enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
The war is not forcing me to purchase a service from a private entity, an act that the government is restricted from forcing upon the people by constitutional law.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can the US afford socialized medicine?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
I am hoping that big meteor gets here soon, so maybe it will wipe us out and we can start over again. :trampo:
So, how come many states are allowed to require car insurance?
Besides, I was only really responding to the idea that we're not allowed to cry about spilled milk. The bread is buttered on both sides if you want to ascribe to that.
Because I still have a choice. I can pay my car insurance or not. I just cannot drive without car insurance. I could take a taxi, bus, ride a bike or walk. I might just get a ride with someone else.
I could wait till I could afford car insurance and resume driving again after the bill is paid. In other words, I have options. Car insurance is not a mandate. Neither is a drivers license. There are people who have never drove a car in their life or gotten a license to drive. They don't get a fine do they?
enchanted_one1975
Resident Lycanthrope
You are also allowed to be self insured. That is, if you can show that you have the means to pay for damage equal to or greater than the minimum liability requirements in your state then the state will issue you a card showing that you are financially liable and cannot force you to buy insurance.
The silence is deafening.
You're right: the two mandates are not perfectly parallel. There is definitely more wiggle room with the car insurance mandate.
However, not having a car is really not an option for some people. And if you do want to drive, you are in fact, forced to buy a commodity from a private entity, something that E_O claimed was unconstitutional.
That's not an option in Michigan. No-fault insurance, at minimum, is required.Enchanted_One said:
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Its not just an imperfect parallel, its two totally different worlds. In the sane/rational/free world, you can decide not to drive and never have to buy car insurance. In the totalitarian/fascist world, you are forced to buy health insurance whether you want to or not, whether you ever use it or not.
This comes from the party which supposedly champions women's right to choose, and have privacy to control her own body how she likes. Are now telling everyone how to take care of their own health. Fascism at its best.
You are not forced to buy anything. You are able to choose to buy a car from a private person, or rent one, or lease one, or take a bus. You are not forced to buy a car or insurance or anything. But if you CHOOSE to drive, it is up to you to find the best insurance rates, and a policy you can afford. Its because people are allowed to choose their policies, and what will be covered, that rates are affordable.
This has no resemblance to the monstrosity of "obamacare".
Peacewise
Active Member
Not knowing much about the american health care status, but knowing a bit about social health care.
Any person in my society can ask for further professional opinions from different doctors, within the social medicine, and do this for no cost to them, this does not seem to me enforced.
If choice in health is what is needed of social provided healthcare, then one of the choices should be not for cost health care provided by the government, to give as wide an option of choices as possible. Choice to pay, or choice to not pay, and choice to select different doctors in either situation.
or so it seems to me.
Any person in my society can ask for further professional opinions from different doctors, within the social medicine, and do this for no cost to them, this does not seem to me enforced.
If choice in health is what is needed of social provided healthcare, then one of the choices should be not for cost health care provided by the government, to give as wide an option of choices as possible. Choice to pay, or choice to not pay, and choice to select different doctors in either situation.
or so it seems to me.
Ciscokid
Well-Known Member
My father told me that back when car insurance was a choice, it was much more reasonable. Then when they made it mandatory, the rates went much higher [big shocker]. Wonder if that will happen to the medical insurance market.
There is another reason for that - cost of insuring. Insurance companies still compete vigorously for customers' business, so the rates seem fair to me.
Cars are far more expensive to repair these days. My body repair guy calls it the Japanese jigsaw puzzle syndrome. Liability costs are also way up, as
we become a more litigious society. Adjusted for inflation, my insurance still looks cheap.
Regarding health insurance, the costs will be a function of government regulation & subsidy. I offer my personal guarantee that costs will continue to climb.
Ciscokid
Well-Known Member
There are those here who deny that or are just that ignorant. I won't name names.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Matt, Matt, Matt, I was talking about what Dawny might have to spend on her health insurance policy.
If she had no health insurance before, she will be spending something she was not before.
Rick, Rick, Rick, then say that. That's not even close to what you did say.
Nope. I'm saying that there's no way it's going to be 10% without lowering income tax, unless it's only on non-essential, expensive items, like big TVs or cars over a certain amount.
I really wonder how you will feel about paying the same rate of federal sales tax that I do in the future?
Well, let's just hope that doesn't come to pass. Not only would it not be good for me, but it would be horrible for our country. Either you're going to tax lower- and middle-class people way too much, or you're not going to charge upper-class people enough. One way you have a whole lot of poor people, but the country has the money it needs. The other way, everyone has a little more money, but we don't have public schools, roads or decent police forces.
:biglaugh:
I guess, if by "ignorant" you mean "realistic and accurate", then I'd agree. Listen, Rick, I know facts like I presented there don't fit with your narrow narrative, but they're still facts. It's usually good to use facts when forming opinions.
Is it possible for you to stick to one topic? This has nothing to do with my response to your assertions. Your comment was that someone making $300 a week could pay the government $60 more a week they they are now. That's simply not true. I'd rather you addressed that than move on to something else because my response wasn't to your liking.
Now, after you've responded to that, you can respond to this:
Someone making $300 a week will not pay $60 a week for health insurance. Someone making that little ($15,600) would get massive amounts of help to pay for their insurance. The better option would not be to pay the fine because whatever they had to pay for insurance would be lower than the fine.
Yeah, and? If they want to charge that person making $15,600 more because of a pre-existing condition, then the government will either impose fines on the insurance company or give the person more money to pay for the insurance.
Some will. It all depends on how much you make. If they're classified as working poor, they're probably not going to pay much at all.
They won't. That's why there are subsidies to help those people pay for the insurance.
Huh? What are you talking about? This is like me saying "I heard a rumor that the government is going to charge Irish people more income tax. How are Irish people going to pay more income tax and for a health care policy?". You're the one who asserted there is going to be the 10% VAT tax. You're also the one assuming that would be instituted without any change to the current tax system. It's like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?".
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Can you stick to my arguments, please? My name is Matt, not Nancy.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
What's the point? Yes, they might impose a VAT tax. The chances of them imposing a 10% VAT tax on everything without changing the tax system we have now are the same as the aforementioned chances of me getting struck by lightning twice in the same day, etc. Again, hyperbole isn't a good argument. You might want to wait until there is an actual plan in place to start making decisions. Of course, I do know that you're not very good at taking the facts into consideration before forming opinions.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Well, obviously everything you father tells you is true.
Of course, I can only hope your scenario does come to pass. That way it'll make it easier to just get rid of private insurance companies, or to at least have a public option for everyone that forces the private insurers to compete.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Please, go ahead and name names. I'd love to hear who it is. I've never heard anyone claim this. This is the problem. To have a real back-and-forth, you need to actually listen to the other side. Obviously, health insurance rates are going to go up. That's why we need to have a better option than private insurance. That's the whole idea behind a single-payer system.
linwood
Well-Known Member
We could balance the budget AND pay for public health care by simply cutting the DOD budget in half.
There, fixed it.
Where`s my cookie?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
But, but then we'll get invaded by those mean AY-rabs. I mean, if we don't spend $16 trillion on "defense" every year, we'll never be able to protect ourselves. How could we possibly stop a hostile takeover with only $8 trillion a year?
Smoke
Done here.
Social Security is insurance; that's why the Amish are exempt. But you're legally required to register with Social Security, and you're legally required to pay into it if you have any income.