pBills Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 The state is telling people what they must do IF THEY OWN A CAR. The federal government is telling people what to do IF THEY ARE BREATHING. Some would argue that THIS is why comparing the two is ridiculous. Don't want car insurance? Don't get a car. Or pay cash so you only have to cover the basics. But you are not born into this world with an immediate mandate to buy car insurance. In terms of your ER trickle down theory, two very simple points: first, I am not forced to pay those costs simply because I'm alive. I only pay those trickle down costs if I use the hospital that is trying to pass it on to me; and second, EVERY profitable provider of goods or services builds loss into their costs, which is in your mind trickling down to the consumer. "You're paying for it anyway" is quite possibly one of the laziest arguments anyone could possibly try to make. Of course you pay those extra costs if you use that particular hospitals. However, hospitals also receive funding from their State as well as other areas (private providers and sources). How do you think the State funds that? Taxes, Government Grants and Medicare and Medicaid. You don't help pay for any of that?
drnykterstein Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 I think you confuse having a brain with having no heart. The two are not mutually exclusive. Since you have no brain, try asking your heart about this.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 Both have the government telling you what to do. Correct... driving is a privilege. Since we're talking about the surface level shouldn't those people forego driving because the government is forcing them to purchase insurance? Matter of principle to them. No, because the government's not forcing them to DRIVE. You can - and many people do - get by without owning a car. You'd have a point if the government forced everyone to buy car insurance regardless of whether they had a car or not - which is the equivalent of the health insurance mandate, considering that it requires people who refuse to partake of health care resources (of which there actually are such in this country, believe it or not) to purchase insurance. Although even more accurately, the health care plan is the equivalent of the government forcing people to buy cars - you have to own it, whether you intend to use it or not. And again, keep in mind: this is coming from a guy who pays his own not inconsiderable health care costs out-of-pocket. I even set my own broken ankle a year ago (it healed nicely, thanks). So why the hell should I be forced to buy health insurance?
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 No, because the government's not forcing them to DRIVE. You can - and many people do - get by without owning a car. You'd have a point if the government forced everyone to buy car insurance regardless of whether they had a car or not - which is the equivalent of the health insurance mandate, considering that it requires people who refuse to partake of health care resources (of which there actually are such in this country, believe it or not) to purchase insurance. Although even more accurately, the health care plan is the equivalent of the government forcing people to buy cars - you have to own it, whether you intend to use it or not. And again, keep in mind: this is coming from a guy who pays his own not inconsiderable health care costs out-of-pocket. I even set my own broken ankle a year ago (it healed nicely, thanks). So why the hell should I be forced to buy health insurance? That broken ankle thing must have really been big to you. You never fail to mention it.
DC Tom Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 That broken ankle thing must have really been big to you. You never fail to mention it. Just to avoid the inevitable accusation of not living what I believe. Next week I'm giving myself a triple bypass...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Just to avoid the inevitable accusation of not living what I believe. Next week I'm giving myself a triple bypass... How crude. I self installed my own shunts. Bypasses are so yesterday. I suppose you bite on a bullet while amputating your leg
Magox Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 You guys are all missing the main point. It is called LIABILITY. If you drive, then the government has a right for you to carry liability insurance. You dont have to insure your own car unless of course you are financing or leasing it, in which that is simply because the lender requires you to be liable for the auto. Even if you own the car outright, the only insurance you are required to carry is liability. YOu can't drive around without having some sort of liability insurance to pay for an accident you caused. It is your decision to drive the car, if you drive the car then you have to be responsible for your actions towards others. Nothing mandates you to carry insurance for your own behalf.
DC Tom Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 How crude. I self installed my own shunts. Bypasses are so yesterday. I suppose you bite on a bullet while amputating your leg Yeah, and I bet you have someone else load your rifle when you hunt caribou. Real men don't take shortcuts. And I'm not biting any bullet. Just a couple shots of whiskey...I'm old school.
Doc Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Who is asking care be DENIED? Oh thats right...NOBODY. How do we prevent costs be trickled down to someone else? How about the recipient of the service PAY FOR IT, either up front or on some sort of credit plan? That only works for every other !@#$ing business and service provider in the galaxy. And contrary to your STUPID assertion that "no insurance means no care", you can walk into any doctors office or hospital and PAY COLD CASH for your care...your exam, your procedure, your tests, your hospital stay....anything. They DO take checks and credit cards. Bingo. The problem is, people don't want to pay when they feel they should get it cheap or for free. And it's a matter of perception. I hear people say all the time "I have to go to the doctor." No, you want to go to the doctor, to get better.
pBills Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 No, because the government's not forcing them to DRIVE. You can - and many people do - get by without owning a car. You'd have a point if the government forced everyone to buy car insurance regardless of whether they had a car or not - which is the equivalent of the health insurance mandate, considering that it requires people who refuse to partake of health care resources (of which there actually are such in this country, believe it or not) to purchase insurance. Although even more accurately, the health care plan is the equivalent of the government forcing people to buy cars - you have to own it, whether you intend to use it or not. And again, keep in mind: this is coming from a guy who pays his own not inconsiderable health care costs out-of-pocket. I even set my own broken ankle a year ago (it healed nicely, thanks). So why the hell should I be forced to buy health insurance? Of course the government is not forcing anyone to drive. That is why I said on the surface.. if someone is so against the government having anything to do with their lives... stating it's government telling them what to do, etc. They should be against the government telling them what to do on all levels. Plain and simple. Bingo. The problem is, people don't want to pay when they feel they should get it cheap or for free. And it's a matter of perception. I hear people say all the time "I have to go to the doctor." No, you want to go to the doctor, to get better. Actually most of the time people have to go to the doctor to get better. Unless people can simply self-diagnose, then receive prescription medicine for what ails them without seeing a doctor where you live... you kind of HAVE to go to the doctor.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 (edited) Yeah, and I bet you have someone else load your rifle when you hunt caribou. Real men don't take shortcuts. And I'm not biting any bullet. Just a couple shots of whiskey...I'm old school. How did you know? I have Sarah load it. Never managed to shoot a thing yet, but nights at the tent are something else. Edited December 15, 2010 by Jim in Anchorage
Magox Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Of course the government is not forcing anyone to drive. That is why I said on the surface.. if someone is so against the government having anything to do with their lives... stating it's government telling them what to do, etc. They should be against the government telling them what to do on all levels. Plain and simple. No, because you are liable for causing harm or damage to someone else. YOu are not required by law to carry insurance on yourself. If you drive, then you very well may harm another, and for that you must carry liability insurance. Plain and simple.
DC Tom Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Of course the government is not forcing anyone to drive. That is why I said on the surface.. if someone is so against the government having anything to do with their lives... stating it's government telling them what to do, etc. They should be against the government telling them what to do on all levels. Plain and simple. The government doesn't tell anyone to buy car insurance. Actually most of the time people have to go to the doctor to get better. Unless people can simply self-diagnose, then receive prescription medicine for what ails them without seeing a doctor where you live... you kind of HAVE to go to the doctor. Quite a few people don't - they will self-diagnose, and self-prescribe, without seeing a doctor. But now those people will have to buy health insurance...that they never intend to use.
pBills Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 The government doesn't tell anyone to buy car insurance. Quite a few people don't - they will self-diagnose, and self-prescribe, without seeing a doctor. But now those people will have to buy health insurance...that they never intend to use. Your state does not require you to have car insurance? Mine does. And yes, people self-diagnose and buy whatever they think will work. Keeping that in mind a lot of those people will eventually see a doctor when they don't get better.
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Of course the government is not forcing anyone to drive. That is why I said on the surface.. if someone is so against the government having anything to do with their lives... stating it's government telling them what to do, etc. They should be against the government telling them what to do on all levels. Plain and simple. Dude, you're getting horse guts on everyone. Stop that! Now, if you know of people who suggest the government should never ever have anything whatsoever to do with anything at all that affects their lives in any way, then you should go present this argument to them. Granted, it's still kind of weak in that the conclusion is based solely on your opinion (If you don't like a in b you shouldn't like a in c-z, although there are material differences in the variables and we've not defined the parameters) but at least you'll have an adversary against whose stance you're actually arguing, instead of just beating a strawman and horse simultaneously. (or are you beating a straw horse? I digress) To illustrate how retarded this argument is, I'll give you some statements that parallel your logic: If you're ok with TSA doing a light frisk, you should be ok with them doing a cavity search in public b/c both involve them invading your privacy to some degree. If you're ok with putting drunks in the drunk tank to dry out then you must be ok with repealing the right to trial because both involve a restriction of liberty prior to pleading your case in court. Or if you don't like the Care Bears, you must want to eradicate polar bears, because both cases involve antipathy towards bears. See the problem?
Doc Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Actually most of the time people have to go to the doctor to get better. Unless people can simply self-diagnose, then receive prescription medicine for what ails them without seeing a doctor where you live... you kind of HAVE to go to the doctor. Yes, if people want to get better, they go to the doctor. There is no "have" since they could treat their ailment themselves, hope it goes away on its own, or live/die with it. Again the perception that they "have" to go is the problem. Hence the reason people think medical care should be cheap or free, while people have no qualms dropping hundreds on entertainment.
RkFast Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Here, pbills....in small words so you can understand: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/14/holder-and-sebelius-trot-out-the-auto-insurance-canard/
IDBillzFan Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 That is why I said on the surface.. Qualifying your argument that health insurance and car insurance are the same "on the surface" is like saying Chimay blue label and Genny Cream Ale are the same because they both come in a bottle. Really. Get over it. The analogy does not work. You do much better with your "ER trickle down cost as a reason to force people to pay for something they otherwise may not personally have to pay for" argument, as ridiculous as it is.
pBills Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 Yes, if people want to get better, they go to the doctor. There is no "have" since they could treat their ailment themselves, hope it goes away on its own, or live/die with it. Again the perception that they "have" to go is the problem. Hence the reason people think medical care should be cheap or free, while people have no qualms dropping hundreds on entertainment. What person does not want to get better? I think people would and should hope for affordable healthcare. I think it's sad that people would rather hope that whatever ails them goes away, lives with the ailment or die from it that have insurance and easier access to a doctor. Mainly because insurance is just not affordable to them. You don't wish for cheaper or more affordable health insurance? Man I would love to live in your world where I could care less about health insurance rates going up each year 10% or more. And to state that people are always wasting their money on entertainment, etc ... just a bad blanket statement that I am sure does not truly represent the masses.
IDBillzFan Posted December 15, 2010 Posted December 15, 2010 You don't wish for cheaper or more affordable health insurance? Man I would love to live in your world where I could care less about health insurance rates going up each year 10% or more. Do you take this type of logic with you whereever you go? Everyone wishes everything were cheaper. Thanks for bringing up a point no one is discussing. It's the embarrassingly ridiculous concept that the government in any way, shape or form has even the slightest idea or ability to be the entity that actually makes health care cheaper. The same people who happily give the state of Florida a half a million of our tax dollars for oyster safety are going to reduce our helath care costs? :lol:
Recommended Posts