Mandate Health Insurance?

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by WTF

Sounds like the masses are just following wtf the investment bankers did!

Exactly! The investment bankers got a free ride from the socialistic government underwriting of poor loan risks, now some are intent to put the same, inept, corrupt government in charge of healthcare. Glad to see you've awakened to the error of your ways!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Exactly! The investment bankers got a free ride from the socialistic government underwriting of poor loan risks, now some are intent to put the same, inept, corrupt government in charge of healthcare. Glad to see you've awakened to the error of your ways!

the banks didnt want or need a bailout ... they paid most of the funding back last time I checked

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Exactly! The investment bankers got a free ride from the socialistic government underwriting of poor loan risks, now some are intent to put the same, inept, corrupt government in charge of healthcare. Glad to see you've awakened to the error of your ways!

Just like the Baby Boomers/Tea Party folks are by not paying enough into their SS accounts and now are crying about Obama/Congress wanting to make changes to it!

Oh, I understand free rides. I just not sure that people bitching about free rides have enough sense to see that they are on a free ride themself.

Or a greatly reduced price!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Grifter

You would have to explain some scenario in which children need to own and are driving cars from birth for this to be an apples to apples scenario, also explain why mass transit no longer exists.

Oh please. What a pathetic dodge. I've asked the question to you very directly twice now, and you've dodged answering it both times. I was very clear in saying imagine a scenario in which everyone needed to own a car. So who gives a sh*t about mass transit? Except, of course, for the guy trying to dodge the question?

The problem with your hypothetical is that its terribly farfetched.

No, the problem with my hypothetical is that it points out the failings in your "but you have a choice about whether or not to own a car" argument. My point is that the rationale for why people need to buy car insurance would exist exactly as it does now whether it applied to everyone or whether it only applied to people who "choose" to own a car. So then the question becomes, is the rationale legitimate for forcing people to buy car insurance or not? Because if the rationale wouldn't be legitimate in situations where it applied to everybody, then it shouldn't be legitimate at all. And if it is legitimate, then it should be just as legitimate if it applied to everybody.

Furthermore, it's not as far-fetched as you want to think. At least in the sense that, for a lot of people, owning a car really isn't an option. At least no more so than telling me that it's an option for people in the north to heat their homes.

I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would be fine with the government being able to mandate having to buy something from another private citizen.

So how's about i rephrase the question. For people who absolutely need to own and drive a car, should they be able to opt out of being forced to buy car insurance? Since for them, it's not an option and therefore, by your argument, the government is forcing them to buy something.

Now I have a question for you, do you think most of the uninsured cant afford it or that they are too irresponsible to buy it?

I have no idea, but ultimately, I think it's probably a combination of both. It also depends on your definition of "afford". Can people buy it who choose not to do so? Sure. But for many of those, i suspect, it would be a bit of a hardship on them. My hope is that the protections in the law (the 8% of income exemption and the subsidies) would alleviate much of that for those people.

[essence]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

As you say, you don't speak for Essence, as for "a bit disrespectful" I'd say his rant about the Constitution more than qualifies, sauce for the goose.

No probs, I felt not a twitch of disrespect, I'm a republican anyway, the royal family are just there for the tourists and to avoid the disadvantages of a president.

Last time I heard UK does not have a constitution, but apparently that is debateable. I think the idea is that the UK has one, but it is not written down or something.

Lastly, I think the French have quite a good health system already.

Oh yes, isn't Cuba meant to have a good health system?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

Oh yes, isn't Cuba meant to have a good health system?

Cuba is known for its police state and its high incarceration rate of those who would speak against the government.

BTW, are Englishmen known to travel to Cuba for medical care?

[Don't Be Daft!]

Essence: The closest thing "we" have to a constitution is Monarchy related. Thus, worthless as far as modern governing is concerned. We argue it out chap. Me dad always said, the UK style of making law is sort of like having two Jews with seven different opinions on the subject being argued over. Erm, never mind lol! It's funny to us Jews because we seem to argue issues to death. It starts with Talmud study and then spills over into every other bloody subject. Sorry for the wee off topic post;-)

[Grifter]

Ok I will play your game Doove if we insist on making fucking 1 year olds, people in comas, the insane, blind, retarded drive cars then yes I would want them all to be insured because they could no only hurt themselves but others en masse. HOWEVER I dont accept the premise as an apples to apples comparison because the blind, one year olds who are crazy are never going to be driving cars with government consent. I understand the point you are trying to make but this is a bad comparison. There is no hole in my argument, the federal government does not currently force you to buy anything from a private company. This will constitute a major change in the way we do business with our government and Im not ok with it. For people who absolutely need to own and drive a car? No one absolutely needs to own a drive a car. If you dont want to live somewhere or do a job that requires it you have the freedom as an American citizen to move. Is it in practical terms that simple? No but there is no law binding you to be in that position its a matter of personal liberty. People need to be more responsible for their own situation and less dependent on the government. And I dont mean children or the elderly or people who are just down on their luck. I mean the average American.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Grifter

Ok I will play your game Doove if we insist on making fucking 1 year olds, people in comas, the insane, blind, retarded drive cars then yes I would want them all to be insured because they could no only hurt themselves but others en masse.

Good. So you admit that under the right circumstances, you'd be ok with forcing people to buy something.

HOWEVER I dont accept the premise as an apples to apples comparison because the blind, one year olds who are crazy are never going to be driving cars with government consent.

Not the point. The point is that under the right circumstances, you've admitted that you'd be ok with forcing people to buy something.

I'm sure that 230 years ago, the founding fathers never envisioned anything even remotely like the current situation with regards to health care. Nor did they, i'm sure, have any idea that some day we'd all be driving around in 2000lb deadly vehicles at 70mph. So the extent to which my premise has no chance of occurring is wholly irrelevant. We're talking about the concept of it, not the details.

I understand the point you are trying to make but this is a bad comparison. There is no hole in my argument,

There is now, now that you've admitted that it essentially depends on the situation.

the federal government does not currently force you to buy anything from a private company. This will constitute a major change in the way we do business with our government and Im not ok with it.

Sure, but the question is no longer "can the government force you to buy something?". It's now "is this a situation that justifies the government forcing you to buy something". Totally different argument than the one you've been making.

For people who absolutely need to own and drive a car? No one absolutely needs to own a drive a car.

As a logistical matter, you can say that. But as a practical matter, it's pretty dumb, don't you think? Just as dumb as if i were to say "it's your choice to not have a job that pays for your health insurance, so if you're in a situation where you need to buy it yourself, that's a decision you've made".

See how that works?

[Af-Freakin]

goddamit, the blue crackers r as stupid as the red crackers & makin liberal socialists look bad. u gotta understand the issue in the SCOTUS. state guvmint can force citizens, federal guvmint cant. stop with this BS car insurance argument. states can force people 2 buy car insurance & medical issurance, fed no. this shit in the SCOTUS is 2 complicated. they cant thow the whole thing out because alot of shit in it is constitional. throw out mandate & we can turn the shell into single payer socialized medicine like we shoulda from the beginning. victory from the jaws of defeat & another election issue 2 beat over the head of the repube crackers. beautiful! LOL!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

goddamit, the blue crackers r as stupid as the red crackers & makin liberal socialists look bad.

Yes you are.

u gotta understand the issue in the SCOTUS. state guvmint can force citizens, federal guvmint cant. stop with this BS car insurance argument.

You mean the BS car insurance argument that was raised during oral arguments?

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by Doove

Yes you are.



You mean the BS car insurance argument that was raised during oral arguments?

yeah, the fucking argument that lost. we shoulda gone single payer socialized medicine from the start, just like President Obama argued 4 against hilary. now we gotta try & save this pig like Justice Ginsberg suggests. we shoulda pushed harder when we had super majority in house & senate rather than settle 4 HilaryCare that we hoped would morph into full blown single payer socialized medicine.

[LovingKayla]

You're doing so well today sweet white parrot. You've pissed off the democrats too! You get an extra cracker tonight lil birdie.

[Don't Be Daft!]

I don't tend to laugh at others but the whole "birdy" bit is rather hilarious!

[JD Barleycorn]

I have nothing but respect for the British military. They have performed magnificently around the world. It is their government that usually screws up the results. I did an ops one time in the UK where our enemy was the SAS playing the part of terrorists. We got our asses kicked.
I seem to recall an incident about some British sailors being taken by the Iranians in international waters off the coast of Iraq. Won't that imply British sailors in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

Hey! There's the link. I thought I was right.

Does Swinton have any pigment at all in her body? Okay, you tell me that she is considered by some to be crazy but I do have to point out that you said more than one life was at stake than hers. According to our laws, and a vote cast by Obama, that is not true in this country. Until a baby draws breath it is not considered a person normally. There have been cases where a pregnant women was killed during another crime and the prosecutor wants to add the death of an unborn baby to the indictment but it is not automatic. At least you see an unborn baby as a person liberaldevil. You are sounding more like a conservative every day.