Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 12, 2009, 10:19:41 AM
-
-
I wonder when we are going to jail welfare recipiants?They dont help carry the load...Oh wait,those are the democrat voters,cant do that.
-
According to the liberals on this board:
Palin's Baby is more relevent
Carrie Preijan is more relevent
Fox News is more relevent
Levi Johnston is more relevent
Blaming Bush for being born is more relevent.
Going to jail for not wanting to sign up for ObamaCare? NO PROBLEM!
-
Come on Mons, Lurker, Straw, Benny, Jag, et al, do you agree with Jail Time?
Here is a thought - if Pelosi/Obama - Care were that great, would they need to threaten us will jail if we dont sign up?
-
This is their idea of fairness. I am ok with fines but certainly not jail time, makes no sense. Wake up people, get these idiots out of office in 2010.
-
This is their idea of fairness. I am ok with fines but certainly not jail time, makes no sense. Wake up people, get these idiots out of office in 2010.
Shoot - if I am in jail because I dont sign up for ObamaCare, how can i pay the fine?
Additionally, why are illegals and welfare getting for free, what I am being put in jail for not paying for?
This is so insane, I just have to laugh at the libs on this board who point the finger at me.
Shoot - if its so great - why do i have to be threatened with jail?
-
Excellent points....and they significantly expanded medicaid coverage in this bill...more people that demand services and don't pay. I'm sick of this shit. Some medicaid people are the most demanding entitled bunch I have ever seen. Another reason many docs avoid medicaid, underpayment and a large % of demanding entitled people. You'd think they'd all be happy to have free care...not in most cases I've seen.
That's the problem with too many free services, people don't appreciate them. I hate what this administration is doing.
-
Excellent points....and they significantly expanded medicaid coverage in this bill...more people that demand services and don't pay. I'm sick of this shit. Some medicaid people are the most demanding entitled bunch I have ever seen. Another reason many docs avoid medicaid, underpayment and a large % of demanding entitled people. You'd think they'd all be happy to have free care...not in most cases I've seen.
That's the problem with too many free services, people don't appreciate them. I hate what this administration is doing.
Funny you mention that - many state Govs are rebelling against this insanity because they are shifting a lot of the costs to the states by moving more people to medicaid.
This whole fiasco is disgusting.
I will never ever back down from my comments I have made about this present gang in DC. They are disgusting, insulting, ignorant, and leading us to a terrible place.
-
Funny you mention that - many state Govs are rebelling against this insanity because they are shifting a lot of the costs to the states by moving more people to medicaid.
This whole fiasco is disgusting.
I will never ever back down from my comments I have made about this present gang in DC. They are disgusting, insulting, ignorant, and leading us to a terrible place.
ANYONE CARE TO DEFEND THIS????????????????
-
Some insiders have said this administration is extremely controlling and bully. Similar to Nixon's admin.
-
More leftist bullshit, talk about unconstitutional, who the fuck does she think she is
-
More leftist bullshit, talk about unconstitutional, who the fuck does she think she is
Kazan:
Lets make a wager how many leftists and libs on this board will show up to defend this crap?
My bet is that none of them will. What about you?
I cant wait till 2010. This whole marxist junta is over!
-
Kazan:
Lets make a wager how many leftists and libs on this board will show up to defend this crap?
My bet is that none of them will. What about you?
I cant wait till 2010. This whole marxist junta is over!
Not one, anybody in their right mind cannot defend this bullshit, I only hope that the damage these fuckheads inflict can be reversed
-
Not one, anybody in their right mind cannot defend this bullshit, I only hope that the damage these fuckheads inflict can be reversed
Notice not one of the marixsts have shown up?
-
Notice not one of the marixsts have shown up?
Come on you liberal fags! Defend the tyranny and slavery your heroes wish upon us!
IS THIS WHAT YOU CLOWNS VOTED FOR? JAIL TIME FOR NOT SIGNING UP FOR OBAMACARE?
-
Come on you liberal fags! Defend the tyranny and slavery your heroes wish upon us!
IS THIS WHAT YOU CLOWNS VOTED FOR? JAIL TIME FOR NOT SIGNING UP FOR OBAMACARE?
I try to stay out of the Politics boards because both sides are completely insane.... I will say if someone is going to go to jail for not signing into the healthcare plan, then the entire congress should go to jail, because they put in a provision that says they don't have to sign up for it.
Sounds to me like that's a pot / kettle scenario.
I hope the Senate shoots this down post haste... It's just a poorly done bill.
Both sides are unwilling to compromise and it's very very sad.
-
Shoot - if I am in jail because I dont sign up for ObamaCare, how can i pay the fine?
Additionally, why are illegals and welfare getting for free, what I am being put in jail for not paying for?
This is so insane, I just have to laugh at the libs on this board who point the finger at me.
Shoot - if its so great - why do i have to be threatened with jail?
Seconded.
-
I try to stay out of the Politics boards because both sides are completely insane.... I will say if someone is going to go to jail for not signing into the healthcare plan, then the entire congress should go to jail, because they put in a provision that says they don't have to sign up for it.
Sounds to me like that's a pot / kettle scenario.
I hope the Senate shoots this down post haste... It's just a poorly done bill.
Both sides are unwilling to compromise and it's very very sad.
What is there to compromise about? 1 year vs 5 years in prison? $5,000 penalty as opposed to $250,000K?
The dems are hell bent on this monstrosity and many, including myself, are hell bent on stopping it.
-
What is there to compromise about? 1 year vs 5 years in prison? $5,000 penalty as opposed to $250,000K?
The dems are hell bent on this monstrosity and many, including myself, are hell bent on stopping it.
I'm talking about the bill... Nevermind.
That's why I stopped posting on this board.
-
I'm talking about the bill... Nevermind.
That's why I stopped posting on this board.
Look, I have posted a ton about the bill itself and people refuse to debate the details of this mess.
This mess is so bad on so many levels, its like, what its better to have a half mess? Is that any better?
This disaster is no different than the Stimulus Bill - a jumbled, incoherent, expensive, unpaid-for, massive govt boondagle.
Serious, what is there to compromise over? Unlawful mandates? Jail?
Serious, tell me what is so good about this thing.
-
Well, Democratic politicians also say it's "very fair" for people to go to jail if they don't pay taxes, but these Democrats don't pay taxes themselves and some how they're off the hook when they get caught. :)
-
Well, Democratic politicians also say it's "very fair" for people to go to jail if they don't pay taxes, but these Democrats don't pay taxes themselves and some how they're off the hook when they get caught. :)
POST OF THE DAMN DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
"...I will say if someone is going to go to jail for not signing into the healthcare plan, then the entire congress should go to jail, because they put in a provision that says they don't have to sign up for it".
-------------
Good post.
-
"...I will say if someone is going to go to jail for not signing into the healthcare plan, then the entire congress should go to jail, because they put in a provision that says they don't have to sign up for it".
-------------
Good post.
Shoot - what do other doctors say about this mess?
-
I will say if someone is going to go to jail for not signing into the healthcare plan, then the entire congress should go to jail, because they put in a provision that says they don't have to sign up for it.
Sounds to me like that's a pot / kettle scenario.
Yep, well said.
-
By the way, I think all residents of Japan are required to enroll in a Japanese insurance program.
-
Shoot - if I am in jail because I dont sign up for ObamaCare, how can i pay the fine?
Additionally, why are illegals and welfare getting for free, what I am being put in jail for not paying for?
This is so insane, I just have to laugh at the libs on this board who point the finger at me.
Shoot - if its so great - why do i have to be threatened with jail?
There is not one logical argument to refute your quote above.
I notice that not a single lib has chimed in on this thread, which is already on its second page.
Although, I'm an indi - maybe that counts as half-a-lib.
Well, maybe 1/3.
Okay, definitely a fifth...
-
I had another thought on this:
Lets say they jail me for not signing up for ObamaCare, do I get health care while in jail that the other inmates get?
Regardless of the fact that illegals, welfare queens and bums, and other cheats are all going to get for free what I am threatened with jail to pay for, does anyone else see the sheer lunacy of jailing someone for not paying for ObamaCare, but then giving them free health care while in prison?
IS THIS WHAT YOU GUYS VOTED FOR? ? ?
-
somebody told me this is a ploy to make all the illegals register. is this true?
-
somebody told me this is a ploy to make all the illegals register. is this true?
Yeah, for fee shit courtesy of me and you. No thanks 240.
This health care deform is a disaster of biblical measure.
I seriously an contemplating civil disobedience and letting them jail me over this. I will then file a suit and subpoena Pelosi, Reid, C**t-in-Chief, and all the other STALINISTS who vote for this.
-
Yeah, for fee shit courtesy of me and you. No thanks 240.
This health care deform is a disaster of biblical measure.
I seriously an contemplating civil disobedience and letting them jail me over this. I will then file a suit and subpoena Pelosi, Reid, C**t-in-Chief, and all the other STALINISTS who vote for this.
yeah, i'm all for smaching their knees once I have their info.
But what is the plan? register them, then it's easier to boot them?
-
yeah, i'm all for smaching their knees once I have their info.
But what is the plan? register them, then it's easier to boot them?
Oh yeah, like they are going to ever do that?
Come on bro? - this is about votes period. The illegals will always vote for the people who give them free stuff.
When you take in totality the garbage this admn is pushing on so many levels, there is no reasonable conclusion I can see anyone coming to other than that we mave a true marxist at the helm seeking to fully redistribute everyones' wealth to whom he referred to as "previously dispossessed people".
-
polls show they're gonna get their clock cleaned in 2010. Sitll, obama hasn't screwed up in a big enough way to get down to 35 or 40%.
-
If you Americans want to see who is responsible for a lot of your illegal Mexican immigration problem, you all need to watch Food Inc.
You only have yourself, your corporations and your government to blame. You'll see what I'm talking about when you watch the film.
-
By the way, I think all residents of Japan are required to enroll in a Japanese insurance program.
who gives a flyin' shit what the japanese do...
-
video looks fake.
but I told you guys to invest in the insurance companies because this will probably be true and they're going to rake in the cash more than ever.
-
who gives a flyin' shit what the japanese do...
Oh, I thought you did. Sorry!
-
video looks fake.
but I told you guys to invest in the insurance companies because this will probably be true and they're going to rake in the cash more than ever.
The pelosi movie is fake?
-
video looks fake.
but I told you guys to invest in the insurance companies because this will probably be true and they're going to rake in the cash more than ever.
it actually sounded pretty damn phoney...
i actually don't have a problem with this...i think if this govt healthcare happens..then people should have no excuse for not having insurance..and if you show up without it..your ass should be kicked to the curb..now, i know this can't happen---but i could dream.
the next question is what to do with illegals..now i know the shithead in the oval office wants to make them all citizens but that doesn't work..because you will still have companies that hire these people to avoid paying taxes---
-
If this health care plan is so good, why do I have to be threatened with jail for not signing up and why the the Democrats reject 11 amendments that mandated that they themselves sign up for whatever they pass?
-
it actually sounded pretty damn phoney...
i actually don't have a problem with this...i think if this govt healthcare happens..then people should have no excuse for not having insurance..and if you show up without it..your ass should be kicked to the curb..now, i know this can't happen---but i could dream.
the next question is what to do with illegals..now i know the shithead in the oval office wants to make them all citizens but that doesn't work..because you will still have companies that hire these people to avoid paying taxes---
IS THIS PHONEY TOO? NOTICE COMMUNIST IN CHIEF DOES NOT RULE IT OUT.
-
you people are getting upset at the wrong thing...people can also go to jail for not paying taxes--it happens but it's not very often...the majority of the time someone who bails on their taxes ends up paying them back with interest and penalties...and before you go off half cocked about knowing someone who went to jail for not paying taxes and all that---i said it doesn't happen often..meaning it can happen...but the irs wants their money--not some jabroni who is in jail...
don't get mad a supposed penalties--get mad at the fact that taxpayers will subsidize deadbeats even more...get mad that they want to give illegals amnesty---get mad that no govt operation EVER operates in the expected budget that is set---and get mad that these douches are going to try and ram this stuff down the american people's throats even though the majority of the citizens don't want it.
-
you people are getting upset at the wrong thing...people can also go to jail for not paying taxes--it happens but it's not very often...the majority of the time someone who bails on their taxes ends up paying them back with interest and penalties...and before you go off half cocked about knowing someone who went to jail for not paying taxes and all that---i said it doesn't happen often..meaning it can happen...but the irs wants their money--not some jabroni who is in jail...
don't get mad a supposed penalties--get mad at the fact that taxpayers will subsidize deadbeats even more...get mad that they want to give illegals amnesty---get mad that no govt operation EVER operates in the expected budget that is set---and get mad that these douches are going to try and ram this stuff down the american people's throats even though the majority of the citizens don't want it.
I already had a long tirade on this is another thread, but what happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I think this quote sums things up pretty well:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis
-
you people are getting upset at the wrong thing...people can also go to jail for not paying taxes--it happens but it's not very often...the majority of the time someone who bails on their taxes ends up paying them back with interest and penalties...and before you go off half cocked about knowing someone who went to jail for not paying taxes and all that---i said it doesn't happen often..meaning it can happen...but the irs wants their money--not some jabroni who is in jail...
don't get mad a supposed penalties--get mad at the fact that taxpayers will subsidize deadbeats even more...get mad that they want to give illegals amnesty---get mad that no govt operation EVER operates in the expected budget that is set---and get mad that these douches are going to try and ram this stuff down the american people's throats even though the majority of the citizens don't want it.
I cant wait till they try to enforce this UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE BY JAIL!
-
Only STALINISTS would agree with this crap.
-
I already had a long tirade on this is another thread, but what happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I think this quote sums things up pretty well:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis
i agree with you....
and get mad that these douches are going to try and ram this stuff down the american people's throats even though the majority of the citizens don't want it.
-
Another thing - this moron president we have is either intentionally lying or even dumber than I thought to compare health insurance to car insurance.
But keep bashing Palin and Prejan you marxist idiots while Obama/Pelosi try to JAIL you for not paying for private insurance that they are making deals with and accepting campaign cash from.
-
The pelosi movie is fake?
i dunno, the guy asking the question sounded clipped in. I guess it doesn't really matter since that's the way it will probably be.
-
Only STALINISTS would agree with this crap.
you're like Mr. Intenseone Vol 2.
-
you're like Mr. Intenseone Vol 2.
Hugo - think about it - THEY WANT TO JAIL PEOPLE FOR NOT PURCHASING INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT THEY ACCEPT CAMPAIGN CASH FROM!
What the hell country are we living in?
-
IS THIS PHONEY TOO? NOTICE COMMUNIST IN CHIEF DOES NOT RULE IT OUT.
LOL this man actually believes the shit he spews....
first the whole "it will run as well as the post office" like thats a good thing ::)
and now comparing this atrocity to auto insurance? LOL
the man forgot to say that auto insurance is ELECTIVE the health insurance would not be it would be a FORCED REQUIREMENT that ppl sign up.
If you dont want to drive you dont need auto insurance but if you want to live in america you have to get health insurance...ya thats just the same ::)
-
Isn't the post office on the verge of going bankrupt? Definitely a shining example of success.
-
There are no cost controls in any of the bills. So, what if the carriers raise the rates insanely due to all the new mandates and I can no long afford it?
I deserve Jail? WTF? ? ?
-
Isn't the post office on the verge of going bankrupt? Definitely a shining example of success.
This was a simple YES or NO question.
Notice the stammering, nonsensical blather, uuhhh's ummmm uhhs, and idiotic comparison to car insurance?
-
oh yea I am sure thats what the founding fathers had in mind
-
oh yea I am sure thats what the founding fathers had in mind
BodyProsite: didnt you hear? Obama thinks our nation is fatally flawed from its inception?
-
gosh what he says means alot , seeing as how he still cant produce american school records b4 high school or a long form birth cert huh? and that he lied to everyone his second day in office bold faced
-
gosh what he says means alot , seeing as how he still cant produce american school records b4 high school or a long form birth cert huh? and that he lied to everyone his second day in office bold faced
Yeah, i have been attacked for saying those things.
Not one of the obamabots can defend this clip.
-
BodyProsite: didnt you hear? Obama thinks our nation is fatally flawed from its inception?
I think Obama is fundamentally flawed, from his conception
-
if obama and all these liberals are so dam concerned with other people and other countries why dont they move there, not transform america to cater to these pieces of shit that dont give a crap about america and just want to exploit it fucking leave and go take care of the world from somewhere else and let america be what once made america great
-
I think Obama is fundamentally flawed, from his conception
I still want to know two things:
1. If Obamacare is so good why do I need to be threatened with jail for not signing up?
2. If ObamaCare is so good, why did the democrats reject 11 amendments excluding themselves from this?
-
if obama and all these liberals are so dam concerned with other people and other countries why dont they move there, not transform america to cater to these pieces of shit that dont give a crap about america and just want to exploit it fucking leave and go take care of the world from somewhere else and let america be what once made america great
Because they couldn't get away with the shit they pull here in any other country
-
LOL this man actually believes the shit he spews....
first the whole "it will run as well as the post office" like thats a good thing ::)
and now comparing this atrocity to auto insurance? LOL
the man forgot to say that auto insurance is ELECTIVE the health insurance would not be it would be a FORCED REQUIREMENT that ppl sign up.
If you dont want to drive you dont need auto insurance but if you want to live in america you have to get health insurance...ya thats just the same ::)
Actually Auto Insurance is a requirement... Or you have to pay an uninsured motorist fee.
-
Actually Auto Insurance is a requirement... Or you have to pay an uninsured motorist fee.
You have the choice to drive or not. Additionally, car insurance is to protect the driver you hit if in an accident.
Mandating health insurance is like a living tax. Its utterly ridiculous.
-
Actually Auto Insurance is a requirement... Or you have to pay an uninsured motorist fee.
Auto insurance laws are state laws, why is it so hard to understand the difference between state and federal law?
-
Auto insurance laws are state laws, why is it so hard to understand the difference between state and federal law?
You are not forced to own a car. Additionally, you are not required to insurance yourzself to have a drivers' license. The insurance is on the vehicle, not necessailry the individual driver.
-
Auto insurance laws are state laws, why is it so hard to understand the difference between state and federal law?
I didn't say there wasn't a difference between state and federal laws, however they are still laws... and legally if you drive, you have to have car insurance.
Are you being difficult just for difficulties sake?
I'm not saying Obama is right here... I'm just saying that a fact is a fact.
Legally you have to have car insurance if you drive.
No more, no less.
-
I didn't say there wasn't a difference between state and federal laws, however they are still laws... and legally if you drive, you have to have car insurance.
Are you being difficult just for difficulties sake?
I'm not saying Obama is right here... I'm just saying that a fact is a fact.
Legally you have to have car insurance if you drive.
No more, no less.
Depends on what state you are in, not trying be difficult, I am pointing out what is and isn't constitutional.
-
I didn't say there wasn't a difference between state and federal laws, however they are still laws... and legally if you drive, you have to have car insurance.
Are you being difficult just for difficulties sake?
I'm not saying Obama is right here... I'm just saying that a fact is a fact.
Legally you have to have car insurance if you drive.
No more, no less.
Wrong. You do not need insurance to have a license. You need insurance if you own a vehicle. The two are very different.
-
September 10, 2009, 02:00 PM ET
Mandatory Health Insurance Is Not Like Mandatory Auto Insurance
By Diane Auer Jones
I keep hearing comparisons between the proposal for mandatory health insurance coverage and the requirement that drivers maintain auto insurance. Sounds good, but the comparison just doesn’t work. In reality, car-insurance coverage is not mandated to all Americans, all adults, or even all licensed drivers (one can maintain a license but not auto insurance if he or she does not plan to drive a car). Auto insurance is but one price that must be paid in order to enjoy the privilege of driving.
Alternatively, the mandatory health insurance proposal would essentially require that, in exchange for the privilege of ... citizenship? Residency in the U.S.? Life? ... one must procure health insurance for herself and her family. Can pedestrians “opt out” of mandatory health-insurance coverage, and more importantly, where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the right to mandate health insurance coverage in the first place?
Oh that’s right -- through its right to collect taxes. Since the only way to implement and enforce such a mandate is through the government’s ability to levy and collect taxes, let’s be very clear about the fact that a health-insurance mandate is, indeed, a new tax. I am not an anti-tax person, so the mere fact that mandatory health insurance is a tax doesn’t make me oppose the proposal. There may be good reasons to add such a tax, and the idea might be very well received if the program is structured appropriately and the cost burden distributed equitably. What concerns me most about the proposal, however, is that it represents the increasing creep of government mandates into the lives of individuals and families, perhaps beyond the limits and ideals of the Constitution. Are we soon going to see presidents mandate that everyone get married, earn a college degree and jog 10 miles a day because of the societal benefits of each of these activities?
But even if we get our terminology straight, and we use the government’s right to levy and collect taxes to implement this new mandate, we must understand that the real difference between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance is that the former is required to protect other people (like the people who might suffer injury or property loss in an accident that you cause), while the later is in place to protect the policy-holder. Moreover, auto insurance covers catastrophic loss, but not the day-to-day maintenance of the car. We don’t’ bill our car insurance companies for gasoline, tune ups, oil changes, and replacement parts -- and if we did, probably none of us could afford to purchase car insurance. By analogy, then, if we do adopt a mandatory health insurance policy, perhaps the mandated portion of this coverage should be limited to coverage for catastrophic care.
A catastrophic-care tax might be a reasonable idea, and something that even the anti-tax contingent would support, since ultimately the insured are all paying for the catastrophic care of the uninsured anyway. Certainly one could make the case that since we all pay when an uninsured individual has a serious accident or medical condition, catastrophic health-care coverage for the individual does, indeed, protect others. Those who have private coverage could enjoy relief from this additional tax liability, and to reward good behavior, we could reduce a person’s catastrophic-care tax liability if he or she demonstrates a commitment to preventative care, such as eating well, exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding cigarettes, drugs, excess use of alcohol.
Like all legislative proposals, the devil will be in the details that still remain unclear to the American people. It may be imprudent (and just too costly) to try to overhaul every aspect of our health insurance system in a single legislative proposal, but if we can start to focus on solvable issues, slowly but surely we might be able to make real, bipartisan progress. Catastrophic-care insurance coverage may be a good place to begin, and solutions in this area may generate the kinds of cost savings that are needed to reform additional parts of the health-insurance system. And we might learn some valuable lessons through this focused effort that could enable us to develop even better solutions to the larger problem.
Incremental progress might mean that President Obama isn’t the last president to talk about health-care reform, as total system overhaul could take years to accomplish, but I think it was he who asserted that health-care reform is too important to be the victim of concerns about political wins and losses.
E-mail Print Comment (8) Share
-
Depends on what state you are in, not trying be difficult, I am pointing out what is and isn't constitutional.
I don't know of any state that allows you to either have zero insurance, not pay a fee for having zero insurance, or have some financial clause (net worth) for payout in case of accident.
Whether or not something is unconstitutional is unfortunately always subject to debate... prohibition, slavery, and other items come to mind.
I personally, flip flop on whether or not something is unconstitutional or not, because history has shown me that sometimes doing the right thing requires a constitutional amendment.
Not saying that's the case here with the Medical plan... Just in general.
-
Wrong. You do not need insurance to have a license. You need insurance if you own a vehicle. The two are very different.
Not true... You need insurance of some sort if you DRIVE a vehicle.
Whether on you, or on the vehicle's owner... someone has to pay for insurance if you drive it.
They are not as different as you or many other people would like it to believe... So far off topic it's crazy though.
-
Not true... You need insurance of some sort if you DRIVE a vehicle.
Whether on you, or on the vehicle's owner... someone has to pay for insurance if you drive it.
They are not as different as you or many other people would like it to believe... So far off topic it's crazy though.
No its not!
When i was 18 and got my license I did not have insurance. I drove my parents' car and was on their policy.
-
No its not!
When i was 18 and got my license I did not have insurance. I drove my parents' car and was on their policy.
Yes, because THEY paid the insurance dude.
You couldn't just drive without insurance... Someone paid for it.
Come on man. Stop arguing just to argue.
-
Unless your like the mexican illegal that totalled my car back in college running a stop light. She was cited, then we found out she had zero insurance. Didn't have a damn licence either. Guess who's insurance premium went up....
-
Yes, because THEY paid the insurance dude.
You couldn't just drive without insurance... Someone paid for it.
Come on man. Stop arguing just to argue.
It was my CHOICE to drive or not.
I dont have the choice of living or not unless someone kills me. You dont see the difference?
Additionally, the govt does not subsidize low income drivers' insurance like they will with this mess, thereby making the policies more expensive then if he had a decent marketplace where costs were kept under control by competition.
Under this scheme, there is no incentive for carriers to control costs. Even the CBO said the premiuims will go higher with the poublic option and madates than without.
-
It was my CHOICE to drive or not.
I dont have the choice of living or not unless someone kills me. You dont see the difference?
Additionally, the govt does not subsidize low income drivers' insurance like they will with this mess, thereby making the policies more expensive then if he had a decent marketplace where costs were kept under control by competition.
Under this scheme, there is no incentive for carriers to control costs. Even the CBO said the premiuims will go higher with the poublic option and madates than without.
Dude... Seriously... We're arguing about whether or not you had to have insurance to drive a car? Come on man.
This is why I avoid this board so much.
-
Dude... Seriously... We're arguing about whether or not you had to have insurance to drive a car? Come on man.
This is why I avoid this board so much.
No we are not. The issue is driving is a privilege and you get a drivers license. You dont need a license to live and it is not considered a privilidge in the legal sense.
The two are grossly different.
-
No we are not. The issue is driving is a privilege and you get a drivers license. You dont need a license to live and it is not considered a privilidge in the legal sense.
The two are grossly different.
I'm not talking about whether the license is a privilege... I'm saying that if you do drive, you gotta have insurance.
-
I'm not talking about whether the license is a privilege... I'm saying that if you do drive, you gotta have insurance.
Fine, we are arguiong semantics. I found this article which is pretty good
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
A Health Insurance Mandate That Works Like Auto Insurance? Think Again
by Judson Berger
, FOXNews.com
Critics are urging the Obama administration to use a different, more representative comparison than car insurance to justify a health insurance mandate.
print email share recommend (0)
In building the case for mandatory health insurance, President Obama and congressional Democrats are comparing a proposed requirement to buy health coverage to the need for all car owners to buy auto insurance.
"Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved," Obama said in his address last week to Congress. "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
But this analogy is becoming a liability, so to speak.
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.
Former Department of Health and Human Services officials Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith noted this difference in a paper examining the constitutional implications of an individual mandate for The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
"The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself," they wrote. They also noted that the auto insurance mandate acts as a "quid pro quo" for the states to issue a driver's license.
Nevermind that Obama explicitly opposed such a provision during the Democratic presidential primaries. It was one of the few policy differences between him and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.
"My belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it. And so I emphasize reducing costs," Obama explained at a February 2008 debate in Austin, Texas.
Fast forward to last week, before a joint session of Congress, when the president wholeheartedly embraced the concept.
Obama does want to ease the burden by offering some kind of alternative to private insurance, possibly a government-run option, and providing for exemptions. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' plan includes tax credits for those who might have trouble affording coverage. But it also imposes hefty fines on those who don't comply.
Auto insurance mandates have not eliminated the problem, though.
Donald Griffin, also with The Property Casualty Insurers Association, said anywhere from 8 to 14 percent of motorists are uninsured in most states despite the requirement.
"Still, we have this problem, so those requirements don't seem to do much to solve the uninsured motorist problem," he said.
There are, of course, other differences between health care reform as Obama proposes it and the auto insurance industry. The kind of payout caps Obama wants to restrict and other limitations on coverage are standard practice in the auto insurance industry. Plus, the regulation of that industry is decided at the state level. Not the federal level.
The truth is, there is not really a comparison out there.
The Congressional Budget Office said as much in 1994 when it issued a paper on the Clinton-era call for a health insurance mandate.
"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," the CBO said.
Interestingly, the closest thing the CBO could find to mandatory health insurance was the draft.
"Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law," the report said.
In light of the 1994 report, Cannon amended his earlier comment. There is one way to avoid a health insurance mandate, he said: "Fleeing to Canada."
-
I've said before... I don't agree with sending people to jail if they don't have insurance.
I think it's wrong.
-
I've said before... I don't agree with sending people to jail if they don't have insurance.
I think it's wrong.
Aside from the insanity of it, what is a family of four to do if the govt mandates all sort of things on the carriers and rates go through the roof to where the family can no longer afford it?
In that case the govt is literally forcing the parents into jail because the person cant afford the cost of the insurance that the govt itself assisted drive up the cost.
There are no cost containments in this bill. None whatsoever.
-
Actually Auto Insurance is a requirement... Or you have to pay an uninsured motorist fee.
it is only a requirement if YOU CHOOSE TO DRIVE.......the optimal word the being CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
this is mandatory to EVERYONE...the optimal word there being EVVVVEEEEERRRRRRYYYYYYOOOOOONNNNNNEEEEEEE
see the difference? ;)
-
it is only a requirement if YOU CHOOSE TO DRIVE.......the optimal word the being CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
this is mandatory to EVERYONE...the optimal word there being EVVVVEEEEERRRRRRYYYYYYOOOOOONNNNNNEEEEEEE
see the difference? ;)
Someone tell that to Dear Leader. He seems very confused over the two.
-
it is only a requirement if YOU CHOOSE TO DRIVE.......the optimal word the being CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
this is mandatory to EVERYONE...the optimal word there being EVVVVEEEEERRRRRRYYYYYYOOOOOONNNNNNEEEEEEE
see the difference? ;)
In this country, unless you live in New York, Chicago, or Boston, and you're a productive member of society... In some way shape or form, you have to drive.
Cut the crap... You know it's true.
People in THIS COUNTRY have to drive.
Not being able to drive means you're a bum... period.
-
In this country, unless you live in New York, Chicago, or Boston, and you're a productive member of society... In some way shape or form, you have to drive.
Cut the crap... You know it's true.
People in THIS COUNTRY have to drive.
Not being able to drive means you're a bum... period.
ITS STILL A CHOIIIIIIICCCCCCEEEEEEE....dispute that...
if you cant, which you cant then its not a valid comparison...there are plenty of ppl who take taxis everywhere or use public transportation...
-
ITS STILL A CHOIIIIIIICCCCCCEEEEEEE....dispute that...
if you cant, which you cant then its not a valid comparison...there are plenty of ppl who take taxis everywhere or use public transportation...
Dude... if you think driving in this country is a choice, then you truly are delusional.
If a person in Oklahoma chooses not to drive... He's choosing to sit on his ass.
This country is huge and is built around the automobile.
Cut the shit man.
-
Dude... if you think driving in this country is a choice, then you truly are delusional.
If a person in Oklahoma chooses not to drive... He's choosing to sit on his ass.
This country is huge and is built around the automobile.
Cut the shit man.
No its not, this mandate is literally a breathing tax and have never been done before. Even the CBO said this is unprecedented.
-
No its not, this mandate is literally a breathing tax and have never been done before. Even the CBO said this is unprecedented.
I'm not fucking talking about this policy.
This is why I stopped posting on this board.
PAY ATTENTION.
1. I agree with the premise that this is wrong... It is IN FACT, a breathing tax... I AGREE.
2. Car insurance is effectively the same thing in this country.
Does everyone understand what I'm saying?
Goddam there's a ton of hard headed people on this fvcking board.
-
I'm not fucking talking about this policy.
This is why I stopped posting on this board.
PAY ATTENTION.
1. I agree with the premise that this is wrong... It is IN FACT, a breathing tax... I AGREE.
2. Car insurance is effectively the same thing in this country.
Does everyone understand what I'm saying?
Goddam there's a ton of hard headed people on this fvcking board.
Ok fine, however, auto insurance is a state by state thing. This monstrosity they are talking about is a nation plan. The unintended consequences that can come about because of this crazy policy are endless.
-
I'm not fucking talking about this policy.
This is why I stopped posting on this board.
PAY ATTENTION.
1. I agree with the premise that this is wrong... It is IN FACT, a breathing tax... I AGREE.
2. Car insurance is effectively the same thing in this country.
Does everyone understand what I'm saying?
Goddam there's a ton of hard headed people on this fvcking board.
our point was that the comparison is invalid...
FACT OF THE MATTER is you are not required by LAW to have a car, there are other alternatives to driving a car. IT ISNT REQUIRED...
whether it is feasible to live in the US without a car isnt the point the point is you can if you choooooooossssseeeee to...
-
Ok fine, however, auto insurance is a state by state thing. This monstrosity they are talking about is a nation plan. The unintended consequences that can come about because of this crazy policy are endless.
Whether it's state by state or not isn't really the point... No state allows you to not have some amount of coverage... It may as well be a national law.
Part of the problem with health care is that there is no competition... You need to have something that's national that can cross state lines... State laws are not helping in this case.
I do agree that the plan as written is terribly bad... I pray the Senate shoots it down myself.
HowEVER... If it does get shot down, then I expect that in 2010, the Republicans do SOMETHING to help the healthcare costs, because if they do not... Then they are simply doing the same thing they did in 94... Ignoring a real problem that the country does need solved.
Healthcare costs are too damn high.
-
our point was that the comparison is invalid...
FACT OF THE MATTER is you are not required by LAW to have a car, there are other alternatives to driving a car. IT ISNT REQUIRED...
whether it is feasible to live in the US without a car isnt the point the point is you can if you choooooooossssseeeee to...
Feasibility is directly related to the choices you have at times.... Why are you just doing this to be difficult?
Seriously unbelievable.
-
Feasibility is directly related to the choices you have at times.... Why are you just doing this to be difficult?
Seriously unbelievable.
Look I understand what youre saying but the fact is ppl can live here without cars and thus without auto insurance...ive had buddies who dont have cars b/c they lived close to work and never needed one...
The difference is a choice
why are you coming in here trying to defend his idiotic statement auto insurance is a choice plain and simple.
-
Look I understand what youre saying but the fact is ppl can live here without cars and thus without auto insurance...ive had buddies who dont have cars b/c they lived close to work and never needed one...
The difference is a choice
why are you coming in here trying to defend his idiotic statement auto insurance is a choice plain and simple.
You're right... why I even come on this board at times is idiotic.
-
Fine, we are arguiong semantics. I found this article which is pretty good______________________________________________________________________
A Health Insurance Mandate That Works Like Auto Insurance? Think Again
by Judson Berger
, FOXNews.com
Critics are urging the Obama administration to use a different, more representative comparison than car insurance to justify a health insurance mandate.
print email share recommend (0)
In building the case for mandatory health insurance, President Obama and congressional Democrats are comparing a proposed requirement to buy health coverage to the need for all car owners to buy auto insurance.
"Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved," Obama said in his address last week to Congress. "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
But this analogy is becoming a liability, so to speak.
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.
Former Department of Health and Human Services officials Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith noted this difference in a paper examining the constitutional implications of an individual mandate for The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
"The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself," they wrote. They also noted that the auto insurance mandate acts as a "quid pro quo" for the states to issue a driver's license.
Nevermind that Obama explicitly opposed such a provision during the Democratic presidential primaries. It was one of the few policy differences between him and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.
"My belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it. And so I emphasize reducing costs," Obama explained at a February 2008 debate in Austin, Texas.
Fast forward to last week, before a joint session of Congress, when the president wholeheartedly embraced the concept.
Obama does want to ease the burden by offering some kind of alternative to private insurance, possibly a government-run option, and providing for exemptions. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' plan includes tax credits for those who might have trouble affording coverage. But it also imposes hefty fines on those who don't comply.
Auto insurance mandates have not eliminated the problem, though.
Donald Griffin, also with The Property Casualty Insurers Association, said anywhere from 8 to 14 percent of motorists are uninsured in most states despite the requirement.
"Still, we have this problem, so those requirements don't seem to do much to solve the uninsured motorist problem," he said.
There are, of course, other differences between health care reform as Obama proposes it and the auto insurance industry. The kind of payout caps Obama wants to restrict and other limitations on coverage are standard practice in the auto insurance industry. Plus, the regulation of that industry is decided at the state level. Not the federal level.
The truth is, there is not really a comparison out there.
The Congressional Budget Office said as much in 1994 when it issued a paper on the Clinton-era call for a health insurance mandate.
"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," the CBO said.
Interestingly, the closest thing the CBO could find to mandatory health insurance was the draft.
"Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law," the report said.
In light of the 1994 report, Cannon amended his earlier comment. There is one way to avoid a health insurance mandate, he said: "Fleeing to Canada."
Faux News lies and admits to it.....UNDER OATH.
Worthless post!
Fox Admits they lie and distort news.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”
-
i just want nancy girl pelosi to have obamacare , cause she is obviously to old to get treatment and will go away soon
-
i just want nancy #### pelosi to have obamacare , cause she is obviously to old to get treatment and will go away soon
CAN YOU SUPPORTERS OF THIS MESS ANSWER TO QUESTIONS:
IF OBAMACARE IS SO GOOD:
1. WE DO WE NEED TO BE THREATENED WITH JAIL TO SIGN UP?
2. WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS REJECT 11 AMENDMENTS EXEMPTING THEMSELVES FROM THIS?