"I do not believe a 'fine' can be levied against me for not purchasing a product"

[OmahaBlueDog]

I'm sure you've seen this nonsense on Facebook



Just as a matter of nformational courtesy to my wingnut friends:

If you own a car, you are forced to purchse automobile insurance. If the private market cannot meet thse needs because of your creditworthiness or bad driving record, you will be forced to purchase coverage in a residual market. Driving without a policy can lead to a fine or imprisonment.

If you own a business with employees, you are forced to purchase workers compensation (or the Texas alternative to work comp). If the private market cannot meet thse needs because of your creditworthiness or bad accident record, you will be forced to purchase coverage in a residual market. Operating a business without a policy can lead to a fine or imprisonment.

Yes, Virginia, there are some insurance poicies you get fined if you don't purchase.

[jberryhill]

1. Try not buying clothes and going out in public

[kcr]

10. Well, you could choose not to go out in public!

You make that choice to go out in public! Just don't go out in public! It's a choice! Quit comparing apples and oranges. /dumb internet argument.

[Laelth]

16. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[JDPriestly]

159. But, can someone choose to never get sick, or to never go to a hospital or have a procedure

in a doctor's office or never have an accident? Or, alternatively can a person choose to always pay for any medical treatment out of pocket?

You can't choose not to send your children to school unless you educate them at home.

The problem with people who want to choose to forgo medical insurance is that when they get sick or have an accident and need very expensive care, they walk away from paying for their care and make the government and people who do buy insurance pay the doctors' and hospital's bills. Do you want to pay taxes to cover other people's healthcare yet not have the insurance to cover your own? That is the system we have had until the ACA.

Here's how it worked pre-ACA. Some could not afford health insurance, and others chose not to buy it. In emergencies, however, they had to get medical care they could not pay for. The bill for that medical care was paid for by people who got insurance and by the taxpayers. If you are insured, and even if though it may not look like it at the beginning of the program, the ACA will reduce what you are paying for other people's healthcare. It will also over time improve the health of most Americans.

The details of the ACA are unique to the US, but the concept that if everyone is insured, medical care costs less to everyone has been tested and proven in many countries in the world. Our health insurance is more expensive than the health insurance in other countries because of the people who do not choose to have it. It's their lack of contribution and their lack of taking care of their health that pushes up the cost of medical care and insurance for everyone.

Is it constitutional? The Supreme Court says it is. So whether you and I agree or not doesn't make much difference. I doubt that this will be an issue ten years from now. I lived in various European countries and enjoyed the universal coverage. It's great.

[kcr]

164. No, people can't choose to get sick

Which is why I'm pro-ACA. Including the mandate. Because that's what we have until we can get something better. Reading your post I think we're actually on the same page. I was being facetious.

[NoOneMan]

2. No, you can own a car without insurance

You can drive a car without insurance too.

You cannot drive a car on a public roadway without certifying you can pay for damages that your shitty driving will incur to others (done with insurance).

Not quite that same as everyone owning a life with no choice but having a policy, irregardless of their own actions and choices.

But whatever. Im sure you wont see that.

Anyway, lets end homelessness. Mandate home purchases for everyone.

[jberryhill]

5. Your last line misses the point

If you borrow money to buy a home, you get a reduction in your tax.

Why are people who do not buy mortgages forced to pay a tax for not having one?

[NoOneMan]

9. Huh. You aren't forced to pay a penalty for not having a mortgage.

People with mortgages get a write-off on interest. There is no penalty involved. That's ridiculous.

Renters don't have to pay some percentage of their income to the government in taxes. Uninsured people will

[jberryhill]

15. And yet, a renter pays more tax than a mortgage owner

...all other things being equal.

There are a number of conditions for which one can be taxed, or not taxed.

Being married or single.

Having children or not having children.

All that has happened is that "having health insurance or not having health insurance" has been added as a condition with a tax difference.

[NoOneMan]

17. Its obnoxious when people go from arguing that mandates are A-OK...

and then pretend its not really a mandate and its not really a penalty its just a tax based on your income if you don't do something the government wants you to do.

Doh. Whatever. I think we both know exactly what it is.

Tax penalties increase your load from baseline (which is what this does). There are many conditional tax fairness measures that reduce your load from a baseline, which are not equivilent to how a penalty works

[jberryhill]

19. I'll remember that if I get divorced again

Because it sure seemed that my taxes went up the first time.

[NoOneMan]

22. They went back to baseline

[ellenfl]

154. i own a home and i do not get a write-off on mtg interest nor r/e taxes. eom

[hfojvt]

23. not every home owner gets a tax break

only the few (mostly rich people) who itemize, and then only if your itemized deductions are MORE than the standard deduction.

I've purchased four homes (two of them mobile) without ever getting a tax break.

But even with a tax break, paying $3,000 in interest in order to save $600 on your taxes, does NOT put you "money ahead". You are still out $2,400. Even at the top tax rate you are out $1,800.

[Warpy]

36. My income was low enough some years to qualify for the NM low income credit

but that's because I itemized. taking the mortgage deduction as well as out of pocket health expenses. I itemized every year I paid mortgage interest and every year my health care issues caused a spike in expenses.

It's not only rich people who itemize. It's everyone who has enough deductions to make it worth while.

[hfojvt]

161. it is MOSTLY rich people

not only, but mostly

[sabrina 1]

169. That was President Obama's argument AGAINST mandated insurance.

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

That was in 2008 referring to Hillary's support for mandates. Most people obviously agreed him and thought his point was very well made.

And again, on the Ellen Show:

But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t." -

See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-degeneres-why-he-opposed-individual-mandate-forcing-uninsured-buy-insurance#sthash.i5bks3CP.dpuf

And the old 'auto insurance' argument was debunked, mostly by Obama supporters over and over again for obvious reasons. It's odd to see this flip flop now I have to say.

[MADem]

7. Wow, it burns....!

Not everyone lives in a home they own. Many prefer to rent. Many live with family. Your argument is just silly and your example, well, it's not good.

You can drive a car without insurance, but in states where insurance is MANDATED (not optional with a pay-a-fee scheme at the registrar) you'll be arrested and your car impounded if you don't have insurance. And that's most states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance_in_the_United_States#Requirements_by_state

So, yeah...whatever.

[NoOneMan]

11. You can drive cars on private road ways like farms without insurance

And no, you will not be arrested and your car will not be impounded if you do so. Insurance is for those choosing to use public roadways who may harm others. Thats it.

Its a far cry from everyone, regardless of choice, having to have a private, for profit plan purchased on the free market.

[kcr]

25. That's true

But how many people own and drive cars only on private roadways?

[NoOneMan]

26. As many who want to. Thats their choice, a choice in which there is no penalty for

So yes, you must have insurance if you drive a car ONLY on a public roadway because you might damage other people's things. That is not quite the same as having insurance because your heart beats.

[kcr]

27. Well, as long as they want to. Even though no one does that.

Okay then. Along the lines of people don't have to buy clothes. They could just not go outside.

[NoOneMan]

28. Look, obviously you don't know much about rural areas and farms

There are a ton of people who have farm or offroad vehicles for hunting and recreation. There are even people who live in urban areas who get temporary day insurance if they ever have to use certain vehicles (I have a friend who picks it up on their truck for dump runs a few times a year).

Along the lines of people don't have to buy clothes. They could just not go outside.

Yep. See. There is an "if". A choice of behavior. Having your heartbeat isn't an option.

[kcr]

29. Really?

There are people who never leave their homes and farms? Do they just have someone deliver their groceries? They never visit anyone? Oh, are you talking about the Amish? I think they're actually exempt from the ACA, though I'm not totally 100% on that, I think I just read something about that.

[NoOneMan]

30. Not every member of a household drives every single car they have on public roads

Yet everyone breathes.

[kcr]

32. But they have cars that they do drive on the public roads

And for those they're required to have insurance.

[NoOneMan]

34. No, not always.

But they all are alive (meaning they need health insurance)

[kcr]

37. So you are contending they never leave their property?

Or are they doing a lot of walking? Or doing so illegally? What, exactly, is going on here?

[NoOneMan]

38. Bus, walking, hitching rides. Some people live in villages (like me)

Some people don't need to go much of anywhere every day that they can't walk to

[kcr]

40. That is not a common situation for most Americans.

[NoOneMan]

42. but breathing is

[kcr]

45. Yes. And?

So a small group of people can get by without driving. So that means the vast majority can't aren't effectively being mandated to buy a product? I don't think so. Breathing is mandated. That certainly makes access to healthcare extremely vital. That is why those attempting to undermine it by removing a vital aspect of it annoy me so, to say the least. Plus, I don't get why some who want single payer health care side with these idjits. You don't get much more mandated than that.

[NoOneMan]

46. Breathing dictates you must be covered

There is no conditional optional behavior that is chosen to neccesitate it, as in the case of driving on a public roadway

Plus, I don't get why some who want single payer health care side with these idjits. You don't get much more mandated than that

Single payer does not mandate you to enter a private marketplace as an individual and purchase a plan, anymore than the state mandates drivers to purchase road construction from private companies individually (roads are provided by a single payer as a public service)

[kcr]

47. Just because you don't have to drive a car on a public roadway

Doesn't mean it's irellevant that most people do. They are effectively being mandated to buy that product. Period. Just because it isn't breathing is a ridiculous argument. Starving in the streets because you can't support yourself isn't very conducive to living now, is it? Jesus.

Single payer mandates you buy the insurance.

[NoOneMan]

49. Single payer mandates you pay taxes according to what you earn

You don't buy insurance from a marketplace. Its provided to you as a service from the state.

[kcr]

55. Somehow, I have a feeling the person who posted the Facebook message

would honestly care. Number two, I personally don't care about that distinction, and I really don't get those that do. Would I prefer getting it through the state? Absolutely. No question. But would I trash a system that provides it privately before we set up a state run system? That would be cruel. Especailly since the argument that other mandates aren't truly mandates because not everyone needs it? Ridiculous argument.

[NoOneMan]

59. The only ridiculous argument is comparing apples to oranges

And it gets more ridiculous when people can't accept the obvious distinctions: those mandates are contingent upon choices and behavior, and this one is contingent upon having a pulse.

But would I trash a system that provides it privately before we set up a state run system?

Why would you ever setup a state run system if no one was willing to trash the faults of the existing one?

[kcr]

63. No one is doing any such thing. What's happening is some convenient ignoring of facts.

One of them being that an awful lot of people do need to drive a car. It's a specious argument to say they're "making a choice" to drive a car. That's rather like saying we "make a choice" to work at our jobs. See how ridiculous that is? It's like the people who say those who are poor choose to be that way.

[NoOneMan]

67. Look, only about 85% of people are even licensed to drive. Of those....

Not even all of them driver their own vehicles (thereby also escaping the mandate and reducing the number of unique policies per household quite a bit lower). More and more, younger people are choosing not to drive cars. Only about 60% of 18 year olds are even licensed anymore (down from 80% in the 80s).

And remember, mandated insurance is a 1:1 relationship between policies and people. A household of 10 people with 1 car on public roadways requires 1 policy. A household of 1 person with 10 cars on public roads requires 10 policies (a choice).

We call those holes. Apple meet orange.

[kcr]

70. Not true.

You are absolutely mistaken on only car owners needing to buy insurance. If their policy doesn't cover the person they're allowing to drive their car, they're in a world of hurt. When our children are of driving age, we'll have to have them on our policy if they get a license and we to allow them to drive our car, and our rates will shoot up, because they will be teenagers. I had to buy car insurance when I turned 16 for that reason. That came out of my high school job paycheck. They aren't automatically covered. Laws, of course, vary state by state but you simply cannot be an uninsured driver out on the public roads. Even if you never buy a car, you still have to be covered and you aren't automatically covered just because you're driving another person's car and they have insurance.

[NoOneMan]

75. Every state I've lived in allows policies to cover other drivers

Where I currently live, my wive's name isn't even attached whatsoever to the policy at all.

If their policy doesn't cover the person they're allowing to drive their car, they're in a world of hurt.

No, they are simply responsible in the eye of their insurance company

When our children are of driving age, we'll have to have them on our policy if they get a license and we to allow them to drive our car, and our rates will shoot up, because they will be teenagers.

You put them on their policies if and only if they are the principle driver of a vehicle. Otherwise it is not necessary. Of course, every jurisdiction is different.

but you simply cannot be an uninsured driver out on the public roads.

My wife is. It is our vehicle that is insured. No matter who is driving it, my policy covers them and any harm is reflected on me as the owner of the policy.

[kcr]

77. You're still being insured. If that person didn't have it, you wouldn't be able to drive.

Like I just said in another post. Claiming that in the ultimate car dependent country of the United States of America, that you can't compare mandating car insurance, is laughable.

[NoOneMan]

79. Ignoring that apples are not oranges is laughable

[MADem]

131. And your taxes go up to PAY for that state service.

[NoOneMan]

176. Yep

Its cool too, as in theory, what you pay is a bit more tied to what you earn. There is none of that deductible and copay shit to keep you from choosing between calling 9/11 and your food.

[kcr]

39. And yes. Everyone needs insurance. But not everyone gets it.

The argument that car insurance isn't an example of a mandate is pretty weak because a vast majority of people in America do indeed need it. Particularly in rural areas. Some people may have cars they use solely on their properties. But even they will almost always need to leave their property and they'll need a car to do it. Rural areas will be the most lacking in public transportation. Surviving without auto transpiration in rural areas is often the most difficult, if not impossible. The argument that the need is not the same because you don't have to buy a car is absurd, because it is a need that is fundamental in so many parts in this country.

[NoOneMan]

50. The problem is there is more holes in the compairson than swiss cheese

Don't get angry with me when I point out the holes. Change the comparison.

Maybe you should tell us how we are all mandated to individually hire mercs to fight wars for us, or hire road construction companies to build roads for us.

[kcr]

58. No. There are no holes.

The logic that it isn't a true mandate because there are a small percentage that don't need it is ridiculous. What if, somehow, a subgroup of human beings somehow became superhuman and didn't need health insurance? Just for the sake of discussion? Would the need for health insurance for those that do suddenly become less of a need? No. It wouldn't. They would need it every bit as much. Same thing with car insurance. Those that need it need it to function. No one chooses car insurance just for the hell of it. You've poked no holes in my argument.

[NoOneMan]

60. Its not a similar mandate because not every woman, man or child needs it!

You only need it if you engage in specific behaviors. And that, my friend, is a huge hole in your tidy little argument.

[kcr]

61. Right, engage in specific behaviors like feeding oneself and put a roof over ones head.

Specific behaviors like supporting oneself, and they need transporatation to do it. If they don't live where public transporation is available, a car is as necessary as breathing. To make your argument to "poke holes" you need to reduce making a living to "engaging in specific bahaviors" You're ignoring what those behaviors are! No holes poked here.

[NoOneMan]

62. No, like owning a car that will be driven on a public roadway

(though it should also be stated, not everyone that drives that car at any given time must they themselves purchase any insurance)

[kcr]

64. Well, with the ACA, no one has to purchase the health insurance either.

No one is holding a gun to their heads.

[NoOneMan]

68. True, you just have to pay a penalty (but that's not what I'm getting at)

The same is true of so many laws in the US, like dumping toxic waste and what not.

But what I am referring to is that you can legally drive without having your own policy, even on a public road, insofar as the car is insured by someone. Yes, you can rent a car and borrow a car, drive an employer's car, and even drive your spouses car without purchasing anything.

[kcr]

74. But someone has to pay for it.

it's still mandatory in that sense. And when you're borrowing the car, it's likely someone you know. You're depending on them. It factors in to the whole argument of car dependent culture. So. Again. No hole poked. If the person they're depending on didn't buy the insurance, they'd be screwed, too. To claim that, in the USA, a country that is about as car dependent as it gets as a culture, that car insurance being mandated can't be compared, is really laughable.

[NoOneMan]

76. So? A hole is a hole. An apple is not an orange

If a car is insured on a public road way and 10 people are driving it according to the law, it shows you quite simply how those 10 people (and maybe the 100s they transport in it), do not all have to purchase their own plans ( unlike your health insurance comparison )

[kcr]

78. No, but the car owner has to purchase insurnace that covers all ten drivers.

You don't just purchase insurance for yourself, and that's it. Your policy has to state that you're going to allow ten different drivers to drive the car, for instance. It would likely cost a lot more.

[NoOneMan]

80. If its commercial perhaps but not always

I have a commercial policy on my car...I don't have to list any drivers. Any idiot I want to allow to drive it can. Doing so would reflect that I have bad judgment and my rates should go up. If I only let great drivers do it, then there is no problem. Again, I think you are vastly reaching to make this silly comparison.

[kcr]

87. You don't have to list specific drivers

But if you don't pay for a policy in which you're allowed to let any old driver you want to borrow your car, and then someone you lend your car out to wrecks it? It won't be covered. At any rate, it isn't a stretch. It certainly isn't a silly comparison. Those people you're lending your car out to wouldn't be able to do so if you weren't paying for the insurance. Both you and they are doing so because they have the need.

[NoOneMan]

89. Yeah, itll be covered as long as I was following terms of policy. My rates will go up.

You are wrong on this

[kcr]

90. Exactly.

But the whole point is it's filling a need, not a want. The fact that not everyone needs it, that some can find away to do without, doesn't change that.

[dionysus]

112. it's a shitty analogy. accept it.

[kcr]

114. No n/t

[dionysus]

115. fine.

[kcr]

116. .

[wercal]

83. My grandmother never drove a car in her life

Just an example.

And some people in NYC don't own a car...just another example.

The car insurance analogy fails on mant levels and should be put to rest.

[NoOneMan]

85. "The car insurance analogy fails on mant levels and should be put to rest."

Normally people realize this very quickly, huff, and move on. This guy is relentless on this one

[kcr]

91. No, people who ignore the fact that driving in this country is a need for many people

don't get it.

[solarhydrocan]

95. and a funny thing- he's making a right wing argument

the argument that the Heritage Foundation made when it proposed the mandate in the first place.

2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.

Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Pors c he and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car.

But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this impl i cit contract.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

As far as I can tell, the New Democrats stand for Mandatory Insurance Purchases, Drone bombing weddings, 24/7 surveillance from cradle to grave and bailing out big banks that are "too big to fail".

It's surreal. Even more so when those that don't agree with the above are called Right Wingers or Racists.

We're in Bizarroworld!

[kcr]

101. How is the argument right wing?

So, because one sentence in a Heritage Foundation article is similar to my argument, I'm making a right wing point? Right. I think if you're going to claim I'm making a right wing argument, you should point out where my arguments fall into place with right wing principles. How is it that stating that driving is a basic need right wing, for one thing? And really, I don't see how making insurance mandated so that it spreads the risk and lowers the price for everyone even remotely right wing. If so, than how is single payer not right wing? You'll have to do better than the Heritage Foundation thinks so, too! Why does that fall under conservative principles?

[kcr]

88. And none of those examples negate my point.

The analogy doesn't fail because people who purchase car insurance are purchasing it because they're compelled to. The fact that not everyone is compelled to because they don't need it doesn't negate that. People aren't buying a weekend in the hamptons for the hell of it. They aren't buying a meal at McDonalds. They're buying something they need to make a living.

[thesquanderer]

107. Not "some people" -- MOST people

in NYC don't own a car

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car

And there are over 8 million people in NYC


But I do agree with people who say the OP analogy is bad. The other things kick in IF you do something (IF you own a car, IF you have a business), they don't kick in merely as a result of being alive.

That said, there are all kinds of fees/taxes or other obligations we have that are almost unavoidable. You can't buy a cheeseburger at McDonald's without paying sales tax (at least in some states). Want water? Most people have a water bill that someone is paying to the municipal government. You can be required to serve jury duty, even if the amount they pay you doesn't cover your cost of getting there. But it's not as bad as it was 40 years ago. Back then, the government could draft you into the army. Me? I'll take the forced health insurance.

[kcr]

110. Oh, well, NYC

Never mind then.

I would agree that the analogy was bad, if the doing something wasn't a core necessity for such a majority of the population. That's what makes it effectively a mandate. After all, insurance is doing something, too. Arguing that there are different levels of necessity is meaningless, IMO. A necessity is a necessity is a necessity. People need to be able to work to make a living. Health care is essential. But so is being able to provide for oursevles and our families. They're both important. The ACA IS imperfect. But it's better than letting millions go without completely. I had a close family member who's been going without, and was recently dxed with cancer. She's getting ACA. This is indeed better than nothing. Like it or not, the mandate is an important part of it.

[geek tragedy]

31. Do you favor allowing emergency rooms to turn away people who have refused

to buy insurance? In other words, should people who refuse to buy insurance be allowed to die for lack of medical care if they can't afford treatment?

[NoOneMan]

35. Do you favor copays and deductibles of these policies forcing people to choose between care and food

What I favor is so out of the context of your shit system that your question doesn't merit a response

[geek tragedy]

41. Ah, so short of scrapping our entire system you don't have anything to contribute,

just toss insults at anything pertaining to the US.

Why waste your time debating another country's politics and domestic policy? Surely your country has problems of its own.

[NoOneMan]

57. If keeping the entire system means I have to abide by false dichotomies, then no I guess I don't

Your proposed dilemma: Obamacare or shit. My answer: both are shit compared to what civilized nations engage in.

Why waste your time debating another country's politics and domestic policy

America. Fuck Yeah!

Chill the hell out man. Its not bad to talk to those who aren't boxes into the false dichotomies and have some real perspective on alternatives. The entire paradigm on health care in America is poisoned across the entire sick spectrum; and out of sickness, I don't expect glorious things to flourish. Maybe you need a little help from your friends?

[kcr]

65. So, wait.

NoOneMan doesn't even live in the US? That explains a lot.

[NoOneMan]

69. What does that explain?

I have a family to raise. I knew the long term projections with insurance were bleak as a self-employed guy, so I made a move (it was one of the main motivating factors). I understand how universal care really works now.

[kcr]

71. I figured it might explain why you're ignorant of how car dependent our culture is, for one.

[NoOneMan]

81. I was born and raise in the states and spent decades there...

before I recently moved to a single-payer country that has a whole lotta cars too. Oh yeah, car insurance is government run here too!

[kcr]

92. Oh, well then

You're choosing to ignore the fact that driving is a need for many people then. That's worse.

[NoOneMan]

150. Driving isn't a need like breathing or having your heart beat

In fact, I'd really question how much of a real need it is, especially compared European nations that have far better public transportation systems in place and far less people who drive. If the US really wanted to make mandates to promote generally welfare, they would mandate states improve their public transportation and get so many of these people off the road and away from choosing to drive their own vehicles

[kcr]

151. Speaking of comparing apples and oranges.

I agree. We should absolutely model ourselves after Europe in more ways than one. But we don't. And we haven't. That's the reality. Our infrastructure is nothing like theirs. Which is why it's ridiculous to claim that people can simply choose not to drive cars.

[davidpdx]

175. There are many expats who are on DU that still deeply care about the US

So cut out the garbage about people not living in the US not knowing what is going on.

Ever heard of Democrats Abroad? We raise money for candidates in the US, register people to vote, and conduct GOTV activities. Many of the close races in the US are won by absentee ballots, part of which are overseas voters.

Consider yourself schooled.

[kcr]

178. I love it when people come charging in full bore while ignoring context.

Do you even bother reading the other posts and responses?

[REP]

44. I literally own the private roads where I live. Local vehicle codes enforced, though.

So even if I just drove on the private roads here that I literally own, I still must carry liability insurance.

[Hoyt]

51. There are not-for-profit plans available on most areas.

[NoOneMan]

52. True, but you have to find them after being forced as an individual to enter a marketplace

Irregardless of any conditional behavior or choices you make (which is not the case in the OPs example)

[MADem]

129. Yes, and "most people" use "private roads" -- not.

That's just a stupid, overreaching example. The overwhelming majority of people who drive do so on public roads and need insurance.

And they will be arrested and their car impounded if they don't have car insurance.

Stop pretending that a rare outlier is the standard. You're just wasting your time and everyone else's.

[NoOneMan]

149. Such exception prove the anology is shit at its core. The mandate is subject to a choice people make

An apple is not an orange. This entire comparison is overreaching.

The overwhelming majority of people who drive do so on public roads

Those people are not being mandated to drive.

Stop pretending that a rare outlier is the standard

Stop pretending this stupid comparison has any merit. Its stupid. You don't have to pretend to like it anymore.

[MADem]

158. Yes, comparing car insurance to the ACA IS stupid. I agree with that.

It is a stupid comparison and it has no merit.

Glad to see you've finally come around.

[DustyJoe]

127. mandatory vs reality

NM is a mandatory auto insurance state. You must have insurance to register a car. NM also has an outrageous uninsured motorist problem, a large percentage of drivers will buy a quickie 1 month policy to get the car registered for a year and drive without it for 11 months. You will not get arrested if caught, you will receive a traffic ticket. The only time you are checked is registering the car, getting stopped for a traffic infraction or if you have an accident. Also if you hit one of the many roadblocks that generates many dollars thru no-insurance tickets.

So what is the result ? Exactly what is happening with health insurance. There are so many uninsured drivers that the people obeying the law and staying insured have to purchase in their liability coverage the absurd 'uninsured motorist coverage' so if they are in an accident with uninsured drivers their insurance company will supposedly cover them. So in short, the insured pay a higher premium to protect themselves from the uninsured. So totally bassackwards.

[MADem]

128. You'll hit the "insurance roadblock" every year on Apr 15.

It's not a question of chance. You can pay now, and be insured, or later and not be.

Many states have "no fault" so they aren't relying on the "other guy" to pay for their driver's coverage. If the other guy is uninsured, and assuming he doesn't run like hell and not get caught, he's in hot water. Since MA switched to No Fault, costs have plummeted for car insurance. It used to be a rather usurious expense.

And then, there's this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/your-money/want-better-car-insurance-rates-youve-got-to-make-the-call-your-money.html?_r=0

[Chan790]

8. An aside that becomes a relevant parallel.

There are more vacant houses--just houses, free-standing houses...not apartments, condos, row-homes, etc.--than there are homeless people in the United States.

Home prices are largely a function of false scarcity of demand...the problem isn't one where there aren't enough homes to go around, it's one where no-one is willing to sell or lease them as cheaply as their availability would warrant. (I mean I understand, people worked their whole lives to buy a house and now to realize that the value of their home if it were reflective of real demand is less than the cost of lumber to build it...but it seems to me the best way to protect home values at this point would be a moratorium on building more houses.)

What we need isn't a mandate to buy a home...it's middle-class public housing. (Much like we need a public option rather than a mandate to buy private insurance.) If you want something nicer or bigger than what public housing would allow for you, you're free to buy something bigger, nicer, more prestigious in location. You should also be free to buy better insurance...which is why I oppose the Cadillac tax.

[quaker bill]

132. Anyway, lets end homelessness. Mandate home purchases for everyone.

I am good with this on the Obamacare model. Specifically, if you make so little that you really can't afford the payment (the reason most folks are homeless), government provides a subsidy that covers a large part of the payment.

Basically a more aggressive form of CDBG housing.

I am fine with the notion.

[renie408]

163. What I would really like to mandate for everyone is a minimum IQ.

But I see evidence every day that proves that to be quite unattainable for some.

[DeadEyeDyck]

180. most states don't even require liability.

The company I worked for had a fleet of business cars. They maintained a legal escrow to pay for an accident for which they were liable. This proved to be more cost effective.

[NoOneMan]

181. That's very interesting

[krispos42]

3. Can this person guarantee that he will never, ever, ever use public health services?

No?

Then buy the fucking insurance.

[Hoyt]

56. I'm with you there.

[Keefer]

4. As to the sign...

Firstly, "Manditory" is spelled "Mandatory."
Secondly, it's not a "fine." It's a tax.

You are NOT forced to buy auto insurance if you don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can decide not to drive.

[MADem]

6. Well, when Wesley Snipes decided he wasn't going to "purchase" his investment in America via his tax

obligations, he not only got fined, he got jailed!!!!

Love the creative spelling.... MANDITORY, eh? If he's gonna be dramatic, it's probably a good idea to use spell check, ya know..."Get a brain, MORANS" and all that...?

This clown will pay his "manditory" fine when he pays his taxes, and if he doesn't pay his "manditory" taxes, to include that "fine" he's whining about, his ass could end up in jail, his assets could be seized, and he'd really have something to cry about.

[Taitertots]

12. I disagree with your defense. And, I suggest that wingnuts take note of the following:

The government does in fact have the constitutional right to create laws and levy taxes (fines). The Right leaning Supreme Court and the preponderance of legal scholars agree.

[last1standing]

13. This is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the ACA.

It presents the availability of healthcare to a mandatory purchase, whether you want it or not. That was always a mistake, both in practice and in public relations because it is very hard to think of anything that MUST be purchased without placing an "if" before the statement. "If you own a car," "If you go out in public," "If you own a business..." other than ACA.

On the other hand, there really are many things Americans are forced to purchase that don't require an "if." We are forced to purchase security in the form of our military, police, and firefighters. We are also forced to purchase construction in the form of roadways, sidewalks, schools, hospitals, and libraries. We are forced to purchase the services of educators, social workers, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and all sorts of workers who provide the necessities of life in a society. We are even forced to purchase the services of the people to force us to purchase those services and things in the form of our legislature and president.

The two major differences are 1) how those forced things and services are paid for, and 2) how those things and services are presented.

First, we pay for nearly every other mandatory service and thing through taxation (I can't think of one that we don't). Non-mandatory purchases, or "if you have" governmentally related purchases are usually handled through fees in the form of permits and licenses. An obvious benefit, which ties into the second point, is that it would have shifted more of the burden onto those best able to pay for the program instead of ending up looking like an unsustainable tax on a minority of working class American who make just enough not to qualify for subsidies.

Second, I believe, that if ACA were funded through the tax system instead of direct mandatory payments to a corporation, the program would have had a more successful start because there would have been less sticker shock for many working class citizens who are finding out that they don't qualify for subsidies (this varies by state, of course) and the very people who are now pissed off because their policies are being cancelled would be celebrating their extra coverage. As it stands, ACA is getting hit with a massive negative campaign because it's very easy to exploit the anger of those who only see immediate rising bills and not the long term benefits of that increase.

Mind you, the money that is being pumped into negative ACA campaigns could likely pay the difference for every single person hit with an increase, but that fact won't make it into the news channels.

[Laelth]

14. I loathe this analogy. It is disingenuous, at best.

The ACA is the law, and I don't want to argue about it, but I don't want to deceive people about it either.

If you drive a vehicle on the public roads, you must purchase liability insurance.
If you own a business that employs X number of people, you must purchase workers' compensation insurance.

Note that both of the above are choices that people can make. The government does not compel people to buy a product from a given market in those cases unless those people make certain choices (to drive a vehicle or open a business).

The ACA is categorically different. With the ACA, the Federal Government has ordered people to participate in a private market whether said people want to do so or not. No choice is available to people that would then activate the mandate. Just being alive is the only criteria. No other federal mandate is like the ACA's. It's unprecedented.

In the end, I'm fine with the ACA (as I hope it leads us to single payer), but I will not pretend that it's just like auto insurance. It is not.

-Laelth

[arely staircase]

18. so you would like a single payer system that is optional/voluntary?

how would that work exactly?

[Laelth]

20. Go away. n/t

-Laelth

[arely staircase]

21. no nt

[NoOneMan]

24. Much like how the army only fights on your behalf if you exercise that option to have them do so

Uhhh. huh? I hope I am making less sense than you now.

Its absurd how people don't understand that the government providing services for everyone, funded equitably by taxes, is vastly different than forcing people into the private marketplace to largely fend for themselves as individual purchasers. You want to talk about automobiles? Are we contracting people to make our own roads for us? Or is the government taking care of that on our behalf for the most part?

[NOVA_Dem]

94. It's difficult to see so many on our side lack critical thinking skills.

If GWB had pushed the ACA, DU would be railing about how we were being forced to turn over money to a private corporation by force of the gov't.

People who say the ACA is just like car insurance are either liars or stupid.

[kcr]

96. I think people who won't acknowledge that driving is a basic need to function in society in the US

Are just ignoring that basic fact to make their point, are being disingenuous in the extreme. If someone is forced to buy a product through a private company in order to avail themselves of that basic right, then that is the same thing. They are indeed being forced. They don't have a choice in the matter. They could quit their job and live in the streets. Claiming that is a choice is absurd. If GB had pushed the AC? Well, he didn't did he? I wonder why that is.

Look, I won't argue that it is inferior to single payer, and I'd certainly rather have that. But I'm glad my relative with cancer will now be able to get treatment. Call me a liar if it makes you feel better.

[last1standing]

102. There are many people in this country who don't need to drive cars and function extremely well.

In many places public transport has removed the need for privately owned automobiles for many people of all economic levels. I know people who take the bus because it's cheap and people who take the subway because it's the fastest transport in the area. These people don't have cars and they don't have car insurance.

What you're really saying is that where you live, driving is a basic need because your area does not have fast, efficient public transport that goes to the places people want to go. But many people in this country live differently than you.

[kcr]

103. Yes, but to the people who do need buy them

Does it even make a difference that there are people who exist who don't? If I don't have a car, and there's no other way for me to get to my job, get to the places I need to get to to make myself presentable and well fed for my job, take care of my family etc. What does it even matter that some people can get by without one? The argument doesn't even make sense. If I have to buy insurance in order to drive that car. It. Is. Mandated.

[last1standing]

109. "If" you are forced to buy a car it's mandated, but you aren't being forced to buy a car.

A car may be more efficient, or less expensive that other methods where you're at, but there is no mandate to purchase one. You could call for a taxi, ride a horse, walk, or even crawl. You could also not live in a place that makes owning a car so necessary.

In other words, you are holding up an example of convenience you chose and trying to claim you were mandated to purchase one. That is patently not true and it doesn't matter how many times you try to say it is. It. Still. Won't. Be. True.

On the other hand, ACA is being mandated for those who are not currently being provided with health insurance from other sources. It makes a big difference. I'm not trying to say it's not Constitutional as it clearly is. I'm saying that the method of paying for it makes it a very large tax on certain working class people which makes it incredibly regressive. It would be far more efficient, but less politically viable, to simply place the tax where it belongs which is under the income tax system.

[kcr]

111. You are if you live someplace with little to no reliable public transporation

You're forced by the necessity of it. No one's forced to have a job, either. This argument is like the independently wealthy being clueless about the rest of us. Gee, why don't people just play golf all day?

[last1standing]

117. Did the government mandate that you to live in that location?

What agency is telling you that you are not allowed to move? I'd like to know because the Supreme Court has held that the freedom of travel cannot be restricted. You could have a very good court case.

Now, if you're not being forced by the government to live where you are, then you are saying that you like to live where you do and owning a car is the most convenient manner of transportation for yourself and others in your area. Your claim is analogous to moving into a swamp then claiming you're being mandated to drain it. There is no mandate. No one has forced you to live where you do. You chose that. It is your decision. How many ways can I say this before you understand the basic premise that you live where you live because you want to, not because you are being forced to?

By the way, poor people ride the bus, too.

[kcr]

118. Because it's sooo ,cheap to move, right?

Because they might not want to be closer to family and friends or uproot themselves or give up the job they have and risk having to find another. They just may not be able to afford it. Really, could the majority of people who live in places that have little to no public transporation ALL move to the places that do? Right now?

[last1standing]

120. I didn't read any mandates in your response, only desires.

You "want" to live near family and friends. You don't want to "give up" a job. You don't want to "risk" having to find another. You "may" not be able to afford it.

Regardless, it really comes down to this: You do not live where you live because anyone forced you to live there. You do not own a car because anyone forced you to buy one. You do not drive because anyone forced you to drive. You do not have car insurance because anyone forced you to buy a car or drive it.

You chose those things because you believed it better than the alternative. You choose to live where you do because you like it there or because it's better than living in a shelter in a city with transportation. You own a car because it's cheaper to purchase a car than to call for a taxi every time you want to go someplace. You drive because you want to get to that place. You buy car insurance because the government mandates that you purchase it IF AND ONLY IF you decide you voluntarily decide to do all the things listed previously. I'm not suggesting that any of your decisions were wrong, only that you made them; no one forced them on you.

If you can show me how that is analogous to being mandated to purchase health insurance under ACA, without resorting to the old "if you don't like it you can leave the country" meme used by republicans, I'd love to be enlightened.

[kcr]

121. Only desires?

Ugh. Seriously? When the right does this? When they take the hardscrabble struggle to make do, to do the best we can? In our ever shrinking middle class? And call them "Choices"? We very rightfully get angry. I remember the response that some trolls got during the height of hte recesion when they said things like "Why don't people move to the jobs?" Rightful disdain. But I guess it's okay to do that when you need to present the need to make a living as a "choice" in order to make your argument make sense. Then it's okay.

And I'll re-submit, though you may have missed it in my edit. Can everyone who lives in areas without public transportation move to those with? And do so now? I don't think so.

[last1standing]

122. At this point you must be purposely not understanding.

All I can suggest is that you go back and re-read my posts. After that, if you don't have a very clear idea on what the word "mandate" means, check out an online dictionary. If you still don't understand, go on thinking that you are being mandated to drive a car.

Honestly, I give up.

[kcr]

123. I think you're the one not understanding.

I think maybe it's good that you give up. Because claiming that car insurance isn't a good analogy is ignoring that most people who buy car insurance are indeed effectively mandated because they don't have a choice. Not hard to understand.

[Niceguy1]

133. you can ride a bike to work.

I do, Its fun,

[kcr]

135. Great. How many people can do that?

Nice that you have a commute that allows this. When everyone has a commute that allows this option and/or lives in bike friendly areas, areas with good public transportation and walkibility, then the analogy fails to work. Until then...

[Niceguy1]

136. point being owning a car

And buying auto insurance is not mandatory... and I don't live in a bike friendly area...too many pubes and they hate bike lanes. But they are a perk and not really needed to get from piunt a to b

[kcr]

138. Your point fails

Just because you can ride a bike to work doesn't everyone else can, too. Bootstraps! I love how no one likes that argument until they need it to make a point.

[Niceguy1]

140. show me the law or cite the civil/tax code

Where owning a car is mandatory?

Just like underwear, cars are nice and make life easier but are not required by law lol

[kcr]

142. The cars aren't mandated, but the insurance to drive them is!

Mighty hard to drive the cars without the insurance. And our good ol' US of A with its vast swaths of land, was set up with its mighty, might roadway system and dependence on oil, and it's hobbling of our public transit system, to make most of its citizens dependent on it. To make the argument that the analogy doesn't work, the facts that our country is so vast, our lack of options and the fact we are so dependent on vehicles, are might inconvenient facts, and they have to be ignored in order to claim the analogy doesn't work.

[Niceguy1]

143. so, if you,like many in big cities,

don't own a car or drive should you have to pay auto insurance anyways?

[kcr]

144. No.

But the fact that people in big cities can get by without a car doesn't change the fact that many more people live in other areas, including many big cities, where you still have to have a car. There are cities in this country that have abysmal public transpiration. They're not all like NYC. And even if you can get around the city without a car, there are jobs that require you to have your own car, particularly ones located in those cities with crappy public transit. They won't hire you without it. So, if the person wants a job, they get the car. I'm sorry, but car insurance is heavily mandated, because a huge parentage of the population have to have it, because it is mandated if you have a car. And the USA is a country that is dependent on autos for transpiration. The fact that some are exempt from that doesn't change that fact. The auto insurance industry gets its business from people who have to buy it because they have a car. It's a valid analogy.

[Niceguy1]

145. need does not equate to a legal

Mandate......

[kcr]

147. How so?

The mandate for car insurance is legal. It's a legal requirement. The fact that not everyone needs to buy a car actually is irrelevant. It's still a mandate. I don't think people who don't drive cars are doing it just to get out of paying car insurance. They're doing it because they don't need to drive a car. You're absolutely right it's merely a legal requirement. But guess what? It's still a mandate. A mandate is a mandate is a mandate. Health insurance is a mandate. Car insurance is a mandate. So the analogy works there. And a huge percentage of Americans have to own a car, so a vast majority of Americans are subject to the mandate because of that. So the analogy works from that angle.

[TheKentuckian]

165. Your whole deal falls apart because I guarantee that someone in your neck of the woods

has no car and no matter how much you claim they need one to exist just like they need air to breathe and you won't be pushing to mandate they own one anytime soon or ever and I doubt and hope you will even make any effort to make this person purchase auto insurance anyway either.

Both of these things proving that neither you nor virtually anyone else really believes your comparison is actually apt as you want to contend so you can have some kind of anchor point in a different argument for a solution I expect you understand is deeply flawed no matter how strongly you also believe it to be the best that could be done (also less than earnest since better deals have been rejected in the past, pushing us past the boundaries of mere possibility, even of plausibility become dubious at any given time).

I understands that the auto insurance mandate is your best comparison, it does not follow that it is a good one on its own merits. You know if isn't the same because from jump you are stuck accepting that millions and tens of millions of Americans legally do not buy insurance. It falters further when we account for people like me who drive but could go without, even if doing so would be arduous. I think I could arguably take the bus, it would be fucking awful and add like five, maybe six hours to my commute but it is possible.

Hell, if we were hard nosed on folks like me and certainly others where driving is even more of a convenience, I bet we find that those that absolutely must drive are the minority. Most folks live in and around major cities. I'll go out on the limb and further bet that the majority of people live within 2 miles of public transportation and work somewhere within the same distance. Extend it to 3 miles and it becomes are cinch. The comparison is weak because it starts off based off a false assumption, heavily colored by personal circumstances and rides the suburban conflation of privilege and convenience as right and goes from there.

You indeed may need you car and as a consequence, insurance for it but most probably do not. Granted, extremely desirable for many of us, maybe even approaching making life livable territory but not meeting the bar for required for life by any stretch of the imagination.

Including myself where we would be talking 19 or so hours a day strictly at work and going to and fro.

[kcr]

166. To make the claim that it doesn't follow

is making the claim that most in the US don't really need their cars. I know it's nice to pretend this fact is true. That the millions of people who use automobiles in this country could sell their cars tomorrow and use alternate transportation if they really wanted to. But it's just silly.

[TheKentuckian]

172. How is it silly? What did I say that doesn't compute?

[kcr]

174. How does that not compute?

Easy. Your claim that most people don't need their cars. The infrastructure in our country is simply nowhere near currently set up that the majority of car owners could give them up.

[kcr]

173. delete

[duffyduff]

139. Most areas of the country require a car. n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

98. I disagree

One purchases car insurance because the operation of a vehicle creates a potential liability beyond what most indivduals can readily pay. I hope we can agree on this without getting into calling me a liar or an idiot.

This is the reality of why we now are all purchasing medical insurance. As it stands now, the uninsured end up in emergency rooms that are compelled to treat and, if necessary, hospitalize them. It creates a potential liability beyond what the average indvidual can pay. As a result, the liability ends up falling to cash-strapped states and counties, cash-strapped federal programs, or hospitals -- who are not cash strapped, but will think nothing of passing the costs of the indigent on to the insured.

By forcing people into inurance, the potential liability is funded (after deductibles and co-pays), and the ability to obtain at least minimal preventive care has a good potential to lower costs.

..and being completely honest, if GWB had brought in single payer, we'd have been deeply suspicious. Truthfully, I can't remember what most here said about Medicare D.

[arely staircase]

100. Or in your case, manners.

I am of course giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding sides and all.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. Rec

[OmahaBlueDog]

134. ..as I said in another post downthread

I do understand that there is a choice involved in auto and business ownership. It is not the choice that makes the analogy valid. The fact is that a person's health has an inherent potential liability -- just as a car and a business have inherent potential liability. The fact that you have no choice or control over the matter doesn't change the liability. If you have no disposable income, and you are sick enough, you will be treated in an ER, and potentially hospitalized. Those costs will either get passed on to other medical consumers, on to taxing authorities, or both. If we lived in a society in which those who couldn't afford treatment were simply allowed to die (which would be an abhorrent state of affairs), then, from a philosophical perspective, I might take your point. However, we don't do that, so the costs must be allocated.

So I don't feel the analogy is disingenuous. You are alive. Accordingly, your health costs need to be covered.

[Laelth]

162. As an attorney, I tend to see things from a legal perspective.

What I am saying is that the mandate of the ACA is unprecedented. There's never been anything like it before (and I hope there's nothing like it again). It is not the business of the Federal Government to compel participation in a private, for-profit market. Never has the Federal Government done anything like this before.

States have compelled participation in private markets for those who make certain choices, i.e. to drive or to employ people, but, to my knowledge, the Federal Government has never done so before, and no state to my knowledge has compelled participation in a private market absent some choice on the part of the citizens who are so compelled.

Again, I support the ACA, but it stretches credulity to argue that the ACA's mandate is just like compulsory liability insurance for those who choose to drive on the public roads. From a legal perspective, these two mandates are very different.

-Laelth

[JoePhilly]

33. You don't have to buy insurance, but if you do, you avoid a tax.

Kind of like how the government does not force you to buy a house with a mortgage, but if you do, you avoid paying tax on the interest.

The choice to buy the insurance, or to buy a house, are yours.

[taught_me_patience]

43. Supreme court says otherwise

The "fine" is a defacto tax... hence it's legality.

[Thinkingabout]

48. Here is a problem, for years the insured, medicaid and some charities has had to pick up the

Cost of health care given to those without insurance. Health care facilities charge prices to cover the non payers. Now tell me how fair is it to those who purchase health insurance and employers of insured employees when the cost is passed on to the insured. For those who thinks it is ok to nit purchase health insurance we can reverse the process and the uninsured can pay the cost of the current insured for a year and see if this is fair. Somewhere we need to take personal responsibilities for ourselves. Seniors on Social Security on average gets $1200 a month, out of this and if they are on Medicare the cost is $105 monthly and there are co-pays for them to pay also. If a person does not want to take responsibility for themselves why should others take this responsibility?

[elleng]

53. Right, idiot,

and I don't think I should be forced to pay for your hospital stay when you hit the ER uninsured!

[oldhippie]

86. Hey, I got an idea ........

Why don't we just stop doing that?

I know, I know .....

[Deep13]

54. Then call it a "tax" like the Chief Justice did.

The 16th Am. is pretty clear on that.

[Niceguy1]

66. this has been discussed

A million times here already

[madinmaryland]

73. What's one more time?? It's a discussion board.

[Niceguy1]

82. becasue there only

Is so much u can beat this dead horse......

[madinmaryland]

106. "Hide Thread" is your friend!

[Niceguy1]

108. nah, its fun.

Still trying to find a produxt or service that by law we must purchase.. car insurance doesn't work as tou don't have to own a car...

[libdem4life]

72. Stunningly absurd...when one of these retards' kids has an accident, the first call is to...exactly

what number? Supported by exactly who?

Just like the anti-FEMA idiots...only good if and when it happens to me or mine. The government-haters thrive...until they don't.

Sillier yet a poster comparing to ...buying a day pass for some road ... like we should all just be able to call in for a quickie Day Pass to the hospital while awaiting the ambulance?

[NoOneMan]

84. Who compared buying a day pass to health insurance

I mentioned that people can get temporary daily vehicle insurance solely to show how different this is from the health insurance mandate. No, that's not how health insurance should work (but its how auto insurance can work which makes the OPs comparison silly)

[libdem4life]

97. And just how does that work...the daily insurance thing...after the accident? Kind of like the $50

a month health insurance...a farce and bait, but I'll continue.

Here's a fact. Not every American will need car insurance. Children don't need car insurance. Yet I got hit head on by an uninsured motorist and there were 2 adults and one child injured and an unborn child in my car. He was totally at fault and walked away without a scratch...being in an ancient old steel pickup. Guess who paid...whose insurance policy went up?

Every single American will need the health system, aka health insurance at some time or other, starting at birth...perhaps you're not a parent and don't understand that these days, home birth and herbs and teas and concoctions aren't as common as before.

Then, there are well baby exams so they don't infect other children, before they go to school for mandatory vaccinations, if nothing else. Children will be sent to Emergency Rooms whether their parents agree or not, when injured on public property or at school. Before, if uninsured, a serious incident would likely bankrupt the parents. Then there are the teens...

The chances of needing car insurance are quite low. The chances of needing health insurance are 100%. Time to be responsible.

You're living in the wrong century, or just delight in being uninformed.

[NoOneMan]

137. Or you are arguing against uninformed strawmen

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2013, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

That could be it.

I fully support every man, woman and child being insured for health. I do not support doing this with a mandate that forces them into a marketplace as individuals

Here's a fact. Not every American will need car insurance. Children don't need car insurance.

Exactly. And that is exactly why I am telling the OP this is a silly comparison. People need to breathe every day. They need to always have coverage that allows them access to quality care, irregardless of choices. With driving, its not the case

[libdem4life]

152. How else will every child be covered at this time in history...absent single payer? How will the

tax paying public be relieved of funding "emergency coverage" without a mandate. That's what I don't see.

[NoOneMan]

153. You just answered your question

The state can follow its typical pattern it uses for road construction, police, military, etc, and provide a service for everyone funded equitably, OR it can force people to enter the marketplace as individuals that has an anti-trust exemption (see McCarran–Ferguson Act), to purchase tiered products that encourage class stratification and promote inequitable health outcomes among different quintiles. The later is not only very unique, but its fucking asinine to defend at this point (look, its the law of the land. You don't have to carry its water anymore. Its not as shitty--maybe--as it used to be but its still fucking awful)

[libdem4life]

155. Well I certainly agree with Medicare-type funding, but the states still have the options and they

are shirking their duties. Is it not the federal mandate for individuals that will force them into doing their fair share for their people...red state or blue state?

[OmahaBlueDog]

93. Please do me a favor. Please!

Please switch the "R" word with anything -- idiots, morons, tools, dullards... I'm not trying to be the PC police, but I truly do understand why some people find that particular word really offensive.

Thanks!

[libdem4life]

99. You are right...I know better. Apologies to all.

[WinkyDink]

105. Owning a car is not a requisite for US citizenship. Especially citizens of Manhattan!

[lostincalifornia]

113. There are some exceptions. If the premium of the bronze plan exceeds 8% of

The magi income they are excepted from the mandate

[B Calm]

119. It costs to live in a civilized society!

[NoOneMan]

148. No doubt. I have to hire mercenaries to fight my oil wars for me

Or wait. I dont. Because a single payer funds an army, so I get to stay out of the merc market.

Same goes for police. Firemen. Roads. Public education. Nobody is mandated to personally hire, from private companies, people to do these services the government should do for everyone. A civilized society would know this (and the US isn't one)

[Lint Head]

124. Yeah. Just make everyone else pay for your healthcare while you pay nothing for yours.

[BlueStreak]

156. A "bagger" friend had the temerity to argue "everybody has health care: the ER"

He said "by law the ER can't turn anybody away, so everybody already has health care."

I asked him who paid for that and he honestly didn't know. These people are really, really stupid. Willfully stupid.

And let's be clear. To the extent that there are any laws governing the ERs, they don't generally require the ERs to provide "health care" per se. What they generally require is that they make their best effort to stabilize an acute life-threatening condition, then send the schmuck on his way. If you have a heart attack, they certainly will try to save your life, and stabilize your heart function. They won't necessarily admit you and schedule you for open heart surgery.

In defense of my stupid bagger friend, Romney made exactly the same argument in the debates last year. As I say these are willfully stupid people.

[Lint Head]

160. Totally agree. To them ignorance in general and ignorance of science is bliss.

[markpkessinger]

167. That bagger might change his tune if he ever actually had to use the ER like that . . .

I did. About 10 years ago, during a period when I was between jobs for about a year and had no insurance, I had four episodes of what I later found out were gall-bladder attacks, each of which lasted 3-4 days. It was the worst pain I have ever experienced -- worse, even, than the ruptured appendix I suffered two years ago. During the attacks, I could barely even breath because of the intense pain. I couldn't even lie down or sleep. The first two times, In went to the ER of one particular Brooklyn hospital, and the third time to a different one. In all three visits, I was given little more than a cursory exam; on one of the three visits, they didn't so much as even draw blood to test. I was sent home each time with a diagnosis of 'gastroenteritis' -- a 50-cent word for 'stomach ache.' I was in my early 40s and was not someone who had a habit of running to a doctor over every little ache and pain -- I knew from stomach aches, thank you. When it happened a fourth time, I didn't even bother trying to go to an ER -- what would have been the point? Later, when I was again gainfully employed and had health insurance, I had another attack and did go to an ER. The difference in the treatment I received was like night and day -- and the attacks were stopped for good when I had surgery to remove my gall bladder. My point is, sure, you can go to an ER. But unless they're convinced you are in imminent danger of dying on the spot, they aren't likely to do a whole hell of a lot for you! All I know is, I wouldn't wish that kind of pain on my worst enemy.

[BlueStreak]

171. Thanks for the reality check.

This talking point that everybody can have HC in the ER is really insidious.

[we can do it]

125. Why do they continue opening their mouths?

[Agnosticsherbet]

126. The Supreme Court upheld the the ACA requirement as a tax.

The Government has that power.

Wingnuts are stupid.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html

[ZX86]

130. I get so tired of idiots spouting "absolutes" over their freedoms.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater despite what the 1st Amendment says. You can't own nuclear weapons despite what the 2nd Amendment says. You can't deny medical services to your children because you belong to some kooky religion.

Arguing against the mandate is like complaining about having to contribute to the purchase of fire trucks because your house isn't on fire. Eventually you will end up at hospital. Everybody does.

[duffyduff]

141. Problem is, most people can't afford the insurance.

This is all about gutting company-paid health insurance so that they have even more money in profits. They will get their loopholes, and people will be screwed over buying shitty insurance they cannot afford to pay and cannot afford to use.

It's really disconcerting to see all this support for ACA when the whole thing was bad law to begin with. The Obama administration needed to concentrate on the economy and jobs instead of this boondoggle.

[ZX86]

168. ACA is NOT a boondoggle.

It's the first step on the road to single payer. Ignoring the nation's health care crisis is unacceptable. It's time to lead, follow, or get out of the way. The days of nay saying are over.

[Sunlei]

146. oh the IRS can take that 'fine' right out of your bank or paycheck and nothing you can do to stop it

[JoeyT]

157. Owning a car/owning a business and living are so far removed from one another

that comparing them is a non sequitur.

Not buying a car is an option. Not owning a business is optional. Ceasing breathing isn't. Keeping insurance/tags on your car is part of what you agree to when you want to drive your cars on public roads. If you don't like it you don't have to drive. Workers comp is what you agree to to have employees. If you don't like it, you can either not own a business, or own a business that doesn't require employees.

What's the alternative to purchasing medical insurance or paying a fine? Suicide?

The mandate is stupid and illiberal as hell, but it's the law, and we have to take the bad parts of the ACA with the good parts of the ACA. We can do so while admitting the bad parts are bad, and praising the good parts as good.

[Kablooie]

170. Perhaps not but you can be given a tax deduction if you do certain things.

They should have framed it this way.
Everyone pays the new tax but it is waived if you buy insurance.

Of course this would make the right go crazy because it's a new tax but they are going insane anyway.

[NoOneMan]

177. Framing it that way insists that Obama raised taxes on everyone

and I don't think that's the alternative angle people want to go to bat for.

[sendero]

179. There are a lot of things you don't believe..

.... because like 50% of Americans, you are not too bright.