03-23-2010, 10:42 AM
|
#201
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2sarajevo
Me getting sick and dying is not equal to me running into your car and you having to pay for the damage yourself.
|
In both cases the government is FORCING you to put money into a private corporation's pocket.
If the government is going to take absolute control of an industry, then why keep it private? Just fund it through tax dollars and run it like NASA (although the lack of a private entity makes it a lot harder to skim off the top...)
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-23-2010 at 10:46 AM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 10:46 AM
|
#202
|
moderately impressed
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home of the thirteenth colony
Posts: 17,705
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
In both cases the government is FORCING you to put money into a private corporation's pocket.
If the government is going to take absolute control of an industry, then why keep it private? Just fund it through tax dollars like NASA (although the lack of a private entity makes it a lot harder to skim off the top...)
|
How so? I'm not putting money into anyones pocket if I chose not to insure myself and then get sick and die. Well, my family puts money into the hands of the funeral industry but that would happen eventually anyway.
__________________
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 10:49 AM
|
#203
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2sarajevo
How so? I'm not putting money into anyones pocket if I chose not to insure myself and then get sick and die.
|
Um, you're about to not have any choice in the matter...
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-23-2010 at 10:52 AM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 10:51 AM
|
#204
|
moderately impressed
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home of the thirteenth colony
Posts: 17,705
|
Oh I know I'm not.... that's the point.
__________________
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:21 AM
|
#205
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
People that don't own cars aren't required. A completely illogical counterpoint.
|
People that don't own bodies that may require healthcare wouldn't be required, either. You know, like dead people.
No logical inconsistency there.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:23 AM
|
#206
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2sarajevo
I agree! So let's stop the free flowing health handouts at Parkland that I end up paying for, and the other medical establishments across the country as well! We DO agree!
Awesome.
|
Nice concept (for the "haves," anyway), but not very Christian.
I notice that I only hear about this country being "founded on Christianity" when it's a convenient argument.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:25 AM
|
#207
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2sarajevo
Oh I know I'm not.... that's the point.
|
I know, I'm agreeing with you about mandatory insurance - I think it's un-American for the government to force people to give their money to a private corporation.
But I also took the opportunity to educate people that a merger of Corporation & State is a primary goal of fascism. People forget that the far-right are pluralists just like the far-left - go far enough in either direction and you're bound to make a circle (that's how Mussolini was put into power by a liberal parliament...)
For everyone screaming "commie!" (not necessarily you), the word of the day is:
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-23-2010 at 11:27 AM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:46 AM
|
#208
|
Golden Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2sarajevo
I agree! So let's stop the free flowing health handouts at Parkland that I end up paying for, and the other medical establishments across the country as well! We DO agree!
Awesome.
|
do you think it is a tenable position for the USA to outright declare: "if you get sick, and have neither health insurance nor the funds to pay for care... then tough beans."?
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:46 AM
|
#209
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
Nice concept (for the "haves," anyway), but not very Christian.
I notice that I only hear about this country being "founded on Christianity" when it's a convenient argument.
|
As soon as you find where Christ said anything about using the government to pay for health care, I'll believe you are being sincere here.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:50 AM
|
#210
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
|
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
- Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 11:58 AM
|
#211
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:00 PM
|
#212
|
moderately impressed
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home of the thirteenth colony
Posts: 17,705
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
Nice concept (for the "haves," anyway), but not very Christian.
I notice that I only hear about this country being "founded on Christianity" when it's a convenient argument.
|
Hey you guys are the ones that scream separation of church and state. Seems you are using it when it's convenient for you.
It's morally right to take care of our own. Without a doubt. But it's not a moral obligation for the government to legislate that we take care of our own. As a Christian I put more stock in someone helping others(which is a Christ like act), not helping themselves.
I'm not saying let unfortunate people die. In fact I know for a fact that the Christian community will do all that it can to protect those that are less fortunate.
So I donate money to help those less fortunate and continue to do so.
When it's taken from me it's no longer my choice. So any moral stance is hollow there. Put a better way, when it's taken by force from those that wouldn't otherwise help those less fortunate then it's not a moral act. It's stealing. I'm pretty sure we all know that's frowned upon by our Savior.
__________________
Last edited by u2sarajevo; 03-23-2010 at 12:02 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:08 PM
|
#213
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
do you think it is a tenable position for the USA to outright declare: "if you get sick, and have neither health insurance nor the funds to pay for care... then tough beans."?
|
If the point was to: a) lower costs of health care and b) help people who have trouble affording health care, it could have been done much more modestly. Let's not pretend this is about that. This is about expanding the power of the federal government. Period.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:10 PM
|
#214
|
Golden Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
|
it could've been done a helluva lot more efficiently/better... no question.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:21 PM
|
#215
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
If you don't have insurance and you go to Parkland for treatment, it's closer to the same thing than you think.
|
This is a flawed example. In the car insurance example, you are required to carry liability insurance to pay for bodily injury and property damage that you cause someone else to incur. In the Parkland example, you're assuming that it's the patient's fault they got sick/hurt and don't have the money to pay for treatment. While that might be true in some cases (maybe they ran the red light or smoked the cigarettes), but maybe they didn't. Either way, the example is still flawed because the people at Parkland are still going to receive subsidization under the new legislation. It's not like you're going to be forcing them to buy anything.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:22 PM
|
#216
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
it could've been done a helluva lot more efficiently/better... no question.
|
Which begs the question of why it was done this way. Of course, I've already answered the question.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:25 PM
|
#217
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
In both cases the government is FORCING you to put money into a private corporation's pocket.
If the government is going to take absolute control of an industry, then why keep it private? Just fund it through tax dollars and run it like NASA (although the lack of a private entity makes it a lot harder to skim off the top...)
|
The government didn't take absolute control of the automobile insurance industry.
See my post below. Also, it's worth noting that automobile insurance is handled by the states, not the federal government. Health insurance mandates (if there are to be any) should be as well. The Supreme Court may not stand up and stop this nonsense, but they should. If they don't, it will pave the way for the feds to take over anything and everything they want.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:34 PM
|
#218
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
So, if I don't buy insurance then the government charges me a $695 fine...
What happens if I don't pay the fine, do I go to jail?
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-24-2010 at 08:15 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:36 PM
|
#219
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
The government didn't take absolute control of the automobile insurance industry.
See my post below. Also, it's worth noting that automobile insurance is handled by the states, not the federal government. Health insurance mandates (if there are to be any) should be as well. The Supreme Court may not stand up and stop this nonsense, but they should. If they don't, it will pave the way for the feds to take over anything and everything they want.
|
Fair point, but it's still a government entity forcing you to pay a private one...
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:39 PM
|
#220
|
Golden Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
Which begs the question of why it was done this way. Of course, I've already answered the question.
|
no, really you haven't at all... you have thrown out platitudes that would've applied to ANY bill that passed.
what happened was that the Obama admin thought they were learning the lesson from the clinton health-care reform probelems, and backed off to let the legislature take full ownership of the process. When congressmen got hold of it horsetrading (trying to get ANY republican votes/blue dog votes PLUS extreme left votes ... AND just the greedy bastages that see ANY major legislation as a pigs trough to be exploited) ate away at many of the difficult (but useful) aspects of the legislation... and you end up with something that is designed to irritate as few as possible, and by thus by definition SATISFIES almost nobody.
Obama should've just taken control of the process from the start. He is actually a helluva lot more pragmatic and centrist in most areas than ANYBODY on this board gives him credit for, i am sure that the NSC could've crafted a vastly superior bill. No question. Instead it ended up as milquetoast... and this whole debate will have to happen AGAIN in 5 or 10 years.
(btw... the day the republicans jumped en-mass and with unity onto the "death panels" ship... was the day it became clear that there was ZERO interest from the GOP in actually influencing the legislation. it was pure political posturing from that point on.. BOTH GOP and DEMS in congress showed truly sucky form on this issue... it would be nice if BOTH could be punished appropriately in November)
Last edited by mcsluggo; 03-23-2010 at 12:40 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:52 PM
|
#221
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
If the point was to: a) lower costs of health care and b) help people who have trouble affording health care, it could have been done much more modestly. Let's not pretend this is about that. This is about expanding the power of the federal government. Period.
|
I just finished reading The Trouble with Tom: The Strange Afterlife and Times of Thomas Paine. He was a truly remarkable man and, because of his views on government and religion, this Founding Father was completely wiped from our historical narrative.
He had a keen sense of what we were/are up against in the State and those who control it. This quote really blew me away:
Quote:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
|
Perhaps the reason the institution of government is so blatantly screwing its constituents lies in the lack of integrity and accountability of said constituents. An upright and moral human is not served by government save his own self-governance. While "conservatives" sat idly by for eight years of genocide in the Middle East, "liberals" cried out for war crimes tribunals. The two sides engaged in banter, waiting for their chance to be represented by their team... and those liberals got their wish. We are still killing people in the Middle East, the exact same plans laid out by NGOs and think tanks for a tightly-controlled fascist utopia decades ago are still unfolding... hell, it's almost like politics is a huge crock of horsesh!t designed to distract people from the fact that government was never designed to benefit them in any way, whatsoever.
It seems that one of the most important functions of politics is the destruction of language. "Liberals" have been decrying the re-branding of torture as "rendition" and illegal war as "spreading democracy" for years. But the PR machine that gave us those gems is still in evidence today. And members of one side of the coin feel all warm and snuggly in their willful ignorance, while members of the other side scream for more adequate representation. They want their side lying to them. A symbol of a jackass or an elephant seems to determine whether they will throw roses or rotten tomatoes at the actors in the play. I have always been more interested in the director and the writer. It would appear that the mutation of the State is proceeding independently from the bread and circuses of the political spectacle. Yet some still cling to big daddy for protection. They will vote. They will gloat. They will lie to themselves. And they will suffer dearly for it. Welcome to the present. Baby, meet bath water.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:56 PM
|
#222
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
So, if I don't buy insurance then the government charges me a $695 fee...
What happens if I don't pay the fee, do I go to jail?
|
My understanding is that they'll charge you the fine if you can't prove health insurance coverage when you file your tax return. Of course, there's a big difference between the IRS fining you and collecting it. I'm sure a whole "we can get your health insurance penalties reduced by 50%" cottage industry will spring up.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 12:59 PM
|
#223
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
no, really you haven't at all... you have thrown out platitudes that would've applied to ANY bill that passed.
what happened was that the Obama admin thought they were learning the lesson from the clinton health-care reform probelems, and backed off to let the legislature take full ownership of the process. When congressmen got hold of it horsetrading (trying to get ANY republican votes/blue dog votes PLUS extreme left votes ... AND just the greedy bastages that see ANY major legislation as a pigs trough to be exploited) ate away at many of the difficult (but useful) aspects of the legislation... and you end up with something that is designed to irritate as few as possible, and by thus by definition SATISFIES almost nobody.
Obama should've just taken control of the process from the start. He is actually a helluva lot more pragmatic and centrist in most areas than ANYBODY on this board gives him credit for, i am sure that the NSC could've crafted a vastly superior bill. No question. Instead it ended up as milquetoast... and this whole debate will have to happen AGAIN in 5 or 10 years.
(btw... the day the republicans jumped en-mass and with unity onto the "death panels" ship... was the day it became clear that there was ZERO interest from the GOP in actually influencing the legislation. it was pure political posturing from that point on.. BOTH GOP and DEMS in congress showed truly sucky form on this issue... it would be nice if BOTH could be punished appropriately in November)
|
This bills sets the stage for the debate which you say will happen again in 5-10 years. And it virtually guarantees that the next step is to single payer. If you think Obama cares that he had to take this step so that the frog wouldn't jump out of the pot, I'll just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 01:06 PM
|
#224
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
Fair point, but it's still a government entity forcing you to pay a private one...
|
No, they're not. You are under no pressure to own and operate an automobile. Insurance is simply the cost of operating a car, no different than the cost of inspections and registration.
And no different than the choice to own a house.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 01:20 PM
|
#225
|
Golden Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
|
While I am not in the "we" discussion here (i am not a republican)... I think many Davis Frum's strategic observations here are on teh mark.
Quote:
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
|
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 01:27 PM
|
#226
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
No, they're not. You are under no pressure to own and operate an automobile. Insurance is simply the cost of operating a car, no different than the cost of inspections and registration.
|
Except inspection and registration money goes to the government, your insurance goes to a private company...
If I was sending my checks to the Texas State Department of Automobile Insurance, it might be a different story (well, the difference between fascism and socialism, but certainly nothing resembling free ownership of property...)
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-23-2010 at 01:28 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 01:39 PM
|
#227
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
Except inspection and registration money goes to the government, your insurance goes to a private company...
If I was sending my checks to the Texas State Department of Automobile Insurance, it might be a different story (well, the difference between fascism and socialism, but certainly nothing resembling free ownership of property...)
|
Inspection money goes to the government? That's an honest question, I don't really know. I certainly pay it to a private company.
Regardless, there's still the option to not own that property. It's an important point in distinguishing it from the requirement to buy health insurance simply because you're alive. That, to my knowledge, is absolutely unprecedented, and an incredibly slippery slope.
Last edited by jthig32; 03-23-2010 at 01:44 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 01:55 PM
|
#228
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
Am I missing something? Don't we all pay for police and firefighters (while alive and able)? What's the ambulance?
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:11 PM
|
#229
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbitproof
Am I missing something? Don't we all pay for police and firefighters (while alive and able)? What's the ambulance?
|
Property taxes pay for those, no? Are you required to own property? Sales tax too, I believe.
Again, not a tax for being alive. And even then, as Underdog pointed out, being forced to pay to a private company is still different from being taxed.
Last edited by jthig32; 03-23-2010 at 02:13 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:16 PM
|
#230
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Inspection money goes to the government? That's an honest question, I don't really know. I certainly pay it to a private company.
Regardless, there's still the option to not own that property. It's an important point in distinguishing it from the requirement to buy health insurance simply because you're alive. That, to my knowledge, is absolutely unprecedented, and an incredibly slippery slope.
|
I 100% agree that having to buy health insurance simply because you're alive is BS.
I also think that having to pay the government money for any reason to own personal property of any kind is just as bad. I guess the difference between me and everyone else is that I'm just as uncomfortable with mandatory car insurance as I am with mandatory health insurance (sorry, I don't watch or read mainstream spin media so I have no idea how the partisan lines are currently framed in this debate - I just calls 'em like I sees 'em...)
What next, mandatory homeowners insurance? Mandatory pet insurance? When does the government stop mandating and get the hell out of our personal lives?
The only capable use the government can serve is keeping the borders safe (fail) and economy humming (fail).
Wake me up when the real issues become relevant again...
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:20 PM
|
#231
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
I 100% agree that having to buy health insurance simply because you're alive is BS.
I also think that having to pay the government money for any reason to own personal property of any kind is just as bad. I guess the difference between me and everyone else is that I'm just as uncomfortable with mandatory car insurance as I am with mandatory health insurance (sorry, I don't watch or read mainstream spin media so I have no idea how the partisan lines are currently framed in this debate - I just calls 'em like I sees 'em...)
What next, mandatory homeowners insurance? Mandatory pet insurance? When does the government stop mandating and get the hell out of our personal lives?
The only capable use the government can serve is keeping the borders safe (fail) and economy humming (fail).
Wake me up when the real issues become relevant again...
|
Meh...I think the auto insurance thing is different. If they mandated that you had to have full coverage, that's one thing. But mandating that you have insurance to cover whatever damage you may do to others is different.
It's no different than mandating that you have to pay for testing and licensing before operating it. It's for the safety and well being of others.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:26 PM
|
#232
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Meh...I think the auto insurance thing is different. If they mandated that you had to have full coverage, that's one thing. But mandating that you have insurance to cover whatever damage you may do to others is different.
It's no different than mandating that you have to pay for testing and licensing before operating it. It's for the safety and well being of others.
|
I guess I don't view free ownership of property as being incremental like that.
(distribution of property is a different thing altogether...)
__________________
These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Last edited by Underdog; 03-23-2010 at 02:29 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:28 PM
|
#233
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: now, here
Posts: 7,720
|
I think that sort of argument is silly (you don't have to drive if you don't want to be forced to pay for auto insurance). Technically, you only get taxed if you work, right?
__________________
watch your thoughts, they become your words
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:33 PM
|
#234
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbitproof
I think that sort of argument is silly (you don't have to drive if you don't want to be forced to pay for auto insurance). Technically, you only get taxed if you work, right?
|
How is that silly? You own property in an area, thus you are taxed for the municipal costs for that area.
As with auto insurance, no one is forcing you to drive, and many people do not. And to UD's point, owning a car is in fact free. You are free to drive your car on your private property with no inspection, no registration and no insurance. But if you wish to use the roadways, that's where the required cost comes to play. Seems like a technicality I suppose, but it's an important disctinction.
And again, if they ever started requiring full coverage insurance, or home owners insurance, then I'm right there with you (UD). THAT would truly be akin to requiring someone to buy health insurance. The whole "this is a really good idea, so we're going to MAKE you do it" argument.
Last edited by jthig32; 03-23-2010 at 02:33 PM.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:33 PM
|
#235
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo
While I am not in the "we" discussion here (i am not a republican)... I think many Davis Frum's strategic observations here are on teh mark.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
|
So it's talk radio's fault? (BTW, the observations about talk radio wanting conflict are basically true.)
I guess the reason I don't agree with you (or Davis Frum) is that it seems to me that the Republicans made quite a few alternative proposals, all of which were rebuffed. The universal mandate (with or without public option) was correctly seen as a stepping stone to a single payer system, and the Democrats weren't going to compromise on that.
Bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the national Republican party. I just don't see what they could have realistically done to achieve compromise in this instance.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:33 PM
|
#236
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
No, they're not. You are under no pressure to own and operate an automobile. Insurance is simply the cost of operating a car, no different than the cost of inspections and registration.
.
|
Correct...whereas this bill is a tax for you being alive. It is your "license" to live.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:34 PM
|
#237
|
Old School Balla
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
And again, if they ever started requiring full coverage insurance, or home owners insurance, then I'm right there with you (UD). THAT would truly be akin to requiring someone to buy health insurance.
|
Right.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:36 PM
|
#238
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
What next, mandatory homeowners insurance? Mandatory pet insurance? When does the government stop mandating and get the hell out of our personal lives?.
|
I expect there will be a mandatory carbon exhaling insurance. So that your poisoniess carbon footprint will not endanger anyone else. They'll just tack it onto the mandatory "being alive" tax.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:38 PM
|
#239
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
The whole idea behind requiring folks to buy insurance is to get those folks paying into the system the whole time and not just waiting until they're probably about to need it.
Those of you opposed to the idea, would you support a system where you chose whether or not you wanted to buy the insurance...but if you went for some time without it you would have to pay to pay a significant startup fee (a means of collecting the money you didn't pay in) once you decided you wanted coverage going forward?
That system should be plenty amenable to you, I would think. If you don't ever want the insurance (like not putting a car on the road), you aren't out one red cent.
|
|
|
03-23-2010, 02:40 PM
|
#240
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
I"m more amenable to having people play for their medical care...however they desire it...since it does no damage to anyone if they do not pay/purchase it.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 AM.
|