Author Topic: Pelosi: "Very Fair" for people to go to jail if they dont sign up for ObamaCare  (Read 8321 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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.     

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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."


tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
I've said before... I don't agree with sending people to jail if they don't have insurance.

I think it's wrong.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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.   

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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?  ;)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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...

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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.   

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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...

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Mons Venus

  • Guest
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.”





BodyProSite

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
i just want nancy girl pelosi to have obamacare , cause she is obviously to old to get treatment and will go away soon

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39490
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
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?