Equality?

[Thorne]

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.

[steelish]

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

[SadisticNature]

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

[steelish]

If someone chooses to not buy insurance kills someone, is at fault and loses a massive lawsuit, can they be forced to sell their home that they own free and clear to pay damages?

Not in Florida.

[SadisticNature]

Not in Florida.

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[Thorne]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

[SadisticNature]

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

[DuncanONeil]

In the case of one of my accidents we had the plate and description of the car. Police located the car and the owner. Owner said he was not driving.
That was all it took for the cost to be on my insurance. Too many of those and my cost goes up!

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[steelish]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

You're also not understanding the beauty of the United States. If you choose to live in Florida which is a "No Fault" state and feel as you do; that a person should pay restitution if they don't have car insurance - then you can simply pack up and move to a state that is NOT a no fault state. There are plenty of them.

[DuncanONeil]

I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!

Exactly! You are not forced to buy car insurance because you are not legally required to drive. Car insurance is a necessity only if you CHOOSE to drive a vehicle. Not only that but you don't need car insurance to have a driver's license. Car insurance is required by the lien holder as insurance against losses incurred.

Florida is a no-fault state, and you can drive a car without insurance if the vehicle is title-owned by you. Personally, I prefer not to do that, I carry insurance on all of our title-owned cars, but not because someone TELLS me to.

[steelish]

I live in a state that requires car insurance, which recently raised the levels of coverage, yet four out of the last five times my car was hit the other driver did not have insurance!
So that is a very bad analogy!

Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...

Yeah! I know. Suppose it qualifies as a peeve.

[SadisticNature]

No, the solution is to minimize the control the government has over our lives. Personally, I don't much care for the idea of the government keeping my medical records, deciding which doctor it's all right for me to see, deciding which treatment plan is best for me. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling me what I must buy, for my "own good".

Yeah, I know someone mentioned car insurance, but that's different. At least here in SC, you are only required to carry liability insurance, so that innocents are not screwed over if you cause an accident. And yes, if you finance the car you have to maintain full coverage, to protect the finance company. Don't like paying insurance? Don't drive a car!

I concede that governments have their uses, especially when acting as a buffer between states, or between nations. But the US government has intruded too deeply into individual lives, to the point where almost every aspect of our lives is impacted in some way by the federal government. That's not how it was meant to be, and I don't think it's good to be that way now.

And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.

Is it screwing over of innocents to deny life saving care? And if people are legally obligated by the government to provide services, should they not be compensated by said organization for those services? If so, if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?

[Thorne]

And where exactly does one draw the line of "laws should prevent the screwing over of innocents", which appears to be your justification for the liability insurance requirement in SC.

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?

if the government is legally obligated to pay for your treatments in the event you have life threatening health problems, should they not be charging you for the insurance they provide in this situation?

But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

[SadisticNature]

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?


But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

You can't lose your car unless you have used it as colateral on a loan.

You can't lose a house unless it is involved in a loan.

So by anything you have you actually mean 'Assets not protected under the law'. And those assets are generally rather limited.

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

As to the legitimacy of that argument, if you think anything violating small government is bad you'll never be convinced. I will point out the countries with the smallest governments and no income taxes are among the worst off in the world. I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break. It's worked well since the 80's after all there isn't this authoritarian regime called China threatening to overtake the US as a superpower in the next 20 years.

[Thorne]

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

People are being forced to buy something they don't want, just because Congress, and the President, thinks they should have it. What's next? Will we have to pay a fine if we don't buy a GM car made by the government? What if we don't even drive a car? Do we still pay the fine? And this fine, if I remember, will be something to the tune of $350 per MONTH! Which means that the cost of the mandatory health care will be higher, no doubt. Can everyone here afford that extra $350+ per month? I know I can't!

I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break.

I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.

[SadisticNature]

So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?

You are talking about a far more free market system than that of Britain, Canada, Australia, France or Germany yet you continuously try and compare it to the USSR. Doesn't that seem slightly disingenuous?

[steelish]

I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.

I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.

applause

I SO agree!

We are being tricked into believing that redistribution of wealth is charitable...one cannot be charitable with another's money.