I will listen to anything and dont really appreciate the condescending tone, though it is expected. None of the ideas you stated are any more able to be put in place than Obamacare. The left will bash those ideas, as the right has for Obamacare. This is my point...make ideas both sides can agree on, not just the talking points for the side you prefer. I do not prefer the mandate as a violation of rights, or a leftist proposal---I prefer it as it makes peopel accountable for their own expenses instead of passing that on to others. To me, paying for another guys expenses because he doesnt have insurance is the definition of violating my rights.
vulchor, i disagree that you will listen to anything i say when it comes to politics. you never have. and you may not appreciate the condescending tone much like i dont like your sarcastic tone all the time. you never changed when i brought that up in the past.
Now to the real discussion...
you stated that " None of the ideas you stated are any more able to be put in place than Obamacare." that may or may not be true, however the things that i propose do not fundamentally change the relationship between government and citizen. currently we are citizens who control the government through election and the constitution (a document that says what the government can NOT do to us). if this mandate passes we are now subjects of the government who must bow down and do what the government says.
you are right, paying for other guys expenses IS a violoation of rights. but there are still other ways to hold people accountable.
"...you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them. ..."
The government is not the solution to this problem with the individual mandate; the insurance market and individual personal responsibility are the solutions. That's why conservatives originally proposed the individual mandate, and were solidly behind it until Mr. Obama decided to use it. Now it's "totalitarian". Was it "totalitarian" when the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole, and nearly every single member of the Republican Congress (under Clinton) endorsed it?
it was totalitarian then as well. just because one side or the other puts it forward doesnt mean that there isnt a fundamental truth about it. i mean, im sure you can agree that there are many conservative ideas that violate the rights of the individual.
I disagree. It was not totalitarian then, and it's not totalitarian now.
i still fail to see how forcing someone to buy anything or face a penalty is not totalitarian or a violation of rights. you can explain all you want about accountability or the good of the people but when it comes down to it, it is still a violation of Individual Rights.
Might I also add that within 2 posts of you getting into a political discussion you have alraedy insulted 2 people you replied to. Also broke your own word of not participating in such discussions which I assume has at least something to do with the fact you cannot control your comments about others personal feelings.
the only difference between me and you as far as controlling comments is that i make an attempt to control them. i do fail. i admit that. you dont even try. you just unabashedly insult.
Kuzi if you think that you control the government then what I was going to say here doesn't even matter anymore. You are delusional. I won't go into anyones tone or condescention, but I would remind you that you are once again breaking your word, this is a political discussion and already the furr is flying.
No there arent other ways, at least not to this point or else they wouldve been implmented. Ideas without action is $hit. Until there is a plan than fixes the problem its just polical jockeying on both sides----who really dont give a crap about it anyway IMO-----then its just what you are doing and saying no to everything instead of seeing any practical benefit. Notice I did not say no tort reform, state lines, ect. were bad ideas. I did not shoot down your ideas and I could indeed entertain them, but not as a total fix all and not justy with input from one side of political idealogy. The difficulty is that withpeople who vote for canditates only by the R or D next to their names we will never get this solution because neither side wants to look at other ideas, masquerade it as "indivdual rights" if you want to, thats just a catch phrase to lump ideas you feel are too far reaching----for instance, any you dont agree with.
Kuzi if you think that you control the government then what I was going to say here doesn't even matter anymore. You are delusional.
whats funny about this is i was thinking an almost identical thing as typing that statement. in THEORY we control the government through those means. if this goes through we will no longer be able to even claim the theory. that is a good point there laker.
laker1963:
I won't go into anyones tone or condescention, but I would remind you that you are once again breaking your word, this is a political discussion and already the furr is flying.
I'll stick to what I said many months ago now.
it is incredibly difficult to be passionate about something and sit on the sidelines. im sure you understand that.
No there arent other ways, at least not to this point or else they wouldve been implmented.
maybe. government works slow. it may have not been a big enough issue to look at yet. there are many reasons why something may have not been implemented. im not sure this statement holds up as much as your next statement does.
Vulchor:
Ideas without action is $hit. Until there is a plan than fixes the problem its just polical jockeying on both sides----who really dont give a crap about it anyway IMO-----then its just what you are doing and saying no to everything instead of seeing any practical benefit. Notice I did not say no tort reform, state lines, ect. were bad ideas. I did not shoot down your ideas and I could indeed entertain them, but not as a total fix all and not justy with input from one side of political idealogy. The difficulty is that withpeople who vote for canditates only by the R or D next to their names we will never get this solution because neither side wants to look at other ideas, masquerade it as "indivdual rights" if you want to, thats just a catch phrase to lump ideas you feel are too far reaching----for instance, any you dont agree with.
there are party line voters out there. you may lump me into them however i am not a party line voter. i do not look at "individual rights" as a masquerade for something i feel is too far reaching. or as you put, something i dont agree with. for instance, i do not agree at all with anything the KKK has to say. however, they have the right to be as stupid as they want to be as long as they do not violate the rights of any individual. as soon as they do, they should be held accountable.
yes, there are many on the conservative side of the argument that will hide behind "individual rights" when it is convenient to them. I am not one of those people Individual rights have a way of going against what many conservatives believe. when that happens i am not on the conservative side of that issue. I have no allegiances to any party, only to the rights of the individual.
i realize that this post has gone far from the obamacare intentions of this thread but, once again, i feel that i have been mischaracterized as part of a group that i do not belong, requiring me to clarify.
Govt may work slow---but healthcare has been a problem for well over 30 years, so it suggest it hasnt been a big enough issue until now just doesnt work...sorry
I agree about the KKks right fully, but what is VERY subjective is the topic of what violates an individuals rights. This is RARELY cut and dry and what is in front our Suprem(ly politically partisan) Court is not cut and dry either. The instance I gave earlier is my interpretation of how my rights are violated by NOT having a mandate. I dont feel that way of lookng at it is any more wrong that yours is right.
Govt may work slow---but healthcare has been a problem for well over 30 years, so it suggest it hasnt been a big enough issue until now just doesnt work...sorry
health care has not been an issue. everyone can get it. insurance costs have been. the things i have proposed have not been tried. neither has obama care. i feel that just because the issue is old doesnt mean that it wasnt on the front burner the entire time. there were other issues that took top priority. to be quite honest, the only regulations for insurance that have been for insurance have not been geared for lower cost but rather more coverage and in some cases political gain. both of those add cost. it reached a tipping point and now it is THE issue.
Vulchor:
I agree about the KKks right fully, but what is VERY subjective is the topic of what violates an individuals rights. This is RARELY cut and dry and what is in front our Suprem(ly politically partisan) Court is not cut and dry either. The instance I gave earlier is my interpretation of how my rights are violated by NOT having a mandate. I dont feel that way of lookng at it is any more wrong that yours is right.
forgive me for asking for clarification here im trying to follow... what you are saying is that if everyone is mandated to have insurance (a potential violation of the rights of the non-insurance owner and/or everyone) you wont have to be forced to pay for someone else to have health care (a potential violation of the rights of the insurance owner and/or everyone).
Yes, if put your way it is a catch-22....and I choose Option B. Again, the uniqueness (word?) of health insurance is what separates it from other things here. You CANNOT be denied in an emergency...nothing else is quite like this. Hence it should be carried by all as part of the social contract to make people accountable for their own care, not to make others responsible for it.
As far as your other post I could say the goal of insurance has been to increase profit (which is fine), not insure more people or other actions per se.
dont know if it is a catch 22 exactly, but it is quite a conundrum.
Vulchor:
Again, the uniqueness (word?) of health insurance is what separates it from other things here. You CANNOT be denied in an emergency...nothing else is quite like this. Hence it should be carried by all as part of the social contract to make people accountable for their own care, not to make others responsible for it.
As far as your other post I could say the goal of insurance has been to increase profit (which is fine), not insure more people or other actions per se.
interesting. to me, given the above clarification, it boils down to: do we violate everyone's rights by forcing them to buy insurance or do we violate the rights of a smaller group of people (mainly the rich who pay the most in taxes) by forcing them to pay for others.
to me, there are still other options that have not been explored and that choice is unacceptable.
and that is also not factoring personal responsibility. how do regulate that without violating rights?
The transcripts are out and worth reading, if you have a few hours. The justices, although each biased in their own ways, all posed relevant questions and comments. The libs were trying their best to find reasons for a nay vote, but even Sotamayor and Kennedy were having a hard time seeing the SG's argument. This may go 6-3. And from my reading, as the mandate goes, so does the entire bill.
"...i still fail to see how forcing someone to buy anything or face a penalty is not totalitarian or a violation of rights..."
Do you feel the same way about being "forced" to purchase auto insurance if you are driving on public streets?
yes. again, there are other ways to hold people accountable.
Do you have any idea what would happen to the cost of auto insurance if there was no mandate to purchase it?
it would go up. i am aware. that doesnt mean that the mandate does not violate rights. just because it "feels good" does not mean it does not violate rights.
edit: if i am not mistaken Texas doesnt require insurance if you can show responsability by depositing the amount that would be insured with the state or various other means. Can any Texans verify?
Fun fact: If this goes into effect then add 1.73T dollars to the deficit.
Fun Fact:If you buy better insurance you get taxed; therefore, people will not buy better insurance and stay with the base making the amount collected for taxes go down. Thus, the money that pays for the bill disappears and the deficit goes up more.
"...i still fail to see how forcing someone to buy anything or face a penalty is not totalitarian or a violation of rights..."
Do you feel the same way about being "forced" to purchase auto insurance if you are driving on public streets?
yes. again, there are other ways to hold people accountable.
Do you have any idea what would happen to the cost of auto insurance if there was no mandate to purchase it?
it would go up. i am aware. that doesnt mean that the mandate does not violate rights. just because it "feels good" does not mean it does not violate rights.
edit: if i am not mistaken Texas doesnt require insurance if you can show responsability by depositing the amount that would be insured with the state or various other means. Can any Texans verify?
Having affordable home and auto insurance is one of the components of our civil society. It isn't a matter of "feeling good", it's a matter of pragmatic problem solving. You probably think that forcing you to comply with building and fire codes is also a form of "totalitarianism", because the government is making that requirement. It appears to me that you would prefer to discard our civil society so that you will not be required to contribute anything to it, which is a form of extreme libertarianism. Since there is little or no common ground, I see no reason to continue the discussion.
Having affordable home and auto insurance is one of the components of our civil society. It isn't a matter of "feeling good", it's a matter of pragmatic problem solving.
as stated above there are other ways to hold people accountable for damage they cause. there are also ways of making insurance affordable and accessible without mandating that people buy them. you seem to be (i cant be 100% sure what is in your heart) in favor of a mandate from the government only.
JDH:
You probably think that forcing you to comply with building and fire codes is also a form of "totalitarianism", because the government is making that requirement. It appears to me that you would prefer to discard our civil society so that you will not be required to contribute anything to it, which is a form of extreme libertarianism. Since there is little or no common ground, I see no reason to continue the discussion.
i seem to remember a discussion i had with you earlier about someone putting words in another's mouth. the difference here is the rolls were reversed. i would like it if you would extend the same courtesy that you demand of others.
you assumption shows how little you know of me and my thinking.
knowingly building a house that is not "up to code" or "safe" (to take the code out of the equation) and selling it as safe is a violation of rights. Nobody wants to buy a house that is not safe and is a fire hazard. once that house fails (burns down in the case of fire code/safety) the violation of rights is very clear. the codes are there to clarify what is safe.
insurance and building codes are very different animals. I can build all the houses i want to that are not up to code so long as nobody buys them and lives in them.
though this does bring up an interesting question: if i build my own house to live in while not following code and it burns down due to my own stupidity, am i violating my own rights?
since it is impossible to violate my own rights the answer is clearly "no" if i dont insure my own car and i leave the parking brake off and it rolls into a lake, have i violated anyone's rights by not having insurance? not having car insurance is a victimless crime.
not living up to building code has a victim.
the job of a just government is to uphold the rights of the individual. any action that does so is justifiable, taxes to do so included.
Having affordable home and auto insurance is one of the components of our civil society. It isn't a matter of "feeling good", it's a matter of pragmatic problem solving.
as stated above there are other ways to hold people accountable for damage they cause. there are also ways of making insurance affordable and accessible without mandating that people buy them. you seem to be (i cant be 100% sure what is in your heart) in favor of a mandate from the government only.
JDH:
You probably think that forcing you to comply with building and fire codes is also a form of "totalitarianism", because the government is making that requirement. It appears to me that you would prefer to discard our civil society so that you will not be required to contribute anything to it, which is a form of extreme libertarianism. Since there is little or no common ground, I see no reason to continue the discussion.
i seem to remember a discussion i had with you earlier about someone putting words in another's mouth. the difference here is the rolls were reversed. i would like it if you would extend the same courtesy that you demand of others.
you assumption shows how little you know of me and my thinking.
knowingly building a house that is not "up to code" or "safe" (to take the code out of the equation) and selling it as safe is a violation of rights. Nobody wants to buy a house that is not safe and is a fire hazard. once that house fails (burns down in the case of fire code/safety) the violation of rights is very clear. the codes are there to clarify what is safe.
insurance and building codes are very different animals. I can build all the houses i want to that are not up to code so long as nobody buys them and lives in them.
though this does bring up an interesting question: if i build my own house to live in while not following code and it burns down due to my own stupidity, am i violating my own rights?
since it is impossible to violate my own rights the answer is clearly "no" if i dont insure my own car and i leave the parking brake off and it rolls into a lake, have i violated anyone's rights by not having insurance? not having car insurance is a victimless crime.
not living up to building code has a victim.
the job of a just government is to uphold the rights of the individual. any action that does so is justifiable, taxes to do so included.
I'm sorry. I don't intend to insult you, but your positions are just ridiculious, and it's really a waste of my time to argue absurdities.
'm sorry. I don't intend to insult you, but your positions are just ridiculious, and it's really a waste of my time to argue absurdities.
no insult is actually taken. i can tell that you have a passion for this and get caught up in the moment. I suffer from this "ailment" as well. we are all human. we are all trying our damnedest to figure out an increasingly complex world. we all have our views that we hold dear and will fight for no matter how crazy they seem to people that dont agree.
i DO enjoy arguing absurdities. they have a tendency to point out things that others wouldnt normally think of. nothing wrong with critical thinking.
you did point out one thing very well though. I AM what most people would call an "extreme libertarian" ...and yes, i do realize that this way of thinking has flaws, just like every other way of thinking out there.
I understand we can't fathom living without it, but the government does not force you to own an automobile. The comparison really isn't valid. Seems like we could come up with a way to offer service to those who can't afford it in fewer than 1 or 2 thousand pages.
I understand we can't fathom living without it, but the government does not force you to own an automobile. The comparison really isn't valid.
If you walk into an emergency room, and need medical treatment, you cannot be refused that treatment. Those who do not have insurance are therefore requiring everyone else to pay for their irresponsibility. That irresponsibility is one of the primary drivers of ever increasing cost of health care and health insurance. I used to think that conservatives were all about personal responsibility, but I'm beginning to understand that they are really all about subsidizing selfishness and greed, usually advertised under the banner of "liberty".
Im not even sure Im for or against this bill, it would be nice if everyone shared the load. Im just not sure thats going to happen. Its not free, and those who cant afford insurance now, arent going to want to or be able to pay. Its pretty obvious what will happen, people will campaign on adjusting who pays what percentage of the total bill. Cant you hear it all ready? Now listen, I dont know about you, but Id like to think we live in a world where corporate jet owners and billionaires can afford to pay another 2% in health insurance costs, so that a mom with three kids, struggling to survive, can afford a trip to the doctor. They'll get elected, not raise taxes to cover the growing costs of medical care, but change percentages on who pays what for other projects, so that it eventually trickles down to your property tax statement. Call me cynical.
Hey, I hope it works out, insurance costs are killing me.
If you walk into an emergency room, and need medical treatment, you cannot be refused that treatment.
Take away that mandate to the hospitals, and people would be lining up for insurance. I look as insurance as insurance. Funny, huh. And in all insurances, each person should be able to choose the level of risk that they are comfortable with. Its' like cheapie auto insurance. Sure, it gets you past the road stops, but it won't cover all of your losses if you have a serious accident. I've had to insure myself throughout my life because I own a small business with no group plan possibilities. And I've held it all of these years because I had a wife and child. It truly was insurance. It has been tweaked over the years to reflect our needs. Now, if I had been a single man, I would probably have chosen to not carry medical insurance. As it turns out, I've rarely used it and have never even reached a deductible. But it is there for those unexpected needs. My point is that is should be a personal choice. And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. And I need not remind every one that medical insurance has only been around for about 100 years. Before that you payed your doctor with a pig or something. This is not one of those unalienable rights we have. And at the same time, it shouldn't be a mandate from the government. The insurance market worked well until people learned that the emergency room was free.
'...Take away that mandate to the hospitals, and people would be lining up for insurance. ..."
This mandate is relatively recent (about 30 years ago). It was put in place because people were not buying insurance then, and they aren't buying it now.
'...Take away that mandate to the hospitals, and people would be lining up for insurance. ..."
This mandate is relatively recent (about 30 years ago). It was put in place because people were not buying insurance then, and they aren't buying it now.
And they will continue to not purchase it. It's human nature. If the law stands, you'll see people reporting less income to get out of the penalty. And I also see this could be a vehicle for massive amounts of fraud. I have a hard time trusting any of those cats in DC.
Comments
Now to the real discussion...
you stated that " None of the ideas you stated are any more able to be put in place than Obamacare."
that may or may not be true, however the things that i propose do not fundamentally change the relationship between government and citizen. currently we are citizens who control the government through election and the constitution (a document that says what the government can NOT do to us). if this mandate passes we are now subjects of the government who must bow down and do what the government says.
you are right, paying for other guys expenses IS a violoation of rights. but there are still other ways to hold people accountable.
you can explain all you want about accountability or the good of the people but when it comes down to it, it is still a violation of Individual Rights.
I'll stick to what I said many months ago now.
as said above, i try and fail.
for instance, i do not agree at all with anything the KKK has to say. however, they have the right to be as stupid as they want to be as long as they do not violate the rights of any individual. as soon as they do, they should be held accountable.
yes, there are many on the conservative side of the argument that will hide behind "individual rights" when it is convenient to them. I am not one of those people Individual rights have a way of going against what many conservatives believe. when that happens i am not on the conservative side of that issue. I have no allegiances to any party, only to the rights of the individual.
i realize that this post has gone far from the obamacare intentions of this thread but, once again, i feel that i have been mischaracterized as part of a group that i do not belong, requiring me to clarify.
I agree about the KKks right fully, but what is VERY subjective is the topic of what violates an individuals rights. This is RARELY cut and dry and what is in front our Suprem(ly politically partisan) Court is not cut and dry either. The instance I gave earlier is my interpretation of how my rights are violated by NOT having a mandate. I dont feel that way of lookng at it is any more wrong that yours is right.
what you are saying is that if everyone is mandated to have insurance (a potential violation of the rights of the non-insurance owner and/or everyone) you wont have to be forced to pay for someone else to have health care (a potential violation of the rights of the insurance owner and/or everyone).
As far as your other post I could say the goal of insurance has been to increase profit (which is fine), not insure more people or other actions per se.
to me, given the above clarification, it boils down to:
do we violate everyone's rights by forcing them to buy insurance or do we violate the rights of a smaller group of people (mainly the rich who pay the most in taxes) by forcing them to pay for others.
to me, there are still other options that have not been explored and that choice is unacceptable.
and that is also not factoring personal responsibility. how do regulate that without violating rights?
...kinda just wanted to say "conundrum"
There are 9 people in DC today that might also want to use that term.
Do you feel the same way about being "forced" to purchase auto insurance if you are driving on public streets?
again, there are other ways to hold people accountable.
edit: if i am not mistaken Texas doesnt require insurance if you can show responsability by depositing the amount that would be insured with the state or various other means. Can any Texans verify?
Fun Fact:If you buy better insurance you get taxed; therefore, people will not buy better insurance and stay with the base making the amount collected for taxes go down. Thus, the money that pays for the bill disappears and the deficit goes up more.
you assumption shows how little you know of me and my thinking.
knowingly building a house that is not "up to code" or "safe" (to take the code out of the equation) and selling it as safe is a violation of rights. Nobody wants to buy a house that is not safe and is a fire hazard. once that house fails (burns down in the case of fire code/safety) the violation of rights is very clear. the codes are there to clarify what is safe.
insurance and building codes are very different animals. I can build all the houses i want to that are not up to code so long as nobody buys them and lives in them.
though this does bring up an interesting question:
if i build my own house to live in while not following code and it burns down due to my own stupidity, am i violating my own rights?
since it is impossible to violate my own rights the answer is clearly "no"
if i dont insure my own car and i leave the parking brake off and it rolls into a lake, have i violated anyone's rights by not having insurance? not having car insurance is a victimless crime.
not living up to building code has a victim.
the job of a just government is to uphold the rights of the individual. any action that does so is justifiable, taxes to do so included.
i DO enjoy arguing absurdities. they have a tendency to point out things that others wouldnt normally think of. nothing wrong with critical thinking.
you did point out one thing very well though. I AM what most people would call an "extreme libertarian"
...and yes, i do realize that this way of thinking has flaws, just like every other way of thinking out there.
Hey, I hope it works out, insurance costs are killing me.
I've had to insure myself throughout my life because I own a small business with no group plan possibilities. And I've held it all of these years because I had a wife and child. It truly was insurance. It has been tweaked over the years to reflect our needs. Now, if I had been a single man, I would probably have chosen to not carry medical insurance. As it turns out, I've rarely used it and have never even reached a deductible. But it is there for those unexpected needs. My point is that is should be a personal choice. And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. And I need not remind every one that medical insurance has only been around for about 100 years. Before that you payed your doctor with a pig or something. This is not one of those unalienable rights we have. And at the same time, it shouldn't be a mandate from the government. The insurance market worked well until people learned that the emergency room was free.
This mandate is relatively recent (about 30 years ago). It was put in place because people were not buying insurance then, and they aren't buying it now.