quote Originally posted by fierofetish: IT IS MANDATORY TO CONTRIBUTE, YES. THAT IS CALLED FISCAL COMMON SENSE OPERATING A HEALTH SERVICE WHICH BENEFITS BOTH RICH, MEDIUM INCOME Nick

We as Americans are individuals, extremely independent, and have fought many wars our biggest was against England who wanted to control us, and later signed a Declaration of Independence, risking the lives of many prominent people to do so. Obamacare does NOT have popular agreement because of these distinct American traits. We do not wish to be told what we can and can't do. Obama is the most socialized president we have ever had. This Obamacare (sic) is unconstitutional BECAUSE it is mandatory

Cordially,
Kevin

so auto insurance is also state mandated socialism and there for un-constitutional to ?????????????

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

I fully understand all you have said. Seriously. But to 'kick over the traces' because you smply see it as ' controlling', and thereby sacrificing a system that cares for ALL, at relatively low cost, might be a sacrifice too far.
You didn't address a single point that I raised in my post, and acknowledge that you had quite possibly commented upon a situation that was totally without foundation, in order to make YOUR stand more 'understandable' and meritous.
You now have the opportunity to petition for a better version of the UK system, by demanding that the healthcare system America might be adopting immediately closes any of the loopholes apparent in the UK, and other SOCIALISED National Health Services currently running in other Western Countries. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to close them once in place. And I am fully in agrrement with you that there ARE loopholes and flaws in the UK system, such as free treatment to people who abuse themselves willingly and defiantly in the face of the proven evidence that they are doing so VOLUNTARILY, and probably render themselves incapable of doing ANY type of useful employment which would ensure they at least make SOME kind of contribution to the vast expense of treating them. Is that one of the 'freedoms' you are demanding? The truth is simple: the more 'freedoms' you give the average person, the more they will abuse them. That is precisely why we have Governments: to control those who NEED controlling, and to ensure all the things we accept as 'freedoms' in our life remain so. At least, that is my view on Human behavioural patterns I have seen in my lifetime. Unfortunately, by protecting the 'good' sector of the population from the 'bad', you inevitably inflict the same controls on those very people who don't need them.
For example, there was a programme on UK TV last night which has finally come to the conclusion that Alcohol abuse/misuse costs the UK more than SIXTEEN BILLION POUNDS EVERY YEAR. And the people who work hard and dilligently, and pay their extortionate income tax etc dues, are having to pick up the bill. That is alcohol abuse ALONE. Factor in the costs of treating drug abusers and smokers, you could have a reasonable guess at the whole lot costing the system THREE TIMES that amount annually.
I am perfectly aware that there are many many people who drink alcohol in moderation, enjoy doing so, and do no harm to anybody else. It is the growing majority who drink alcohol excessively for the sheer determination to get drunk, rather than enjoy the alcohol for what it is supposed to be: a pleasurable experience in itself, rather than the outcome of drinking too much, too quickly, simply to get drunk.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by kevin: We as Americans are individuals, extremely independent, and have fought many wars our biggest was against England who wanted to control us, and later signed a Declaration of Independence, risking the lives of many prominent people to do so. Obamacare does NOT have popular agreement because of these distinct American traits. We do not wish to be told what we can and can't do. Obama is the most socialized president we have ever had. This Obamacare (sic) is unconstitutional BECAUSE it is mandatory

I swear my monitor was shaking from the chest-pounding.

quote Originally posted by ray b: so auto insurance is also state mandated socialism and there for un-constitutional to ?????????????

ray b,

I am happy to be your teacher in both logic and history. Regarding auto insurance: Suppose I do not have a car. I live in a small apartment in Boston. I walk to work. Obama comes along and DEMANDS by Federal law that I have to buy auto insurance of $400 per year. I say "I do not have a car, and therefore I do not have to pay for car insurance" Obama and his regime say that you HAVE TO or get thrown in jail and pay a large fine. Socialism, as it is defined, is a collective ownership for the good of society. I want you to tell me why YOU think that it is OK for you to pay car insurance for a bum in Seattle or a welfare mom in Los Angeles (I am not even talking about illegal aliens that you would have to fork over a big chunk of your money to offer them liability insurance). Because I have an insurance license, I can tell you, you do not have to have automobile insurance. You have to post a bond, yes, but you don't have to have it by law. In Obamacare, you have to have insurance according to the law he signed. That is socialism and it has never been as profitable, or as generous to the people, as capitalism. Maybe that is why Obama likes to borrow and believe in phrases from the known marxist Joseph Lenin, to "spread the wealth around".

Cordially,
Kevin

[This message has been edited by kevin (edited 04-10-2011).]

I'm sorry what are the differences between socialized and socialism?
From dictionary.com
Socialized:
1.to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2.to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.
3.Education . to treat as a group activity: to socialize spelling quizzes.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I'm sorry what are the differences between socialized and socialism? From dictionary.com Socialized: 1.to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others. 2.to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism. 3.Education . to treat as a group activity: to socialize spelling quizzes.

Maybe I should have been more clear, I find some can't tell the difference between a socialed institution like healthcare and the fact that it doesn't make the country itself socialist. According to some peoples definition I would think any form of Government would be considered socialism.

Well I would think those people are arguing the slippery slope. Or just don't want anymore socialism than is already in the US. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt though.

ray b,

Are you out there? Perhaps your are just hoping that you weak argument will go unnoticed?

Cordially,
Kevin
p.s. care to answer my question or would you rather just give up and acquiesce that you are not knowledgeable.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: ...at relatively low cost...

Just wanted to correct you here. I'm not being partisan about this, but under no circumstance is the cost low, in any way that's considered relative. It's fully understood at this point, that it is by no means "deficit neutral" as was originally suggested when they pushed the plan. I don't really know how people thought otherwise, but the plan was to tax for 10 years, to provide the first 6 years of service in hopes of building up a buffer, but the new CBO estimates have it actually increasing the debt by an additional trillion by today's valuation within 10 years, assuming health and conditions don't change (those were NON-conservative estimates).

That also did not include the possibility that our nearly 30 million in the US who are illegal at this point, would soon become citizens themselves, or that the general health could actually decline in America, or that people would end up moving to the government run system either.


So... just so we're clear, it's understood now, by everyone in congress / senate / administration, that it will drastically increase cost. Just want to make sure that's clear.

quote Originally posted by kevin: ray b, Are you out there? Perhaps your are just hoping that you weak argument will go unnoticed? Cordially, Kevin p.s. care to answer my question or would you rather just give up and acquiesce that you are not knowledgeable.

why should I answer your questions when you never answer mine
multi pages and you still haveNOT corrected the BIG LIES in your first post
the woman in question didnot die from lack of care or because care was delayed
care was delayed because she was tooo weak and fat and old to survive the operation proven by the fact
she got the operation and died a few days later
and she wasNOT a national leader just a local board member [not even a leader at all ]

and you never answered the is auto insurance required by state law socialist
yes or no answer is required
not you tap dancing around the question himming and hawing about BS

england france germany and japan all have systems [that you call socialist] that provides health care = to the USA in results
without huge bills or other bad results that we do have here

quote Originally posted by ray b: why should I answer your questions when you never answer mine multi pages and you still haveNOT corrected the BIG LIES in your first post the woman in question didnot die from lack of care or because care was delayed care was delayed because she was tooo weak and fat and old to survive the operation proven by the fact she got the operation and died a few days later and she wasNOT a national leader just a local board member [not even a leader at all ] never answered the is auto insurance required by state law socialist yes or no answer is required not you tap dancing around the question himming and hawing about BS england france germany and japan all have systems [that you call socialist] that provides health care = to the USA in results without huge bills or other bad results that we do have here

Again, as I said before, you seem to have an issue with reading? I already answered the question on the auto insurance. I know, since I HAVE a valid auto, life, disability and health license here in California. Do this: Look back on the post about five or six posts above ^^^^^ Gee, I think I made it simple. Other people in the high schools I talked to seem to know exactly what I say. They later thank me for explaining it in such simple terms. Only you cannot understand what I wrote? Other countries have NOTHING to so with what we do with our commerce here in the USA. We have a Constitution. We itemized, fought and died, for our rights on what the government CANNOT do to us or for us.

The old fatso lady would have gotten better health care here in the USA.

Cordially,
Kevin

p.s. please read, it will do you alot of good!

[This message has been edited by kevin (edited 04-11-2011).]

NO the outcome of surgery in europe and the USA is equal
both have the same post-op death rates of 2.4%

and again NO you never answered yes or no to the auto insurance question
just tap danced around the question
so lets try one more time
is state required insurance FOR A CAR OWNING DRIVER un-constitutional
no red herrings about walking to work or homeless people please


big lie count keeps going up
1 she was not in charge of anything nor a national leader
2 it was not a stomach ache nor was the first surgery delayed and followup surgery was not delayed for bureaucratic reasons
just that she was tooo weak [and old and fat]
3 the out come in the USA under the current system would have been then same for her condition
4 englands system is NOT the same or even similar to obamba's plan

you really need to learn the difference between teaching and spouting propaganda

quote Originally posted by ray b: is state required insurance FOR A CAR OWNING DRIVER un-constitutional

The Tenth Amendment states: “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The States have the ability to legislate a requirement for car insurance within that States borders, or even health insurance assuming it does not violate the States Constitution.

This is the problem though. Does Health insurance count as commerce?

If so then the Federal Governement is within it's abilities to legislate the purchas of it according to the Commerce Clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“The Congress shall have Power, To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”

So Commerce is defined as: an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

Commodities: an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service.

A product as opposed to a service. Is health insurance a product or a service?

Goods: a. possessions, especially movable effects or personal property. b. articles of trade; wares; merchandise: canned goods.

From the definition it's something tangible, which again excludes a service.

So rather then ask if it's unconstitutional for a State to require car insurance, how about ask, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can require it's citizens to purchase health insurance? I know it says the States can, but where does it say they can? Because unless it says they can then that is something left to the States.

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO the outcome of surgery in europe and the USA is equal both have the same post-op death rates of 2.4% and again NO you never answered yes or no to the auto insurance question just tap danced around the question so lets try one more time is state required insurance FOR A CAR OWNING DRIVER un-constitutional no red herrings about walking to work or homeless people please big lie count keeps going up 1 she was not in charge of anything nor a national leader 2 it was not a stomach ache nor was the first surgery delayed and followup surgery was not delayed for bureaucratic reasons just that she was tooo weak [and old and fat] 3 the out come in the USA under the current system would have been then same for her condition 4 englands system is NOT the same or even similar to obamba's plan you really need to learn the difference between teaching and spouting propaganda

NO! Da*n you are frustrating. If you own a car you cannot get it registered, unless ypou can show DMV that you have insurance. However, and this other point is where your brain begins to freeze, you can show thre DMV clerk an affadavit showing that you have an adequate bond to cover your liability NO INSURANCE IS NECESSARY!!!

Regarding the old fat lady from England, I wrote she was in charge, I did not state of what! She was in charge of her individual city department. Do not get your panties all tied up in a wad over the minutia of what department. The bottom line is that in England and Canada for that matter the waiting time for surgeries is months and month longer before the state will pay for it. If you pass before that time, oh well.
The similarities between the two health systems is that they force you to belong and pay for it. Beyond the simple matter of that, I cannot go ever each and every medical condition of the human body and comment on what each will or will not pay for. If you HAVE TO PAY for something, or get jailed if you don't that is socialism.

Cordially,
Kevin

[This message has been edited by kevin (edited 04-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by kevin: NO! Da*n you are frustrating. If you own a car you cannot get it registered, unless ypou can show DMV that you have insurance. However, and this other point is where your brain begins to freeze, you can show thre DMV clerk an affadavit showing that you have an adequate bond to cover your liability NO INSURANCE IS NECESSARY!!! Regarding the old fat lady from England, I wrote she was in charge, I did not state of what! .... Cordially, Kevin

quote Did your hear what just happened in Great Britain? The lady who was in charge of their entire health department just died!

Kevin, Kevin...KEVIN!!
When I learned English at school, the teacher would have told me that 'their' was a reflective pronoun referring to 'Great Britain'!
Again, PLEASE don't utter ridiculous and unfounded comments as if they were the truth!! Waiting times in the UK are a darned sight shorter than the time somebody in the US, who has NO cover, will have to wait.

Here in Spain, which also has an identical Health System model, I was seen within HOURS after being referred to a Specialist by my doctor. That is TYPICAL in the UK and here.
You are WRONG WRONG!. How can the very subject of your thread be minutia?? Staggering!! Just STAGGERING...rather like your arguments
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Here in Spain, which also has an identical Health System model, I was seen within HOURS after being referred to a Specialist by my doctor. That is TYPICAL in the UK and here.

Nick, don't forget... Kevin is now also an expert on the medical system in Canada.

quote Originally posted by kevin: The bottom line is that in England and Canada for that matter the waiting time for surgeries is months and month longer before the state will pay for it. If you pass before that time, oh well.

frustrating is dealing with neo-conn's who never debate facts
but copy made up BS from blogs full of spin and BIG LIES

OF COURSE THE TRUE FACTS MATTER
and the real story was a minor old fat official of a local town died after an extended hospital stay 6 months post the first surgery
rendered her institutionalized she was sent home for a month had the second operation and died
NOT the spin story kevin told
there was no leader of the nation's health care involved
or bureaucratic delays or lack of treatment or stomach ache

and then post indignant BS about how domesticated they are or something that rimes with something
and denigrate me for saying they employ BIG LIES
BUT THEN DO THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: frustrating is dealing with neo-conn's who never debate facts but copy made up BS from blogs full of spin and BIG LIES OF COURSE THE TRUE FACTS MATTER and the real story was a minor old fat official of a local town died after an extended hospital stay 6 months post the first surgery rendered her institutionalized she was sent home for a month had the second operation and died NOT the spin story kevin told there was no leader of the nation's health care involved or bureaucratic delays or lack of treatment or stomach ache and then post indignant BS about how domesticated they are or something that rimes with something and denigrate me for saying they employ BIG LIES BUT THEN DO THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN

All YOU ever do is spew the same crap rhetoric over and over.

I want to go through your posts and count how many times you say "BIG LIE", "corpRATS", and "neo-CONNS", among others. You repeat yourself over and over and anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot and a rat feeding into the "big lie" (which, btw, you change the definition of post to post).

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE BIG LIE

it is a plan to repeatedly spin the facts or just make stuff up
to suit an agenda [repeating blog posts or parts of them] is a very modern version

the original modern use was hitler's use of the BIG LIE on the jews
but really it is far far older then that

three good examples of BIG LIES are straight from kevin

obamba is a socialist [because they donot like him]
england's health care plan is the same as obamba's [it is not but they donot care]
obamba's health care plan will jail you if you donot sign up [ but the law said no such thing]

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 04-12-2011).]

Whoa, I don't know if saying Obama is a socialist is a big lie, but rather an opinion which is not that crazy. "spread the wealth"
Rayb are you saying, that If I think Obama is a socialist, or has socialist leanings. that I am worse than Hitler? LOL
Didn't the Nazis also refer to the Jews as 'rats' ? Attribute to them power they did not have, and blame their greed for the ills of society?

[This message has been edited by Scottzilla79 (edited 04-12-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE BIG LIE it is a plan to repeatedly spin the facts or just make stuff up to suit an agenda [repeating blog posts or parts of them] is a very modern version the original modern use was hitler's use of the BIG LIE on the jews but really it is far far older then that three good examples of BIG LIES are straight from kevin obamba is a socialist [because they donot like him] england's health care plan is the same as obamba's [it is not but they donot care] obamba's health care plan will jail you if you donot sign up [ but the law said no such thing]

Well the first days are the hardest days,
Don't you worry any more, 'Cause when life looks like easy
Street, there is danger at your door.
Think this through with me, let me know your mind.
Woh - oh, what I want to know, is are you kind?

It's a buck dancer's choice my friend; better take my advice.
You know all the rules by now and the fire from ice.
Will you come with me, won't you come with me?
Woh - oh, what I want to know, will you come with me?

Goddamn, well I declare, have you seen the like?
Their walls are built of cannonballs, their motto is
Don't tread on me. Come hear Uncle John's Band playing
To the tide, come with me, or go alone.

It's the same story the crow told me;
It's the only one he knows.
Like the morning sun you come and like the wind you go.
Ain't no time to hate, barely time to wait,
Woh - oh, what I want to know, where does the time go?

I live in a silver mine and I call it Beggar's Tomb;
I got me a violin and I beg you call the tune
Anybody's choice, I can hear your voice.
Woh - oh, what I want to know, how does the song go?

Come hear the Uncle John's Band by the riverside
Got some things to talk about, here beside the risin' tide
Come hear Uncle John's Band playing to the tide,
Come on along, or go alone,
He's come to take his children home.
Woh - oh, what I want to know, how does the song go?

Come hear Uncle John's Band by the riverside,
Got some things to talk about here beside the risin' tide.
Come hear Uncle John's Band playing to the tide, come on
Along or go alone, he's come to take his children home.

Wait, what's that? Oh, I thought we were just spewing nonsense so I put in an unrelated song. I heard you like it, no?

Sorry, that's really rude. I just don't think your posts make much sense. Why call something "THE" big lie, when it can be related to anything? I can call any one of your posts "THE BIG LIE" based on your definition. Also, Obama has fairly socialistic ideals so I think it's fair to have the opinion that he is a socialist.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Sorry, that's really rude. I just don't think your posts make much sense. Why call something "THE" big lie, when it can be related to anything? I can call any one of your posts "THE BIG LIE" based on your definition. Also, Obama has fairly socialistic ideals so I think it's fair to have the opinion that he is a socialist.

Seems the equivalent to a lot of the Democrat/Obama hate that gets spewed here, I don't agree with either. The sheer hate and fear of the other side seems to have blinded some to how similar they really are in their attitude and vitriol.

actually "the big lie" is a propaganda tool. I learned of it in grade school.
Mao was supposedly a big fan of the tactic.
You tell a lie so unbelievable that people believe it just because they can't believe you'd make it up.

quote Originally posted by newf: Seems the equivalent to a lot of the Democrat/Obama hate that gets spewed here, I don't agree with either. The sheer hate and fear of the other side seems to have blinded some to how similar they really are in their attitude and vitriol.

I agree with you. Absolutely.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Whoa, I don't know if saying Obama is a socialist is a big lie, but rather an opinion which is not that crazy. "spread the wealth" Rayb are you saying, that If I think Obama is a socialist, or has socialist leanings. that I am worse than Hitler? LOL Didn't the Nazis also refer to the Jews as 'rats' ? Attribute to them power they did not have, and blame their greed for the ills of society?

no but one should know who did similar things and how they turned out

obama like clinton before him is more moderate middle then many on the far right will ever admit
for sure I have views more extreme then obama on somethings
and would love true english style health care laws but understand the new plan is not that
as capitalist insurance is the main player in ours and not in the english plan at all

Well some of us don't think that obamacare is exactly like anything else, be it British or Canadian, but rather we see it as step in a direction we don't want to go.
Was Clinton naturally moderate? I think he and the Mrs. were pushing hard for single-payer health care before the electorate slapped them on the nose with a newspaper, which installed the most conservative congress we may have ever had.
Ray what about my 3rd question? You conveniently ignored that one

lol - such foolishness.....
who here does NOT buy auto insurance (or have it bought for them)?
who here does NOT buy health insurance (or have it bought for them)?

Who here does not buy toilet paper? Should the government mandate it?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Here in Spain, which also has an identical Health System model, I was seen within HOURS after being referred to a Specialist by my doctor. That is TYPICAL in the UK and here. You are WRONG WRONG!. How can the very subject of your thread be minutia?? Staggering!! Just STAGGERING...rather like your arguments Nick

In the US, if I want, I just go directly to the specialist. If I know that my wrist is hurting, I can go to a sports injury doctor. If I get a piece of metal in my eye, I go directly to a surgical opthomoligist (ask me how I know... sigh....)

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - such foolishness..... who here does NOT buy auto insurance (or have it bought for them)? who here does NOT buy health insurance (or have it bought for them)?

I have two friends that live in Chicago that don't have cars, and don't pay car insurance. They walk to work, or occasionally will take a cab if they need to get somewhere else in town. Although, with the tax increase that was just passed, I think one of them might be moving out of the city and getting an apartment right outside of the limits, with a car and insurance. She's weighing the cost right now.

My sister-in-law also lived in down-town Manhattan for a year, and she didn't have car insurance either.

Regardless, the constitution tells us what we're ALLOWED to do, not what we shouldn't do. Therefore, unless it's voted on to otherwise add an amendment that permits it, I see this whole bill as unconstitutional. I'm not talking about the merits of it, or whether or not we should have one, I'm simply saying that right now, it's unconstitutional. There's also no federal law that says you have to have car insurance... because that would be unconstitutional.

Socialism is not the same as Federalism, even if the theory behind them is correct. The constitution was created for a purpose, it's not a "best practices" guide.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ...... I have two friends that live in Chicago that don't have cars, and don't pay car insurance. They walk to work, or occasionally will take a cab if they need to get somewhere else in town. Although, with the tax increase that was just passed, I think one of them might be moving out of the city and getting an apartment right outside of the limits, with a car and insurance. She's weighing the cost right now. My sister-in-law also lived in down-town Manhattan for a year, and she didn't have car insurance either. Regardless, the constitution tells us what we're ALLOWED to do, not what we shouldn't do. Therefore, unless it's voted on to otherwise add an amendment that permits it, I see this whole bill as unconstitutional. I'm not talking about the merits of it, or whether or not we should have one, I'm simply saying that right now, it's unconstitutional. There's also no federal law that says you have to have car insurance... because that would be unconstitutional. Socialism is not the same as Federalism, even if the theory behind them is correct. The constitution was created for a purpose, it's not a "best practices" guide.

wasnt asking about anyone else
people carry insurance on their cars becuse they MUST - you know that as well as anyone else.
but, I fully understand trying to sidestep

again:
who here does NOT buy auto insurance (or have it bought for them)?
who here does NOT buy health insurance (or have it bought for them)?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: who here does NOT buy health insurance (or have it bought for them)?

I don't have any form of health insurance at the moment because I'm a young and healthy man.

I wasn't planning on getting any health insurance until around 28 but.. I guess that's gonna change.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: wasnt asking about anyone else people carry insurance on their cars becuse they MUST - you know that as well as anyone else. but, I fully understand trying to sidestep again: who here does NOT buy auto insurance (or have it bought for them)? who here does NOT buy health insurance (or have it bought for them)?

Well, of course we're all going to have car insurance, we're on a car message board. Why are the people whom I know not considered valid for your point?

There was a short time while I lived here for 6 months when I was just going to college, and even though I owned the Fiero, I had not brought it down from Virginia yet, so I didn't pay car insurance because I didn't have a car, and could walk to school, and to the grocery store. Does that count?

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I don't have any form of health insurance at the moment because I'm a young and healthy man. I wasn't planning on getting any health insurance until around 28 but.. I guess that's gonna change.

theres one! yes - I did the same - and I know there are a few others here
so - other other Q - auto ins? because you want to - or have to?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: theres one! yes - I did the same - and I know there are a few others here so - other other Q - auto ins? because you want to - or have to?

I do it because I thought I had to. Though I do think it's bollocks.

Is this true:

quote Originally posted by kevin: you can show thre DMV clerk an affadavit showing that you have an adequate bond to cover your liability NO INSURANCE IS NECESSARY!!!

??

I can't afford to do that right now, but I definitely will in the future if they allow me.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I don't have any form of health insurance at the moment because I'm a young and healthy man.

And as a "young and healthy man", there's no chance you might be injured in some sort of accident?

Must be wonderful to feel omnipotent.

Or maybe he's decided the risk isn't worth the cost of health insurance. I did not have health insurance in my early 20s either.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: And as a "young and healthy man", there's no chance you might be injured in some sort of accident? Must be wonderful to feel omnipotent.

thats the fun: most accidents are covered by other forms of insurance. example: car crash - the above FORCED into auto insurance - that is in fact one fo the reasons WHY people are forced into it.
and, then if you look at the numbers from when you leave your parents coverage to when you start buying your own coverage - thats ALOT of years. at $300+ more likely $400/month. thats buys a decent loan if something should go badly. use a HSA. insurance should not really be needed. there are many existing problems that could be solved if people actually directly paid for their health care.

this actually highlites WHY the insurance system started to fail. because more & more younger folk were stepping out of the pool. which spiralled the costs of those remaining. Obamacare is more of a "bailout" than a socialized healthcare system. like many of the other systems that got bailed - should have been left to fail.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: exactly. because we MUST. yes - I drop coverage on my Fiero every winter. and - not making a point - showing the reality vs "the points". edit to add: - so buy health ins? because you must or willingly?

Actually, there are provisions in the law that make it so that you don't have to buy car insurance, any kind, if you can prove that you are financially able to pay should you need to.


Regardless however, there is no federal law stating that you must buy car insurance... because it would be unconstitutional.


Here's a smiley so you know I'm not angry with you. hahah...