quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
Excellent idea, they should be fined. The one's who refuse to hve health care are the same ones who would complain and cry when they get ill and need it. The United States citizens need a government sponsored health insurance program, over 70% of American's believe this, and the last time I checked, we are a country that operates on majority rule.

The majority of the posters on this forum thing your a fool and need to stop posting, will you comply?

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
Every American WILL be insured, whether it be the Gov't plan or a private plan of their choosing. No American, not a single one, will be without health insurance ... PERIOD ...

Very American of you Jack, no freedom to choose there in your America.

So what if I make enough money to cover all my medical bills out of pocket? I still have to give my money for those that don't?

That kinda sounds like Marxism to me.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:


There are currently five states that do not require motorists to carry insurance.

New Hampshire does not have a primary or secondary seat belt law.

So there are a few choices still available if you feel your rights are being taken from you.

quote:

Add to that that in other states, the requirement is for insurance that provides for the victims of your driving ... not for yourself.

Historically, government has treated driving as a "priveledge" and not a "right."

I have a "right" to bear arms. Any attempt to license this is an infringement on my rights. But if any of us wish to drive, government REQUIRES that you take a test and prove your competency. I have NO problem with mandatory auto insurance. If I'm hit by someone with no insurance, (and no money) and cripled as a result of this accident, you guys going to make a collection to support me?

I regard access to a Doctor as a right. I don't need a license to see a Doctor. The cost of medical care is so extreme that either we have insurance or we go to an emergency room.

My problem with this plan is not the mandatory nature of it, but the nature of the mandatory plan. It's is not in fact the equivalent of car insurance.

Dave

quote:

It's is not in fact the equivalent of car insurance.

Nice that you agree that the analogy is badly flawed. Now ... if the government chose to say that it you wish to live, you must buy health insurance, that might come a little closer ...

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

It's is not in fact the equivalent of car insurance.

Nice that you agree that the analogy is badly flawed. Now ... if the government chose to say that it you wish to live, you must buy health insurance, that might come a little closer ...

No offense, but I don't understand your point. As I've posted, I am against being forced to pay an HMO. Aside from the obvious reasons, this kind of plan simply ADDS to the cost of health insurance, as opposed to making it cheaper.

A single payer plan would of course also be "mandatory," but it simply removes the middle man. No more HMO's, and a much downsized government bureaucracy to do the paper work. It would also eliminate the rediculously expensive emergency room medical care, which we all pay for, out of our taxes, Right Now, whether we like it or not.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

It's is not in fact the equivalent of car insurance.

Nice that you agree that the analogy is badly flawed. Now ... if the government chose to say that it you wish to live, you must buy health insurance, that might come a little closer ...

No offense, but I don't understand your point. As I've posted, I am against being forced to pay an HMO. Aside from the obvious reasons, this kind of plan simply ADDS to the cost of health insurance, as opposed to making it cheaper.

A single payer plan would of course also be "mandatory," but it simply removes the middle man. No more HMO's, and a much downsized government bureaucracy to do the paper work. It would also eliminate the rediculously expensive emergency room medical care, which we all pay for, out of our taxes, Right Now, whether we like it or not.

Dave

Likewise (don't understand your point) ... as I've posted, I support universal health care ... though I have five cost/quality conditions that I've attached to my support ... none of which are contrary to a single payer system ...

Your posts seem to assume that I am the opposition but, as I noted in an earlier comment, my challenging the analogy has nothing to do with support for or opposition to a universal health care system ... it was just a crappy analogy by KRA ...

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

It's is not in fact the equivalent of car insurance.

Nice that you agree that the analogy is badly flawed. Now ... if the government chose to say that it you wish to live, you must buy health insurance, that might come a little closer ...

No offense, but I don't understand your point. As I've posted, I am against being forced to pay an HMO. Aside from the obvious reasons, this kind of plan simply ADDS to the cost of health insurance, as opposed to making it cheaper.

A single payer plan would of course also be "mandatory," but it simply removes the middle man. No more HMO's, and a much downsized government bureaucracy to do the paper work. It would also eliminate the rediculously expensive emergency room medical care, which we all pay for, out of our taxes, Right Now, whether we like it or not.

Dave

Likewise (don't understand your point) ... as I've posted, I support universal health care ... though I have five cost/quality conditions that I've attached to my support ... none of which are contrary to a single payer system ...

Your posts seem to assume that I am the opposition but, as I noted in an earlier comment, my challenging the analogy has nothing to do with support for or opposition to a universal health care system ... it was just a crappy analogy by KRA ...

Don't you know that everyone is in the opposition? Not that I'm paranoid, after all, isn't everyone out to get me?

Ok, fine, we agree - Screw Obamas plan...

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by stec74:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
My guess is everyone here is required to keep car insurance, too, right?
Remember how the sky fell back then?

Oh, and that time we all had to get seat belts in our cars.
All that wailing and gnashing of teeth.
(now where did I put my hair shirt?)

We're required to keep car insurance if we choose to own a car.

There are currently five states that do not require motorists to carry insurance.

New Hampshire does not have a primary or secondary seat belt law.

So there are a few choices still available if you feel your rights are being taken from you.

Then perhaps BO and the Federal government should leave the matter to the states.

I believe my insurance carrier will take the matter to the Supreme court.

Personally I believe this government is going about this problem backwards. They should instead be looking at the COST of Healthcare not the uninsured vs insured PAYING the cost.

Healthcare is just plain to expensive. That is the problem not whether or not people have insurance.

Not only that I don't think the Federal Goverment has the Constitutional right to implement this plan in the first place.