Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

[JakeStarkey]

Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

In American, no

In a Progressive Utopia like the old USSR, Communist China, Hitlers Germany or North Korea, yes!

Of course the government impose a tax penalty, a tax surchage, a tax waiver, whatever.

Climb down, regressive reactionaries.

 

[emilynghiem]

Marvin Zinn asks
Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

Of course it is. Who the fuck is Marvin Zinn?

Just some guy who doesn't want to pay for his own health care insurance.

My bet is, he's a big Reagan fan and thinks EMTALA is the way to go.

No you don't get it.
people don't want the GOVERNMENT dictating when they do or don't buy insurance.

Luddly Neddite
this is like the difference between a woman CHOOSING when or when not to have a baby
and the government dictating this by penalizing or illegalizing the choice.

Many people for DECRIMINALIZATION of drugs and marijuana,
including law enforcement officers and Christian clergy,
are NOT FOR DRUGS but many are AGAINST drugs,
but they *don't want the GOVT dictating,* penalizing or worse, profiting off making drugs illegal.
They don't trust the GOVT that is rife with politics and conflicts of interest
to control the regulations at the expense of people's consent and free choice.

it's the issue of GOVT controls and regulations on people's choice.

We don't all agree on the cases, but the defense is very similar
where people argue they don't want GOVT dictating or penalizing their choices.

Do you understand this for abortion and for gay marriage choices?
Why can't you understand this for health care choices?

I don't even AGREE half the time with the prohibition arguments,
but i UNDERSTAND they don't consent to the govt regulations and want these to be different.

I have no problem with people changing the laws so they consent to them.
it just has to be by consent of all people affected.

So if people say the marriage laws are violating their beliefs, consent or choices,
or the drug laws, or the health care or abortion laws,
if I am going to treat include and respect people equally
then whatever are their grievances and ojbections these should be addressed.
otherwise that's not treating people equally and not respecting consent of the governed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, tough. Enough people do that it is law.

That is not going to change. Go to one of the government's reconciliation panels to help folks who don't get it now but are willing to listen.

 

[Conservative65]

Marvin Zinn asks
Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

Of course it is. Who the fuck is Marvin Zinn?

Just some guy who doesn't want to pay for his own health care insurance.

My bet is, he's a big Reagan fan and thinks EMTALA is the way to go.

I don't have a problem paying for my own insurance. I have a problem being one of those that is forced to fund the subsidies for others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marvin Zinn asks
Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

Of course it is. Who the fuck is Marvin Zinn?

Just some guy who doesn't want to pay for his own health care insurance.

My bet is, he's a big Reagan fan and thinks EMTALA is the way to go.

I don't have a problem paying for my own insurance. I have a problem being one of those that is forced to fund the subsidies for others.

Sux to be you then.

 

[Conservative65]

Marvin Zinn asks
Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

Of course it is. Who the fuck is Marvin Zinn?

Just some guy who doesn't want to pay for his own health care insurance.

My bet is, he's a big Reagan fan and thinks EMTALA is the way to go.

I don't have a problem paying for my own insurance. I have a problem being one of those that is forced to fund the subsidies for others.

Sux to be you then.

It must suck to be one of the leeches that thinks someone else should fund something for you. I wouldn't know but I suspect you do.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

What if it's your fault? You better have insurance.

No because I dont want too.


See how fucking stupid that is?

then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving


you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us.

but fining me for not having it has a big impact

Too many people think the purpose of health insurance and the purpose of auto insurance is the same thing. My health insurance is designed to protect me. Since my State only requires liability insurance on a vehicle, it's designed to protect the other guy if it's my fault.

ACA is designed to protect you and the other guy.

no it's not

it's strictly about force and control
adding debt to create a crisis so they can save us from it, again

 

[Two Thumbs]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

What if it's your fault? You better have insurance.

No because I dont want too.


See how fucking stupid that is?

then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving


you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us.

but fining me for not having it has a big impact

Thats great and all but what about my fucked up vehicle?

pony the fuck up

you shouldn't have been driving and now you wrecked your car

or do you want someone else to pay for a new one

pft

 

[Two Thumbs]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

if they don't, they get arrested and a lean is put on their paycheck until they have paid you off

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Fuck that, when you hit me with your car you better have insurance. What? Trust that people will pay you out of pocket or something?

What if it's your fault? You better have insurance.

No because I dont want too.


See how fucking stupid that is?

then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving


you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us.

but fining me for not having it has a big impact

"if they don't, they get arrested and a lean is put on their paycheck until they have paid you
then you get your license suspended and get arrested if found driving"

Because that doesn't happen, doesn't work, because people were getting screwed by uninsured drivers, you are now required to carry insurance.

"you not having health ins has little to no impact on the rest of us."

Tax payers paying for your health does indeed have an impact.

so lets take away our freedom and add trillions to the debt

what could go wrong?

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, tough. Enough people do that it is law.

That is not going to change. Go to one of the government's reconciliation panels to help folks who don't get it now but are willing to listen.

sorry JakeStarkey

this is not one of those "arbitrary" issues that can go either way like the flip of a coin.

this is a fundamental issue, like saying discrimination against blacks is wrong although
"most people think it's going to keep happening anyway, where young black men
are going to be associated with thugs because of the cultural stereotype"

No matter how many people think it's just the status quo and how people are going to react,
this is inherently against people's values as NOT fair but offensive and NOT accceptable.

So no it is not acceptable to override these objections because "most people accept it"
and not the same thing as other issues that are arbitrary disputes.

This one is an absolute. there are INHERENT beliefs that are violated, denied
and discriminated against here, and just like with slavery that was once considered the norm,
it is still not acceptable to deny the rights of others.

Sorry you can't see the difference, but I can.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't have a problem paying for my own insurance. I have a problem being one of those that is forced to fund the subsidies for others.

Sux to be you then.

"it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"
-- John Stuart Mill

 

[emilynghiem]

Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

In American, no

In a Progressive Utopia like the old USSR, Communist China, Hitlers Germany or North Korea, yes!

Of course the government impose a tax penalty, a tax surchage, a tax waiver, whatever.

Climb down, regressive reactionaries.

Okay JakeStarkey
and what if this "tax penalty" had been biased the OTHER way.

What if only prolife buyers got the tax exemption
and anyone who wanted to pay into prochoice health plans got taxed
and their tax money went into prolife health exchanges.

So the prochoice plans for paying for health care "didn't count as an equal choice for exemption"
and not only that, the money/fine you WERE required by govt to pay didn't go into
prochoice health plans but the prolife health plans you didn't want to support.

What if it were Hindus taxing everyone to pay for their plans and only exempting Hindus
who planned to support it anyway? And other plans "didn't count for exemptions"
and got taxed where the taxes went into the Hindu plans.

What if Muslims did this?

All it takes is ONE atheist to say 'I'm offended" by a cross I don't believe in,
I believe in something else, and that cross has to come down.

But if someone says I don't believe in this health care plan, I believe it violates my beliefs in free market
and limits on govt authority, and they are forced to pay for it anyway.

Look at the vote, split where the majority of support was Democrats
and majority of opposition was Republicans. the Democrats admit
the BELIEF that "health care is a right" so that is a creed, a belief.

Since when does any group have the right to establish a belief by nationalized law?
And which Party screams for separation of church and state? Do you see the "offense" here?

Or only if an atheist points to a cross does that count as an "offense."

 

[emilynghiem]

Marvin Zinn asks
Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

Of course it is. Who the fuck is Marvin Zinn?

BTW if you are trying to force something on someone else they don't want,
such as forcing sex on someone against or without their consent,
forcing people to buy something fraudulently you misrepresented by denying a refund,
then YES the govt can force you to stop forcing someone else.

So why wasn't the ACA written where it required people not to impose
costs for health care on others without their consent. And leave it OPEN
to whatever means people CONSENT to pay for their own health care, this is allowed.

Why try to dictate the "only way" to cover people and then mandate that with a tax penalty?

The most curious thing to me is that the other forms of providing health care are STILL NEEDED.
We STILL need to build more hospitals and medical education programs, public health internships
and clinics to serve the people. So why was investing in that NOT allowed as an equal choice for exemption?

The biggest point that ACA failed to focus on
was the opportunity to require states to revamp the criminal justice
budgets and use THAT to pay for health care provisions for the state.

By requiring convicts to pay back taxpayers the cost of their crimes
prosecution incarceration and health care, the savings to taxpayers
could cover health care costs. if you are going to deprive people of
liberty, why not go after people who committed crimes that incurred costs
and hold them responsible. Why go after law abiding citizens, regulate
and reduce their liberty, and charge them more when they are already
paying enough for criminals who are costing 50K a year without recourse.

So that is the big question, why not go after the states and require solutions there,
but try to create a program on the federal level that bypasses that level
and regulates citizens' choices from Congress which is harder to check.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, no, your way is not the way it is going to be done. There is "no sorry" to it. Leave the non sequiturs out of it, please.

No one is going to do reconciliation with you on this matter.

No one will even talk reconciliation with you other than say "no".

The marriage equality or ACA folks are not about to let anyone "reconcile" away what they have already won.

There will be no "just once more."

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, no, your way is not the way it is going to be done. There is "no sorry" to it. Leave the non sequiturs out of it, please.

No one is going to do reconciliation with you on this matter.

No one will even talk reconciliation with you other than say "no".

The marriage equality or ACA folks are not about to let anyone "reconcile" away what they have already won.

Speak for yourself, JakeStarkey

If you want to deny people their right to free market choices then own it.

I just know I am not going to participate in any such abuses of political party or beliefs.

People can pay for their own beliefs through their own parties.
That doesn't infringe on anyone else.

So that is what I stand for -- equal protection of interests
without discrimination by creed.

If I want that standard enforced for me, I have to be willing to enforce it for others.

You are free to compromise the beliefs of others
if you don't mind when other people do that to you.
But I do mind.

I'm sick of paying for the lawsuits, the billion dollar campaigns that don't solve problems,
the shut down and waste of govt because people don't seek consensus to begin with.

You can sit back and follow the crowds.

I'm too busy looking for people who are LEADING them.

 

[westwall]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, no, your way is not the way it is going to be done. There is "no sorry" to it. Leave the non sequiturs out of it, please.

No one is going to do reconciliation with you on this matter.

No one will even talk reconciliation with you other than say "no".

The marriage equality or ACA folks are not about to let anyone "reconcile" away what they have already won.

Speak for yourself, JakeStarkey

If you want to deny people their right to free market choices then own it.

I just know I am not going to participate in any such abuses of political party or beliefs.

People can pay for their own beliefs through their own parties.
That doesn't infringe on anyone else.

So that is what I stand for -- equal protection of interests
without discrimination by creed.

If I want that standard enforced for me, I have to be willing to enforce it for others.

You are free to compromise the beliefs of others
if you don't mind when other people do that to you.
But I do mind.

I'm sick of paying for the lawsuits, the billion dollar campaigns that don't solve problems,
the shut down and waste of govt because people don't seek consensus to begin with.

You can sit back and follow the crowds.

I'm too busy looking for people who are LEADING them.

Tough to be you then; no "just once more." That's done.

 

[emilynghiem]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

 

[westwall]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, no, your way is not the way it is going to be done. There is "no sorry" to it. Leave the non sequiturs out of it, please.

No one is going to do reconciliation with you on this matter.

No one will even talk reconciliation with you other than say "no".

The marriage equality or ACA folks are not about to let anyone "reconcile" away what they have already won.

Speak for yourself, JakeStarkey

If you want to deny people their right to free market choices then own it.

I just know I am not going to participate in any such abuses of political party or beliefs.

People can pay for their own beliefs through their own parties.
That doesn't infringe on anyone else.

So that is what I stand for -- equal protection of interests
without discrimination by creed.

If I want that standard enforced for me, I have to be willing to enforce it for others.

You are free to compromise the beliefs of others
if you don't mind when other people do that to you.
But I do mind.

I'm sick of paying for the lawsuits, the billion dollar campaigns that don't solve problems,
the shut down and waste of govt because people don't seek consensus to begin with.

You can sit back and follow the crowds.

I'm too busy looking for people who are LEADING them.

Tough to be you then; no "just once more." That's done.

I agree it's done when all people AGREE and form a consensus.
You keep saying it's "my way" NO it's about defending ALL people's ways
including the gay marriage including the pro-ACA
all this can still be done through party or through private groups
without imposing on the public UNLESS THEY AGREE.

So yes, if all the people in a state AGREE on majority rule
or whatever to decide that, then there is consensus.

What I am saying is if they DON'T agree on the basis of belief,
then the First and Fourteenth Amendment apply and no,
I'm not going to deny someone's right to defend their beliefs or creed
based on "majority rule" if they don't agree to that.

Sure if they agree to majority vote that's fine!
But that's not what I am seeing with issues of BELIEF.

I am not going to treat this for 'convenience'
but practical reality of what people believe that is protected by law.