Customer Discussions > Politics forum

WHY don't you want to buy health insurance?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1076-1100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 10:58:25 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[So I suspect to are just another freeloading bum who doesn't have their own health insurance, or you wouldn't forced to buy it.]

The subject is far more about limiting the power of federal government, then it is about giving healthcare to all. There is a current resistance since the excesses of Bush era continuing to the Obama era, that people are starting to try to put the breaks on Federal power that is getting way too powerful.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 10:59:55 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[
Look at the Raich case on marijuana. The little lady never left her house and still "affected" interstate commerce because the marijuana she grew competed with that sold illegally in interstate commerce. ]

Still. the drug laws are undeniably unconstitutional. The government gave up it's power of prohibition with the repeal of that amendment. No amendment takes it's place to federally restrict anything else in the same fashion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:00:09 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Shain Edge says: "Which is exactly why I support the 2nd Amendment. "

I agree, but I did not think it should be applied to the states because that was clearly against the intentions of the framers. The Bill of Rights was clearly intended to limit federal action only.

I like the results of applying most of those rights to the states because it expanded our rights, but it is a real stretch of the due process clause.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:03:04 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[I like the results of applying most of those rights to the states because it expanded our rights, but it is a real stretch of the due process clause. ]

I still prefer to leave states rights up to the respective populations. It makes for a far more interesting America, if a person is able to go to exactly the place that fits their personality and morals well. That way a person can look up and see that these states do certain things that make them successful, others are doing another thing and getting very poor results. and etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:04:20 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Saywhat? says: "So I suspect to are just another freeloading bum who doesn't have their own health insurance, or you wouldn't forced to buy it."

Does the same principle apply to those who are freeloading on welfare, food stamps, housing, Medicaid, WIC, SCHIPS, etc.?

In both cases the people might not have the money to afford those items.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:08:33 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Shain Edge says: "Still. the drug laws are undeniably unconstitutional. The government gave up it's power of prohibition with the repeal of that amendment."

Are you referring to prohibition? That only applied to alcohol. If the drug laws are unconstitutional, so are almost all other federal criminal laws--embezzling, crimes on federal property, pollution, civil rights.........

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:12:17 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[Are you referring to prohibition? That only applied to alcohol. If the drug laws are unconstitutional, so are almost all other federal criminal laws--embezzling, crimes on federal property, pollution, civil rights......... ]

Drugs, if legal, only present harm to the individual. It has no relationship to other crimes. Legal drugs are inexpensive. There is far less incentive to crime when the 'fix' is cheap.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:21:42 AM PDT
Shain Edge says:
[Are you referring to prohibition? That only applied to alcohol. If the drug laws are unconstitutional, so are almost all other federal criminal laws--embezzling, crimes on federal property, pollution, civil rights]

Embezzling is theft. It's already against the law to steal.

Federal property is a place where Congress already make _all_ the laws. It's in the Constitution.

Pollution, should be a state item, only federal in nature if one state sues another for damages.

Civil rights, the level of power they were taken to, exceeded the power of the Amendment. State level authority. Bill of rights basically states, explicitly, that the federal government may not control the people, except in very few enumerated circumstances. The 9th and 10th Amendments tend to get read out of the bill of rights, and limitations on federal power.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 11:25:39 AM PDT
Saywhat?: Don't hold back, now. Feel free to speak your mind. You are about the only rational person left on this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:07:29 PM PDT
Visionary it seems to me that you and a few others are trying to change America to meet your dream.. not the other way around... if you need a bill to change what is to what you feel should be your are the one doing the change.. so by your own statement of "They should form their own" doesn't that mean YOU should form YOUR own socialist country instead of trying to change America into one?

"That's why Europeans have better countries" that is your opinion... and i disagree. If you find theirs to be better again your own statement form your own means you should move THERE and stop trying to make us them.... personally i like the freedoms that are guaranteed by our constitutiion freedom of speech ect... in Europe they aren't really free <speech for example is VERY limited>

True free markets don't exist true.. but the closer you get to them.. the better off the consumer is.. competition is a good thing IMHO!

you are correct working hard does NOT garantee rewards.. sometimes working smarter is better than working harder... every job I have done I have found that the more I contribute to the companies profitability the more I make except of course for the military.

your calling of everyone who disagrees with you shows your own close minded nature.. it is my way or the highway; I am not sure you are even capable of intelligent discourse as that requires the willingness to see something from someone Else's point of view... so far sounds like you just call them ignorant and move on.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:13:36 PM PDT
M. Daniel

sorry if i am misunderstanding your statement here.. but NO Obamacare is NOT covered by the commerce clause.. the court was VERY specific about this... Obamacare was deemed to be legal as a TAX not as a use of the commerce clause.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:24:49 PM PDT
YES... that is the true crime of this ruling we can now tax people for or for not doing anything they want.. it scares the pee wadle out of me in point of fact.

Had a republican done this the papers would be up in arms.. and they will be when the republicans USE this new found power to tax things libs don't WANT taxed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:33:00 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Raymond Andrews says: sorry if i am misunderstanding your statement here.....but NO Obamacare is NOT covered by the commerce clause.

I think we were discussing civil rights laws.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:44:09 PM PDT
*I pay for my insurance, and I'm paying high premiums because of those who don't have it. I'm also a 3-armed conflict combat Vet including Vietnam, and I'm really tired of jerks like you saying you are supposed to be free, when you do nothing to support America.

That is why we created the VA so that people who served are taken care of in a seperate system.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:47:53 PM PDT
*Still. the drug laws are undeniably unconstitutional. The government gave up it's power of prohibition with the repeal of that amendment. No amendment takes it's place to federally restrict anything else in the same fashion.

Could the federal government ban the production sale and tranportation VX nerve agent? There are things that are inherently dangerous and can be banned saying that they can't be part of regular commerse.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 12:50:21 PM PDT
*Drugs, if legal, only present harm to the individual. It has no relationship to other crimes. Legal drugs are inexpensive. There is far less incentive to crime when the 'fix' is cheap.

OK, I am going to give you something that makes you feel really good, come back tomorrow and I'll sell you more.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 1:29:18 PM PDT
because who pays?!?!

so far since obama care passed my insurance rates have gone up by 30% while copays and coverage have gone down signification <ok the copays went up not down> the reason is because under the bill there is no upper limit on coverage and the insurance companies are required to carry people that they weren't before....

insurance is a bet between you and the company providing insurance.. the bet is that you will pay them more in premiums <and interest on that premium> than they will have to pay to keep you healthy in the same period of time. Obamacare loaded up the payouts without increasing the pay in.. which means that everyone that is a member pays MORE.

people keep saying it is a good thing because people that don't have insurance will be covered.. wonderful concept except that that coverage is paid for by the middle class. If the person doesn't HAVE insurance the odds are good they can't afford it. If they couldn't afford it BEFORE the bill.. the odds are good they STILL can't afford it after the bill.... so where do you suppose the money is going to come from?!

the answer to the health care crisis is NOT to instantly provide coverage, but to find out why costs are so high NOW <overpaying for meds, unneeded exams labs etc, and one of the biggies bogus lawsuites> and control the COSTS...

if you drive the costs down and the insurance companies just pocket the money without lowering premiums THEN you have a viable reason to start up some legislation. Just issuing coverage to people without providing any income to insurance companies simply means more money coming out of the already over taxed middle class.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 1:45:14 PM PDT
*Had a republican done this the papers would be up in arms.. and they will be when the republicans USE this new found power to tax things libs don't WANT taxed.

A Republican did do up the decission. Taxing the lack of a behavior is a twisting of the constution. The bad thing is bad court rulings seldom have an imediate effect but after some time the president does allow some things that are really crazy. Is HHS going to start leveling taxes if we don't get our mandatory checkups and screenings?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 1:46:33 PM PDT
*Raymond Andrews says: sorry if i am misunderstanding your statement here.....but NO Obamacare is NOT covered by the commerce clause.

It is really odd becuause they can now tax us if we don't do something. Can they then mandate us buy a cell phone because it is a good idea and charge us taxes for not buying them?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 1:48:00 PM PDT
Why has this specific policy resulted in multiple conservative posters embracing the slippery slope argument as if there is no tomorrow?

Taxes if you don't eat broccoli!
Taxes if you eat a high fat diet!
Taxes if you don't buy a cell phone!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 1:53:06 PM PDT
*the answer to the health care crisis is NOT to instantly provide coverage, but to find out why costs are so high NOW <overpaying for meds, unneeded exams labs etc, and one of the biggies bogus lawsuites> and control the COSTS...

You are using your brain. the purpose of the law was not improving health care but increasing government power. The designer said they want this to create a dependent class so people will have the same attitude about making reductions in social security and medicare.

The point was the destroy the insurance companies by making their product more expensive than the market will bear. What it does it create an incentive to ditch heatlh insurance for paying a fine and after time all people then thrown into exchanges where they still can't afford coverage. With no prexisting conditions people can just pay the lower cost fines until they get sick then buy coverage. So as the price rises there is no incentive to buy coverage until you need it. So what it does is destroy the market then puts the insurance companies out of business so the only alternative is single payer.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 1:55:13 PM PDT
*Why has this specific policy resulted in multiple conservative posters embracing the slippery slope argument as if there is no tomorrow?

It is called presidient. We showed how the fiburn case where growing grain your you own use lead to being able to go after you if you grow weed. It also lead to many of the regulations such as banning the 100w light bulb or deciding that you can only buy a water efficient no matter how big your Fergison's are.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 2:01:07 PM PDT
visionary says:
raymond,

[[Visionary it seems to me that you and a few others are trying to change America to meet your dream.. not the other way around... if you need a bill to change what is to what you feel should be your are the one doing the change.. so by your own statement of "They should form their own" doesn't that mean YOU should form YOUR own socialist country instead of trying to change America into one? {I want to change the education level in this country. If it can be raised, people will see the situation as I do. You mention socialist country - what do you mean by `socialist country?'}

"That's why Europeans have better countries" that is your opinion...{That is not my opinion but the fact as found by those who study the reality of countries. If you'd like those facts, ask.} and i disagree. If you find theirs to be better again your own statement form your own means you should move THERE and stop trying to make us them.... personally i like the freedoms that are guaranteed by our constitutiion freedom of speech ect... in Europe they aren't really free <speech for example is VERY limited> {You don't know what you are writing. European countries are much freer than the US. Do you get a legislated five week vacation annually? Do you have universal health care that allows you the freedom to change jobs whenever you desire or move anywhere in the country you want to move to?}

True free markets don't exist true.. but the closer you get to them.. the better off the consumer is.. competition is a good thing IMHO! {Competition, by definition, means a winner and a loser. Competition is thrown around as some sort of glorious thing when it is actually the cause of much pain and sorrow.}

you are correct working hard does NOT garantee rewards.. sometimes working smarter is better than working harder... every job I have done I have found that the more I contribute to the companies profitability the more I make except of course for the military. {You are thinking simplistically, which is not bad; but you are the victim of propaganda put in your subconscious by those who want to use you to increase their wealth. Most companies in this country are hierarchical in their makeup. If you had a cooperative company you would advance much faster and be much happier. }

your calling of everyone who disagrees with you shows your own close minded nature.. it is my way or the highway {No. I show you the truth. Argue the truth with me, if you can. I don't care if anyone agrees or not. The point is, counterpoint what I say and I will appreciate it. I abhor the death of democracy and its replacement with aristocracy. That's the reason I am writing this.} ; I am not sure you are even capable of intelligent discourse as that requires the willingness to see something from someone Else's point of view... {I have looked at others' views that are in agreement with mine and found them wanting. I call ignorance when I see it.} so far sounds like you just call them ignorant and move on.
Reply to this post

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 2:03:20 PM PDT
D. Mertins says:
Just wait till summer is over and ObamaTax™ sinks in

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 2:05:13 PM PDT
D. Mertins says:
How's this?

66% Say Spending Cuts Should be Considered in All Government Programs

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Voters continue to support across-the-board federal spending cuts to help solve the federal budget crisis. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters think that, as the nation searches for solutions to the federal budget crisis, thoughtful spending cuts should be considered in every program of the federal government.

That's consistent with previous surveying but is the highest level of support since Rasmussen Reports first asked the question in August 2011. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and do not think spending cuts should be considered in all programs. Another 14% are not sure.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  58
Total posts:  1112
Initial post:  Jun 29, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions