Unconstitutional! Can we have our $1 Trillion back now?

[sirs]

Boy, you really have a problem with non accusatory accusations.  I never claimed you were a Christian, merely that it's not a Christian thing to do, in mandating that another take care of someone else.  And UHC requires that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare....ergo, UHC mandates that someone else pay for your care.  If you are a proponent of UHC, THEN, you may be accept said accusation.  If you are merely arguing for "thought exercise", then obviously it wouldn't be an accusation now, would it     

[BT]

I never claimed you were a Christian, merely that it's not a Christian thing to do, in mandating that another take care of someone else.

Why bring it up, in a response to me?

And UHC requires that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare....ergo, UHC mandates that someone else pay for your care.

Which also means they are paying for their own healthcare.

[sirs]

I never claimed you were a Christian, merely that it's not a Christian thing to do, in mandating that another take care of someone else.

Why bring it up, in a response to me?

Because it was a response in general and not an accusation, in any way.  You need to turn down that uber-sensitivity meter.  If I meant it as an accusation/claim, I'd tell you up front

And UHC requires that everyone pay for everyone else's healthcare....ergo, UHC mandates that someone else pay for your care.

Which also means they are paying for their own healthcare.

No, it means they're paying for everyone, which happens to include themselves.  Far superior use of a person's own funds/limited resources when they're paying for just themselves, which again brings us to that ever so bothersome freedom of choice angle, a cornerstone to this country's existance and constitution

[BT]

No, it means they're paying for everyone, which happens to include themselves.

That is how insurance works.

http://www.superpages.com/supertips/how-does-insurance-work.html

[sirs]

and..........?

[BT]

and..........?

And what?

[sirs]

Well, if you can't answer that, I can't help you.  Once again, it's a far superior use of a person's own funds/limited resources when they're paying for just themselves

[BT]

Well, if you can't answer that, I can't help you.  Once again, it's a far superior use of a person's own funds/limited resources when they're paying for just themselves

So you don't think people need insurance, they are better off self insuring?

[sirs]

I think people should have the CHOICE to have insurance, that it not be mandated.  

I can understand the state's vested interested in trying to protect OTHERS by mandating liability car insurance, in the event of a non-chosen accident.  

There is no compelling arguement for the state to MAKE people carry health insurance for themselves.  Made exponentially worse when its mandating that people pay for everyone else's healthcare

CHOICE vs NOT
FREEDOM vs NOT
AMERICA vs NOT

[BT]

Because it was a response in general and not an accusation, in any way.  You need to turn down that uber-sensitivity meter.  If I meant it as an accusation/claim, I'd tell you up front

why throw out non related opinion-oids in a debate that has no religious undertones?

That's not how this country was founded, nor is it a Christian thing to do, in ordering someone to take care of someone else.

But since you did, helping one another is an extremely Christian thing to do, in fact it is the essence of Christianity:

"What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)

[BT]

I think people should have the CHOICE to have insurance, that it not be mandated. 

Should they be required to show proof of financial responsibility and should health providers be allowed to deny care to those who choose not to be insured without having proof of financial responsibility?

Choices have consequences, right?

[sirs]

Because it was a response in general and not an accusation, in any way.  You need to turn down that uber-sensitivity meter.  If I meant it as an accusation/claim, I'd tell you up front

why throw out non related opinion-oids in a debate that has no religious undertones?

Because it was petinent IMO, given how this country is predominantly Chrisitian

That's not how this country was founded, nor is it a Christian thing to do, in ordering someone to take care of someone else.

But since you did, helping one another is an extremely Christian thing to do, in fact it is the essence of Christianity

and I never said otherwise.........foundation of Christianity, Faith, followed closely by FREE WILL (translated, we're not mandated to help one another, merely that its the right thing to do....BY CHOICE)

I think people should have the CHOICE to have insurance, that it not be mandated. 

Should they be required to show proof of financial responsibility and should health providers be allowed to deny care to those who choose not to be insured without having proof of financial responsibility?

What the frell?  Last time I checked, insurance offers what they offer, you choose what you want, if you want it, given the resources you have.     

Choices have consequences, right?

Absolutely

[BT]

For those who choose not to obtain health insurance, what should the consequences be for that choice?

[sirs]

Their consequence is not having it

[BT]

So much for the thought exercise. Anyone else want to pick up Sirs ball?