Should Gov't have Limits?

[percysunshine]

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 they were micromanaging my life, they would never let me post on USMB. Yet, here I am....

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Ah yes, only low lifes don't pay for their own care. It is completely impossible that some hard working, family person would have been laid off from a job, lose their coverage and then get sick.

Can we stick to reality please?

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

What that is is bullshit. Total unadulterated bullshit. Politicians allowed? Profit margins as the primary concern of health reform? Pure nonsense.

 

[Sweet Willy]

No, you don't just pay for car insurance to cover the people you hurt. You also are forced to pay to cover your own injuries by other people who don't have insurance. It's called "uninsured motorist". Most states require that you pay insurance in case the person who hits you doesn't have insurance. And it even gets better than that. You also pay a 're insurance" premium. See.... your insurance company is in the business of writing checks they can't cash. In the case of "catastrophic" events, which means if about 10% of their customers make a claim at once, then your insurance company doesn't have the money to pay. See... they spend your premiums on other things. So, your insurance company has to have insurance. That's right, there is insurance, for insurance. It's called "re insurance". And the really neat thing about your insurance companies insurance? They don't pay it. You do.

Now... often times, people find themselves on different sides of these insurance debates. They're all for everyone driving to have auto insurance. If that old jalopy hits my new BMW, by God, that poor person had better have insurance. No way do i want to have to cover the cost of his irresponsibility.

But health insurance is the same. If everyone doesn't have it, you get to pay for those that don't. You have essentially been paying "uninsured people" insurance for years. The cost to treat them is defrayed to the people who pay.

The interesting thing bout this is when we asked WHO and WHEN did it happen that we have to treat uninsured people anyway? Who ever said that? His name was Ronald Reagan. The same guy that gave amnesty to 5 million illegals over saw the act that promised emergency care and child birth for anyone who showed up to the ER. This is when the number of insured people in America dropped dramatically and health care cost began to spiral out of control. Middle income families who had before been afraid to drop their health coverage, dropped it like a bad habit.

Republicans sure have some strange heroes.

 

[alan1]

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 they were micromanaging my life, they would never let me post on USMB. Yet, here I am....

Your use of an extreme such as that is disingenuous.

 

[The T]

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".

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

 

[DontBeStupid]

And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

 

[percysunshine]

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 they were micromanaging my life, they would never let me post on USMB. Yet, here I am....

Your use of an extreme such as that is disingenuous.

What is extreme about posting on USMB?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Tell us Swallow?

Only one W.

It's spelled S-A-L-L-O-W.

 

[The T]

And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

Varying degrees of WHAT exactly?

The Constitution is rather explicit and to the point.

 

[DontBeStupid]

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

You keep crying about this. Are you referring to Obamacare? Because it does not require anyone to buy anything.

 

[alan1]

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.

Ah yes, only low lifes don't pay for their own care. It is completely impossible that some hard working, family person would have been laid off from a job, lose their coverage and then get sick.

Can we stick to reality please?

Sure, stick to reality yourself.
The majority of people that don't have health insurance choose to not purchase it.
The number of people that acquire some financially devastating medical condition between insurance coverage conditions is nominal.

 

[alan1]

If they were micromanaging my life, they would never let me post on USMB. Yet, here I am....

Your use of an extreme such as that is disingenuous.

What is extreme about posting on USMB?

Your example.

 

[Wiseacre]

And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

And there we have the essence of the thread. According to you, the gov't has no limit at all; it can force you to buy something whether you want it or not, and if you don't they can penalize you. Today's it's an extra tax on your return, tomorrow maybe you go to jail.

 

[MeBelle]

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.

Many also choose not to have a car*(noted you already posted this)...thus making each state mandate, which differs per state, to purchase auto insurance.

 

[Sallow]

Tell us Swallow?

Only one W.

It's spelled S-A-L-L-O-W.

Don't worry. The "T" is a raging homosexual wanting to service me.

Unfortunately..I am a straight dude.

So..I decline the offer.

Which is why he is drunk so often.

 

[alan1]

My entire post

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".

And yes, I am cold hearted enough to say, "let them die".

Then we simply have varying degrees of what our country should be. But, that doesn't change the facts of what our Government can and cannot do. You might not want everyone to have coverage, but the Government is within its power to assure that.

Please quote me in entirety.
Yes, we do have a difference of opinion about the responsibility of the government and of individuals.
Mine is base upon the founding documents of this country, yours is based upon emotion.
You and i could both choose to support others of our own accord, your stance would force me to support others using government as your weapon of choice to enforce my compliance with your wishes.

 

[Wiseacre]

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Government to demand the citizens buy into anything...other than what i laid out earlier regarding Article 1, Section 8 where government is responsible for roads and may demand people be licensed and insured as to ensure citizens use the roads safely as the government is responsible for those roads.

Healthcare demands by the Government are way out of line.

You keep crying about this. Are you referring to Obamacare? Because it does not require anyone to buy anything.

Do you not understand what the individual mandate is? Above a certain income level, you have to have coverage or the gov't will penalize you. They are requirin you to buy a product whether you want it or not, and charging you so much extra on your tax return if you do not comply.

 

[Sallow]

Tell us Swallow? What do the 4th and 5th Amendments mean if YOU are so animate that the States and in particuliar the citizens are not soverign in the practice of thier Liberty?

You want a "swallow", faggot?

Alas..no.

But do go on. Even if you are a homo and a pussy..you are entitled to your free speech.

Like everyone else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

And let's not change the subject by bitching about the private insurance system. Separate issue, please stick to the basic question. Should the gov't have any limits at all?


My take: the gov't has no business making personal decisions for it's citizens. Nor does it have a responsibility to assist those who make the wrong choices. Gov't should be restricted to ONLY those functions that individual cannot do by themselves, such as national defense.

Below is a link to the ACA.

Please cite what the criminal penalty (time in prison) or civil penalty (amount in USD) one might sustain for refusing to purchase health insurance, thus ‘forcing’ him to do so.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

That's 'cutting to the chase.'