Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lol...legion is getting a virtual ass whoopin
nice job GL
nice job GL
Good Luck
New member
Because my CO was able to display at least a minimal level of genuine intelligence, which immediately rules you out. Nor was he a mindless hypocritical hack, a trait which, again, rules you out.
He DID lean heavily to the democratic side on most issues, except gun control, abortion, and couple others. He definitely favors either universal or a national single-payer health care system. We got along pretty well.
Cancel9
Banned
In other words, he was a Republican?
Good Luck
New member
No, he was an INTELLIGENT Democrat - a combination, I know, is so rare as to defy credibility.
apple0154
MEOW
Having medical coverage is no threat to freedom. If one does not wish to avail themselves to medical care they are not obliged. On the side of the safety issue virtually everyone will require medical care at some point in their lives and they never know when. Also, the majority of people do believe it's a good idea to have medical coverage which is witnessed by the majority already having coverage.
On the liberty side I suppose the minority who do not feel medical coverage of any kind is necessary could complain having to purchase any coverage, however, those who have financial difficulty will be helped.
The benefit of medical coverage, the safety, certainly outweighs the loss of any perceived liberty as witnessed by the citizens in dozens of countries with government medical.
I addressed that. What is more important than the health of the citizens in the context of being able to defend the country to being able to produce the necessary goods to live? What better defines "general welfare" than the ability to produce and defend ones country?
Talk about prevaricating and obfuscating what is the meaningful difference between expanding medicare by raising taxes or having people purchase insurance?
As for neither the need nor desire that constitutes a very small minority. How many people do not want any medical coverage, at all? And more important what happens when they require medical care? What penalty does society pay in those cases?
Government medical is no more leaning on the government than a person collecting auto insurance is leaning on Allstate or Geico or The Hartford folks.
A few points. First, those who have difficulty affording insurance will receive government help and, second, when they get older they will have insurance and as for getting established younger people will all have a level playing field as they will all be contributing.
How many older folks can't afford insurance or were ineligible due to pre-existing conditions? That problem can be solved the same way dozens of other countries have solved it.
That is absolute rubbish. Again, I ask, name ONE country where government medical has been repealed. Name ONE prominent politician in any country that has government medical who is campaigning on reverting to a "pay or suffer" system. Dozens of countries. If government medical is so bad doesn't common sense dictate there would be ONE country or ONE politician you can give as an example?
Government is simply an extension of community. It is people helping people, organized by the government. Isn't there someone in charge of local charities? Food banks? Soup kitchens? Talk about hopeless!
Then vote for someone different. How many bitch and complain but on voting day vote for their regular party? If Paul (Ron or Rand) is the guy(s) people want then vote for them.
In today's world there is no problem getting information out. (Obama did quite well.) The truth is, I suppose, people are more interested in having medical coverage than they are in the prisoners at Gitmo and less offended about strangers seeing their ass at airports than one would assume. Do you know of anyone canceling their vacation plans due to concern over modesty at the airport?
No, I don't get tired of it because government medical has been shown to be preferable to any "pay or suffer" system. Every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Every single country. No exception. Yet, not one country which implemented a government plan reverted. Not one country. No exception.
Take a moment and think about what you're arguing. You have absolutely nothing to back up your position. Not one example over 50+ years. Do you even know the definition of logic?
More nonsense. For decades governments used to say they couldn't afford to help the poor. Then came the roaring 90s. Surpluses everywhere. Did governments build houses for the poor? Did they increase welfare payments? Did they send Christmas bonuses?
Governments have been whining about medical care costs from day one, for the last 50 years! The fact is the cost of medical care in countries with government plans spend about 2/3 of what is spent in the US, pp/GDP. So the next time you hear a government saying they don't have the money for something it almost always means they don't want to spend the money on that particular thing.
What other proof do you need after hearing a Repub, referring to the Iraq war, say, "War was an option and we could afford it." If a country can afford a war as an option it sure as hell can afford medical care for it's citizens.
Please, do try and be sensible.
Good Luck
New member
First, expanding Medicaid (do get your terms straight) and raising taxes (or increasing the debt) is within the enumerated powers given the federal government. Forcing people to purchase an item against their will is NOT.
Second, the mandate to purchase insurance affects those who would choose to risk being without coverage and spend their money elsewhere. You are punishing them, individually and collectively, for having the unmitigated GALL to make a decision you feel is unwise. Those with insurance would not be affected by the mandate. Those poor enough to be on one of the free programs would not be affected.
But the mandate would, also, affect those who do not buy because of they cannot handle the expense. You can bet these on-the-verge people would get SOME subsidy, but you can bet there would be that low-middle income area where they'd have a mandated significant OOP expense they do not have the means to handle. Congrats: you've just created a new class of poor.
Conversely, using a Constitutional method of expanding Medicaid, and increasing taxes, you would have the option what economic groups you can place that tax, so everybody pays their "fair" share, with the only controversy being which tax distribution is most "fair".
Instead, the mandated expense, which you liars keep calling "the same as a tax", targets a very narrow group of people, and hits hardest those you purport to be so concerned about. (As is typical of most democrat-designed "help" programs.)
apple0154
MEOW
Expanding Medicaid would result in, essentially, a single payer system which the Repubs immediately rejected.
As for the not-so-poor not being able to afford medical coverage that makes as much sense as a not-so-poor individual not insuring their home/belongings and risk disaster due to theft. It's precisely those folks who do require medical coverage as a relatively minor medical emergency would push them into poverty.
Good Luck
New member
No, medicaid only covers those in need - not everyone. That is not a single payer system. People who can afford their own coverage, or are covered as a wage benefit from their employer would not be affected.
Second, republicans also rejected the current piece of shit - yet somehow it got passed. Why could they not have done the same with a constitutional bill that simply expands medicaid?
So your answer is to push them into poverty by requiring they buy insurance they cannot afford, so they are not pushed into poverty by an illness which may no even occur? Good answer. Typical head-up-the-donkey's-ass thinking.
This is one more PRIME example of the fucking democratic party USING people in need to force more dependence on government, thereby securing more voters. It's the biggest piece of shit in history to pass through Congress, and the brain dead are lined up with their lips firmly secured against the donkey's asshole, sucking in the shit and calling it icecream.
Cancel9
Banned
It got passed by a majority vote in Congress, which is how legislation is enacted, according to the constitution you swore to uphold...
You will get your challenge before the Supreme Court.
Cancel9
Banned
Now you're catching on.
If you post in any of their threads, you're "stalking".
When they post in all of yours, they're "warning newbies that you're a troll".
See how it works?
Good Luck
New member
When you are bent over with your head up the donkey's ass, it is no wonder simple points fly over your head.
Apple made the excuse - stupid as usual - that expanding medicaid was not an option because of republican opposition. But if they managed to pass this piece of shit in spite of republican opposition, why could they not have passed something a lot simpler based on systems already in place (thereby less overall expense to enact), as well as constitutional?
Cancel9
Banned
Explain how your wondering how the legislation passed was less stupid.
apple0154
MEOW
What prevents you from understanding that citizens in EVERY country with a government plan insist on keeping it? No exceptions.
Dozens of countries composing hundreds of millions of people all insist their government maintain their plan. Are you unable to understand why there is not one exception?
Not ONE exception. Try to grasp the significance of that.
As for people choosing not to buy insurance even though they can afford it we come to the same reason there is SS. People didn't plan for their retirement. They couldn't afford to right "now". Years passed and they found themselves destitute in their senior years.
With regards to the "democratic party USING people in need to force more dependence on government, thereby securing more voters" it's obvious that's what the people want. If the Repubs had half a brain they would participate and then the people would vote for them. DUH!
This idea that it's a terrible thing to depend on government is total nonsense. People depend on others all the time, from their baby-sitter to their tax preparer.
We pay the government, through taxes, to do a job. That's all it is and many (most) people in the world prefer it that way so they can get on with their life without worrying about certain things.
It's so bizarre people trust the government when it comes to secret deals with foreign powers, the ability to declare war, etc. but question whether the government can run a medical plan. The truth is it has nothing to do with government competence. A minority of people are just too damn cheap and selfish to consider anyone other than themselves when it comes to illness.
There is over 50 years of evidence that governments can run medical plans notwithstanding their constant bitching about the cost because the cost has been shown to be considerably less than the "pay or suffer" system.
Good Luck
New member
Explain how someone as stupid as you present can walk upright and not drool.
Cancel9
Banned
Sorry to hear about your drooling and mobility issues.
apple0154
MEOW
Because some people would be left out. You just wrote in msg 109,
Everyone has to be covered. That means every single person because no one knows when illness or accident will strike. That is the point or goal of the health care bill and it appears you have difficulty understanding that.
Why add it to a system that still results in some people not being covered? What would it accomplish? And then there's the thing about people going on and off medicaid due to changing financial circumstances. People going through the qualification procedures. Hardly a simpler approach.
Good Luck
New member
No matter how many times you tell your lies, no matter how often you ignore the evidence presented showing that your precious government systems are in the SAME CRISIS (ie: costs running out of control is yielding reductions in services) as our "pay or suffer" system, it will not suddenly turn into truth. You've made the same "everyone else is doing it and they're just fine" mantra so often it's become nauseating.
You like your Canadian system so much, stay there and have fun. Leave our system the hell alone.
http://cupe.ca/arp/05/1.asp
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-677674.html