Question

[☭proletarian☭]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

In Arizona, my state, the state says that about 30% don't have insurance.
If they can't enforce existing laws, why should we let them pass more laws?

Funny... that's very close to the percentage of mexicans who live here...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

Right along with mandated helmets and seat belts....

Consistently is all I'm asking for here.


Now.... either the rest of America is to reject mandated car insurance, or they are to accept some form of mandated health insurance.

 

[slackjawed]

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

In Arizona, my state, the state says that about 30% don't have insurance.
If they can't enforce existing laws, why should we let them pass more laws?

Funny... that's very close to the percentage of mexicans who live here...

ummmmm, where do I send your cigar?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

Also....you bring up a very good point here....and that is probably the primary reason I oppose such laws.....

If, as you say, the govt. can now track everything you do.....for example they now connect the DMV with the insurance companies.....not to mention they can garnish your paycheck or soon will control your health care.....that means soon they could control everything important in your life.....meaning they will have you by your short hairs in short order....you will become nothing more than a government slave....

Consistently is all I'm asking for here.


Now.... either the rest of America is to reject mandated car insurance, or they are to accept some form of mandated health insurance.

Agree.....we need to reject both.....they are intrusions upon our freedoms....

 

[Cecilie1200]

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

So explain to me how you're going to protect me from those people. Whether I'm paying because my tax dollars fund the ER or I'm paying because my tax dollars are giving them comprehensive health coverage, I'M still paying. You haven't protected ME in the slightest. You've just made it easier for THEM to take my money.

Thanks for nothing.

In neither car or health insurance is the mandate in any way designed to protect you from yourself.

Horsecrap. If all the health insurance mandate was intended to do was to protect others from having to pay for the health care of the uninsured, we would just stop paying for their ER visits and stop letting them use the ER without being willing to pay for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

Yeah, but does anyone REALLY think the government is going to force those people to foot the entire bill for their own health insurance? If they were going to do that, they'd stop subsidizing their ER visits and make them pay the bills themselves. But they don't do that, do they? You mandate that people have health insurance whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, and what's going to happen is that a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is going to have to be established. So eureka! I'm still paying for it.

The mandate and the public option are two different subjects.

Only if you're dumb enough to trust politicians. I don't trust them as far as I can throw the Capitol building, so I see the first as a way to edge into the second, because that's the way it always works out.

 

[code1211]

That's not what financial responsibility laws regarding auto insurance are meant to address.

Auto liability insurance is not for your vehicle, it's for the property you damage while using it, or the people you injure.

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

Assuming that one is law abiding, one can choose to own a car or not to own a car. One cannot choose to be alive or not.

The reason that Universal Healthcare was very popular during the campaign and not so much now is that people found out that there is a personal, individual cost to have the insruance and an added societal cost of 200 billion dollars per year for openers.

I find it dumfounding that if every American is forced to buy insurance that there will still be a 200 Billion dollar per year shortfall even if the other 15% of the population starts carrying insurance.

This could only happen with a government plan.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

In Arizona, my state, the state says that about 30% don't have insurance.
If they can't enforce existing laws, why should we let them pass more laws?

Funny... that's very close to the percentage of mexicans who live here...

ummmmm, where do I send your cigar?

NCLR Headquarters Office

Raul Yzaguirre Building

1126 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036​

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If all the health insurance mandate was intended to do was to protect others from having to pay for the health care of the uninsured, we would just stop paying for their ER visits and stop letting them use the ER without being willing to pay for it.

That's not going to happen any more than we're going to stop sending the police when Republicans call.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I get sick and go to the ER with no insurance, I've cost you almost nothing and you'll never even know about it.

This financial responsibility analogy is not apt.

Hmmm. I am working on our 2009 taxes, and have looked at everything we have personally spent from our personal budget and our business in taxes, and taxes and fees at all levels are taking between 40 and 50% of our gross. Then I look at our insurance premiums for auto, homeowners, business insurance, etc. and wonder how much uninsured folks are costing us there. And my health insurance premium reflects the higher medical costs incurred because you got free care at the E.R. and my taxes help pay for some of that too. So it isn't true that your free medical care costs me 'almost nothing'.

Now, however, if you were required to pony up the cost of that E.R. visit, even if you had to pay it out over time or received a lein against your property, I think the cost to me might be a whole lot less. And you might be persuaded not to utilize 'freebies' at the E.R. and would be out shopping for an insurance policy even if it meant you had to drive the old car for another year or two instead of buying a new one.

 

[American Horse]

If I don't want to utilize the healthcare system, I should not have to have insurance.

So those who opt out get a tattoo saying 'do not provide me with emergency medical care'?

If you needed a flu shot, you paid for it.

So you oppose mass-immunization?

If the kids had a sore throat, you paid for the doctor's visit to get it checked out and for the penicillin shot and prescription.

People don't do that. They don't have insurance, so they wait 'til it gets really bad and they show up at the ER. That's a huge part of the problem we're dealing with now.

Not exactly that way. They don't even take any initiative on their on part, in advance to have a family doc, even in the form of a neighborhood clinic. They've been told that insurance is far and away too expensive, and that they will be taken care of at the ER regardless, that they can't be turned away. They go in for a stomach ache, a bad cold, or an abrasion or laceration that in former days people would wrap up and apply ointment to.

But a big part of the problem is the effectiveness of the clamor for free healthcare; everyone is being told that no one can afford healthcare services or insurance to cover those things because it's too expensive; that has become a public mantra and it has been effective in de-incentivizing people. Many people don't check to see what the actual cost is for them; they don't shop for it so they don't really know what a family or an individual policy would cost them. They are being programmed to be fatalistic about something they should be taking a great interest in for their own benefit. If everyone shopped for insurance, and saw how much it varies, more competition would be brought to the market-place.

Every plan proposed or passed by the Republicans had the aim or effect of getting people to compare and consider how they could save their own money. Every plan proposed or passed by Democrats had the aim or effect of removing people from those considerations.

 

[Immanuel]

I would not be opposed to the Health Insurance mandate if it were not that the only option they want to provide is a bureaucratic nightmare with the specific designs of forcing us into another social program trap.

Immie

So it's the Public option and management at the federal level you oppose, rather than the mandate itself?

Yes.

I believe we as a nation have the ability to provide for our citizens and are people who would do so. I have no problem being taxed in order to make sure that those who are less fortunate than I have the basic necessities of life. Note: that does not mean that I believe the "playing field should be leveled" for everyone. There is a difference between basic necessities of life and putting a BMW in every driveway.

I do not believe that the US Government (implying our corrupt politicians) and the bureaucrats below them and the bigger government that such an undertaking would involve are the manner that would best serve the people in this case.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

If all the health insurance mandate was intended to do was to protect others from having to pay for the health care of the uninsured, we would just stop paying for their ER visits and stop letting them use the ER without being willing to pay for it.

That's not going to happen any more than we're going to stop sending the police when Republicans call.

It says a lot about you that you think expecting people to pay for services rendered ranks with refusing government services to people of a particular political party.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What're you babbling about?

They oppose socialism and social programs. Yet we don't deny them the benefits of the things they stupidly rail against.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What're you babbling about?

They oppose socialism and social programs. Yet we don't deny them the benefits of the things they stupidly rail against.

What're YOU babbling about? The police are neither socialism nor a social program, and Republicans do not "rail against" them.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The library, its books, and its other resources are all communally owned, or held in common.

Pop quiz:
Communal ownership of property is known as _______?

 

[LuckyDan]

If I get sick and go to the ER with no insurance, I've cost you almost nothing and you'll never even know about it.

This financial responsibility analogy is not apt.

Hmmm. I am working on our 2009 taxes, and have looked at everything we have personally spent from our personal budget and our business in taxes, and taxes and fees at all levels are taking between 40 and 50% of our gross. Then I look at our insurance premiums for auto, homeowners, business insurance, etc. and wonder how much uninsured folks are costing us there. And my health insurance premium reflects the higher medical costs incurred because you got free care at the E.R. and my taxes help pay for some of that too. So it isn't true that your free medical care costs me 'almost nothing'.

Now, however, if you were required to pony up the cost of that E.R. visit, even if you had to pay it out over time or received a lein against your property, I think the cost to me might be a whole lot less. And you might be persuaded not to utilize 'freebies' at the E.R. and would be out shopping for an insurance policy even if it meant you had to drive the old car for another year or two instead of buying a new one.

I don't disagree with you, Foxfyre, but you quoted only half of my post, which was an example of direct cost vs indirect cost, and a comparison of auto insurance and health insurance. The OP says it's all the same principle, I disagreed and offered an illustration.

Of course there is a cost for healthcare and if I don't pay my bill, that cost is passed on.