[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Yes.
RIGHT NOW.
Because in the long run we are all dead, right?
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
You bring up an interesting point though. Why is car insurance required in all 50 states for anyone that own a vehicle?[/quote]
Someday this one will be laid to rest, as you said the answer within your own question. STATES is the key word. STATES can, good or bad policy, force you to buy car insurance, health insurance, etc. The federal government, should not be in that business.
Of course the supreme court disagrees with me, so what do I know.
You don’t need car insurance in New Hampshire I believe (Or little Texas to those in the know, Live free or die).
The reason car insurance isn’t equivalent: Driving a car is a privilege. If I want to enjoy that privilege I have to follow the rules, and the rules require insurance.
I believe we hold life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights. That means I have a right to not buy insurance if I’m so inclined. I should have the right to choose action (drive the car) or not take action (walk to work).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t need car insurance in New Hampshire I believe (Or little Texas to those in the know, Live free or die).
The reason car insurance isn’t equivalent: Driving a car is a privilege. If I want to enjoy that privilege I have to follow the rules, and the rules require insurance.
I believe we hold life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights. That means I have a right to not buy insurance if I’m so inclined. I should have the right to choose action (drive the car) or not take action (walk to work).[/quote]
Vermont is next to NH. You need car insurance in New Hampshire.
Personally I don’t find your distinction satisfactory. Seems like the principal is the same–unless someone in "the know’ is willing to correct me.
IF you own a car you insure it because it’s the reponsible thing to do; totaling someone elses car and then not having the funds to pay for it is very similar to totaling your own body and then relying on the hospital and insured people to foot your bill.
Unfortunately when it comes to owning a body, you don’t have the right to choose whether you get sick or not…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
…personally I’m willing to sacrifice some freedom…we have to sacrifice freedom…
[/quote]
[/quote]
The loss of freedom I was referring to is more a sense of things aren’t as simple as they used to be. I wasn’t speaking in the sense that I believe I have lost my valued sense of liberty; I don’t feel that the government is taking control of healthcare. I personally see the ACA mandate as a regulation of the insurance business to help make people accountable. If you don’t want insurance, fine; just make sure you pay what you owe to the insured that cover others costs.
If it were truly a crime to not own health insurance I would be very upset.
Also nobody calls NH “little texas”, for those in the know. lol.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t need car insurance in New Hampshire I believe (Or little Texas to those in the know, Live free or die).
The reason car insurance isn’t equivalent: Driving a car is a privilege. If I want to enjoy that privilege I have to follow the rules, and the rules require insurance.
I believe we hold life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights. That means I have a right to not buy insurance if I’m so inclined. I should have the right to choose action (drive the car) or not take action (walk to work).[/quote]
Vermont is next to NH. You need car insurance in New Hampshire.
Personally I don’t find your distinction satisfactory. Seems like the principal is the same–unless someone in "the know’ is willing to correct me.
IF you own a car you insure it because it’s the reponsible thing to do; totaling someone elses car and then not having the funds to pay for it is very similar to totaling your own body and then relying on the hospital and insured people to foot your bill.
Unfortunately when it comes to owning a body, you don’t have the right to choose whether you get sick or not…[/quote]
I can walk to NH from my house and google.
see page 5, no need for insurance.
I will address the rest of your post later
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.[/quote]
Bullshit. They need to make sure whomever invents the cure for cancer will be so disgustingly rich a different bimbo comes to his house, drops to her knees, and sucks him off, every day, for the rest of his life.
Aside from war, greed is, by far, the greatest motivator of human accomplishment.[/quote]
X 1000000000000 ad infinitum!
What the fuck about that is so hard for Liberals to understand?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.[/quote]
Bullshit. They need to make sure whomever invents the cure for cancer will be so disgustingly rich a different bimbo comes to his house, drops to her knees, and sucks him off, every day, for the rest of his life.
Aside from war, greed is, by far, the greatest motivator of human accomplishment.[/quote]
X 1000000000000 ad infinitum!
What the fuck about that is so hard for Liberals to understand?[/quote]
Two things:
One- The guy that cures cancer won’t get rich, the CEO of the company he works for will.
Two- If greed is such a great fucking motivator then it doesn’t take much of a brain to figure out that developing a treatment/containment for a chronic or terminal illness is much better than finding a cure.
“Greed, Keeping Americans Sick for over 100 Years.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t need car insurance in New Hampshire I believe (Or little Texas to those in the know, Live free or die).
The reason car insurance isn’t equivalent: Driving a car is a privilege. If I want to enjoy that privilege I have to follow the rules, and the rules require insurance.
I believe we hold life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights. That means I have a right to not buy insurance if I’m so inclined. I should have the right to choose action (drive the car) or not take action (walk to work).[/quote]
Vermont is next to NH. You need car insurance in New Hampshire.
Personally I don’t find your distinction satisfactory. Seems like the principal is the same–unless someone in "the know’ is willing to correct me.
IF you own a car you insure it because it’s the reponsible thing to do; totaling someone elses car and then not having the funds to pay for it is very similar to totaling your own body and then relying on the hospital and insured people to foot your bill.
Unfortunately when it comes to owning a body, you don’t have the right to choose whether you get sick or not…[/quote]
I can walk to NH from my house and google.
see page 5, no need for insurance.
I will address the rest of your post later[/quote]
“New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Laws do not require you to carry Auto Insurance, but
you must be able to demonstrate that you are able to provide sufficient funds to
meet New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Requirements in the
event of an â??at-faultâ?? accident. If you are unable to meet these requirements your
driving privileges in New Hampshire may be suspended.”
You are technically correct but your driving priveledges will be revoked if you aren’t a millionaire. There’s no reason to not own insurance in n.h. unless: you own a lot of vehicles that don’t get driven very often, you have a lawyer, and you have a ton of money. If your excuse is you don’t want to pay, than the law stands that you can’t drive.
To get back on topic, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the state to ask the same thing in healthcare. If you aren’t insured, you’ve got to pay the price.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? [/quote]
Is this a serious question?
The bill requires that insurance companies provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. The mandate is first and foremost an attempt to solve the free-rider problem that this requirement causes, and it serves a (minor) band-aid to help offset the costs that will rise because insurance companies have to pay for people who have, well, 100% chance of basically needing more money than they pay in.
Going forward, those of us with insurance can expect premiums to rise because of this requirement that insurance companies stop “discriminating” against people with pre-existing. The moment I heard that phrase - that denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions as “discrimination” - I knew the Left, as usual, hadn’t a clue about basic economics and insurance.
But we get policy based on this nonsense anyway, in the name of “progress”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
…personally I’m willing to sacrifice some freedom…we have to sacrifice freedom…
[/quote]
[/quote]
The loss of freedom I was referring to is more a sense of things aren’t as simple as they used to be. I wasn’t speaking in the sense that I believe I have lost my valued sense of liberty; I don’t feel that the government is taking control of healthcare. I personally see the ACA mandate as a regulation of the insurance business to help make people accountable. If you don’t want insurance, fine; just make sure you pay what you owe to the insured that cover others costs.
If it were truly a crime to not own health insurance I would be very upset.
[/quote]
Sure thing.
You betcha.
Okey dokey.
Your own words speak for themselves. You can sweeten your medicine any way you like in order to get it to go down the hatch better. Have at it.
[/quote]
You know what, this isn’t like a frog in water scenario. Let me tell you something: I like conservatives; I believe conservatives should be the true idealists in this country, not liberals. However, there is one thing above all that drives me absolutely crazy about conservative minded people, and that is that they cannot distinguish inconvenience from captivity.
The world changes, get over it. From obamacare to curly lightbulbs, it’s changing. America still needs people that value simplicity and freedom, but the concepts aren’t fundamentally the same thing. The freedoms that the founding fathers realized and invisioned as iternal and unwavering were not wrought from the inconvenience of large government, the freedoms they speak of were created under the immense heat and pressure of an intolerable dictatorship. Americans are so entitled that we have forgotten what it truly means to have our rights taken away. As such, we naturally think that an insurance mandate is unconstitutional. I call bullshit. The ACA might not be convenient, it might not be perfect, but damn it were not in captivity.
Thanks.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
The loss of freedom I was referring to is more a sense of things aren’t as simple as they used to be. I wasn’t speaking in the sense that I believe I have lost my valued sense of liberty; I don’t feel that the government is taking control of healthcare. I personally see the ACA mandate as a regulation of the insurance business to help make people accountable. If you don’t want insurance, fine; just make sure you pay what you owe to the insured that cover others costs.
If it were truly a crime to not own health insurance I would be very upset.
[/quote]
In my opinion, if your ‘solution’ requires charging people for NOT buying something in order for your plan to not immediately collapse on itself, you’ve fucked up. Throw it out and start over, because your plan sucks.
If your solution requires a solution, it’s not actually a solution, it’s just pushing the inevitable train wreck down a few miles.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
The loss of freedom I was referring to is more a sense of things aren’t as simple as they used to be. I wasn’t speaking in the sense that I believe I have lost my valued sense of liberty; I don’t feel that the government is taking control of healthcare. I personally see the ACA mandate as a regulation of the insurance business to help make people accountable. If you don’t want insurance, fine; just make sure you pay what you owe to the insured that cover others costs.
If it were truly a crime to not own health insurance I would be very upset.
[/quote]
In my opinion, if your ‘solution’ requires charging people for NOT buying something in order for your plan to not immediately collapse on itself, you’ve fucked up. Throw it out and start over, because your plan sucks.
If your solution requires a solution, it’s not actually a solution, it’s just pushing the inevitable train wreck down a few miles. [/quote]
makes sense to me. too bad that this is the only plan that we were able to pass, I would have liked to have seen something different.
Late to getting back to this thread here. Let me clarify Mufasa: I don’t think it was brinkmanship either, because I don’t think Roberts was trying to outmanuver Obama politically–that would be, as I said, a short sighted, unworthy goal from a Justice who can set permanent judicial precedent. I was responding to the hypothetical raised by others here about Roberts “politically outsmarting Obama by a mile” or something similar by saying that if that WAS indeed the case, then Roberts gave away the country to get a farm–in other words, he would have been completely guilty of shortsightedness, because politics is less permanent than judicial precedent. I thoroughly disagree with the decision in any case.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.
The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.
He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.
What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).
It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.
Mufasa[/quote]
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I know that something absolutely has to be done to improve healthcare in this country, and personally I’m willing to sacrifice some freedom to improve…[/quote]
This is the problem. I am not, and never will be. I do not view it as a mere inconvenience. I view it as a fundamental assault on my rights (be they irrational, irresponsible, or not), and more importantly a violation of the Constitution. Here is the problem: there is no acceptable solution if the only solution presented violates the principles and stated laws on which our country is founded. From a fundamental standpoint, it would be better that there was NOTHING done if the only solution to the problem involved a violation of Constitutionality. This is a founding principle of our country–that no solution that violates Rights guaranteed the people is acceptable without changing the Constitution itself via amendment, no matter the scope of the problem.
Clearly, of course, I side with the dissenting 4 wrt Constitutionality.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.
You’re still an idiot!