Mandate Health Insurance?

To me, Obamacare is not even the issue, it's about whether we want the government to rule the people, or do we want the people to rule the government? If Obamacare is constitutional under the commerce clause which is what SCOTUS is debating, then congress can pass any law requiring us to purchase any product they say is good for us. And that is the precedent that will tear down a Democracy and what we fought against in the first place. Then, all the states will have to decide if they want to repeal Obamacare on the state level and is going to be a huge mess. Originally Posted by nwarounder

True, have a zero tolerance for gangstas and parents that allow their children to look and act like gangstas, and I have yet to find any use for them in society. If you like em, by all means run with them and teach your children the gangsta way. Originally Posted by nwarounder

I accept your apology for your previous inflammatory post. When you said 'good riddance' you really meant they should be shown zero tolerance, and be placed into a reforming institution, not that they should be shot.

I'm sorry for not understanding the subtleties of your use of the phrase 'good riddance'. You meant 'good riddance' to the gang culture, not 'good riddance' to the person. I apologise for the fact that you did not have enough time or education or discipline or motivation to express yourself more carefully. My apologies.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn


Look at car insurance. If it was not mandatory, irresponsible drivers would wreck the lives of the responsible drivers.

Hey Fast Gun - I live in San Antonio, TX and there are lots of irresponsible drivers who do drive without mandatory insurance and they DO wreck the lives of responsible drivers.

Here's a question for the liberals - why is it OK to force every american to either obtain health insurance (via their employer or purchase it by themselves) or pay a penalty (via the IRS at around $1,800 per year)? Yet you liberals cry foul when republicans want every voter to provide a valid ID to vote? Your argument is that the poor cannot afford to purchase a valid ID, but you have no problem forcing the average american to spend money on something they should be able to chose NOT to buy?

Originally Posted by satexasguy

Can't answer your question, but I'm curious if you can buy health insurance from a provider without an ID? I have always been asked for my ID from insurance companies. Definitely makes Holder look a little stupid if you can't.

Can't answer your question, but I'm curious if you can buy health insurance from a provider without an ID? Originally Posted by nwarounder

I had to read this a few times before I clicked. Why on earth would you want to get health insurance from a provider, and I always thought provider screening should not include id's? We are on a hooker board, right?

On the substantive issue, I know a lot of girls who seem to loose their id's about as often as they get a new phone, but they can all afford to get a new one, it is essential (to get a drink from me, for example), yet few of them can currently afford medical insurance.

I have no problem insisting on id's for voting, so long as there are processes to ensure you can't trace back how somebody voted.

I accept your apology for your previous inflammatory post. When you said 'good riddance' you really meant they should be shown zero tolerance, and be placed into a reforming institution, not that they should be shot.

I'm sorry for not understanding the subtleties of your use of the phrase 'good riddance'. You meant 'good riddance' to the gang culture, not 'good riddance' to the person. I apologise for the fact that you did not have enough time or education or discipline or motivation to express yourself more carefully. My apologies. Originally Posted by essence

My apology was to you if you if you felt a little butthurt from my post, and still stands. But the latter, you completely misunderstood, I'm perfectly okay with a bullet through the head of every gang member in America. I would support a law that imprisoned their parents for not teaching their adolescent kids any better though.

I had to read this a few times before I clicked. Why on earth would you want to get health insurance from a provider, and I always thought provider screening should not include id's? We are on a hooker board, right?

On the substantive issue, I know a lot of girls who seem to loose their id's about as often as they get a new phone, but they can all afford to get a new one, it is essential (to get a drink from me, for example), yet few of them can currently afford medical insurance.

I have no problem insisting on id's for voting, so long as there are processes to ensure you can't trace back how somebody voted. Originally Posted by essence

LOL, insurance provider...

A thing to note; we won't know how this will fall until June. This week is about a 150 year old law on whether or not the Supreme Court will, or will, take the case since no one has been "harmed" yet. The court will hear this and will publish their opinion in June.

It's not mandatory....I don't have a car...but I do have a body! Originally Posted by canoodle

It's not mandatory that you buy health insurance either. Sure, there's a "penalty" if you don't, but consider this:

If my neighbor, who i work with and makes exactly the same income as i do, doesn't buy health insurance, but i do, he'll pay more in taxes than i would. The government isn't forcing him to buy insurance, but they are telling him that he'll pay less in taxes if he does.

Similarly, if my neighbor buys a house and i don't, using the interest deduction, he'll pay less in taxes than i would. The government isn't telling me i must buy a house, but they are telling me that if i do buy a house, i'll pay less in taxes.

Similarly, a few years ago, the government didn't force me to buy a car, but they did tell me that if i bought a car i could deduct the sales tax and pay less in Federal Income taxes.

Similarly, the government doesn't force me to buy a new high efficiency furnace, but it has told me that if i buy a high efficiency furnace, i'll pay less in taxes.

So one person's mandate is simply another person's incentive.

It's not mandatory that you buy health insurance either. Sure, there's a "penalty" if you don't, but consider this:

If my neighbor, who i work with and makes exactly the same income as i do, doesn't buy health insurance, but i do, he'll pay more in taxes than i would. The government isn't forcing him to buy insurance, but they are telling him that he'll pay less in taxes if he does.

Similarly, if my neighbor buys a house and i don't, using the interest deduction, he'll pay less in taxes than i would. The government isn't telling me i must buy a house, but they are telling me that if i do buy a house, i'll pay less in taxes.

Similarly, a few years ago, the government didn't force me to buy a car, but they did tell me that if i bought a car i could deduct the sales tax and pay less in Federal Income taxes.

Similarly, the government doesn't force me to buy a new high efficiency furnace, but it has told me that if i buy a high efficiency furnace, i'll pay less in taxes.

So one person's mandate is simply another person's incentive. Originally Posted by Doove

Exactly.

What some of these numbnuts do not understand is that we already are 'forced' to pay insurance for folks in the form of ER care for the poor. All this bill does is equal out that payment.

A thing to note; we won't know how this will fall until June. This week is about a 150 year old law on whether or not the Supreme Court will, or will, take the case since no one has been "harmed" yet. The court will hear this and will publish their opinion in June. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No just yesterday was about that aspect. The next two days will be about the meat of the matter.

The Obama administration is aruging that the mandate isn't a "penalty" but a tax ! Significant legal difference. Taxing someone for NOT engaging in a commercial transaction !

To apply DOOVE's comparison; if a driver doesn't carry auto insurance (even thou required), then he is uninsured and an insurance pool picks up the expense. The uninsured driver isn't covered for any losses or damages....that isn't what Obamacare does!

Exactly.

What some of these numbnuts do not understand is that we already are 'forced' to pay insurance for folks in the form of ER care for the poor. All this bill does is equal out that payment.

No just yesterday was about that aspect. The next two days will be about the meat of the matter. Originally Posted by WTF

The Obama administration is aruging that the mandate isn't a "penalty" but a tax ! Significant legal difference. Taxing someone for NOT engaging in a commercial transaction !

To apply DOOVE's comparison; if a driver doesn't carry auto insurance (even thou required), then he is uninsured and an insurance pool picks up the expense. The uninsured driver isn't covered for any losses or damages....that isn't what Obamacare does! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That is even more reason why the Court will rule in the administrations favor.

There was a reason why the admin fast tracked this thing. Do you think it was because they thought they were going to lose?

All this is , is a tax. I actually agree with the argument yesterday that this is premature to go before the SC. The admin and congress might not have called it a tax just like they do not call half these wars we are in wars but they are. You and I know they are Wars and you and I know this is a tax. At least I do. I am giving you the benifit of being that smart. Don't dissappoint me!

Comments in this section stating that car insurance is mandatory are not correct in Texas. The state does not care whether you insure your car or not. Personally, I do not. I own around 25 vehicles and save 15k or so per year and have since 1982. Since that time, I have spent around 8k on fender benders. The math says I can lose a vehicle every other year and be ahead. The savings are invested in my business and investments, and I'm way, way ahead.

Regarding damaging other people's property or person, the state does require that you show financial responsibility. Buying insurance is only one way to do so. I can easily meet the financial responsibility requirement without insurance, but choose (my choice) to pass that risk to an insurance company. The state does not require insurance.

A "bloody human right" is automatic and requires no one to perform a task for you to have it. Think about it; the right to be free, the right to speak out, the right to meet your fellow soccer (football) thugs, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right not to incriminate yourself. All of these rights (when you have them) require no one to do anything on your behalf, they just are. There is no right to healthcare because someone has to provide that right. In fact it would bring back slavery on healthcare workers because if there was not enough to go around then they would be forced to provide this "right". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are a complete idiot but I already knew that.

Comments in this section stating that car insurance is mandatory are not correct in Texas. The state does not care whether you insure your car or not. Personally, I do not. I own around 25 vehicles and save 15k or so per year and have since 1982. Since that time, I have spent around 8k on fender benders. The math says I can lose a vehicle every other year and be ahead. The savings are invested in my business and investments, and I'm way, way ahead.

Regarding damaging other people's property or person, the state does require that you show financial responsibility. Buying insurance is only one way to do so. I can easily meet the financial responsibility requirement without insurance, but choose (my choice) to pass that risk to an insurance company. The state does not require insurance. Originally Posted by Jaitch

I bet you pay a lot of tickets in Texas..lol

I am totally loving the Texassure program haha

sooooo nobody really wanted to talk about the subject

unconstitutional, Nazi, socialist Republicans mandate healthcare


go figure. Originally Posted by CJ7

I don't give a shit who brought this bill about, it needs to be taken down. Who cares which side it is? They are wrong. I will not submit to an individual mandate. I'll sit out the TAX they will charge me in a little small town pokey and nap for a couple days on the state dime. I will NEVER be made to buy something I don't want or need.

Health care needs reform but this is NOT the way. If I were an above board small business I'd be unable to hire anyone right now with the uncertainty of the future. The government actions are effectively forcing many small business owners under the radar to be able to make ends meet. You guys that work for someone else have no idea what I'm talking about but I assure you, I can't run any business with this government crawling up my pants and inside my pockets.