Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

"This past week, there has been a flurry of health insurance
inquiries. There is quite a debate nationally about costs of health
insurance, who should pay, who should be covered, what the coverage
levels should be, etc. Most pundits seem to agree that the comparison
of the health insurance mandate to mandatory car insurance is not
relevent. People have choices when it comes to car insurance. If
they don’t want to pay for it, they don’t have to drive. The health
insurance mandate, however, does not offer such choices. ..."

Yep. States take the position that driving is a privilege and not a
right. If one doesn't like the rules about driving one chooses not to
own a car to drive.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT), "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:

Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

"This past week, there has been a flurry of health insurance
inquiries. There is quite a debate nationally about costs of health
insurance, who should pay, who should be covered, what the coverage
levels should be, etc. Most pundits seem to agree that the comparison
of the health insurance mandate to mandatory car insurance is not
relevent. People have choices when it comes to car insurance. If
they don=92t want to pay for it, they don=92t have to drive. The health
insurance mandate, however, does not offer such choices. ..."

Yep. States take the position that driving is a privilege and not a
right. If one doesn't like the rules about driving one chooses not to
own a car to drive.

People (unless they are very odd indeed) don't choose not to drive
because they object to paying car insurance.

Its a stupid analogy.

People are however prevented from driving because they can't afford
the premiums, in the same way people are denied access to health care
because they can't afford the premiums.

Shaun wrote on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:18:51 GMT:

Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

"This past week, there has been a flurry of health insurance
inquiries. There is quite a debate nationally about costs of
health insurance, who should pay, who should be covered, what
the coverage levels should be, etc. Most pundits seem to
agree that the comparison of the health insurance mandate to
mandatory car insurance is not relevent. People have choices
when it comes to car insurance. If they don=92t want to pay
for it, they don=92t have to drive. The health insurance
mandate, however, does not offer such choices. ..."

Yep. States take the position that driving is a privilege and
not a right. If one doesn't like the rules about driving one
chooses not to own a car to drive.

People (unless they are very odd indeed) don't choose not to
drive because they object to paying car insurance.

Its a stupid analogy.

If you can't afford car insurance, take the bus! The alternative for a
person who can't afford health insurance is what? Die perhaps!
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

In "James Silverton"
wrote:

If you can't afford car insurance, take the bus! The alternative for a
person who can't afford health insurance is what?

The charity of thoughtful and concerned people like you?

Die perhaps!


--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:18:51 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT), "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:

Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

"This past week, there has been a flurry of health insurance
inquiries. There is quite a debate nationally about costs of health
insurance, who should pay, who should be covered, what the coverage
levels should be, etc. Most pundits seem to agree that the comparison
of the health insurance mandate to mandatory car insurance is not
relevent. People have choices when it comes to car insurance. If
they don=92t want to pay for it, they don=92t have to drive. The health
insurance mandate, however, does not offer such choices. ..."

Yep. States take the position that driving is a privilege and not a
right. If one doesn't like the rules about driving one chooses not to
own a car to drive.

People (unless they are very odd indeed) don't choose not to drive
because they object to paying car insurance.

Its a stupid analogy.

People are however prevented from driving because they can't afford
the premiums, in the same way people are denied access to health care
because they can't afford the premiums.


There is no "right to a free automobile" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy a car. Why would you argue
there is a "right to a free medical care" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy medical care?

I'm not arguing the substance of whether a socialized medicine is
needed or not. I am simply arguing that the presumed analogy to
not being able to own and drive a car because one "can't afford the
premiums," has no logical substance in relation to a socialized
medical care system.


Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html

On 23/03/10 21:18, in article ,
"Shaun" wrote:

People (unless they are very odd indeed) don't choose not to drive
because they object to paying car insurance.

Its a stupid analogy.

Not a perfect one. The Democrats wrote up the health bill
will constitutionality in view, so configurated things
as a tax.

I note as an ex-pat that we are excluded from the requirement
to be insured. No problem for us since we are insured under
French SS health insurance, far superior to what exists
in the US even with the Cadillac insurances of the very well
off;`

One provision " The legislation calls for a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned
income for families making more than $250000 a year "

is selective in hitting the very high incomes. The French tax for health
insurance on unearned income is 10%, so the US has more tax resources
in this area for the future. Why not 10% on all unearned income?

There is "gold in them thar hills".

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:23:21 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:18:51 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT), "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:

Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

"This past week, there has been a flurry of health insurance
inquiries. There is quite a debate nationally about costs of health
insurance, who should pay, who should be covered, what the coverage
levels should be, etc. Most pundits seem to agree that the comparison
of the health insurance mandate to mandatory car insurance is not
relevent. People have choices when it comes to car insurance. If
they don=92t want to pay for it, they don=92t have to drive. The health
insurance mandate, however, does not offer such choices. ..."

Yep. States take the position that driving is a privilege and not a
right. If one doesn't like the rules about driving one chooses not to
own a car to drive.

People (unless they are very odd indeed) don't choose not to drive
because they object to paying car insurance.

Its a stupid analogy.

People are however prevented from driving because they can't afford
the premiums, in the same way people are denied access to health care
because they can't afford the premiums.


There is no "right to a free automobile" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy a car. Why would you argue
there is a "right to a free medical care" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy medical care?


People who don't drive still pay taxes to build roads. Deal with it

On 24/03/10 11:13, in article ,
"Shaun" wrote:

There is no "right to a free automobile" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy a car. Why would you argue
there is a "right to a free medical care" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy medical care?


People who don't drive still pay taxes to build roads. Deal with it



The irony in the French system is that everybody is insured, including
the rich who have never been employed and so never contributed to
the insurance via payroll deductions.

Absurd? Socialism for the rich?

No.

The reason is that all unearned income, like dividends, bond interest
etc are taxed with a tax whose revenues does into health care. So a wealthy
rentier (the name for a French coupon clipper), if they earn $1 million will
pay $100,000 in taxes. For $100,000 they could get a super golden
Cadillac insurance coverage, much better coverage than provided by
Social Security.

Conclusion: Ain't socialism great? It takes money from the rich and gives
to the poor, unlike capitalism which does the reverse.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:13:55 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:23:21 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:18:51 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT), "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:

Health Insurance Mandate vs Mandatory Auto Insurance

"This past week, there has been a flurry of health insurance
inquiries. There is quite a debate nationally about costs of health
insurance, who should pay, who should be covered, what the coverage
levels should be, etc. Most pundits seem to agree that the comparison
of the health insurance mandate to mandatory car insurance is not
relevent. People have choices when it comes to car insurance. If
they don=92t want to pay for it, they don=92t have to drive. The health
insurance mandate, however, does not offer such choices. ..."

Yep. States take the position that driving is a privilege and not a
right. If one doesn't like the rules about driving one chooses not to
own a car to drive.

People (unless they are very odd indeed) don't choose not to drive
because they object to paying car insurance.

Its a stupid analogy.

People are however prevented from driving because they can't afford
the premiums, in the same way people are denied access to health care
because they can't afford the premiums.


There is no "right to a free automobile" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy a car. Why would you argue
there is a "right to a free medical care" paid for by taxes and the
government if one cannot afford to buy medical care?


People who don't drive still pay taxes to build roads. Deal with it

Apples and oranges. If one cannot afford to own a car one cannot use
those roads. So why should one who cannot afford health insurance use
medical care?

Keep in mind that the government does not BUILD hospitals
(other than those for the military and VA) and PAY the staff and
doctors at those hospitals. But the government does build roads
using tax dollars at both the federal and state level.


Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html

"Planet Visitor II" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:13:55 GMT,
(Shaun) wrote:

People who don't drive still pay taxes to build roads. Deal with it

Apples and oranges. If one cannot afford to own a car one cannot use
those roads. So why should one who cannot afford health insurance use
medical care?

Keep in mind that the government does not BUILD hospitals
(other than those for the military and VA) and PAY the staff and
doctors at those hospitals. But the government does build roads
using tax dollars at both the federal and state level.



hey butt head, why not tote your fat, know it all hillbilly ass on out of
here gomer,

what's matter fool, everyone else tired of hearing your bull**** and they
turn around and walk away when they see you coming ?

get a ****ing life goober, try listening instead of running that fool mouth