RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc

RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eyesopened -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 5:22:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery If I were given the choice, I would buy auto insurance. Same with homeowners insurance. Same with health insurance. Some things just make sense. Some of us have little need for health insurance. Personally, I take what I would have paid into a policy and save/invest it. The year before last, I had a pretty major head/inner ear problem, that required visits to a neurologist, hemotologist, inner-ear/balance specialist, with CT scans and MRI's done. I paid cash for the procedures out of what I saved (and many doctors are QUITE happy to give really sizable discounts on procedures when they get paid in cash, since they don't have to waste time/effort/money to try and get the money from the insurance companies). Thus, wanting to get health insurance makes little sense to me. Musicmystery is right. I don't think it's a bad idea to let people be self-insured. But if one should get into an accident that required life-long care, or a cancer that would bankrupt you to treat it.... can you honestly say you are willing to die once the money runs out? Or will you accept bankrupting your loved ones who want to save you? Or will you want charities (other people's money) or governement agencies to kick in to save your life? Ones health is rarely something that effects oneself only. I had auto insurance long before it was ever mandated. I have renter's insurance. I had health insurance since I was 22 years old. I have never resented the money I've spent on any of it.

pahunkboy -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 8:07:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, for starters, without Bush, we'd be running a surplus, the budget would be a third of the size, we wouldn't be caught in the structural drain of two wars, we wouldn't be paying for Homeland Theater, we'd still have rights we gave up to the Patriot Act, and we wouldn't have done tax cuts Alan Greenspan warned were irresponsible before Bush talked to him and then suddenly they were probably OK. Oh. And a lot of dead people would still be with their loved ones. you have no idea what you are talking about. pepsi-coke-coke-pepsi. Bush is nothing more then Obamas preterm. the policies are one and the same. the choice is empire or empire. Nothing else.

Sanity -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 8:08:42 AM)
1994 was the year the Republicans took over congress. And there is something wrong with that graph, because it is well known that there never was a surplus, only a projected surplus that never materialized. Where did you get it from? quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife [image]http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/FederalDeficit/FederalDeficit%281%29.jpg[/image]

Musicmystery -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 8:55:48 AM)
Says right on it: Congressional Budget Office.

flcouple2009 -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 8:59:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Says right on it: Congressional Budget Office. Stop, don't confuse the issue with facts. Sanity doesn't like those.

Musicmystery -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:05:49 AM)
quote: Some of us have little need for health insurance. Personally, I take what I would have paid into a policy and save/invest it. Two problems with this. First, you do need it. Things happen, and you're gambling. And as you wait, rates rise--waiting until later or until you have serious medical needs can keep you from getting insurance or price it prohibitively. Second, the average real cost of a policy is $13,000/year. Most people save little or nothing for retirement--the average is just $70,000 at retirement--have no cash cushion, and certainly nothing saved for medical emergencies. Nor could they realistically save enough for catastrophic needs should they arise. Now, I could see getting a high deductible, say $1000, if you also have significant savings (six figures) you can afford to lose to an emergency. Otherwise, you're gambling, and if you lose, you'll never recover financially. I'd much rather pay a reasonable insurance premium to ensure this doesn't happen. It's a reasonable expense. If you're injured, make sure it's in an auto accident, and that it stays under the maximum.

pahunkboy -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:08:00 AM)
...people losing their houses. so they will BUY an overpriced- half baked insurance policy riddled with gotchas. you people are impossible to live with. I cant afford to live with youns any longer.

Musicmystery -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:10:14 AM)
No they won't. They'll hire an attorney who will guide them through. Like all reasonable people do.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:10:27 AM)
I have no problem with people self-insuring, as long as they agree they will receive no treatment for any illness once their money runs out. Sign a binding lifetime agreement to the effect that if - at any point in their life - they need medical care but can not afford it, they will just go off and die in the parking lot. Problem solved.

Musicmystery -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:11:36 AM)
And IF they saved substantially and early to do that realistically. People don't.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:16:53 AM)
That's exactly it. What kind of an idiot would want to do that, anyway? Do you really think the best use for your money is to have upwards of a million dollars tied up in a personal health fund for your entire life? Because that's what they'd have to do. If they decide, at age 20, that they're really healthy and don't need to pay into a national health insurance system, then they need to agree that when they're 60 years old and diagnosed with prostrate cancer, they will be on their own. If they don't have enough money saved up, tough shit. They made their choices. I mean, after all - why should I pay for the health care of people who make poor choices? That's the talking point, isn't it?

RacerJim -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery If I were given the choice, I would buy auto insurance. Same with homeowners insurance. Same with health insurance. Some things just make sense. And the U.S. Constitution is what gives and protects every American's freedom to choose to buy, or not buy, whatever.

Musicmystery -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:39:49 AM)
So let's go with single payer, paid by taxes, all nice and neat, no Constitutional issues.

pahunkboy -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:44:16 AM)
proof that the govt supports eugenics. that is now clear.

RacerJim -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:52:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda With a little luck, we'll only have to worry about it for a year or two before they switch to single-payer - as they should have just done in the first place. With a little luck or jurisprudence, we'll only have to worry about "Obamacare" et al Obama whatevers until the mainstream-media or a court of law takes Obama to task re the fact that since his father never was a U.S. citizen Obama cannot be a "natural born citizen" per four legacy SCOTUS cases and therefore does not meet the U.S. Constitution's criteria that only a "natural born citizen" may serve as POTUS -- as they should have done immediately after he announced his candidacy or when the first law suit alleging same was filed.

Sanity -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:56:37 AM)
Why not go to the other extreme and support sensible, affordable programs which provide a safety net for those really in need. You really take far too much glee in the thought of causing harm to those with whom you disagree. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I have no problem with people self-insuring, as long as they agree they will receive no treatment for any illness once their money runs out. Sign a binding lifetime agreement to the effect that if - at any point in their life - they need medical care but can not afford it, they will just go off and die in the parking lot. Problem solved.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 9:57:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So let's go with single payer, paid by taxes, all nice and neat, no Constitutional issues. It couldn't be any simpler than that. The sooner the democrats jam that through, by whatever means necessary, the better.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 10:01:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Why not go to the other extreme and support sensible, affordable programs which provide a safety net for those really in need. You're absolutely right. Single-payer national health care is my preference. I'm glad to see you finally coming around. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You really take far too much glee in the thought of causing harm to those with whom you disagree. Once again, you're lying. Explain what part of what I said would be causing harm to anyone.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 10:06:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda With a little luck, we'll only have to worry about it for a year or two before they switch to single-payer - as they should have just done in the first place. With a little luck or jurisprudence, we'll only have to worry about "Obamacare" et al Obama whatevers until the mainstream-media or a court of law takes Obama to task re the fact that since his father never was a U.S. citizen Obama cannot be a "natural born citizen" per four legacy SCOTUS cases and therefore does not meet the U.S. Constitution's criteria that only a "natural born citizen" may serve as POTUS -- as they should have done immediately after he announced his candidacy or when the first law suit alleging same was filed. Right. That'll be right after unicorns with laser beams on their foreheads come down from outer space and vaporize Pelosi and Reid. What day is that going to be, or hasn't your station told you that yet?

Thadius -> RE: Mandated insurance, vehicle, home, etc (3/28/2010 10:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Says right on it: Congressional Budget Office. So do these... Hmmm... can only upload one at a time.. [image]local://upfiles/182240/DD4AB6F4559C4F73BBF4CDA4A70034F1.jpg[/image] Edited to add: This chart doesn't include the new spending programs that have been put in place since last March... just something to think about. Oh and before I hear the arguments about well if we cut defense spending it would be a prettier picture, discretionary spending which includes defense spending only makes up 38% of the total budget also included in discretionary spending is Congress, Federal Courts, Highways, Education, Housing, National Parks, Museums. The debt and deficit spending is going crazy because of Mandatory spending which makes up 53% (42% for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid; and 11% for retirement benefits, Unemployment, Veteran's benefits, and Welfare).

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875