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

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” Allowing Congress to exert such authority, he said, “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

Compelling vehicle owners to carry accident insurance, as states do, is considered a different matter because the Constitution gives the states broad police powers that have been interpreted to encompass that. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that people possess cars, only a requirement that they have insurance as a condition of doing so. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the health care case argue that the new law requires people to obtain health insurance simply because they exist."
-- Judge Hudson, Federal District Court, Richmond VA

===========================================================
Penelope is one of many arguing
that people who agree to State laws requiring car insurance
ought to agree to Federal laws requiring health insurance.

I argued that
* State laws involve a different process of representation for local citizens
than Federal laws that are harder to change because they affect citizens in ALL 50 STATES
* Car insurance is different from health insurance
* Just because people consent to one law doesn't mean we "should be forced to comply with other laws"
I compared this to Penelope agreeing to mandates, restrictions, and penalties in "right to health care" laws;
but NOT agreeing to "right to life" laws that are DIFFERENT

I challenge Penelope to prove that
* State laws are the same as Federal laws
* Car insurance is the same as health insurance

And invite anyone else to either help her prove her points,
or help EXPLAIN to Penelope how these are different
where she AGREES and ACCEPTS the explanation.

Just telling her otherwise does not count as explaining it clearly.
I will believe this point is presented clearly
when she HERSELF agrees there is a DIFFERENCE on BOTH counts!

Thank you!
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” Allowing Congress to exert such authority, he said, “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

Compelling vehicle owners to carry accident insurance, as states do, is considered a different matter because the Constitution gives the states broad police powers that have been interpreted to encompass that. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that people possess cars, only a requirement that they have insurance as a condition of doing so. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the health care case argue that the new law requires people to obtain health insurance simply because they exist."
-- Judge Hudson, Federal District Court, Richmond VA

===========================================================
Penelope is one of many arguing
that people who agree to State laws requiring car insurance
ought to agree to Federal laws requiring health insurance.

I argued that
* State laws involve a different process of representation for local citizens
than Federal laws that are harder to change because they affect citizens in ALL 50 STATES
* Car insurance is different from health insurance
* Just because people consent to one law doesn't mean we "should be forced to comply with other laws"
I compared this to Penelope agreeing to mandates, restrictions, and penalties in "right to health care" laws;
but NOT agreeing to "right to life" laws that are DIFFERENT

I challenge Penelope to prove that
* State laws are the same as Federal laws
* Car insurance is the same as health insurance

And invite anyone else to either help her prove her points,
or help EXPLAIN to Penelope how these are different
where she AGREES and ACCEPTS the explanation.

Just telling her otherwise does not count as explaining it clearly.
I will believe this point is presented clearly
when she HERSELF agrees there is a DIFFERENCE on BOTH counts!

Thank you!
Driving a car is a privilege! If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.

The gas tax pays for the roads..
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,573
Reaction score
8,389
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
As Stated there is no requirement to own a car so the ONLY people forced to buy insurance for cars are those that chose to own cars. Further car insurance as a requirement to own a car is a necessity for ensuring that those that do decide to own cars will be able to pay for accidents they cause and as such is a safety feature.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
as the consequence of not buying insurance!

The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

(And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

Does that help, yes or no?

2. Can someone please explain the difference between
State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
v.
Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!
 
Last edited:

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
137,946
Reaction score
12,261
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
You do not have to buy auto insurance if you can prove that your assets are greater than the min. requirement of liability..
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
1,664
Points
245
If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.
Just one point of technical clarification. You do not need car insurance to own a car. States require car insurance to drive on public roads. One is free to operate a vehicle on private property without insurance...or a license for that matter.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.
Just one point of technical clarification. You do not need car insurance to own a car. States require car insurance to drive on public roads. One is free to operate a vehicle on private property without insurance...or a license for that matter.
So that means the vehicles are not registered and thus they are not paying taxes on those vehicles either!
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
44,784
Reaction score
6,989
Points
1,870
Location
PNW
Agreed, auto insurance and the requirements are different than health insurance in that you do have to purchase auto insurance if you do not drive or own a vehicle.
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
1,664
Points
245
If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.
Just one point of technical clarification. You do not need car insurance to own a car. States require car insurance to drive on public roads. One is free to operate a vehicle on private property without insurance...or a license for that matter.
So that means the vehicles are not registered and thus they are not paying taxes on those vehicles either!
Still had to pay sales tax, if that's what you mean.

Otherwise, why in the world should someone pay tax for a public service they're not using?
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
44,983
Reaction score
4,640
Points
1,860
Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
as the consequence of not buying insurance!

The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

(And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

Does that help, yes or no?

2. Can someone please explain the difference between
State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
v.
Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!

I gave you the link to get out of the fine of the ACA since you believe in Spiritual healing, but since you refuse to buy HI, and do not believe in medical care, when you get into an accident driving that uninsured vehicle, no medical care for you. When you sign that slip saying your exempt from the ACA fine due to your religious beliefs , it should be mandatory for you to wear a bracelet, saying no medical intervention please, only prayers are needed, hopefully they will not even bring to the ER and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.
Just one point of technical clarification. You do not need car insurance to own a car. States require car insurance to drive on public roads. One is free to operate a vehicle on private property without insurance...or a license for that matter.
So that means the vehicles are not registered and thus they are not paying taxes on those vehicles either!
Still had to pay sales tax, if that's what you mean.

Otherwise, why in the world should someone pay tax for a public service they're not using?
You mean like Welfare? or food stamps?

I pay taxes and can not get such things, yet I pay taxes on my vehicles and have to show each year that I have insurance on them whether I drive them or not.

All states require that your vehicle be registered, in many states this would also include boat trailers or any utility trailer. Other states, however, request that its residents need only proof of insurance in the event of an accident or traffic violation.

As of 2010, New Hampshire and Wisconsin are the only two states that do not require its residents have auto insurance.

Car insurance is not the same as Health insurance on any level.

Health insurance should not be required if one doe snot want it, nor should they have to pay a penalty/tax if they do not want it.

Also at the present time Health insurance can not cross state lines, car insurance can.
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
1,664
Points
245
... and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
Good lord, am I reading this correctly? Did a resident lefty just suggest there should be no mandate to buy health insurance and if an uninsured person requires healthcare, they're at the mercy of charity?

Deal!
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
1,664
Points
245
If you do not own a car then you do not need car insurance.
Just one point of technical clarification. You do not need car insurance to own a car. States require car insurance to drive on public roads. One is free to operate a vehicle on private property without insurance...or a license for that matter.
So that means the vehicles are not registered and thus they are not paying taxes on those vehicles either!
Still had to pay sales tax, if that's what you mean.

Otherwise, why in the world should someone pay tax for a public service they're not using?
You mean like Welfare? or food stamps?

I pay taxes and can not get such things, yet I pay taxes on my vehicles and have to show each year that I have insurance on them whether I drive them or not.

All states require that your vehicle be registered, in many states this would also include boat trailers or any utility trailer. Other states, however, request that its residents need only proof of insurance in the event of an accident or traffic violation.

As of 2010, New Hampshire and Wisconsin are the only two states that do not require its residents have auto insurance.

Car insurance is not the same as Health insurance on any level.

Health insurance should not be required if one doe snot want it, nor should they have to pay a penalty/tax if they do not want it.

Also at the present time Health insurance can not cross state lines, car insurance can.
I believe we're in agreement.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
as the consequence of not buying insurance!

The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

(And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

Does that help, yes or no?

2. Can someone please explain the difference between
State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
v.
Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!

I gave you the link to get out of the fine of the ACA since you believe in Spiritual healing, but since you refuse to buy HI, and do not believe in medical care, when you get into an accident driving that uninsured vehicle, no medical care for you. When you sign that slip saying your exempt from the ACA fine due to your religious beliefs , it should be mandatory for you to wear a bracelet, saying no medical intervention please, only prayers are needed, hopefully they will not even bring to the ER and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
Dear Penelope that is a separate argument, and yes we can ad dress that.
I have posted 3 threads now explaining that Spiritual Healing is the OPPOSITE
of false faith healing that rejects medicine and is dangerous. Spiritual Healing
includes and promotes medical science and is not what you are saying at all.

We'll start a SEPARATE thread for that, if that point needs to be resolved first.

* No I do NOT reject medical care and neither does Spiritual Healing.
you are talking about malpractice faith healing, but that's NOT what I am talking about
* I AM saying to separate the options and not penalize them. So we agree on that.
* But I am saying FEDERAL GOVT does NOT have authority to DECIDE what is approved, exempted or penalized
because this requires FEDERAL GOVT TO REGULATE RELIGION which is unconstitutional.

The practices CANNOT break other laws, such as civil or criminal.
So the FRAUDULENT Malpractice would be a civil or criminal violation.
Govt has authority to regulate criminal and dangerous abuses, but not choice of religion that is a relative choice and causes no harm.

FEDERAL GOVT CANNOT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP TO AVOID PENALTY, OR THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It can protect the freedom but cannot dictate or penalize people for their beliefs unless they commit a crime, as the example above.

So the FRAUDULENT denial of medical care
* IS negligence, abuse and malpractice
* IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT
* and IS NOT legal under laws but abuse and violation

We are not talking about the same things!

But you and I DO MIGHT agree that federal govt SHOULD allow, NOT DICTATE or penalize, other choices of paying and providing for sustainable health care instead of regulating religions and beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
as the consequence of not buying insurance!

The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

(And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

Does that help, yes or no?

2. Can someone please explain the difference between
State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
v.
Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!

I gave you the link to get out of the fine of the ACA since you believe in Spiritual healing, but since you refuse to buy HI, and do not believe in medical care, when you get into an accident driving that uninsured vehicle, no medical care for you. When you sign that slip saying your exempt from the ACA fine due to your religious beliefs , it should be mandatory for you to wear a bracelet, saying no medical intervention please, only prayers are needed, hopefully they will not even bring to the ER and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
So you go on the attack and show that you did not even read what yo posted, you just hopped on the standard far left religious narrative and ran with it..

Spiritual healing can be more than prayers, but it shows that you do not care about facts only your far left religious narratives!
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,036
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
... and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
Good lord, am I reading this correctly? Did a resident lefty just suggest there should be no mandate to buy health insurance and if an uninsured person requires healthcare, they're at the mercy of charity?

Deal!
OK Penelope GREAT!
That's TWO of us in agreement with you!
eflatminor and me.

Totally agree that the point is NOT to force insurance as the only choice
(and NOT to force taxpayers like you to pay if this is the requirement you want).

I DO agree the point is for Govt to protect OTHER citizens from paying
for costs of others under terms they don't agree to; but this is NOT the SAME
as dictating what those terms should be for all people! All people may have
different terms of what we do or do not agree to pay for! Your choice for YOU
should be protected equally as other choices for other people with different beliefs!

Now I happen to believe that prolife and antidrug advocates
ALSO have this right NOT to pay for
* abortions
* recreational drug use and its related costs of damage and destruction
but to hold drug users responsible for these financial costs of their problems they cause
* people who refuse to get help for addictions or abuse that cost taxpayers
for medical or criminal/prison costs.

If everyone has different rules for what they will agree to pay for or NOT pay for,
that's where I'm saying Federal Govt should leave these to the taxpayers and/or parties
to decide and create their own TERMS and CONDITIONS FOR THEIR MEMBERS.

Taxpayers can choose the collective plans of Democrats/Liberals who want singlepayer on a national level,
or Republicans/Conservatives who want free market choices and free choice of charity,
or their own choices.

So as you say, if taxpayers don't agree to health insurance mandates, they don't sign up for your plan.
And you don't have to pay for them.
But if you and your colleagues believe in drug legalization, you may end up paying
for a bunch of deadbeats who can't work and become disabled if they mess up their brains with drugs.
So be CAREFUL what you legalize or mandate, because you should pay for that also!
 
Last edited:

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
44,983
Reaction score
4,640
Points
1,860
Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
as the consequence of not buying insurance!

The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

(And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

Does that help, yes or no?

2. Can someone please explain the difference between
State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
v.
Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!

I gave you the link to get out of the fine of the ACA since you believe in Spiritual healing, but since you refuse to buy HI, and do not believe in medical care, when you get into an accident driving that uninsured vehicle, no medical care for you. When you sign that slip saying your exempt from the ACA fine due to your religious beliefs , it should be mandatory for you to wear a bracelet, saying no medical intervention please, only prayers are needed, hopefully they will not even bring to the ER and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
So you go on the attack and show that you did not even read what yo posted, you just hopped on the standard far left religious narrative and ran with it..

Spiritual healing can be more than prayers, but it shows that you do not care about facts only your far left religious narratives!
Yes go to Benny Hinn.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Penelope please respond to explanations above if you agree, find them helpful, or hit the target like a bullseye.

1. Do you understand that car insurance is NOT required for US to cover our OWN LOSSES
which we are stuck with if we choose not to buy insurance.

So that is like getting stuck with paying your own medical bills
as the consequence of not buying insurance!

The insurance covers liability and damages to OTHER PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

As I pointed out before, the EQUIVALENT of car insurance to health insurance
would be to require citizens to buy insurance in case WE INJURE DAMAGE HARM OR KILL *OTHERS* and our insurance covers *THEIR* medical bills -- not ours which is OPTIONAL to pay for. So this would be the equivalent of keeping insurance for our own costs OPTIONAL where we get stuck with the bill if we can't afford it, it's our fault.

(And I argue that's enough to compel people to CHOOSE to buy insurance so they don't get stuck with the bills they can't afford, and does NOT require federal govt to impose this. If people vote on it by State law, that is DIFFERENT from Federal law.)

Does that help, yes or no?

2. Can someone please explain the difference between
State laws and how these represent taxpayers and voters per State
v.
Federal laws and the limitations on federal govt that are different from State?


Penelope if you do not understand the difference between
STATE laws and FEDERAL laws, this is dangerous ignorance of the law.
You and other voters are manipulated and abused constantly by your ignorance,
because Politicians can PROMISE things that cannot be justified on federal levels,
misrepresent the system to GET your VOTE, then NOT be able to deliver!

So you will constantly be exploited if you do not learn the difference
so you know when Politicians are misrepresenting what they can do, when it isn't authorized
and it will get rejected as unconstitutional if they try that.

Obama overreached, and now Trump claims he can do more that others argue is unconstitutional.
So this lying to get votes will continue until ALL citizens learn the difference, and quit listening to lies and fraud!

And lastly, if you don't understand that people WILL NOT CONSENT to federal laws overriding their BELIEFS, then this ALSO causes waste and exploitation because of people's beliefs. (For example, the prolife beliefs cannot be legislated because of faith based arguments govt cannot establish. But as long as politicians promise to push prolife policies, they string along voters who will never get this established because of prochoice beliefs.)

The critical factor in these laws is CONSENT, and with BELIEFS, people just like you will NOT consent to any laws that violate your BELIEFS.

If you don't get this, then you will keep seeing manipulation and bullying, and waste of govt resources trying to force one belief or another, when this will ALWAYS get rejected later!

I gave you the link to get out of the fine of the ACA since you believe in Spiritual healing, but since you refuse to buy HI, and do not believe in medical care, when you get into an accident driving that uninsured vehicle, no medical care for you. When you sign that slip saying your exempt from the ACA fine due to your religious beliefs , it should be mandatory for you to wear a bracelet, saying no medical intervention please, only prayers are needed, hopefully they will not even bring to the ER and we , who have health insurance , will not have to pay for your healthcare.
So you go on the attack and show that you did not even read what yo posted, you just hopped on the standard far left religious narrative and ran with it..

Spiritual healing can be more than prayers, but it shows that you do not care about facts only your far left religious narratives!
Yes go to Benny Hinn.
And the far left drone proves my point!

You should look into Hinduism, the tribes of the American Indians, etc. if you want to understand true Spiritual healing!

Instead you went into the far left religious dogma!
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top