A serious question for anyone willing.

Post #381,950 by folkert 10/10/13 11:30:11 AM Reply	A serious question for anyone willing. What is the difference between these two things: 1. Mandated Auto Coverage/Insurance and getting fined for not having it. 2. Mandated Health Coverage/Insurance and getting fined for not having it. Please try to answer this honestly and non-snidely. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,953 by Another Scott 10/10/13 11:52:09 AM Reply	Serious? You can't be serious... 1) Auto Insurance is not listed in the Constitution, therefore #10 applies. States Rights! Um, unless you're operating a commercial truck or bus or ... http://www.fmcsa.dot....aspx?reg=387.303 2) Health Insurance is not listed in the Constitution, therefore #10 applies. States Rights! Um, unless you're over 65 or disabled or under 26 or on SCHIP or are a Veteran or Survivor or a federal employee or .... Otherwise, it's Tyrrany!!!111 I don't think you'll get much more than noise on this... ;-) HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,954 by boxley 10/10/13 11:57:19 AM Reply	Re: A serious question for anyone willing. 1. Mandated Auto Coverage/Insurance and getting fined for not having it. The states have authority to regulate such things. The federal government could only mandate this on Interstates, could not compel national car insurance as a percentage of income. A person could avoid such a requirement by using public transportation as well as hitchhiking if they did not want to purchase such an item. One has the choice of legally not paying for it. 2. Mandated Health Coverage/Insurance and getting fined for not having it. According to the Supreme court a tax is imposed if one does not wish to purchase the mandated insurance. Congress has the right to impose taxes rather broadly. That is the reason that the USSC declared the Mandated Health Insurance law legal. Unlike the first question there is no opt out, you will pay a health insurance company or pay the federal government with no services rendered. No choice given, one will pay. that is the main difference between the two. The first one protects an individual from harm by others, the second question ensures that corporations will be enriched or the treasury becomes enriched. Quite a bit different Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,956 by drook 10/10/13 12:01:53 PM Reply	Nit ... you will pay a health insurance company or pay the federal government with no services rendered. Unless you're hurt, or sick, in which case you'll go to an emergency room which will be required to treat you. -- Drew
Post #381,958 by boxley 10/10/13 12:05:55 PM Reply	that you will be billed for, wages garnished, hounded Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,959 by folkert 10/10/13 12:07:11 PM 10/10/13 12:09:53 PM Reply	See "previously mentioned fine" exto-facto or post-hoc (depending on how you think) -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert Oct. 10, 2013, 12:07:32 PM EDT Edited by folkert Oct. 10, 2013, 12:09:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,960 by boxley 10/10/13 12:23:48 PM Reply	expound a little please See "previously mentioned fine" Does that excuse someone who pays the fine from paying 100% of services rendered or is it in addition to? thanx, Bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,979 by folkert 10/10/13 2:13:15 PM Reply	I don't think you get what the "Fine" is. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #382,112 by lincoln 10/14/13 8:52:21 AM Reply	Re: Nit in which case you'll go to an emergency room which will be required to treat you Unless they do a crappy job or ship you to another hospital so you don't screw up their metrics: http://www.citizen.o...irect.cfm?ID=4891 https://oig.hhs.gov/...tient_dumping.asp http://www.lasvegass...ednt-be-accepted/ http://www.ncbi.nlm....icles/PMC1646410/ http://www.philly.co...ns_hospitals.html Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous. - - - Mark Twain ÂPuddÂnhead WilsonÂs New Calendar,Â 1897
Post #382,129 by boxley 10/14/13 11:44:10 AM Reply	don't burts their indignant bubble please Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #382,141 by folkert 10/14/13 12:32:09 PM Reply	I can't wait to see yours burst and you have a "Comes To Sarah Palin" moment. Just, make sure you keep your Large Hadron Collider in check! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,962 by Another Scott 10/10/13 12:32:07 PM Reply	If your income is too low, you don't have to pay a fine. HTH
Post #381,963 by Another Scott 10/10/13 12:33:25 PM Reply	If your exempt (religion, etc.) you don't have to pay a fine http://kff.org/infog...ordable-care-act/ HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,983 by mmoffitt 10/10/13 2:36:31 PM Reply	There is a GIANT difference. Mandated automobile insurance coverage does NOT apply to me if I chose NOT to own an automobile. So, I have the option of not succombing to the mandate. I fall under mandated health insurance simply by being alive. I have no method to avoid being subject to the health insurance mandate. This is a false comparison (one that I predicted the President would use several months before he used it in a letter to the editor that was published prior to the President's first use of this false analogy). This is the very part of the ACA that I detest. The most egregiuos part of this is that a private corporation gets to profit from my very existence and this is somehow Constitutional. I prefer to call it what it is: our first plunge into fascism proper.
Post #381,985 by Another Scott 10/10/13 3:00:37 PM Reply	Micro-Nit. One can't get a new driver's license without taking a driving test. You can't take a driving test without proof of insurance. While some/most/all states now have state-issued IDs that can replace drivers licenses, they aren't as universal AFAIK, and they're a fairly recent development. And they're not without their own problems - http://www.npr.org/2...an-some-wont-vote Having a driver's license is almost a requirement for many. And that means having insurance (at least at the time of the test). FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,986 by mmoffitt 10/10/13 3:08:48 PM 10/10/13 3:11:02 PM Reply	s/Micro/Nano. The point is still valid. I can still choose not to get a driver's license. That said, it's not the health insurance mandate per se that I object to. It's that I am now born into a legal requirement to pay a group of shareholders of a private institution a profit for my right to breathe. Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 10, 2013, 03:11:02 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,988 by Another Scott 10/10/13 3:19:19 PM Reply	Pick the right religion and requirement goes away. HTH! If you feel strongly enough about it, there are ways not to have to pay: "The MAN isn't going to tell me what to do! I QUIT! No Income means No Insurance Mandate! Take THAT, The MAN!!!11" ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #382,014 by mmoffitt 10/11/13 8:05:00 AM Reply	You're just trolling now. If you feel strongly enough about it, there are ways not to have to pay With car insurance, I do NOT have to change any behavior to avoid the mandate. The car insurance mandate hits me because I've chosen to alter my behavior in a manner that subjects me to that mandate.
Post #381,989 by folkert 10/10/13 3:20:46 PM 10/10/13 3:22:12 PM Reply	You are also born into a... Mandate to eat to live. Why aren't you complaining about the fact the Food Stamps and WIC... Subsistence isn't provided then? Why is it illegal to starve oneself to death (aka Suicide), even though one can't afford food and must pay to have a job... Hmmm. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert Oct. 10, 2013, 03:22:12 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #382,012 by mmoffitt 10/11/13 8:01:29 AM Reply	Seriously, for you and Scott. You guys seriously have no problem with a law that says, "Because you were born here, you need to give Wall Street money."?
Post #382,016 by Another Scott 10/11/13 8:08:57 AM Reply	Where does it say that? There are loans available for people to get together to create non-profit insurance co-ops that are listed on the exchanges. http://www.cms.gov/C...loan-program.html To date, a total of 23 non-profits offering coverage in 24 states have been awarded $1,954,918,609. If you don't want to give Blankfein and Corbat money, there's nothing in the PPACA that says you must. If your state doesn't have such a co-op, get cracking! HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #382,020 by mmoffitt 10/11/13 9:19:27 AM Reply	MLR of 80%. Average "admin expenses" for private health insurers (and one might rightly call at least some part of that "profit") run around 16%. That leaves at least 4% for guess who? The shareholders. HTH. For comparison, Medicare's administrative costs are around 3 per cent. Meaning, of course, the government is vastly more efficient at processing medical claims than is the private sector. But, as your guy in the White House made abundantly clear: we cannot have a government Single Payer Plan because that leaves all of Wall Street and their investors out of the profit taking business in our healthcare delivery system.
Post #382,021 by Another Scott 10/11/13 10:00:35 AM Reply	<sigh> How many votes does the President get in the Senate again? I thought it was zero. Again, there were no votes to spare in the Senate, and too many weren't ever going to accept a public option (let alone single-payer/Medicare for All). Obama knew how to count to 60. You keep beating this poor horse that has long since given up the ghost. You need to move on. IMHO, of course. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #382,023 by mmoffitt 10/11/13 10:52:00 AM Reply	<sigh> We're in a loop. You've consistently said, "He didn't have the votes." The truth is, my friend, that we will never know because he decided he did not want to gamble. He decided that despite public support of nearly 70% for it, he didn't want to risk being unable to persuade establishment politicians in the Senate to vote in their constituents' interests. This is precisely the cause of the disillusionment with him from the Left. In 2008, many thought they were voting for "Change They Could Believe In" or more precisely that we'd finally have a President who would support the people's will, instead of Wall Street's. He could have let (at least) the public option bill passed by the House go to the Senate and then try to shame the Senate (held by his own party no less) into being a part of the real change he had campaigned on. If he had done that (and even FAILED!) he would have won re-election in a landslide over Mittens. And those who did not vote for a bill with a public option might have been forced from office by the very same crowd that voted for Obama in 2008, but stayed home in '10 and '12. I know the horse is dead. I'm just not happy that the leader of the Democratic Party is the one that shot it.
Post #382,096 by CRConrad 10/14/13 2:44:26 AM Reply	ICLRPD. "I know the horse is dead. I'm just not happy that the leader of the Democratic Party is the one that shot it." -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #382,019 by CRConrad 10/11/13 9:11:09 AM 10/11/13 9:12:26 AM Reply	Found a mutual insurance company off-Broa--eh, off-Wall Str. Ah, duh, SKott beat me to it. As usual. Edited by CRConrad Oct. 11, 2013, 09:12:26 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,990 by pwhysall 10/10/13 4:16:41 PM Reply	Both are silly, obviously Third party car insurance for everyone should be funded from tax on fuel. Health care for everyone, free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need, should be funded out of general taxation. That's the sensible way to do it. We do the latter half, and will inevitably end up doing the former. But something something STATES RIGHTS something something THANKS OBAMA something something ERMERGERD SOCIALISM. So, America: FULL RETARD AHEAD!
Post #381,994 by Ashton 10/10/13 5:52:28 PM Reply	Yeah.. rub it In.. Had those Funding Mothers dealt with their testosterone-crazed Libertard husbands properly! The umm, 'USK' would have been spared this perpetual Southern-State-Retardomania ... for Evah. Countless stupid internal skirmishes Saved! ==moot. (Even WW-II quite Different: with the UK + USK aligned from the get-go): No need for that unfortunate PM, hat-in-hand, to slobber all over Herr Schicklgruber/Austrian Corporal. Just inform the sociopath that, should his goose-stepping minions ever cross any borders, just lookin fer lebensraum: The Colonies will make their infamous '88s obsolete overnight, will place him in a cage, let Barnum & Bailey parade His Naziness through circuses--in every small USK town: make him eat beef/no veggies at all. (Only one swastika allowed: tattooed on his ass.) (See, I was borned-to-be a Remedial Statesman, as one can plainly deduce.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!