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

[BT]

You would fine someone walking around with TB?

[sirs]

Are they purposely trying to get someone infected?  

Let's put it another way.  Want to google what % of folks who are walking around with TB, compared to the general public?  And then google what % of those are actively trying to spread their disease? (if that's possible)  And you think THAT's a compelling reason for the state to mandate health insurance for 100% of its population?

[Plane]

Typhoid Mary didn't really intend any harm, but the best job she could find was as a cook.

Was it just to lock her up a long time? , she never understood the justice, she was never sick with Typhoid at all.

[BT]

And you think THAT's a compelling reason for the state to mandate health insurance for 100% of its population?

Where did I say that?

[sirs]

Let's try getting back to the questions, vs trying to claim some accusation.  You keep trying to make this about the state having some vested interest analogus to mandating car insurance.  I'm demonstrating how its not.  Not even close

[BT]

You keep trying to make this about the state having some vested interest analogus to mandating car insurance.  I'm demonstrating how its not.  Not even close

Just to be clear.

You don't have a problem with the state mandating insurance if you are to register and operate a vehicle on public roads?

[sirs]

I have a "problem", but I can understand why the state would have a vested interest, considering the damage to another person and their property an accident could have.  In fact, the mandate is simple liability, not even requiring yourself to be insured.

[BT]

I have a "problem", but I can understand why the state would have a vested interest, considering the damage to another person and their property an accident could have.  In fact, the mandate is simple liability, not even requiring yourself to be insured.

What is the states vested interest in this?

[sirs]

Apparently to help prevent injury/damage to another person/property, and if such does happen, to have a means for the other to be able to cover it, if its their fault

But why are we talking about this?  There is no comparison when it comes to healthcare.  That's a personal choice

[BT]

Apparently to help prevent injury/damage to another person/propery, and if such does happen, to have a means for the other to be able to cover it, if its their fault

I'm not sure how having insurance helps prevent injury/damage to a person or property, but it does show that you would have the means to compensate for any damages whether to person or property if you are found liable for the accident. 49 of the 50 states require proof of insurance at the minimum at the time of the accident though many require it when you register the vehicle. NH is the only state that just requires proof of financial responsibility.

So really the states interest, if any, is to make sure people get paid.

Driving a motor vehicle is a personal choice. Obtaining medical care is a personal choice. I would think that requiring insurance in both cases is to make sure people are compensated for services rendered.

So that is why we are talking about it. It is simply a thought exercise.

As for my personal philosophy. I think if your goal is to land a man on the moon then you should land a man on the moon. And if your goal is universal health care then that is what you should provide.

Obamacare is an epic fail in that regard.

[Xavier_Onassis]

IN what way is requiring health insurance for everyone different from requiring liability insurance?

If you don't have liability insurance, the take away your license to drive. You cannot take away anyone's permit to live, so a fine would seem to be the only equivalent.

Why has no one not ruled that the Massachusetts health insurance law unconstitutional, as it is almost the same as ACA?

I don't agree with the judge on this, because unless insurance is required from everyone, we will never have a universal health care program, and the uninsured and unaffordable problem will continue to grow.

[sirs]

Apparently to help prevent injury/damage to another person/propery, and if such does happen, to have a means for the other to be able to cover it, if its their fault

Driving a motor vehicle is a personal choice. Obtaining medical care is a personal choice. I would think that requiring insurance in both cases is to make sure people are compensated for services rendered.

The chasm of difference here is again, the compensation of services rendered in an auto accident are to pay for the damage/injury to SOMEONE ELSE.  No one is saying you don't pay for your OWN healthcare services.  If you have "services rendered" for YOURSELF, you absolutely should pay for it.  But its your choice, if you want said services.  A car accident wasn't a "personal choice".  The mandate for car insurance is liability, to cover someone else, not yourself, in the event of a non personally chosen accident

So that is why we are talking about it. It is simply a thought exercise.

I deduce its merely arguing, for the sake of arguing, since there's still no substantive comparison between the reasons for mandating auto insurance, vs that of mandating healthcare insurance.  

It's strange to consider that way back when, companies that offered healthcare insurance were considered beacons of progress, as it was an incentive to want to go work for them, vs a company that didn't offer it.  Sad how this country has so waffled to political correctness

[BT]

The chasm of difference here is again, the comensation of services rendered in an auto accident are to pay for the damage injury to SOMEONE ELSE.  No one is saying you don't pay for your healthcare services.  If you have "services rendered" for YOURSELF, you absolutely should pay for it.  But its your choice, if you want said services.  A car accident wasn't a "personal choice".  The mandate for car insurance is liability, to cover someone else, not yourself, in the event of a non chosen accident

I don't believe contracting cancer is a choice either. But you either get treated by professionals or you die. Since the average person does not have the wherewithal to pay for these kind of treatments insurance is needed to make sure the providers are not victims of theft of services.

It's all about the benjamins.

Same with auto insurance. Yes you are given the option of not obtaining collision insurance, but the real intent of the law is to make sure that the non guilty party is made whole again. Which means that they are not held liable for the damages but the responsible party is.

All about the benjamins.

Speaking of benjamins, the primary reason the employers started offering health insurance was as a means to raise compensation for employees during WWII, when Wage and Price controls were in effect.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

[sirs]

The chasm of difference here is again, the comensation of services rendered in an auto accident are to pay for the damage injury to SOMEONE ELSE.  No one is saying you don't pay for your healthcare services.  If you have "services rendered" for YOURSELF, you absolutely should pay for it.  But its your choice, if you want said services.  A car accident wasn't a "personal choice".  The mandate for car insurance is liability, to cover someone else, not yourself, in the event of a non chosen accident

[/color]

I don't believe contracting cancer is a choice either. But you either get treated by professionals or you die.

It's still a choice.  Most people have access to healthcare, and most CHOOSE to get health insurance.  In this country freedom wins out in the end.  So, you can paint all kinds of nasty, unfair, & sad scenarios, but in the end, your position mandating that someone else pay for your care.  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. 

It's all about the benjamins.

No, it's all about freedom, vs who's doing the dictating.  But at least we're getting away from the rather ineffective comparison of auto vs health insurance, and more to the notion of "good intentions" behind UHC advocates,..... as flawed as they may be

[BT]

So, you can paint all kinds of nasty, unfair, & sad scenarios, but in the end, your position mandating that someone else pay for your care.  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.

Where did i claim:
1) that i wanted someone else to pay for my healthcare
2) that i was Christian