Tea Party

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Not at all. Just had a good laugh at the partisan hacks on here;

You must love reading your own stuff then.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Thie rgoal is honorable, I am amazed that more people don;t care about
>what is happening to this country . . .

Such people exist. They elected Obama in the last election cycle.

Now that is the best laugh I have had all day!

So your saying socialism is the best way?

Show me one just ONE example where Obama is a socialist, do you know what a socialist is? Give me a break man.

The HC bill for one

Okay, what about the health care bill is socialist?

All of it but specifically the part where the gov requires you to buy something and if you dont fine you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Okay, what about the health care bill is socialist?

All of it but specifically the part where the gov requires you to buy something and if you dont fine you

So then, by your definition, auto insurance in California is "socialist" even though it helps protect against financial hardships (which would be far worse) if hit by an uninsured motorist.

I really don't see the beef. One way or another we all end up paying for the uninsured as it is. This is just more up front about it and provides an incentive for people to have healthcare insurance rather than clogging up emergency rooms.

Or, are clogged up emergency rooms something you see at a "benefit" of unregulated and "free market" health care?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

Well let's just go with the most obvious. A law requiring people to purchase a product.

Is requiring automobile insurance socialist?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Well let's just go with the most obvious. A law requiring people to purchase a product.

Is requiring automobile insurance socialist?
Wendy P.

canard and red herring NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance . what IS required is if you do buy auto insurance , you MUST buy uninsured motorist insurance . this is because NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance.

[wmw999 2,447]

The requirement is to buy liability insurance, to protect other drivers. I don't think you have to buy uninsured motorist insurance (which protects the purchaser against other drivers without insurance).

Is your objection that you have to provide evidence of ability to pay for health problems? Unlike cars (which aren't required), with many health problems the state or hospital ends up covering the cost anyway. So mitigating that is part of planning.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

Quote

canard and red herring NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance . what IS required is if you do buy auto insurance , you MUST buy uninsured motorist insurance . this is because NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance.

Are you sure?
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

Because according to this is sure sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

canard and red herring NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance . what IS required is if you do buy auto insurance , you MUST buy uninsured motorist insurance . this is because NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance.

Are you sure?
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

Because according to this is sure sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

No, no one is required to buy auto insurance. You aren't required to buy a car.

Many (most) states require you to have insurance if you wish to drive your car on public roads, but if you have a "Back 40 Beater" that you only drive on private property (and don't register) you aren't required to have insurance on it either.

The part I find funny about the argument against health insurance (requiring people to purchase a product against their will) is that these same people have no issues with requiring a private business to provide a service (and a very expensive one at that) to anyone who walks in the door, regardless of whether or not they can pay.

I'd love to see an "opt out" clause in the health insurance bill that allows those who are so opposed to the insurance requirements. (With affordable care for those who want it)

BUT the health care industry would be allowed to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay.

Don't want to buy health insurance? Fine.

Can't pay for your emergency room visit? Too bad, you get to sit outside and die.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[quade 4]

Quote

Can't pay for your emergency room visit? Too bad, you get to sit outside and die.

I'd like to think we're a bit above that although I will acknowldge it would be a perfectly acceptable answer for some.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Can't pay for your emergency room visit? Too bad, you get to sit outside and die.

I'd like to think we're a bit above that although I will acknowldge it would be a perfectly acceptable answer for some.

There's no way it will happen for real.

And I don't advocate in any way refusing treatment to those who are poor.

The ones I'm talking about are the ones screaming about how unfair and socialist it is to require people to buy health insurance. It's kind of analogus to "No-Fault" insurance. If you don't have any and get into an accident, no matter whose fault the accident is, you pay for the damage to your car.

These people don't want to be forced to buy insurance, fine. Let them not. But don't force the hospitals to treat them.

Although the people screaming about not forcing "them" to buy it usually have it, they just don't want to have to subsidise it for the poor (which they are already doing because the hospitals treat them, the poor don't pay, and the costs are passed on to the rest of us)

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[skipbelt 0]

according to your article , insurance is required to REGISTER a car, how's your hearing now ?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***Well let's just go with the most obvious. A law requiring people to purchase a product.

Is requiring automobile insurance socialist?

Wendy P.

canard and red herring NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance . what IS required is if you do buy auto insurance , you MUST buy uninsured motorist insurance . this is because NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance.

WTF? What your argument should be is that no one is legally required to drive. Once a person chooses to drive, then and only then is he required to purchase insurance. Health care insurance on the other hand will be required to be purchased or obtained through their place of employment.

I don't know what you are trying to say concerning having to purchase uninsured driver insurance.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well let's just go with the most obvious. A law requiring people to purchase a product.

Is requiring automobile insurance socialist?

Wendy P.

canard and red herring NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance . what IS required is if you do buy auto insurance , you MUST buy uninsured motorist insurance . this is because NO ONE is REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance.

In my State, Missouri, you are required to have insurance if you want to drive a car or a motorcycle.
http://dor.mo.gov/drivers/insurinfo.php

Motor Vehicle Insurance (Financial Responsibility)

Missouri law requires that all motor vehicle drivers and owners maintain some type of motor vehicle liability insurance coverage. Unfortunately, each year thousands of Missouri citizens are involved in automobile accidents with drivers who have not maintained the required automobile insurance. This results in unpaid damage claims and higher insurance premium rates for all Missourians.

Requiring that people carry health insurance would be a saving for all Americans. The Right complains constantly about having to pay for someones health care. Here's your chance to force the freeloaders to be responsible for themselves. It is not socialism, it is responsibility.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

no one is required to buy auto insurance. You aren't required to buy a car.

Many (most) states require you to have insurance if you wish to drive your car on public roads, but if you have a "Back 40 Beater" that you only drive on private property (and don't register) you aren't required to have insurance on it either.

The part I find funny about the argument against health insurance (requiring people to purchase a product against their will) is that these same people have no issues with requiring a private business to provide a service (and a very expensive one at that) to anyone who walks in the door, regardless of whether or not they can pay.

If by "private business" you mean a private hospital, nobody is requiring private corporations to go into the hospital business. They can go into the widget-manufacturing business instead.

You want to operate a private hospital, with the hope - like any other private business - of turning a net profit for your shareholders? Fine. But if you want to operate a hospital in our society, part of the "licensure" we require of you is that you participate in the social safety net. Don't like that? Fine - Go into another business. Think that's a double-taxation? Fine - File suit and litigate your position in the United States Tax Court.

Quote

I'd love to see an "opt out" clause in the health insurance bill that allows those who are so opposed to the insurance requirements. (With affordable care for those who want it)
BUT the health care industry would be allowed to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay.
Don't want to buy health insurance? Fine.
Can't pay for your emergency room visit? Too bad, you get to sit outside and die.

There was a time as recently as the first half of the 20th Century when that's exactly what would happen if you showed up at a private hospital without proof, at the admission desk, of ability to pay: they could (and would) turn you out, no matter how serious your condition. I'd think it's a good thing that our society advanced beyond that, and I think a regression back to that would be fairly indecent.

[skipbelt 0]

insurance doesn't save money , it spreads risk. what saves money is being uninsured. till what you were risking happens . it is not too much to ask to pay for what you take !

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

it is not too much to ask to pay for what you take !

Of course not. Even now, no hospital is deprived of its right to collect the money, even by lawsuits if necessary, owed by people it treats who are un- or under-insured. I freely concede that the collection rate is low, and that more often than not, it's a loss.

But there are certain costs to being a civil and humane society. And sometimes, that means, for the sake of humanity, rendering emergency services without fail, and securing payment later, if possible (and sometimes it's not possible). Remember the guy whose house trailer recently was allowed to burn while firefighters stood there and watched because he didn't pay his periodic fee? That was inhumane and outrageous, and not worhty of a modern, civil society.

By the same token, private hospitals should be required to render emergency treatment to those triaged as being in a life-threatening condition, regardless of ability to pay. Frequently, that will be a financial loss, ultimately passed on to the rest of us. Should we do it? I say Yes: it's part of the price we pay to call ourselves a modern, civilized society.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

it is not too much to ask to pay for what you take !

Of course not. Even now, no hospital is deprived of its right to collect the money, even by lawsuits if necessary, owed by people it treats who are un- or under-insured. I freely concede that the collection rate is low, and that more often than not, it's a loss.

But there are certain costs to being a civil and humane society. And sometimes, that means, for the sake of humanity, rendering emergency services without fail, and securing payment later, if possible (and sometimes it's not possible). Remember the guy whose house trailer recently was allowed to burn while firefighters stood there and watched because he didn't pay his periodic fee? That was inhumane and outrageous, and not worhty of a modern, civil society.

By the same token, private hospitals should be required to render emergency treatment to those triaged as being in a life-threatening condition, regardless of ability to pay. Frequently, that will be a financial loss, ultimately passed on to the rest of us. Should we do it? I say Yes: it's part of the price we pay to call ourselves a modern, civilized society.

[sarcasm]

Hey that is just not right ... why should the rest of us have to support THOSE deadbeats ... you know THOSE people should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.




[/sarcasm]

[skipbelt 0]

health care is not a right , health is not a right , care is not a right . life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are. health care should be earned , health can be earned . many health care professionals offer free health care . no one should force anyone with the weight of federal law to support anothers health care .

[Gravitymaster 0]

If this was really about covering the uninsured, why not just provide Government paid insurance thru welfare?

Answer: Because it isn't about covering the uninsured. It's about Goverment establishing more control.

[quade 4]

Quote

health care is not a right , health is not a right , care is not a right . life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are.

Generally speaking, without healthcare, people don't live very long.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

health care is not a right , health is not a right , care is not a right . life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are. health care should be earned , health can be earned . many health care professionals offer free health care . no one should force anyone with the weight of federal law to support anothers health care .

Pretty cold-blooded. I prefer a humane society.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

health care is not a right , health is not a right , care is not a right . life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are. health care should be earned , health can be earned . many health care professionals offer free health care . no one should force anyone with the weight of federal law to support anothers health care .

Pretty cold-blooded. I prefer a humane society.

there is a humane society . but if you mean you and libs are forced to provide healthcare and conservatives and other non libs would have the option , i'd be all for it. the tea party has similar ideas , but are they racist...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/who-wrote-the-naacp-racist-tea-party-report/

[billvon 2,991]

>health care is not a right , health is not a right , care is not a right . life ,
>liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are.

Got a bit of a contradiction there.

An 8 year old shows up in an ER, hit by a car. You know as surely as you can that her parents won't pay. She will die without care. Do you let her die?

[billvon 2,991]

>but if you mean you and libs are forced to provide healthcare and
>conservatives and other non libs would have the option . . .

That's basically what we have now. The blue states support the red states; the more liberal states pay for the care of the more conservative states.

If you want to stop that, by all means, have the red states start paying their fair share. Or give money back to the blue states. Until then, hopefully the red states will at least be grateful for liberal's support.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>health care is not a right , health is not a right , care is not a right . life ,
>liberty , and the pursuit of happiness are.

Got a bit of a contradiction there.

An 8 year old shows up in an ER, hit by a car. You know as surely as you can that her parents won't pay. She will die without care. Do you let her die?

Nice Bill. That doesn't happen and you know it.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne