O/T: Major Sea Changes

Page 9 of 16  
Robatoy wrote:

Hey Douche Bag, this is a newsgroup and you are talking to everyone reading the group. If you want a private conversation, give email a shot.
Assuming of course that Canada still allows private Email?
--
Jack
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, we still have private e-mail. And no laws that allows the gov't reading e-mails. THAT, my friend, is freedom. Privacy is part of freedom. You should try it sometime.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yup, we still have private e-mail. And no laws that allows the gov't reading e-mails. THAT, my friend, is freedom. Privacy is part of freedom. You should try it sometime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Yank run off with your wife, or what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:38:17 -0700, Larry Jaques

Initially, I was drawn in by Tim Daneliuk's attack on me for receiving support in the Canadian health care system. It's just progressed from there.
Agreed, I have no direct involvement with what's been happening in the US health care scene, but I do approve of it and for that, I'm occasionally attacked too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My question does have relevence, without regard to "mandated-whether-I-want-it-or-not."
Do you have health insurance?
Do you want health insurance?
IF you want health insurance, but DO NOT have it, why?
If you DO NOT want health insurance, why?
Health is probably more germane to the general population than having a Unisaw. If the government were mandating the purchase of that item, I would agree with you. And let's disregard the entire SawStop issue, as that IS irrelevent to this question.
BTW, in my state, at least, you have to provide proof of financial responsibilty (i.e., insurance) before you can license a car. If you're driving without insurance, you'd better damn well pray you don't hit a BMW driven by a lawyer.
Here's another tip for you: Don't bet against the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/24/2010 10:01 PM, Steve wrote:

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people to buy insurance?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people to buy insurance?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people to buy insurance?

So you're saying that it's legal for the government to order people to buy insurance but not to buy a Unisaw because in your opinion insurance has greater utility?

<Yawn>. This has already been addressed. Licensing a car to be operated on the public roads is a privilege. If one wants to avoid purchasing the insurance one simply does not drive on public roads. Are you saying that merely existing in the United States is now a privilege which one needs the permission of Congress to exercise?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people to buy insurance?

Which has what to do with the legality of the Congress ordering people to buy insurance?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

It's pretty simple.
Government has broad powers when it comes to enacting legislation in the USA.
You want to drive on the public roads, provide proof of liability insurance.
As of yesterday, want to live in the USA, provide proof of health insurance with the exception that your state of residence can opt out of the program.
There will be a few states that try that bluff, most will fold when push comes to shove..
In the mean time, open wide and swallow your medicine.
It's good for you<G>.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

2014, not yesterday.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:04:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"

Har! That one made me laugh. About time I read something in this thread that was funny. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/25/2010 12:04 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

So what power of government allows it to order someone to buy something just because they were born here?

Nobody is forced to drive on the public roads. Sorry, that dog don't hunt. In any case it is not required by the Federal government.

Where does it say in the law that "your state of residence can opt out of the program"? Virginia is trying that--there is no reason to believe that they will succeed.
Where in the Constitution is the government allowed to require anyone to provide proof of _anything_ in order to live in the US?
And if they can require proof of health insurance, what's to stop them from requiring proof that one owns a computer or a car or, Hell, a commercial airliner in order to live here?
I'm sorry, but a country in which residence is conditional on making payments to a business is no longer the United States in anything but name.

What "bluff"? I thought you said that according to the law they could opt out. So which is it, can they or can't they?

What "medicine"?

In what way?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All this is very simple. By law until now, a hospital (I think doctors too, but IANAL) has to give you care, whether you can pay for it or not. This change in law ensures that somehow the hospital gets paid back.
Your solution would be that the hospital could refuse to give you care until you provide proof of financial responsibility. Happy bleeding!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/25/2010 7:23 AM, Han wrote:

The law in most localities requires that hospital emergency rooms provide services to all comers.
And the hospital does get paid back--the take it out of the pockets of insurance companies and people who pay out of pocket but aren't too poor to afford the bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And because I am a member of a big group, my rates are low, while some poor slob with a small company has to pay far higher rates. This is fair? Or should everyone get insurance at basically the same rates?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the solution to that was dead simple: Regulate the Insurance Industry just like a Public Utility. All the rest of the crap in the bill is there to gain Control over the population and as a first step in further Control. Hell, Dingell (IIRC) even said so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As you probably know, the attorneys general of several states, including Texas are filing a challenge to the law on those grounds. I've heard and read opinions of some legal experts that suggest the challenge will not succeed.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/25/2010 10:36 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:

Yeah, I've read some of that, and they seem as clueless as the ones who were defending the DC gun ban in that lawsuit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

No. In your state you have to prove "financial responsibility" and the most common way to do that is to have insurance. Another way is to have sufficient liquid funds to meet your state's financial minimum requirement - it's called "self insurance."
Under the new plan, there is NO provision to self-insure.
Here's an article, from just today, how a family was able to save $7,000 per year on health insurance by self-insuring the first $10,000 in medical costs. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/no_longer_able_to_save_on_heal.html
This family's choice is removed under the new health plan - this family WON'T be able to keep their existing plan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve types some stuff that has nothing to do with the REAL issue.
I'll provide some answers that are more on point than your questions:

body.
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Strictly speaking, it's not. I am, however, curious as to the reasons for objection to mandatory insurance. And sorry, I do not believe these great altruists really give a good god damn about freedom and liberty -- truth be told, they're pissed about another tax, not that they object to or cannot afford insurance.
Several years ago, I worked with several members of the John Birch Society. Two of these guys were scared shitless of the world around them. That's why they were members -- they felt it gave them a defense against shadows.
The third guy was fearless -- he was a Bircher because these principles were his and this was his way to challenge the world, to not back down.
Guess which man I respected, though I did not share his views?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/25/2010 8:52 PM, Steve wrote:

The reason is that if the government can tell us that we _must_ buy one product then they can tell us that we _must_ by _any_ product. They can tell us "you must buy an American car every year to save the auto industry" or you _must_ buy anything else that they think "promotes the general welfare".

Altruism be damned, we don't like the government poking its nose in our business.
<John Birch crap snipped>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.