives are all about telling other people what they have to do with their lives and their bodies?

"You can't marry because that upsets ME"

"You can't have an abortion no matter what because I disagree with it."

"You can't smoke weed because I don't like it."

(paraphrasing, NOT ACTUAL QUOTES)

Wasn't it a bunch of conservatives who got involved in a family dispute between terry schiavo's husband and parents and tried to pass legislation to intervene??

Seems to me that conservatives seem to make a habit of presuming to know what's best for others.

1) Government should be out of the marriage business all together
2) You can't have an abortion (or should not have one except in situations where the mother's life is actually in danger) just as you don't get to murder someone else just because of annoyance or inconvenience
3) You can smoke weed... you have the freedom to do as you choose... however, if your exercising that freedom breaks the law, you best be ready to pay the piper... there are many more laws than just 'weed' laws that prevent you from just doing anything you want

It's more like the libs that seem to now what is best for you and ensures the government forces that upon you... you just try and do it under the disguise of 'taking care of others'

 

[Darkwind]

Let Me get this straight.

Conservatism is making you, do what YOU ALREADY WANT TO DO, at the point of a gun??

Is that the gist of the OP?

 

[editec]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

And everybody else's, too.

If someone does not have health insurance the rest of us pay their bills.

Do they? Sometimes that might be true. But what about the 20 year old in perfect health?

Your're not paying shit for that person, are you?

We pay their bills through health care providers increasing the costs to those who can pay. Many times the government pays the bill of those who do not pay using our tax dollars.

True...if those people get sick.

People who choose not to have health care insurance cannot choose not to get sick.

But people who choose not to have HC often do not get sick.

If an individual does not have health care coverage the rest of us will end up paying their costs one way or another.

IF they get sick, that is true.

-To enforce personal accountability for health care costs we have two choices.
1. Mandate health care insurance
2. Do not treat individuals who cannot pay.

Yes.

I believe in personal accountability and I believe in option 1 to make people accountable. for their health care.

I can understand that POV.

But if you FORCE people to do something, then they are NOT taking personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility demands the right NOT to take responsibility.

Free will, ya know?

If you don't have it, then you do not have personal responsibility.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe you have no idea what "conservative" means.

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

Is that why conservatives are all about telling other people what they have to do with their lives and their bodies?

"You can't marry because that upsets ME"

"You can't have an abortion no matter what because I disagree with it."

"You can't smoke weed because I don't like it."

(paraphrasing, NOT ACTUAL QUOTES)

Wasn't it a bunch of conservatives who got involved in a family dispute between terry schiavo's husband and parents and tried to pass legislation to intervene??

Seems to me that conservatives seem to make a habit of presuming to know what's best for others.

Bitch, bitch, whine frigging whine. Can you be any more adolescent in your one-sided, biased view of the world? How's about you come back and talk to us about what conservatives think, believe, and "are all about" when you've actually gotten your panties out of your crack and made the effort to actually listen to some conservatives and find out what they have to say, rather than wasting everyone's time sniveling about your shallow view of what you THINK they believe? How juvenile and out-of-touch does someone have to be to think that people oppose drug legalization because "I don't like it"? Seriously? That's it? THAT is what you think the whole argument is about? And we should attempt to give you a deep, thoughtful answer to this drivel because why?

If you really want answers - which I highly doubt - then you will at least make the effort to ask questions a person can respect. Seems to me that leftists make a habit of presuming to know arguments are worthless before they ever hear them.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I must say that I get rather tired of being forced to assume the responsibility for those who can't or won't take care of themselves. You know. The folks who kinda sorta forgot to get a job. The folks who produce children at no expense to themselves whatsoever. You know the folks I'm talking about. The folks who aren't worried about HC. Why should they when we the taxpayers are being forced to take care of them. There is no incentive for them to to anything. After all. Its a free ride for them and they aren't in the least concerned for those of us who provide the money for their free ride.

In the founders day these folks would either have found the means to take care of themselves or they would have continued to live in poverty or quite possibly died. The ball was in their court and it was up to them.

I kinda like that idea.

I agree. My goal is to minimize the cost for healthcare for those who cannot pay. Some have a good reason not to pay most do not.
We are definitely paying for those who cannot pay now. The majority of of the payments are hidden to us and more costly than up front payments as required in the healthcare bill.

One option would be to not provide healthcare for those who cannot pay. Many would die.

As frustrating as it is to have people not take responsibility for themselves I personally feel we must provide food and healthcare. Other than that let them fend for themselves except children.

 

[ElmerMudd]

*ELMER* is advocating a FREE RIDE for those that won't exercise the Resonsibility of seeking care of their own accord, and wants Government to do it by Legislative FIAT at the point of a gun.

He totally dismisses the point that with Liberty comes responsibility. (And the DUTY of every citizen). *HE* Rather intends to Force servitude unto others By others.

I hear alot of Bulshxx rhetoric but you do not take responsibility of what the real world is like. There are people who will not take responsibility for themselves.

They have a heart attack what do you do with them.

There are people like you who talk a big game but what do we do with you when you have a heart attack and you have no money to pay?

That's already been explained. The fact that you won't listen isn't our problem.
In fact unreimbursed expenses are a very small part of health care costs. Much bigger is the influence of gov't programs like Medicare. Removing responsibility from people will not make them more responsible, but less. It will not reduce health care costs but increase them.
As usual, programs designed to "help people" actually do the opposite.

Of course there is not a problem with unreimbursed expenses because the government is paying for the vast majority of those who do not pay. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! You don't get it. There are billions and billions of our tax dollaras paying for those who cannot right now.
The healthcare bill is bringing all the reimbursements to the forefront and trying to control those costs.

I said I agree that we should not make anyone buy insurance but those who do not buy insurance must sign a contract that says if they do not have insurance or any way to pay for care they agree they will not receive the care. The plug will be pulled.

 

[The Rabbi]

I hear alot of Bulshxx rhetoric but you do not take responsibility of what the real world is like. There are people who will not take responsibility for themselves.

They have a heart attack what do you do with them.

There are people like you who talk a big game but what do we do with you when you have a heart attack and you have no money to pay?

That's already been explained. The fact that you won't listen isn't our problem.
In fact unreimbursed expenses are a very small part of health care costs. Much bigger is the influence of gov't programs like Medicare. Removing responsibility from people will not make them more responsible, but less. It will not reduce health care costs but increase them.
As usual, programs designed to "help people" actually do the opposite.

Of course there is not a problem with unreimbursed expenses because the government is paying for the vast majority of those who do not pay. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! You don't get it. There are billions and billions of our tax dollaras paying for those who cannot right now.
The healthcare bill is bringing all the reimbursements to the forefront and trying to control those costs.

I said I agree that we should not make anyone buy insurance but those who do not buy insurance must sign a contract that says if they do not have insurance or any way to pay for care they agree they will not receive the care. The plug will be pulled.

Please show how "government" is paying the vast majority of unreimbursed expenses.

 

[ElmerMudd]

That's already been explained. The fact that you won't listen isn't our problem.
In fact unreimbursed expenses are a very small part of health care costs. Much bigger is the influence of gov't programs like Medicare. Removing responsibility from people will not make them more responsible, but less. It will not reduce health care costs but increase them.
As usual, programs designed to "help people" actually do the opposite.

Of course there is not a problem with unreimbursed expenses because the government is paying for the vast majority of those who do not pay. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! You don't get it. There are billions and billions of our tax dollaras paying for those who cannot right now.
The healthcare bill is bringing all the reimbursements to the forefront and trying to control those costs.

I said I agree that we should not make anyone buy insurance but those who do not buy insurance must sign a contract that says if they do not have insurance or any way to pay for care they agree they will not receive the care. The plug will be pulled.

Please show how "government" is paying the vast majority of unreimbursed expenses.

Who do you think is paying for the unreinbursed care.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course there is not a problem with unreimbursed expenses because the government is paying for the vast majority of those who do not pay. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! You don't get it. There are billions and billions of our tax dollaras paying for those who cannot right now.
The healthcare bill is bringing all the reimbursements to the forefront and trying to control those costs.

I said I agree that we should not make anyone buy insurance but those who do not buy insurance must sign a contract that says if they do not have insurance or any way to pay for care they agree they will not receive the care. The plug will be pulled.

Please show how "government" is paying the vast majority of unreimbursed expenses.

Who do you think is paying for the unreinbursed care.

Please show how the "government" is paying for the vast majority of unreimbursed expenses.
Pretty simple.

 

[Claudette]

I must say that I get rather tired of being forced to assume the responsibility for those who can't or won't take care of themselves. You know. The folks who kinda sorta forgot to get a job. The folks who produce children at no expense to themselves whatsoever. You know the folks I'm talking about. The folks who aren't worried about HC. Why should they when we the taxpayers are being forced to take care of them. There is no incentive for them to to anything. After all. Its a free ride for them and they aren't in the least concerned for those of us who provide the money for their free ride.

In the founders day these folks would either have found the means to take care of themselves or they would have continued to live in poverty or quite possibly died. The ball was in their court and it was up to them.

I kinda like that idea.

I agree. My goal is to minimize the cost for healthcare for those who cannot pay. Some have a good reason not to pay most do not.
We are definitely paying for those who cannot pay now. The majority of of the payments are hidden to us and more costly than up front payments as required in the healthcare bill.

One option would be to not provide healthcare for those who cannot pay. Many would die.

As frustrating as it is to have people not take responsibility for themselves I personally feel we must provide food and healthcare. Other than that let them fend for themselves except children.

I totally agree about the kids. They have no say in the matter and certainly can't help the situation they are born into. I have no problem taking care of kids.

Its just to bad we can't remove the irresponsible adults from the equation. DRAT

 

[Jarhead]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

If someone does not have health insurance the rest of us pay their bills. We pay their bills through health care providers increasing the costs to those who can pay. Many times the government pays the bill of those who do not pay using our tax dollars.

People who choose not to have health care insurance cannot choose not to get sick.

If an individual does not have health care coverage the rest of us will end up paying their costs one way or another.

To enforce personal accountability for health care costs we have two choices.
1. Mandate health care insurance
2. Do not treat individuals who cannot pay.

I believe in personal accountability and I believe in option 1 to make people accountable. for their health care.

A very interesting and well thought out theory.
I agree that a conserfvative that does not have health insurance by choice and falls back on the tax payer to cover his/her bills if he/she falls victim to illness is a hypocrite.

And I have no doubt that many conservatives are hypocrites, and just as many liberals are hypocrites (I bleieve a small minority of liberals love to help others, as long as it is not their money being used)

That being said, I disagree with the theory overall. Whereas I have insurance by choice, if I did not by choice, I would not fall back on the taxpayer to bail me out. But I do not agree that to accommodate the small minority of conservatives that are hypocrites, one can say that a government mandate enforces or adheres to conservative values.

Such a theory would be true ONLY if ALL conservatives are hypocrites., and only left wing "our way is the only way to live" loons would say all conservatives are.

 

[drsmith1072]

I believe you have no idea what "conservative" means.

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

Is that why conservatives are all about telling other people what they have to do with their lives and their bodies?

"You can't marry because that upsets ME"

"You can't have an abortion no matter what because I disagree with it."

"You can't smoke weed because I don't like it."

(paraphrasing, NOT ACTUAL QUOTES)

Wasn't it a bunch of conservatives who got involved in a family dispute between terry schiavo's husband and parents and tried to pass legislation to intervene??

Seems to me that conservatives seem to make a habit of presuming to know what's best for others.

1) Government should be out of the marriage business all together
2) You can't have an abortion (or should not have one except in situations where the mother's life is actually in danger) just as you don't get to murder someone else just because of annoyance or inconvenience
3) You can smoke weed... you have the freedom to do as you choose... however, if your exercising that freedom breaks the law, you best be ready to pay the piper... there are many more laws than just 'weed' laws that prevent you from just doing anything you want

It's more like the libs that seem to now what is best for you and ensures the government forces that upon you... you just try and do it under the disguise of 'taking care of others'

1) I agree and therefore it shouldn't be able to tell people whether they can get married or not. Conservatives don't like that and have in fact tried to tell people that they cannot marry. Your #1 is nothing but avoidance of the fact that republicans DO interfere.

2) LOL The old equating abortion to murder in a desperate attempt to justify the republican desire to control and interfere in people's lives.

3) Actually it seems to me that republicans are fighting to keep weed a controlled substance with all of those BS "it's a gateway drug" arguments. I believe that people should have the right to do as they wish their body and to try and deny someone that right based on YOUR alleged morals is wrong.

BTW I am actually kind of libertarian leaning in that respect based on my belief that you should be able to what you want with your own body as long as your expression does not intefere with anyone elses' right to do the same.

Personally, I do not like the unenforceable mandate and prefer a public option. Although I do think it's hilarious how republicans are now arguing against what used to be their own idea all out of political expediency.

Fact is that republicans are perfectly fine trying to force their moral values onto other people and only pretend to be otherwise when it suits their current spin to do so.

Oh and no comment on the schiavo case and how republicans intervened because they thought they knew best based on frist's diagnosis via 30 minutes of edited video? LOL

 

[DiamondDave]

Is that why conservatives are all about telling other people what they have to do with their lives and their bodies?

"You can't marry because that upsets ME"

"You can't have an abortion no matter what because I disagree with it."

"You can't smoke weed because I don't like it."

(paraphrasing, NOT ACTUAL QUOTES)

Wasn't it a bunch of conservatives who got involved in a family dispute between terry schiavo's husband and parents and tried to pass legislation to intervene??

Seems to me that conservatives seem to make a habit of presuming to know what's best for others.

1) Government should be out of the marriage business all together
2) You can't have an abortion (or should not have one except in situations where the mother's life is actually in danger) just as you don't get to murder someone else just because of annoyance or inconvenience
3) You can smoke weed... you have the freedom to do as you choose... however, if your exercising that freedom breaks the law, you best be ready to pay the piper... there are many more laws than just 'weed' laws that prevent you from just doing anything you want

It's more like the libs that seem to now what is best for you and ensures the government forces that upon you... you just try and do it under the disguise of 'taking care of others'

1) I agree and therefore it shouldn't be able to tell people whether they can get married or not. Conservatives don't like that and have in fact tried to tell people that they cannot marry. Your #1 is nothing but avoidance of the fact that republicans DO interfere.

2) LOL The old equating abortion to murder in a desperate attempt to justify the republican desire to control and interfere in people's lives.

3) Actually it seems to me that republicans are fighting to keep weed a controlled substance with all of those BS "it's a gateway drug" arguments. I believe that people should have the right to do as they wish their body and to try and deny someone that right based on YOUR alleged morals is wrong.

BTW I am actually kind of libertarian leaning in that respect based on my belief that you should be able to what you want with your own body as long as your expression does not intefere with anyone elses' right to do the same.

Personally, I do not like the unenforceable mandate and prefer a public option. Although I do think it's hilarious how republicans are now arguing against what used to be their own idea all out of political expediency.

Fact is that republicans are perfectly fine trying to force their moral values onto other people and only pretend to be otherwise when it suits their current spin to do so.

Oh and no comment on the schiavo case and how republicans intervened because they thought they knew best based on frist's diagnosis via 30 minutes of edited video? LOL

1) No.... the government should not be able to tell you that you can't live in a family unit with whomever you choose.... but the government does not exist to redefine marriage at the whim of a whiny minority looking for attention and 'acceptance'
2) Taking of a human life, when it is not in self defense or war, is indeed murder.... whether you find that life inconvenient or not.. whether that life depends on another for survival or not
3) You have the right to do as you wish... you just be prepared to pay the piper when those wishes are against the law.. again, there are many laws restricting you from behaviors, whether you want to do them or not

And it is OK for DEMs/liberals to force their moral values?? We don't see any lack of effort for the libs doing this as well

 

[drsmith1072]

1) Government should be out of the marriage business all together
2) You can't have an abortion (or should not have one except in situations where the mother's life is actually in danger) just as you don't get to murder someone else just because of annoyance or inconvenience
3) You can smoke weed... you have the freedom to do as you choose... however, if your exercising that freedom breaks the law, you best be ready to pay the piper... there are many more laws than just 'weed' laws that prevent you from just doing anything you want

It's more like the libs that seem to now what is best for you and ensures the government forces that upon you... you just try and do it under the disguise of 'taking care of others'

1) I agree and therefore it shouldn't be able to tell people whether they can get married or not. Conservatives don't like that and have in fact tried to tell people that they cannot marry. Your #1 is nothing but avoidance of the fact that republicans DO interfere.

2) LOL The old equating abortion to murder in a desperate attempt to justify the republican desire to control and interfere in people's lives.

3) Actually it seems to me that republicans are fighting to keep weed a controlled substance with all of those BS "it's a gateway drug" arguments. I believe that people should have the right to do as they wish their body and to try and deny someone that right based on YOUR alleged morals is wrong.

BTW I am actually kind of libertarian leaning in that respect based on my belief that you should be able to what you want with your own body as long as your expression does not intefere with anyone elses' right to do the same.

Personally, I do not like the unenforceable mandate and prefer a public option. Although I do think it's hilarious how republicans are now arguing against what used to be their own idea all out of political expediency.

Fact is that republicans are perfectly fine trying to force their moral values onto other people and only pretend to be otherwise when it suits their current spin to do so.

Oh and no comment on the schiavo case and how republicans intervened because they thought they knew best based on frist's diagnosis via 30 minutes of edited video? LOL

1) No.... the government should not be able to tell you that you can't live in a family unit with whomever you choose.... but the government does not exist to redefine marriage at the whim of a whiny minority looking for attention and 'acceptance'
2) Taking of a human life, when it is not in self defense or war, is indeed murder.... whether you find that life inconvenient or not.. whether that life depends on another for survival or not
3) You have the right to do as you wish... you just be prepared to pay the piper when those wishes are against the law.. again, there are many laws restricting you from behaviors, whether you want to do them or not

And it is OK for DEMs/liberals to force their moral values?? We don't see any lack of effort for the libs doing this as well

1) Nice spin but the only group trying to define marriage is YOURS. There are plenty of recognized religious institutions taht will marry gay couples but conservatives are trying to define marriage to deny them that religious right. Fact is that you and I seem agree that the federal government should not recognize any marriage and have nothing to do with the institution. However, once again you ignore the FACT that the core of this argument is that conservatives have a habit of presuming to know what's best for others and there actions in the areas that i have listed show that to be true.

2) How can you claim it's a human life when it doesn't even count as a US citizen until it's born?? How can you legally recognize it as such when the system it WILL be under doesn't even recognize until it's born? Point is that conservatives are once again presuming that they know what is best. Your whole argument as you try to focus on whether it's convenient or not is nothing BUT a presumption. LOL

3) echo?? why repeat bascially what you already said when legality is not part of the argument? This isn't about the laws it's about conservatives presenting their opinions on the morality of it and presuming to know what is best for others. Why do you have a problem following the argument?

As to you last statement that is not relevent and in no way excuses conservatives for intervening and presuming to know what's best for the schiavos.

This

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

was your comment and is what this discussion is about. I have shown you instances where conservatives have interferred and made many presumptions about what they believe is best for others in the past and continue to do so and you refuse to acknowledge that FACT.

 

[DiamondDave]

1) I agree and therefore it shouldn't be able to tell people whether they can get married or not. Conservatives don't like that and have in fact tried to tell people that they cannot marry. Your #1 is nothing but avoidance of the fact that republicans DO interfere.

2) LOL The old equating abortion to murder in a desperate attempt to justify the republican desire to control and interfere in people's lives.

3) Actually it seems to me that republicans are fighting to keep weed a controlled substance with all of those BS "it's a gateway drug" arguments. I believe that people should have the right to do as they wish their body and to try and deny someone that right based on YOUR alleged morals is wrong.

BTW I am actually kind of libertarian leaning in that respect based on my belief that you should be able to what you want with your own body as long as your expression does not intefere with anyone elses' right to do the same.

Personally, I do not like the unenforceable mandate and prefer a public option. Although I do think it's hilarious how republicans are now arguing against what used to be their own idea all out of political expediency.

Fact is that republicans are perfectly fine trying to force their moral values onto other people and only pretend to be otherwise when it suits their current spin to do so.

Oh and no comment on the schiavo case and how republicans intervened because they thought they knew best based on frist's diagnosis via 30 minutes of edited video? LOL

1) No.... the government should not be able to tell you that you can't live in a family unit with whomever you choose.... but the government does not exist to redefine marriage at the whim of a whiny minority looking for attention and 'acceptance'
2) Taking of a human life, when it is not in self defense or war, is indeed murder.... whether you find that life inconvenient or not.. whether that life depends on another for survival or not
3) You have the right to do as you wish... you just be prepared to pay the piper when those wishes are against the law.. again, there are many laws restricting you from behaviors, whether you want to do them or not

And it is OK for DEMs/liberals to force their moral values?? We don't see any lack of effort for the libs doing this as well

1) Nice spin but the only group trying to define marriage is YOURS. There are plenty of recognized religious institutions taht will marry gay couples but conservatives are trying to define marriage to deny them that religious right. Fact is that you and I seem agree that the federal government should not recognize any marriage and have nothing to do with the institution. However, once again you ignore the FACT that the core of this argument is that republicans have a habit of presuming to know what's best for others and there actions in the areas that i have listed show that to be true.

2) How can you claim it's a human life when it doesn't even count as a US citizen until it's born?? How can you legally recognize it as such when the system it WILL be under doesn't even recognize until it's born? Point is that republicans are once again presuming that they know what is best. Your whole argument as you try to focus on whether it's convenient or not is nothing BUT a presumption. LOL

3) echo?? why repeat bascially what you already said when legality is not part of the argument? This isn't about the laws it's about republicans presenting their opinions on the morality of it and presuming to know what is best for others. Why do you have a problem following the argument?

As to you last statement that is not relevent and in no way excuses republicans for intervening and presuming to know what's best for the schiavos.

This

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

was your comment and is what this discussion is about. I have shown you instances where conservatives have interferred and made many presumptions about what they believe is best for others in the past and continue to do so and you refuse to acknowledge that FACT.

Do you get the government to deem you as a dog and redefine dog to fit that because of your whim?? No.... Same with the government redefining marriage... Look, I am all for all family units between 2 consenting adults ALL being deemed as civil unions by our government and having no legal difference between any civil union.... but marriage should have nothing to do with the government

Being a life and being a citizen are 2 different things.... is protecting against any other murder "presuming they know best" as well?.... It is what it is

And it is repeated because you don't seem to understand... whether it is REPs or DEMs or fucking whatever other party is of no consequence.... there are indeed, and the will indeed continue to be laws that impede you from doing things that you simply want to do....

And as stated... you seem to have no problem with libs try and force their morality upon someone

And show me where I made that comment or indeed any comment on Shaivo... don't attribute some quote to me unless I actually make it

 

[drsmith1072]

1) No.... the government should not be able to tell you that you can't live in a family unit with whomever you choose.... but the government does not exist to redefine marriage at the whim of a whiny minority looking for attention and 'acceptance'
2) Taking of a human life, when it is not in self defense or war, is indeed murder.... whether you find that life inconvenient or not.. whether that life depends on another for survival or not
3) You have the right to do as you wish... you just be prepared to pay the piper when those wishes are against the law.. again, there are many laws restricting you from behaviors, whether you want to do them or not

And it is OK for DEMs/liberals to force their moral values?? We don't see any lack of effort for the libs doing this as well

1) Nice spin but the only group trying to define marriage is YOURS. There are plenty of recognized religious institutions taht will marry gay couples but conservatives are trying to define marriage to deny them that religious right. Fact is that you and I seem agree that the federal government should not recognize any marriage and have nothing to do with the institution. However, once again you ignore the FACT that the core of this argument is that republicans have a habit of presuming to know what's best for others and there actions in the areas that i have listed show that to be true.

2) How can you claim it's a human life when it doesn't even count as a US citizen until it's born?? How can you legally recognize it as such when the system it WILL be under doesn't even recognize until it's born? Point is that republicans are once again presuming that they know what is best. Your whole argument as you try to focus on whether it's convenient or not is nothing BUT a presumption. LOL

3) echo?? why repeat bascially what you already said when legality is not part of the argument? This isn't about the laws it's about republicans presenting their opinions on the morality of it and presuming to know what is best for others. Why do you have a problem following the argument?

As to you last statement that is not relevent and in no way excuses republicans for intervening and presuming to know what's best for the schiavos.

This

A conservative takes responsibility for his own situation. He does not presume to know what is best for everyone else.

was your comment and is what this discussion is about. I have shown you instances where conservatives have interferred and made many presumptions about what they believe is best for others in the past and continue to do so and you refuse to acknowledge that FACT.

Do you get the government to deem you as a dog and redefine dog to fit that because of your whim?? No.... Same with the government redefining marriage... Look, I am all for all family units between 2 consenting adults ALL being deemed as civil unions by our government and having no legal difference between any civil union.... but marriage should have nothing to do with the government

Being a life and being a citizen are 2 different things.... is protecting against any other murder "presuming they know best" as well?.... It is what it is

And it is repeated because you don't seem to understand... whether it is REPs or DEMs or fucking whatever other party is of no consequence.... there are indeed, and the will indeed continue to be laws that impede you from doing things that you simply want to do....

And as stated... you seem to have no problem with libs try and force their morality upon someone

And show me where I made that comment or indeed any comment on Shaivo... don't attribute some quote to me unless I actually make it

dog?? What the hell are you babbling about?? Like I said you and I agree on civil unions hwoever, the FACT remains that it is republicans who are trying to get the federal government to intervene and define marriage.

IMO marriage is a religious institution and should NOT be recognized by the government for any legal reason. However, based on that FACT if a valid religious institution wishes to marry gay couples then what right do you or any republicans for that matter have to deny them their right to freedom of religion to make that choice??

You once again miss the FACT that you made a statement and I have countered it and shown how conservatives DO presume to know what is best for others.

That is the WHOLE point of my posts and you continue to avoid it. You made a statement that was incorrect, I corrected you and now your defense is that both do it when I never said that they didn't. You however DID say that conservtiaves do "not presume to know what is best for everyone else." and I have shown and you now seem agree that they DO.

and that proves your original spin that a conservative "does not presume to know what is best for everyone else" is less than factual.

Oh and just so you know I never said you made any comment about schiavo and NEVER attributed any quote about schiavo to you.
I said you avoided responding to MY comment about it as an example of conservatives presuming "to know what is best for everyone else."

Question: Do you even read a post before you try to respond to it??

 

[SnagNasty]

7 pages of dribble and only one shining gem in the whole thread.

So the solution is to make it easier for them to freeload off of us even more? Good plan.

No, the solution is minimize those who we all have to pay for and lower the costs of taking care of them.

Let me take a real world situation and you tell me how we should take care of it.

A woman shows up in the emergency room with a serious hear attack. She need s immediate attention and with ICU after care the bill is estimated to be $100,000.

She lives pay check to pay check and does not have insurance.

Does the hospital treat her? If so who pays for it?

I find that after my own investigations, and a review of this thread and some of your salient points, I would have to agree.

I won't comment on those blatantly ignoring facts, but to the conservatives that presented good solutions or alternatives, thanks, they have provided food for thought.

To briefly weigh in on this issue, I agree that minimizing the costs of taking care of the uninsured is the best we can do in our system in order to provide the most freedom and justice. I mean this in terms of commutable, equitable and moral justice.

Equitable justice will be achieved by causing all people to possess health insurance, spreading overall risk equally between consumers. This is the best we can hope to achieve in present society, as there are no possible measures to individually assess each person and prescribe them health care based on their individual health habits (i.e., diet, exercise habits, etc.). Therefore, the most equitable thing to do is to ascribe the same chance of contracting a disease, getting harmed in an accident, etc. to all citizens.

In terms of commutable justice, by spreading the overall risk between the entire population it ensures that every actor will act in a way that will ensure the survival of the status quo because they equally benefit from cheaper, more accesible health care, only provided because of the mitigated risk of the uninsured.

In terms of moral justice, its very hard to argue this point. In my point of view, ensuring them all reduces the chance of moral hazards and helps to ensure moral justice, but there is never a fully enforceable form of that.

In short, by maintaining our private health care system while requiring a federal mandate will continue to allow the free market to work in a limited fashion while also ensuring that justice is served to the American populace.

If there were ways to ensure that taxpayers didn't have to pay for those who CHOSE (not couldn't afford) to pay for health insurance, then it would be fair to say that a mandate is infringing on liberty. But if a person who chooses not to get health insurance gets sick, and can't pay for the subsequent bill (which they may have been able to afford with insurance) or get help to pay for it, then the taxpayer must pay. Since this cannot be avoided, we must lower the costs and mitigate risks, so I agree.

 

[Christopher]

Requiring health insurance forces people to be responsible for their own health care.

If someone does not have health insurance the rest of us pay their bills. We pay their bills through health care providers increasing the costs to those who can pay. Many times the government pays the bill of those who do not pay using our tax dollars.

People who choose not to have health care insurance cannot choose not to get sick.

If an individual does not have health care coverage the rest of us will end up paying their costs one way or another.

To enforce personal accountability for health care costs we have two choices.
1. Mandate health care insurance
2. Do not treat individuals who cannot pay.

I believe in personal accountability and I believe in option 1 to make people accountable. for their health care.

Why can't people just be more accountable in the first place? Perhaps if our children were really taught accountability they would believe in personal accountability and live by it throughout their lives. Anyone who has children knows that forcing them to do things as you are suggesting here, without really teaching them, just tends to backfire.

 

[Patriot214]

The Federal Government taking over 1/6 of the economy and forcing its citizens to purchase a service is NOT conservatism. Yes, being conservative does mean that one believes in more personal responsibility and less government. But, the idea that everyone who does not have health insurance is irresponsible is just false. So is the claim that our tax dollars pay for everyone who is not insured.

I have a friend who went to the hospital about 6 months ago experiencing terrible stomache pain. She was very reluctant to go because she did not have health insurance. After several tests, the doctors discovered she had a kidney stone. She was treated most of the evening and released later that night. A few weeks later she received a bill in the mail for over $1,000. This was because the hospital gathered her information while she was in their care. She made payments on this bill until it was completely paid off last month. Not a single penny of our tax dollars went to paying my friends bill. She took responsibility for her own situation.

The times when our tax dollars are used to pay for the medical attention of someone else is when they are on medicare or in this country illegally and simply "do not exist" on paper. Let's gather facts and use logic on a subject before we let our government cram something down our throats.

 

[jeffrockit]

The people who need health insurance the most are the ones who are the toughest to make a profit on if you are a private business.

And by dumping all of the sick from the 30 or so million uninsured, they are guaranteed to have more sick in the pool than well, which will stress the HC Ins systems into bankruptcy. In order for HC Ins companies to keep things going, they need more healthy people in the pool than sick.