THis will not stand

[Nosmo King]

Making a Us citizen do something against their will should be intolerable for anyone. It violates your freedom and the people who jammed this down our throats are going to pay in every way. I've been told that I have to get insurace well you can go **** yourself. I am a free person and not a slave of the government.

Imagine how I feel when the president decides to invade a foreign country and I am forced to pay for it!

 

[HUGGY]

Making a Us citizen do something against their will should be intolerable for anyone. It violates your freedom and the people who jammed this down our throats are going to pay in every way. I've been told that I have to get insurace well you can go **** yourself. I am a free person and not a slave of the government.

THis will not stand Blah...blah..... blah... Fails failed. There ARE consequences to elections idiot. You thought having a movie star as president was gonna work out? WELL HERE IS THE RESULT OF GUTTING THE MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLE. **** REGAN...BUSH AND MORONS LIKE YOU.

You have supported people that have systematically destroyed americas power from within. That trickling you are feeling is Reagan pissing on you from his grave. Now all you have is to play the bankrupt from the unemployed. Great strrategy asshole.

 

[Oldandtired]

Making a Us citizen do something against their will should be intolerable for anyone. It violates your freedom and the people who jammed this down our throats are going to pay in every way. I've been told that I have to get insurace well you can go **** yourself. I am a free person and not a slave of the government.

Imagine how I feel when the president decides to invade a foreign country and I am forced to pay for it!

That is what you get in return for being a citizen.

Now if you want to compare apples to apples you would say:

"Imagine how I feel when the Presient decides to force me to buy a gun to defend myself"

 

[Oldandtired]

Making a Us citizen do something against their will should be intolerable for anyone. It violates your freedom and the people who jammed this down our throats are going to pay in every way. I've been told that I have to get insurace well you can go **** yourself. I am a free person and not a slave of the government.

THis will not stand Blah...blah..... blah... Fails failed. There ARE consequences to elections idiot. You thought having a movie star as president was gonna work out? WELL HERE IS THE RESULT OF GUTTING THE MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLE. **** REGAN...BUSH AND MORONS LIKE YOU.

You have supported people that have systematically destroyed americas power from within. That trickling you are feeling is Reagan pissing on you from his grave. Now all you have is to play the bankrupt from the unemployed. Great strrategy asshole.

A post that exudes pure intelligence.
Poorly done huggy

 

[Chat Room Hero]

you can give up on the auto insurance arguement...not the same animal. My health can't do 2500 bucks worth of damage to you bumper. If I damage your property, then I should have to pay for it. If I hurt your body, then I should have to pay for it. If I get sick, I'm not wronging you...these laws of protection designed to protect you from me, don't apply in health insurance.

Actually, it can do more damage than that. If you don't have health insurance (and you only have liability auto coverage) and you get hurt in a car accident, your treatment does indeed affect how much my insurance costs.

Are there not any wingnuts that actually understand how health insurance works?

Yeah...I do.....and reading what you have been saying, I fear that you may not yourself.

First of all, Auto is by state.

Secondly, there is a big difference between collisssion (NOT a mandate ) and liability (a mandate)...note: Collission may be a mandate by contract you may have with the financing company of your automobile

SO go ahead....ask away....do your best to try to convince me that Auto Insurance mandates are the same as the new healthcare mandate.

But I warn you....I use facts, not talking points....so toss me facts...not talking points.

If I CHOOSE to ride a bike and I don't own a car, do I have to buy auto insurance? No
If I CHOOSE not to use medical services will I be forced to buy health insurance? Yes

There is the difference, they are not even close to the same thing.

I have the OPTION not to drive, entirely my choice. There is no law saying I must own a car or drive a car.

If you want to compare it to healthcare- I chose not to own a boat or a motorcycle so I have never been required to buy insurance on those and I doubt anyone wants to be required universally to pay motorcycle and boat insurance when they don't own a boat or a motorcycle.

If you were required by law at age 26 to pay $150 a month in auto insurance, $125 in boat insurance and another $100 in motorcycle insurance regardless of owning any of the 3 ever in your life, then you'd have an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Oldandtired]

Actually, it can do more damage than that. If you don't have health insurance (and you only have liability auto coverage) and you get hurt in a car accident, your treatment does indeed affect how much my insurance costs.

Are there not any wingnuts that actually understand how health insurance works?

Yeah...I do.....and reading what you have been saying, I fear that you may not yourself.

First of all, Auto is by state.

Secondly, there is a big difference between collisssion (NOT a mandate ) and liability (a mandate)...note: Collission may be a mandate by contract you may have with the financing company of your automobile

SO go ahead....ask away....do your best to try to convince me that Auto Insurance mandates are the same as the new healthcare mandate.

But I warn you....I use facts, not talking points....so toss me facts...not talking points.

If I CHOOSE to ride a bike and I don't own a car, do I have to buy auto insurance? No
If I CHOOSE not to use medical services will I be forced to buy health insurance? Yes

There is the difference, they are not even close to the same thing.

I have the OPTION not to drive, entirely my choice. There is no law saying I must own a car or drive a car.

If you want to compare it to healthcare- I chose not to own a boat or a motorcycle so I have never been required to buy insurance on those and I doubt anyone wants to be required universally to pay motorcycle and boat insurance when they don't own a boat or a motorcycle.

If you were required by law at age 26 to pay $150 a month in auto insurance, $125 in boat insurance and another $100 in motorcycle insurance regardless of owning any of the 3 ever in your life, then you'd have an apples to apples comparison.

Excuse me sir.....we are debating on the same side....you should read a post completely.

I was explaining to someone who questioned our knowledge of isnurance that I know plenty about insurance...

And there is NO WAY you can compare the mandate to own auto insurance with the mandate to own Health Insurance.

As I said earlier..

You OPT to buy a car...it is a choice.
You do NOT opt to be born...no choice.

As I said...read my post...dont just jump down someones throat.

 

[woodjack]

Excuse me , but hasn't auto insurance been mandatory (i.e.-the law, you will buy it) for years?

hasn't Workers Comp also been mandatory for years?

On that note, did you know that WC is mandatory , even if you have ZERO workers, and because the executive officers of a type S corp can be the only de facto 'workers' , and sign off on themselves the policy is mandatory , AND effectively covers nobody in the company?

Perhaps if some of you flag waving freedom loving Americans could delve into the past debacles of big insurance legislating itself into what you suddenly precieve as corporate totaltarianism , you'd be better prepared to comment on it

~S~

Auto insurance is not mandatory....geesh we might as well round up all those amish people and throw em in jail. It is not mandatory to get a drivers license or purchase a car. If you chose to buy or rent a car and drive it then yes it is mandatory that you have insurance. but you have the choice to either get it or not. there is such a thing as public transportation.

 

[Douger]

That's why I left.
the sunzabitches told me I had to pay into socialist insecurity, give the IRS money, pay property tax, sales tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, register firearms.

Yes. You are a ******* brainwashed idiot.

 

[Douger]

Excuse me , but hasn't auto insurance been mandatory (i.e.-the law, you will buy it) for years?

hasn't Workers Comp also been mandatory for years?

On that note, did you know that WC is mandatory , even if you have ZERO workers, and because the executive officers of a type S corp can be the only de facto 'workers' , and sign off on themselves the policy is mandatory , AND effectively covers nobody in the company?

Perhaps if some of you flag waving freedom loving Americans could delve into the past debacles of big insurance legislating itself into what you suddenly precieve as corporate totaltarianism , you'd be better prepared to comment on it

~S~

Auto insurance is not mandatory....geesh we might as well round up all those amish people and throw em in jail. It is not mandatory to get a drivers license or purchase a car. If you chose to buy or rent a car and drive it then yes it is mandatory that you have insurance. but you have the choice to either get it or not. there is such a thing as public transportation.

It's not federally mandated but I know at least in Va.. you cannot have a drivers license without insurance.
If your insurance expires, your license get's " shut down". Car or no car.

Yeah. I had the workmans comp for me. Brilliant huh.

 

[Diuretic]

Nothing cheers me up more than watching people picking over a valid analogy by examining the subject of the analogy so that the point is totally lost. Wait, no it doesn't. It annoys the ******* hell out of me!

 

[Oldandtired]

​

Nothing cheers me up more than watching people picking over a valid analogy by examining the subject of the analogy so that the point is totally lost. Wait, no it doesn't. It annoys the ******* hell out of me!

What makes it a valid analogy?
Becuase they are both insurances?

Apples and oranges are both fruits
USA and Cuba are both countries
Reagan and Carter were both Presidents
Propane and Gasoline are both fuels

I guess you are one that assumes anything that looks similar is the same.

or...

you just are not smart enough to know the difference between the two

or....

You understand and see the difference, but you are not man enough to admit it so you decided to discredit the opposition as oppopsed to debate the topic.

 

[Diuretic]

How about looking at the point of the analogy? The point being, I assume of course, that we all live under compulsion of some sort if we choose to live in an ordered society. It has nothing to do with "insurance", it is about compulsion as opposed to complete free will.

 

[Diuretic]

And what's more.....

If we believe in a comforting mythology then we are going to make ourselves easy targets for those who would exploit us. I realise that Americans - along with other people - cherish individual freedom, indeed on my first visit way back in 1984 I had a true sense of understanding the American attitude towards individualism, it's far more pronounced than in my society where we are pretty much conformist in many ways.

But let's not kid ourselves that any of us are truly free. We're not. None of us are. Some of us have greater freedoms than others, some poor bastards live in dumps like Saudi Arabia which is a dictatorship. But what we call freedom is never an absolute, it is always relative. When we discuss freedom we're actually discussing its extent, not its existence as an absolute. Maximising individual freedom while balancing the collective responsibility inherent in any society is the trick. But it has to be real freedom, not the misty-eyed bullshit mythology that the rulers try to sell us to keep us quiet.

 

[Oldandtired]

How about looking at the point of the analogy? The point being, I assume of course, that we all live under compulsion of some sort if we choose to live in an ordered society. It has nothing to do with "insurance", it is about compulsion as opposed to complete free will.

Perhaps...

However, the topic of this thread and therefore the context of the analogy was whether or not the madate to buy health insurance under penalty of law was consitutional and whether or not it was unprecedented.

So therefore, in an effort to debate the consitutionality and "lack of precedent" of this mandate, it was necessary to ditinguish between the two mandates of auto and health insurances.

Bear in mind...one side of the debate said auto insurance is a precedent....when, in fact, not only is auto insurance a mandate that originates at the state level; it is only a mandate for those that opt to own a vehicle....so it can not be considered a precedent for a federal mandate nor can it be considered a precedent for a mandate to purchase something from a third party.

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

[drsmith1072]

Excuse me , but hasn't auto insurance been mandatory (i.e.-the law, you will buy it) for years?

hasn't Workers Comp also been mandatory for years?

Specious Comparisons.

The requirement for auto insurance involves Liability Coverage in case one causes harm to others as a condition for sharing the public roads. One is not required to cover insurance for harm to oneself.

Worker's comp is insurance for being hurt on the job - for which one give up one's right to sue. It is income insurance while one cannot work - and involves the worker actually engaging in an activity to apply (working). (I'm not a supporter of this piece of big government lobbying efforts which causes individuals to give up rights.)

Mandating health insurance is forcing someone who is inactive (opting out) into action merely because that person is alive in America. That person's mere existence causes no threat to others (unlike sharing a road) - nor is there any activity similar to working to trigger a quid pro quo.

Actually, one could easilly say that being "forced to buy health insurance" is very similar to being "forced to by auto insurance." It involves coverage in case one gets sick and has to go to the hospital where this coverage prevents OTHERS from being harmed by having to fund or pay for their care as a condition for sharing the use of said care. Yes, some will get their care subsidized anyway but they will still be paying into the system IN CASE of an emergency which is the very reason for auto insurance.

 

[drsmith1072]

Excuse me , but hasn't auto insurance been mandatory (i.e.-the law, you will buy it) for years?

hasn't Workers Comp also been mandatory for years?

On that note, did you know that WC is mandatory , even if you have ZERO workers, and because the executive officers of a type S corp can be the only de facto 'workers' , and sign off on themselves the policy is mandatory , AND effectively covers nobody in the company?

Perhaps if some of you flag waving freedom loving Americans could delve into the past debacles of big insurance legislating itself into what you suddenly precieve as corporate totaltarianism , you'd be better prepared to comment on it

~S~

Well here is where your point as so many like to bring up, is 100% wrong and invalid. Auto insurance is required only if you DECIDE you want to drive a car. The feds don't force you to drive, and they don't require you to start a company, therefor nobody is required to buy auto insurance or pay WC.

Only people that CHOOSE to drive or CHOOSE to start a company must pay. Nobody is required to buy a car or start a company.

My sister-in-law lives in New York and takes the bus everywhere and does not need a car. She does not drive at all and does not have a DL. This Bill would be like telling her that even though she does not drive or even own a car or even have a DL, she needs to pay a car insurance premium every month to cover someone else that has a car and drives. How is that American?

Curious?? what kind of identifcation does she use?? Does she already have health insurance?? If not how does SHE pay for her care? Does she even really exist or is she just a figment of your imagination?? LOL

 

[Oldandtired]

And what's more.....

If we believe in a comforting mythology then we are going to make ourselves easy targets for those who would exploit us. I realise that Americans - along with other people - cherish individual freedom, indeed on my first visit way back in 1984 I had a true sense of understanding the American attitude towards individualism, it's far more pronounced than in my society where we are pretty much conformist in many ways.

But let's not kid ourselves that any of us are truly free. We're not. None of us are. Some of us have greater freedoms than others, some poor bastards live in dumps like Saudi Arabia which is a dictatorship. But what we call freedom is never an absolute, it is always relative. When we discuss freedom we're actually discussing its extent, not its existence as an absolute. Maximising individual freedom while balancing the collective responsibility inherent in any society is the trick. But it has to be real freedom, not the misty-eyed bullshit mythology that the rulers try to sell us to keep us quiet.

The line in bold.....that is where we take separate forks in the road.

 

[Oldandtired]

Excuse me , but hasn't auto insurance been mandatory (i.e.-the law, you will buy it) for years?

hasn't Workers Comp also been mandatory for years?

Specious Comparisons.

The requirement for auto insurance involves Liability Coverage in case one causes harm to others as a condition for sharing the public roads. One is not required to cover insurance for harm to oneself.

Worker's comp is insurance for being hurt on the job - for which one give up one's right to sue. It is income insurance while one cannot work - and involves the worker actually engaging in an activity to apply (working). (I'm not a supporter of this piece of big government lobbying efforts which causes individuals to give up rights.)

Mandating health insurance is forcing someone who is inactive (opting out) into action merely because that person is alive in America. That person's mere existence causes no threat to others (unlike sharing a road) - nor is there any activity similar to working to trigger a quid pro quo.

Actually, one could easilly say that being "forced to buy health insurance" is very similar to being "forced to by auto insurance." It involves coverage in case one gets sick and has to go to the hospital where this coverage prevents OTHERS from being harmed by having to fund or pay for their care as a condition for sharing the use of said care. Yes, some will get their care subsidized anyway but they will still be paying into the system IN CASE of an emergency which is the very reason for auto insurance.

Please tell me who is forced to buy auto insurance.

Before you throw a fit...the answer is simple. Not a single Amrerican is forced to buy auto insurance. Not one. And this is a fact I can prove.

Any American that wishes not to buy auto insurance may take the necessary steps to not do so.

Can you say the same for health insurance per the new law?

Enough said.

 

[drsmith1072]

Not sure how they have come up with the fact that ins rates will come down....Forcing all Americans to have insurance will increase the supply and demand, which will drive prices up. Covering existing conditions will too. Since they can't drop them, those with lots of sick people on their rolls can probably close shop and re-open as a new company. I see this helping the insurance companies more than the people...no wonder they are endorsing it. You'd think that requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions would turn them against it...but apparently there is a way out.

You obviusly don't understand how supply and demand works. Insurance is NOT in limited supply so how would more demand for something that is NOT limited and has many sources cause an increase in cost??

Based on your own analogy those companies with lots of sick people on their rolls will be cutting costs to try to draw in more people to curb the effects of the sick ones.

 

[Oldandtired]

Not sure how they have come up with the fact that ins rates will come down....Forcing all Americans to have insurance will increase the supply and demand, which will drive prices up. Covering existing conditions will too. Since they can't drop them, those with lots of sick people on their rolls can probably close shop and re-open as a new company. I see this helping the insurance companies more than the people...no wonder they are endorsing it. You'd think that requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions would turn them against it...but apparently there is a way out.

You obviusly don't understand how supply and demand works. Insurance is NOT in limited supply so how would more demand for something that is NOT limited and has many sources cause an increase in cost??

Based on your own analogy those companies with lots of sick people on their rolls will be cutting costs to try to draw in more people to curb the effects of the sick ones.

You are quite naive doc.

Basic risk management doc.

You know what risk management is doc? It is the basis of the insurance industry.

You increase the risk of a payout, you must increase the cost to purchase.

What will increase the risk of payout?

The mandatory elimination of pre-existing clauses Doc......as the insurance companies will now be insuring those that will be making necessary and costly claims.

So you tell me doc.....have you been lied to by your President? Sure seems you have been.

Basic risk management Doc. Basic logic Doc.

I am for elinination of pre-exisiting condition clauses...but I was not one of those fools that beleved the liar when he said COSTS WOULD GO DOWN.

That, doc, is impossible.

Oh yeah...and I am curious doc...you are a birght man....tell me.....do you know WHY the insurance companies had pre-exisitng condition clauses?

Becuase of the greed of the CONSUMER...not the insurer.....but your President did not think you needed to know that.