RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance!

RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (Full Version)

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

Message

SweetAnise -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:09:41 AM)
Well I am willing to pay a lower cost. I finally got through healthcare.gov and am saving over 50% of what I already pay out of pocket and BETTER coverage. I was able to get a dental plan (A REAL ONE) and a health plan. People who need it will not be suing.

Lucylastic -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:13:00 AM)
The guy is a dickhead, cuttin off his nose to spite his face, he wants to "stand" on principle" selfish egotistical prick freedom for all only counts apparently if you have the money to pay for it. wheres the "justice" in that. I hope his bollocks turn square and fester in the corners

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Does no one see a man trying to make a point? That he'd rather fight for what he believes is right rather than take the easy way out and purchase insurance he's being coerced into buying (under threat of fines)? Doesn't anyone else see that? Honestly, I do not. Here's my problem. The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty. Now, can someone explain to me what happens the week after this guy wins his suit and "Nobody has forced him to buy insurance" and his daughter turns up with a heart murmur? Help me out here. I assume we are letting this guy celebrate his freedom to watch his daughter die, right? edited to comment on your self-insurance option Yup, I'd be behind that. I just speculate that the sums of money involved would limit the self-insure option to the 1% (or less). Let me give you another example, Jeff. Let's take seat belt laws. In Ohio, you can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt while driving. That is against the law. Why? Why can one decide whether to wear a seat belt or not, without having Big Brother threatening with fines and/or other sanctions? I am opposed to seat belt laws. I don't oppose them because I think seat belts aren't worth using (I always use them and require anyone in the front seat to wear it, and require kids to wear them in the back seats, though I would allow adults in the back seats to choose to wear a seat belt or not for themselves. I'm opposed to Government requiring me to wear a seat belt, and threatening to fine me or sanction me if I don't. I would not be opposed to an auto insurance provision stipulating that certain things wouldn't be covered if I was involved in an accident and it was determined I wasn't wearing a seat belt (those certain things would be things likely prevented by wearing a seat belt). That's a completely different situation, as I have the choice to accept that insurance provision or to get coverage without that provision. This guy isn't saying he's opposed to having insurance. He's saying he's opposed being forced to buy insurance. He's opposed to having his freedom to choose infringed, regardless of what his choice would be otherwise.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:20:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The guy is a dickhead, cuttin off his nose to spite his face, he wants to "stand" on principle" selfish egotistical prick freedom for all only counts apparently if you have the money to pay for it. wheres the "justice" in that. I hope his bollocks turn square and fester in the corners No, freedom for all means freedom for all. Your need for insurance to pay for medical care should not warrant government appropriating money from others so you can buy that insurance. While that might allow you to be more free to choose what health insurance to purchase, it's limiting another's freedom to use his/her property the way he/she decides. That isn't "freedom for all," either.

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:42:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Does no one see a man trying to make a point? That he'd rather fight for what he believes is right rather than take the easy way out and purchase insurance he's being coerced into buying (under threat of fines)? Doesn't anyone else see that? The government coerces us every day to spend money...what is your point? Does no one stand up for principles anymore? The principle here being that he would rather enrich the insurance companies than utilize the govt health care program.

JeffBC -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:44:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Let me give you another example, Jeff. Let's take seat belt laws. In Ohio, you can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt while driving. That is against the law. Why? Why can one decide whether to wear a seat belt or not, without having Big Brother threatening with fines and/or other sanctions? Same problem. It comes down to his freedoms versus mine. What if I want the freedom of not having to subsidize this guy? I don't need another example. I need a simple, direct answer to what happens when some health care need develops and the person has exercised their freedom to not buy insurance. Come on DS. You don't normally beat around the bush. The choices are limited.

Whippedboy -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tammystarm quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Do I detect a whiff of 'Tea Party' in all this legal whoop-ti-do? [sm=binky.gif] Do I detect a whiff of paranoia in the Left? You would think so given the train wreck called Obamacare, the keystone of a socialist takeover of this nation, but this Obamacare is a train wreck without Tea Party help and so far it's going as predicted, the young and the healthy Obama voters voted for "free" and are not going for anything they have to pay for. Then there are those Americans who remember they are free and cannot be forced to buy anything by anybody and they are right, of course. --Wow! You just contradicted yourself. You said Obama voters want free but how is HAVING to pay for insurance getting something for free? Then there are the sick low paid workers who will sign up but will immediately be a loss for the system and finally the sick low paid undocumented (illegal) aliens who cannot sign up and will continue to soak up ER time and expense for hospitals who no longer can afford it under Obamacare. --Dear--EVERYONE is a loss for insurance. That is the term used by insurance companies when someones gets sick and they have to pay out--A LOSS. The undocumented were showing up before and will continue to show up after. Obamacare has nothing to do with that. And please explain how having MORE people show up for care who have MORE insurance will be MORE of a burden for facilities. Seems the more people are insured, the more guaranteed payouts the facilities will receive. Pretty common sense stuff but I like how you try to blame undocumented getting healthcare on Obamacare. Guess it plays well to the slow readers? That’s not all folks, then there are the states who have essentially rebelled already by not letting Medicaid expand in their states by taking more Federal dollars to do so knowing full well they surrender control if they take more Federal funds. Besides, nobody ever really benefits in the long run by taking Federal money. Not really. Not even the poor and certainly not sovereign states of the Union. --Yes, they have really shown the Feds! Refusing $$ so their voter base misses out on millions of dollars of healthcare. I know that's what I want from my elected! Finally, we also hear now of areas in preparation to secede perhaps even the entire state of Texas leading. This is likely just talk. So don’t even worry about that. Why would a state not want to be controlled by a socialist administration? --Finally? I lived in Texas for over 30 years. Every time they don't like something they talk about seceding. Not new. But I LOVE your phrasing to sound more urgent! Like--"the ENTIRE state of Texas." As if part would break off and not secede? "Likely just talk." Really? You REALLY think there is a fucking .000001 percent chance a state is going to secede? Yes. This is getting interesting very, very, very fast. "Don't tread on me" adorned the flag of patriots during the War of Independence and these followed the Boston Tea Party to freedom from a Government who they said oppressed them by taxing them unjustly, the Obamacare premium forced on free men is just such a tax, worse, it enslaves free men by forcing their obedience to a Government mandate, a command, that must be obeyed simply because you are a Citizen which means you now serve the Government.

BitYakin -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie OMG! Is there no end to the propaganda of the material communal rationalists, the enemies of liberty. I'm afraid I missed the "explanation" part of this very simple question. Here, let me reduce it even further for you. Guy chooses not to purchase health care insurance. Medical need develops Now what? That seems like a very straight-forward question. I'm not smart enough to figure out how the phrase "material communal rationalists" applies to it. and the SIMPLE answer is, he deals with the consquenses of his actions!

JeffBC -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:53:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin and the SIMPLE answer is, he deals with the consquenses of his actions! Great. I'm down with that really. Now do you have any thoughts on the subsequent crime that will ensue? Honestly, I'm more liberal out of pragmatics than I am liberal due to ideology. So the whole "let them die in the streets" line of reasoning works for me. But there are problems attached to that also. Desperate people get desperate.

Whippedboy -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:55:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Let me give you another example, Jeff. Let's take seat belt laws. In Ohio, you can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt while driving. That is against the law. Why? Why can one decide whether to wear a seat belt or not, without having Big Brother threatening with fines and/or other sanctions? Same problem. It comes down to his freedoms versus mine. What if I want the freedom of not having to subsidize this guy? I don't need another example. I need a simple, direct answer to what happens when some health care need develops and the person has exercised their freedom to not buy insurance. Come on DS. You don't normally beat around the bush. The choices are limited. What happens? The guy gets healthcare. But I think it should be similar to what would happen to an undocumented person. If they show up with cancer, they get treated for the IMMEDIATE symptoms but they don't receive millions of dollars in treatment. They are typically deported or just sent home. You want to "Stand on principle" and put your life at risk? Great. Congrats. You made your point that Darwin works and that there is one less jack-ass who wants to sponge off healthcare. The OTHER option is to admit that getting more people insured is a good idea and pony up the FUCKING $18!!! Does the government do stupid shit? Yes. Does some of the shit work? Yes. JUST BECAUSE the gov is doing it does not mean it is a bad idea. This seems more to me about since the gov is doing it, it is evil. Only thing you can do is hope people pull their heads out of their asses.

Lucylastic -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:57:00 AM)
except its bullshit. freedom for all is bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks, the rules and regs you have makes it a logical fallacy getting fucked over by an insurance company is to me dumber than a bag of rocks and this idjit whatever his damn name is, is going to court, hoping to get his way and deny others I wonder how many americans would kill to have basic healthcare at 18 $ a month If he chooses not to pay into insurance/plan...he should be blocked from buying it ANYWhere for the rest of his life, You wont change my mind on this DS, its bollocks and ugly bollocks Yes BOLLOCKS

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:57:03 AM)
What if you're not a driver? Do you have to have insurance? Absolutely yes you do. You pay for that insurance everytime you take a bus or taxi. To claim that one walks every place would be childish at best.

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 9:59:43 AM)
"Don't tread on me" adorned the flag of patriots during the War of Independence and these followed the Boston Tea Party to freedom from a Government who they said oppressed them by taxing them unjustly, The history books say that a bunch of white guys dressed up like native americans, to avoid being held responsible for their actions, broke into private property and destroyed it. the Obamacare premium forced on free men is just such a tax, worse, it enslaves free men by forcing their obedience to a Government mandate, Is this worse than being enslaved by the insurance companies? a command, that must be obeyed simply because you are a Citizen which means you now serve the Government. The government commands us not to murder one another so clearly we now serve the govt.[8\|]

eulero83 -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 10:07:16 AM)
FR my bet is this guy is paid by some politicians

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 10:08:05 AM)
Let me give you another example, Jeff. Let's take seat belt laws. In Ohio, you can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt while driving. That is against the law. Why? Why can one decide whether to wear a seat belt or not, without having Big Brother threatening with fines and/or other sanctions? For the same reason that big brother can compell you to drive on the right side of the road. For the same reason that big brother can complell you do observe the speed limit. For the same reason that big brother can compell you not to murder. I am opposed to seat belt laws. I don't oppose them because I think seat belts aren't worth using (I always use them and require anyone in the front seat to wear it, That would be coercive force right? and require kids to wear them in the back seats, though I would allow adults in the back seats to choose to wear a seat belt or not for themselves. Why? It is your car? If you crash and they are injured you would be liable not just in the basic sense that they were passengers in your car but that you intentionally were criminally negligent. I'm opposed to Government requiring me to wear a seat belt, and threatening to fine me or sanction me if I don't. I would not be opposed to an auto insurance provision stipulating that certain things wouldn't be covered if I was involved in an accident and it was determined I wasn't wearing a seat belt (those certain things would be things likely prevented by wearing a seat belt). That's a completely different situation, as I have the choice to accept that insurance provision or to get coverage without that provision. Opposed to the govt making laws which the constitution says is it's job. In favor of private enterprise making laws to coerce your compliance.[8\|] This guy isn't saying he's opposed to having insurance. He's saying he's opposed being forced to buy insurance. He's opposed to having his freedom to choose infringed, regardless of what his choice would be otherwise. He is suing for the right to pay more for his insurance...[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 10:10:13 AM)
Of course we do. The taxes on tea were small also but our founding fathers used it to draw the line on principle Actually they stole private property and destroyed it. and we created this great nation based on principle, the principle that we cannot be forced as free women That is a relatively new concept dating from about the time of the birth of my mother. and men to do anything we do not wish to do. There is a speed limit and a laws against rape pillage and plunder, so no, one may not do as they please.

BitYakin -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 10:16:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin and the SIMPLE answer is, he deals with the consquenses of his actions! Great. I'm down with that really. Now do you have any thoughts on the subsequent crime that will ensue? Honestly, I'm more liberal out of pragmatics than I am liberal due to ideology. So the whole "let them die in the streets" line of reasoning works for me. But there are problems attached to that also. Desperate people get desperate. could you pease define what you mean by "subsequent crime that will ensue?" are you saying, an otherwise moral person who now needs medical care will resort to crimminal activities to get that health care? or do you mean the crime of him going to the hospital and expecting care even though he can't pay for it? but you are right desperation does make people do desperate acts, I cannot deny that! I guess the question for me is this, should we all give up some of our liberty, our freedom of choice, because some small percantage of people MIGHT commit desperate acts? please do keep in mind, this factor, when this all began they claimed there were some 30 milion people uninsured, that roughly 10% of the population, if 1/2 of those people end up in this desperate situation, (come on we can't assume EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO GET CANCER) and then 1/2 of those people choose to commit a desperate act you are left with 2.5% of the population that MIGHT commit a desperate act. personally I do not think that justifys telling every single citizend "you'll do as told OR ELSE!" myself I plan to show up at my local police station jan 1st and turning myself in, I am NOT going to buy ins and I AM NOT going to pay the fine! which means I broke a federal law! you people want a SOLUTION, well there it is, what are they going to do if 100 million people swamp local police stations. now will tha happen, OF COURSE NOT, cause as I posted in another thread people are APATHETIC, its to inconvienient to stand up for our rights people aren't willing to give up ONE SINGLE DAY of thier time to maintain thier rights! you all want to pretend that this isn't JUST THE BEGINING of gov't forcing us to do whateve they want, but I guarentee you if you had asked my gandfather when he was alive if THIS could EVER EVER HAPPEN in the USA, he would have LAUGHED AT YOU! just like YOU laugh when they say, now the gov't can force you to eat broccolli you probably think thats JUST AS FUNNY as my gandpa would have thought OBAMACARE is!

JeffBC -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 10:33:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin could you pease define what you mean by "subsequent crime that will ensue?" I'm saying your first option... an otherwise moral person when pushed to extreme will become immoral. Let me just sign myself right up for that. If I had freely chosen to not buy medical insurance and my wife was dying I'd do whatever I could, legal or otherwise, in an attempt to save her. I guess the question for me is this, should we all give up some of our liberty, our freedom of choice, because some small percantage of people MIGHT commit desperate acts? please do keep in mind, this factor, when this all began they claimed there were some 30 milion people uninsured, that roughly 10% of the population, if 1/2 of those people end up in this desperate situation, (come on we can't assume EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO GET CANCER) and then 1/2 of those people choose to commit a desperate act you are left with 2.5% of the population that MIGHT commit a desperate act. That's not bad. I can live with that. So we turn down care to those without insurance and deal with whatever negative repercussions in terms of desperate acts might result. So I'd be fine with removing the mandate part of this so long as we also remove any mandate or expectation that a hospital provide emergency room treatment for the uninsured. you people want a SOLUTION, well there it is, what are they going to do if 100 million people swamp local police stations. First of all, I'm not sure who "you people" are in this context. But yeah, I personally like answers to be thought out beyond step 1. That being said, I like your answer... granted, I prefer a more humane answer but I can live with the "let them die in the streets" option. The simple answer to your next question is the same reasoning as you provided.... we will handle the law breakers by trying and convicting them. We will build prisons as required to hold the criminals in question. I find it debatable that 100 million people would choose to go to prison as you yourself would. I would hope that those with children would consider options other than prison. you all want to pretend that this isn't JUST THE BEGINING of gov't forcing us to do whateve they want, but I guarentee you if you had asked my gandfather when he was alive if THIS could EVER EVER HAPPEN in the USA, he would have LAUGHED AT YOU! Again, I'm a bit unclear who "you all" are in this sentence but I detect a bit of foaming at the mouth. Does it help you any to know that I agree with the idea of limited government intrusion? I'm fine with ripping away all the social safety nets so long as we do it openly and with eyes open regarding the consequences. you probably think thats JUST AS FUNNY as my gandpa would have thought OBAMACARE is! no, I don't think it's funny in an era where we have abrogated the rule of law entirely and massive and massively intrusive state surveillance of EVERYONE is the norm. What I do think is pretty funny though is your own ideological blinders and the ensuing mouth foaming. Now I have another question since your'e so big on personal freedom. I would like the freedom to not bomb random other nations and not pay for the military infrastructure required to do so. In your vision of proper government should I have the option of opting out of that and similar programs (like say the NSA and DHS as a whole) that I personally find distasteful? I personally think that might be very interesting. I've often wondered what would happen if we presented a simplified budget at the end of your tax form where citizens could individually assign percentages of their taxes for different categories. Then the individuals would be able to say "here's how I want my money spent" and if war and killing people was attractive enough we'd do it. Otherwise, we wouldn't. Ditto with everything else. The only thing I'd exempt from that would be things like SSI where it really IS an entitlement (eg: we all paid for it already therefore we are entitled to it).

hlen5 -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 10:55:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What if you're not a driver? Do you have to have insurance? Being a human, at SOME point you will need healthcare. The whole point of having insurance is to cover eventualities. Because you didn't answer the question, I'm going to guess that the answer is "no, you don't need to have insurance if you're not going to drive." You're right I didn't answer. It was so obviously so, I was conceding the point.

Yachtie -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/23/2013 11:03:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie OMG! Is there no end to the propaganda of the material communal rationalists, the enemies of liberty. I'm afraid I missed the "explanation" part of this very simple question. Here, let me reduce it even further for you. Guy chooses not to purchase health care insurance. Medical need develops Now what? That seems like a very straight-forward question. I'm not smart enough to figure out how the phrase "material communal rationalists" applies to it. and the SIMPLE answer is, he deals with the consquenses of his actions! Boy, is that a tough one for many to swallow. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875