President taking a 17 percent hit among young people.

You are attempting to make an argument about usage, changing the discussion and therefore the logic behind your smackdown in your original attempt. Your second point was factually incorrect which I pointed out. Please, rebut my counter to your post with facts. Calling it dumb is simply as admission you have no other argument.

His metaphor was not that of usage, but as a comparison for the requirement. My comparison was that of requirement. You made a horrible and logically incorrect analogy. The facts you presented were debunked. Had you stuck with your first point only the argument becomes theory. I am not challenging you on your theory, but it was not relevent to his point.

Now, if you want to argue usage, here is a more relevant discussion.

If you don't often use doctors, no need to pay for insurance. You pay when you need to pay. If you don't own a car but instead choose to rent as needed, you pay for insurance at the time of rental for the period of use. Do you pay more in those instances, of course. If you have an accident and didn't pay the insurance you pay for all repairs. Same as healthcare.

You don't like the argument, make a point that includes more that name calling, if you are capable of such actions.

You are attempting to make an argument about usage, changing the discussion and therefore the logic behind your smackdown in your original attempt. Your second point was factually incorrect which I pointed out. Please, rebut my counter to your post with facts. Calling it dumb is simply as admission you have no other argument.

His metaphor was not that of usage, but as a comparison for the requirement. My comparison was that of requirement. You made a horrible and logically incorrect analogy. The facts you presented were debunked. Had you stuck with your first point only the argument becomes theory. I am not challenging you on your theory, but it was not relevent to his point.

Now, if you want to argue usage, here is a more relevant discussion.

If you don't often use doctors, no need to pay for insurance. You pay when you need to pay. If you don't own a car but instead choose to rent as needed, you pay for insurance at the time of rental for the period of use. Do you pay more in those instances, of course. If you have an accident and didn't pay the insurance you pay for all repairs. Same as healthcare.

You don't like the argument, make a point that includes more that name calling, if you are capable of such actions. Originally Posted by Boltfan

requirement ... or breaking the law... in either case people have the yes or no option

in either case if you break the law you pay a fine ... the law requires you to have car ins if you drive, the law requires you to have health ins if you LIVE, the law doesn't MAKE you buy either one

His metaphor was not that of usage, but as a comparison for the requirement. My comparison was that of requirement. You made a horrible and logically incorrect analogy. Originally Posted by Boltfan

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? My analogy was that of a requirement. So was his. My analogy wasn't perfect. One never is. But mine was closer to the reality than his was. You've said nothing to refute that except "because i say so".

Beyond that, this is about the 18th time we've had this discussion in here.

Yes, this is about the 18th time. The only difference between this and the first 17 is the CNN poll stating the disenchantment among young voters with The President's snooping into their private lives by monitoring their electronic toys, and requiring them to pay the same as old people for health insurance.

In reality, the poll means very little, because it is a long time to 2014 mid terms. Most of these young adults have an attention span even less than older Americans. All of this will be a distant memory as the Democrats will come up with a entire new list of give always and pandering points to win them back.

Yes, this is about the 18th time. The only difference between this and the first 17 is the CNN poll stating the disenchantment among young voters with The President's snooping into their private lives by monitoring their electronic toys, and requiring them to pay the same as old people for health insurance. Originally Posted by Jackie S

huh?

the law protects old people from being gouged because they're old, not raise the price on young'uns to meet the prices the elderly pay ..

huh?

the law protects old people from being gouged because they're old, not raise the price on young'uns to meet the prices the elderly pay .. Originally Posted by CJ7

My point is many of these young people do not believe they should be compelled to pay anything, considering their odds of needing health insurance is pretty low.

Hey, I think everybody should be forced to be part of the program just like you and I. That's he only way it will work.

My point is many of these young people do not believe they should be compelled to pay anything, considering their odds of needing health insurance is pretty low. Originally Posted by Jackie S

And again, my odds, or the odds of anyone in here for that matter, of needing car insurance is even lower. Much lower.

Ironic that these young people who "don't want to pay anything" are becoming conservative heroes.

been with ST Farm since 86, filed one claim in 02 when my truck got stolen

my daughter was on my health ins policy the day she was born, I cant remember how many visits she made to the Dr on that policy ... three that I remember during High School and four or five during college.

oh yeah, my daughter was on (MY) the same auto policy too ... no wrecks, no claims one ticket