Can't make us buy HC Insurance

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Owning an automobile and driving is not mandatory; there is no law requiring you to do either. But, it's not optional either for many people. We have a fairly extensive public transit system in the Chicago area. Yet, if I wanted to take public transit to work (before I retired) I would have to take three different buses. What took me twenty minutes in my car would take me almost two hours by bus. Or I could take a cab and spend $50 a day. Driving and owning a car is necesary in many cases, even if not mandatory.
Being alive is not mandatory just because you have no choice in the matter. No one outside your self requires you to be alive.

What a single focused mind you have.

OK. Your name is Herb, you live in a one horse town in Montana. Now what?

You breathe & are on the books with the Feds - You pay. Like it or not.

[HUSKER55]

I think the point everyone is missing is that if everyone has to pay then the premiums will go down.

For example, here in wisconsin the state went to mandatory car insurance and the premiums dropped about 25%. (on mine) I am assuming health care policies would do the same

I think the main problem is improper funding of social security and health care. I really believe a national sales tax and mandatory payment into helath care would drive cost down for everyone.
Problem: No way to police the people running it.

problem: too many people getting benefits that never paid into it.

If BO could solve them two then I think it would fly.

JMHO

[mostpost]

Henry Hudson, the judge who issued this ruling has financial ties to the Virginia Attorney General who brought the suit and to a Republican online communications firm which fought passage of the health care bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_665240.html
excerpt:

From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser toformer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.

Shouldn't Hudson have recused himself?

[slewis]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

Hang on DJ.

The argument here is whether Government can constitutionally mandate the purchase of insurance.

The mandate is for protection , in both the automobile, and the health care argument. My argument in court would state that the goal of the mandate of insurance IN BOTH CASES is FINANCIAL, since we have a policy in the USA of offering emergency medical treatment (and even non emergency if you cant really afford it).
When you require drivers to have auto insurance, you are protecting other drivers, pedestrians and property against accident,(and the driver and passengers as well) all of which, the financial burden would revert to the victim(s) if the driver was not insured.

In the case of Health Care, the financial burden is placed upon the TAXPAYERS if the non insured needs treatment or emergency care.

I would argue that the issue of choice to drive is irrelevant in this comparison.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Shouldn't Hudson have recused himself?

Why? Nobody called for it. And it's because they all know that he is step one in a multi-layered process. If the Supremes don't take this direct, it will be 2-4 more decisions and 2 years before it gets to them. Everybody knows that and nobody cared. They just want to get the ball rolling.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by slewis

I would argue that the issue of choice to drive is irrelevant in this comparison.

I can appreciate your want to kick around a subject but this one is undeserving of your time.

It's true that most states require drivers to carry auto insurance. And it's equally true that the administration wants a federal law that will require individuals and employers to buy health insurance.
But the similarities end there.
Now critics are starting to urge the administration to use a different, more representative comparison to justify a virtually unprecedented federal mandate.
"It doesn't make sense," Robert Gordon, senior vice president for policy development and research at The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said of the analogy, noting several inconsistencies in the comparison.
First, the auto insurance mandate is easily avoidable. If you don't want to pay, don't drive a car.
Don't want to pay for health insurance? Drop dead.
"You can avoid the auto insurance mandate by divesting yourself of a car. The only way to avoid a health insurance mandate is by divesting yourself of a body," said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover other people and other cars they may damage. Covering damage to their own cars is of secondary importance.
Many drivers can go without collision insurance if they like. If a hood is dented on the car of someone without the coverage, that person can drive around with a dented hood. But the only kind of health insurance Obama is talking about is collision insurance. If someone's body is a jalopy, he or she still has to get covered.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...surance-think/

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I think the point everyone is missing is that if everyone has to pay then the premiums will go down.

I think the experiences of both New York and New Jersey prove otherwise.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I think the point everyone is missing is that if everyone has to pay then the premiums will go down.

For example, here in wisconsin the state went to mandatory car insurance and the premiums dropped about 25%. (on mine) I am assuming health care policies would do the same

I think the main problem is improper funding of social security and health care. I really believe a national sales tax and mandatory payment into helath care would drive cost down for everyone.
Problem: No way to police the people running it.

problem: too many people getting benefits that never paid into it.

If BO could solve them two then I think it would fly.

JMHO

the main function of an insurance company or any financial institution is to take the most amount of money away from the most amount of people in the shortest possible amount of time.

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by slewis

Hang on DJ.

The argument here is whether Government can constitutionally mandate the purchase of insurance.

The mandate is for protection , in both the automobile, and the health care argument. My argument in court would state that the goal of the mandate of insurance IN BOTH CASES is FINANCIAL, since we have a policy in the USA of offering emergency medical treatment (and even non emergency if you cant really afford it).
When you require drivers to have auto insurance, you are protecting other drivers, pedestrians and property against accident,(and the driver and passengers as well) all of which, the financial burden would revert to the victim(s) if the driver was not insured.

In the case of Health Care, the financial burden is placed upon the TAXPAYERS if the non insured needs treatment or emergency care.

I would argue that the issue of choice to drive is irrelevant in this comparison.

The federal government does not mandate that an individual purchase insurance to drive. The states do, so that has nothing to do with whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate that people purchase health insurance. I'm surprised someone who considers himself as bright as you do can't see that obvious and basic distinction. Its the same with the Mass law. That is a state mandate, not a federal one. The issue with Obamacare is whether the federal government can mandate that individuals be forced to engage in an economic activity regardless of whether or not they would otherwise engage in that activity. The mandate is a gigantic expansion of federal powers.

[slewis]

Originally Posted by lsbets

The federal government does not mandate that an individual purchase insurance to drive. The states do, so that has nothing to do with whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate that people purchase health insurance. I'm surprised someone who considers himself as bright as you do can't see that obvious and basic distinction. Its the same with the Mass law. That is a state mandate, not a federal one. The issue with Obamacare is whether the federal government can mandate that individuals be forced to engage in an economic activity regardless of whether or not they would otherwise engage in that activity. The mandate is a gigantic expansion of federal powers.

Trust me, I know precisely who regulates auto insurance and knew of the difference before you made this point.

Now do you think that state(s) rules and regulations and requirements are immune from constitutionality?

GIGANTIC expansion of FEDERAL POWER? You mean a law that prevents someone who WONT BUY INSURANCE from FORCING their financial burden, should they become ill, upon society as a whole?

Until they change the law that hospitals are legally allowed to "kick the uninsured to the curb" and doctors CAN refuse to treat anyone who cant pay, I want GIGANTIC FEDERAL POWER to legislate for ALL the people.

And keep the "smart" ass comments to yourself, tough guy.

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by slewis

Trust me, I know precisely who regulates auto insurance and knew of the difference before you made this point.

Now do you think that state(s) rules and regulations and requirements are immune from constitutionality?

GIGANTIC expansion of FEDERAL POWER? You mean a law that prevents someone who WONT BUY INSURANCE from FORCING their financial burden, should they become ill, upon society as a whole?

Until they change the law that hospitals are legally allowed to "kick the uninsured to the curb" and doctors CAN refuse to treat anyone who cant pay, I want GIGANTIC FEDERAL POWER to legislate for ALL the people.

And keep the "smart" ass comments to yourself, tough guy.

It is obvious you don't understand the difference between federal and state powers. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting the states from passing any kind of insurance mandate. Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule the mandate unconstitutional, there is a way provided to make it constitutional - pass an amendment to the constitution. We've done it before when the people wanted to grant powers to the federal government that didn't fit the bounds of the constitution.

As far as the smart comments tough guy, you like to cast yourself as the smartest kid and the toughest kid on the block, and its pretty obvious you are neither, especially the latter. I would say its a safe bet that when face to face with someone who understands what toughness is you are meek as a mouse.

[slewis]

Originally Posted by lsbets

It is obvious you don't understand the difference between federal and state powers. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting the states from passing any kind of insurance mandate. Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule the mandate unconstitutional, there is a way provided to make it constitutional - pass an amendment to the constitution. We've done it before when the people wanted to grant powers to the federal government that didn't fit the bounds of the constitution.

As far as the smart comments tough guy, you like to cast yourself as the smartest kid and the toughest kid on the block, and its pretty obvious you are neither, especially the latter. I would say its a safe bet that when face to face with someone who understands what toughness is you are meek as a mouse.

Unlike a little cnt like you, I dont hide, never have,never will, behind the safety and anonymity of my keyboard. Many people on this PA have met and know me.
I can be located each and every racing day for anyone that wants to tap me on the shoulder and tell me their going to kick my ass.

So how ya left?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Owning an automobile and driving is not mandatory; there is no law requiring you to do either. But, it's not optional either for many people.

When we take this bit of sophistry to its logical conclusion and use personal situations as a mandate excuse, we could escape out from under an awful of personal responsibility, couldn't we? We could also use your foolish argument to make just about anything mandatory due to personal situations, such as Part B insurance under Medicare. Just because we will invariably encounter very tough choices or options in life, doesn't mean we haven't any choices. Having no choice is when someone external to us essentially tells us we have no choices, i.e. you MUST do this, or you MUST do that, or you MUST do something else.

In your transportation analogy, if public transportation doesn't serve a person's needs for whatever reason, then that person has all kinds of wheels' options open to him. Besides autos there are bicycles, tricycles, scooters, motorcycles, golf carts, skateboards, etc. If he doesn't want to pay insurance or can't afford insurance, he might want to scratch off the autos option and consider one of the others. The fact that he may not care much for the remaining options doesn't = no choices.

And do you really want to use the inane necessities argument? You have no idea where I could take you if you want to go down that dead end road, especially because how it dead ends.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by slewis

Unlike a little cnt like you, I dont hide, never have,never will, behind the safety and anonymity of my keyboard. Many people on this PA have met and know me.
I can be located each and every racing day for anyone that wants to tap me on the shoulder and tell me their going to kick my ass.

So how ya left?

Uh, oh... do I detect another flare of anti-social behavior coming on?

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by slewis

Unlike a little cnt like you, I dont hide, never have,never will, behind the safety and anonymity of my keyboard. Many people on this PA have met and know me.
I can be located each and every racing day for anyone that wants to tap me on the shoulder and tell me their going to kick my ass.

So how ya left?

Hide behind anonymity? You really are not bright at all are you? I'm an easy guy to find, hell look at the board archives and you'll even get my address, along with some video and a newspaper article that discusses my background. I've had the pleasure of several board members dropping in unexpectedly to say hi. You are making yourself look like more of a fool than usual. Your chest thumping is laughable. It is a foregone conclusion that the dumbest, and possibly last thing, you would ever do is go toe to toe with me. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. You'd crawl back under some rock where you can keep pretending to be a tough guy.