Should Gov't have Limits?

Government tells you what you can and can't do all the time. There are no smoking laws. Laws tell people to put on their seat belt. They tell you to drive 35 MPH. Government decided to install handicapped ramps on every corner in most places. When doesn't government direct your life.
They tell you in some states that you must have auto insurance. They legislate the age to drink, marry, and when to send your children to school. They also force parents to buy car seats for their children. These are all positions the government takes where they are involved in a person's private life.
You are taxed to pay for things and services you do not use or in some cases do not support. Government controls many of life's actions. Where do you suggest one would draw the line.


If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance....

The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

Not overlooked at all. You have found a way to justify the takeover of your rights to drive without insurance. You give the government permission to tell you to buy insurance. They will tell you that you must have health insurance at some point. They will give the reason that if you don't and can't pay for your illness others have to pick up the tab which drives up everyone's cost. How will you justify this or will you say no you can't make me own health insurance?
 
Should the government have the power to protect its citizens from exploitation? You seem to think it should not.


I think the gov't should have the power to require sufficient information for the citizen to make a choice. But I do not think the gov't should make that choice for the citizen.
 
Left to which government(s)? State, Federal, or both?

In fairness? *I* will give you a hint... 9th and 10th Amendments...:eusa_whistle:

Which of course doesn't or ever say what you think it says. The Constitution is supreme. Legislation that has not been made at a federal level, like the prohibition of prostitution or gambling..is left to the states to decide.

As is the BOR oaf. It describes exactly what the Federal Government may NOT do and is left to the States whom in thier own right are soverign as is every individual American citizen.

YOU didn't pay attention is Civics class, did you? And that is assuming it was taught at all.

Again Tommy..you have no idea what you are talking about. Citizens and/or States are not "sovereign". Government is limited in terms of what they can do to citizens. Like not quartering soldiers in a citizens house. Or guaranteeing that a citizen has the right to challenge incarceration. Or guaranteeing that a citizen as the right to seek redress from government over injustices. Or the right to assemble peacefully and protest. Or the right to choose a representative government. Or the right against search and seizure without due process. These rights, by the way, Conservatives seem to delight in tearing down.
 
And a majority of people have no issues with that aspect of Obamacare, it's the mandate that's a problem. Does the government have the right to force me to buy health insurance because they think its in my best interest?

I don't believe the government has the right to force me to buy a god damned thing, at least not without some choice in the matter. Car insurance, I have a choice to not own a car and to use mass transit instead. SS I have no choice in whatsoever, even if I want to handle my own retirement.

Moot point as Obamacare doesn't require you to buy anything. It requires you to have coverage, but that's a very different thing.

Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, hitting me with a fine by way of a tax penalty is forcing me.

Semantics? You think every single person needs to buy something even though they don't.

That's a little more than just semantics. That's a deep misunderstanding of the law.
 
Government tells you what you can and can't do all the time. There are no smoking laws. Laws tell people to put on their seat belt. They tell you to drive 35 MPH. Government decided to install handicapped ramps on every corner in most places. When doesn't government direct your life.
They tell you in some states that you must have auto insurance. They legislate the age to drink, marry, and when to send your children to school. They also force parents to buy car seats for their children. These are all positions the government takes where they are involved in a person's private life.
You are taxed to pay for things and services you do not use or in some cases do not support. Government controls many of life's actions. Where do you suggest one would draw the line.

Once upon a time America was peopled with folks that Edmund Burke referred to as follows:
'They were Protestants “of that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion,” and their dissent from the Anglican Church not only favored liberty, it was “built upon it.” '

Now, there are far too many who march in lock step, as you seem to.


In November you'll see folks who bridle at being told what to do, march to the voting booths...

You are sadly mistaken and have not understood a word in any of the posts I wrote. I do not walk in lockstep with anyone. I have sent protest letters against each of these acts where government has over stepped the bounds.
If anyone walks in lockstep it is the religious mind that has an entire rule book to lead them by the nose.
 
Last edited:
Yes you are right, some people do not think it is a bad thing to dump people from their health insurance or run them into bankruptcy or any of the other horrible side effects of a for profit health system, their opinion seems to matter more than their customers who have paid for a service and end up screwed anyway or those who cannot even afford to buy insurance.

And a majority of people have no issues with that aspect of Obamacare, it's the mandate that's a problem. Does the government have the right to force me to buy health insurance because they think its in my best interest?

I don't believe the government has the right to force me to buy a god damned thing, at least not without some choice in the matter. Car insurance, I have a choice to not own a car and to use mass transit instead. SS I have no choice in whatsoever, even if I want to handle my own retirement.

Yes, it's the cost of having the profit margins of insurance companies as the primary concern of health reform. Would have been a lot different if the politicians involved would have been allowed to put the good of the many above the bank accounts of those who are not directly involved in treatment of the sick. Yay capitalism.

That's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

And, I'm perfectly capable of handling my own health. I don't need the government to do it for me.
 

If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance....

The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

Not overlooked at all. You have found a way to justify the takeover of your rights to drive without insurance. You give the government permission to tell you to buy insurance. They will tell you that you must have health insurance at some point. They will give the reason that if you don't and can't pay for your illness others have to pick up the tab which drives up everyone's cost. How will you justify this or will you say no you can't make me own health insurance?

So you believe a person should be free to drive without insurance, hit and kill a pedestrian and no compensation be afforded to the victim's family?

Wow.
 

If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance....

The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

Not overlooked at all. You have found a way to justify the takeover of your rights to drive without insurance. You give the government permission to tell you to buy insurance. They will tell you that you must have health insurance at some point. They will give the reason that if you don't and can't pay for your illness others have to pick up the tab which drives up everyone's cost. How will you justify this or will you say no you can't make me own health insurance?

It is not the same thing. Your line of reasoning would imply that your car insurance should be paid for by the person you run over. Sort of a silly proposition.
 
If you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance to protect the losses that you could potential cause another person.
If you have a life, you are now forced to buy medical insurance to protect yourself, not loss to another,
The two situations are completely different.

Now, if you have car insurance and are doing something illegal (such as driving while intoxicated), your car insurance can refuse to cover the losses incurred.
Will it be ok for the government mandated medical insurance to follow the same practice? For instance, if you show up at the doctors office high on cocaine and needing stitches, can they refuse payment because you cut yourself while engaging in an illegal activity?
 
Moot point as Obamacare doesn't require you to buy anything. It requires you to have coverage, but that's a very different thing.

Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, hitting me with a fine by way of a tax penalty is forcing me.

Semantics? You think every single person needs to buy something even though they don't.

That's a little more than just semantics. That's a deep misunderstanding of the law.

No, I don't think anyone needs to buy anything unless they want to.
 
If you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance to protect the losses that you could potential cause another person.
If you have a life, you are now forced to buy medical insurance to protect yourself, not loss to another,
The two situations are completely different.

Now, if you have car insurance and are doing something illegal (such as driving while intoxicated), your car insurance can refuse to cover the losses incurred.
Will it be ok for the government mandated medical insurance to follow the same practice? For instance, if you show up at the doctors office high on cocaine and needing stitches, can they refuse payment because you cut yourself while engaging in an illegal activity?

Except ... not.

If you don't have medical insurance and you get critically sick and go in for care, MY premiums go up. I end up paying for YOUR care.

That's not cool.
 
The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

Not overlooked at all. You have found a way to justify the takeover of your rights to drive without insurance. You give the government permission to tell you to buy insurance. They will tell you that you must have health insurance at some point. They will give the reason that if you don't and can't pay for your illness others have to pick up the tab which drives up everyone's cost. How will you justify this or will you say no you can't make me own health insurance?

So you believe a person should be free to drive without insurance, hit and kill a pedestrian and no compensation be afforded to the victim's family?

Wow.

In fact I said it was a good idea to have auto insurance. You just what the government to tell you to do so. Now tell me you are not for big government controlling your life. You are an advocate for government controls. This is all about whether government has the right to get into your personal life and you like that. You want them to tell you everything. You want them to nursemaid you through life. Or do you think people should make decisions on their own. Auto insurance is one of the examples I used as government telling you to buy things. If you let them to to buy one thing you have opened the door for them to tell you what else you need to buy.
 
The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

Not overlooked at all. You have found a way to justify the takeover of your rights to drive without insurance. You give the government permission to tell you to buy insurance. They will tell you that you must have health insurance at some point. They will give the reason that if you don't and can't pay for your illness others have to pick up the tab which drives up everyone's cost. How will you justify this or will you say no you can't make me own health insurance?

It is not the same thing. Your line of reasoning would imply that your car insurance should be paid for by the person you run over. Sort of a silly proposition.

Someone focused on an example of auto insurance. That is not the focus of what I have been saying. Not at all. What I have been trying to do is show how each day government more and more micromanages your life and obviously Americans like that.
 
If you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance to protect the losses that you could potential cause another person.
If you have a life, you are now forced to buy medical insurance to protect yourself, not loss to another,
The two situations are completely different.

Now, if you have car insurance and are doing something illegal (such as driving while intoxicated), your car insurance can refuse to cover the losses incurred.
Will it be ok for the government mandated medical insurance to follow the same practice? For instance, if you show up at the doctors office high on cocaine and needing stitches, can they refuse payment because you cut yourself while engaging in an illegal activity?

Except ... not.

If you don't have medical insurance and you get critically sick and go in for care, MY premiums go up. I end up paying for YOUR care.

That's not cool.
Your premiums don't go up because somebody else without insurance got sick. Your premiums go up because the hospital can't deny coverage to the low-life that doesn't pay for their care. Let the doctors and hospitals refuse care to those that can't pay for it or refuse to have insurance and we solve your problem. See, then it's the choice of the individual to take care of themselves in one manner or another.
 
Not overlooked at all. You have found a way to justify the takeover of your rights to drive without insurance. You give the government permission to tell you to buy insurance. They will tell you that you must have health insurance at some point. They will give the reason that if you don't and can't pay for your illness others have to pick up the tab which drives up everyone's cost. How will you justify this or will you say no you can't make me own health insurance?

So you believe a person should be free to drive without insurance, hit and kill a pedestrian and no compensation be afforded to the victim's family?

Wow.

In fact I said it was a good idea to have auto insurance. You just what the government to tell you to do so. Now tell me you are not for big government controlling your life. You are an advocate for government controls. This is all about whether government has the right to get into your personal life and you like that. You want them to tell you everything. You want them to nursemaid you through life. Or do you think people should make decisions on their own. Auto insurance is one of the examples I used as government telling you to buy things. If you let them to to buy one thing you have opened the door for them to tell you what else you need to buy.

Government since by Article 1, Section 8 are bound to 'post roads' and therefore may demand certain things to be required for the public to use them as insurence, and to be licensed to ensure you know how to drive without killing your fellow citizens isn't an issue.

Some like to argue that Government demanding you have Auto insurance is the very same as having health insurance is the very same thing...and it isn't...Nor is using the Commerce Clause.
 
Last edited:
Government tells you what you can and can't do all the time. There are no smoking laws. Laws tell people to put on their seat belt. They tell you to drive 35 MPH. Government decided to install handicapped ramps on every corner in most places. When doesn't government direct your life.
They tell you in some states that you must have auto insurance. They legislate the age to drink, marry, and when to send your children to school. They also force parents to buy car seats for their children. These are all positions the government takes where they are involved in a person's private life.
You are taxed to pay for things and services you do not use or in some cases do not support. Government controls many of life's actions. Where do you suggest one would draw the line.


If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance. You also have a choice of what insurance you want to purchase. No one is forcing you to drive or carry insurance.

If you want to have your small child in your car while you drive... you need to buy a car seat. No one is forcing you to bring your small child along.

The rest of what you say comes out of taxes. And even then only a portion of citizens pay federal taxes.

So far there is nothing i know of that we are forced to purchase.

You defend the infringement on your rights very nicely. Let them tell me I must have insurance. Let them tell me I must wear a seat belt. Both are very good ideas but do you really want government telling you to buy and do these things.

So you are very comfortable with government running your life? I guess some people are. What I find funny is that people call me the Socialist when I fight governments infringements every chance I get and the non Socialists love to have government run their lives.


No one is forcing you to drive a car. If you want to drive.... the rules are you have to carry insurance and or use a car seat for you child and wear your seat belt..... of which many choose not to. The choice is still yours to drive or not. No kids... no car seat. Don't drive... no need to purchase insurance.

I guess you did not read my first post. I do not want government running my life...and i do not want them telling me to purchase anything...i do not want for myself.
 
Which of course doesn't or ever say what you think it says. The Constitution is supreme. Legislation that has not been made at a federal level, like the prohibition of prostitution or gambling..is left to the states to decide.

As is the BOR oaf. It describes exactly what the Federal Government may NOT do and is left to the States whom in thier own right are soverign as is every individual American citizen.

YOU didn't pay attention is Civics class, did you? And that is assuming it was taught at all.

Again Tommy..you have no idea what you are talking about. Citizens and/or States are not "sovereign". Government is limited in terms of what they can do to citizens. Like not quartering soldiers in a citizens house. Or guaranteeing that a citizen has the right to challenge incarceration. Or guaranteeing that a citizen as the right to seek redress from government over injustices. Or the right to assemble peacefully and protest. Or the right to choose a representative government. Or the right against search and seizure without due process. These rights, by the way, Conservatives seem to delight in tearing down.

Yes they ARE soverign you moron. It is YOU that don't know what YOU are speaking of.:eusa_hand:
 
Government tells you what you can and can't do all the time. There are no smoking laws. Laws tell people to put on their seat belt. They tell you to drive 35 MPH. Government decided to install handicapped ramps on every corner in most places. When doesn't government direct your life.
They tell you in some states that you must have auto insurance. They legislate the age to drink, marry, and when to send your children to school. They also force parents to buy car seats for their children. These are all positions the government takes where they are involved in a person's private life.
You are taxed to pay for things and services you do not use or in some cases do not support. Government controls many of life's actions. Where do you suggest one would draw the line.


If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance....

The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.


And many choose not to purchase insurance..... another conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.
 
If you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance to protect the losses that you could potential cause another person.
If you have a life, you are now forced to buy medical insurance to protect yourself, not loss to another,
The two situations are completely different.

Now, if you have car insurance and are doing something illegal (such as driving while intoxicated), your car insurance can refuse to cover the losses incurred.
Will it be ok for the government mandated medical insurance to follow the same practice? For instance, if you show up at the doctors office high on cocaine and needing stitches, can they refuse payment because you cut yourself while engaging in an illegal activity?

Except ... not.

If you don't have medical insurance and you get critically sick and go in for care, MY premiums go up. I end up paying for YOUR care.

That's not cool.

Second reply to your point.

You are approaching this from the standpoint that the government should somehow be involved in making sure everybody's health care needs are taken care of.
Either by forcing doctors to treat people or forcing people to have medical insurance.

I approach it from the standpoint that people are individually responsible. If they can't afford catastrophic medical care and choose to not purchase insurance, that's their problem if they get sick, not mine. And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".
 

Forum List

Back
Top