Posted on 03/14/2017 1:21:17 AM PDT by cotton1706
“...and none of THAT blew up the Senate”
Except the Dems LOST both the House and the Senate just one year later.
But the mandate is NOT gone. lyinl ryan pulled is playing a shell game. He reduced the unConstutiional mandate rate to $0, but left all the IRS machinery in place so that, once people were now paying fines directly to the crony companies, a latter congress could simply raise the mandate rates again.
It's a cheap parlor trick by the cheap labor uniparty.
“So a rule created by the Senate could “blow up” the Senate?”
I’m watching from a distance, just in case.
Nope. Not a doctor. Actually I am an ex ne’er-do-well and a security guard at a power plant. There are a couple of doctors in the family, though.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving pile of Demonicrat and RINOcrat droppings.
Rest assured, whatever Trump decides to do, this website will support it.
It’s a trap.
“Obamacare polished the turd with 110 grit. Ryancare used 220 grit. It’s still a turd.”
May I add, as with all turds, it needs to be flushed & forgotten.
Not my goal. My goal is to get Govt the hell out of my life.
Are muslimes still opted out of this?
Obamacare polished the turd with 110 grit. Ryancare used 220 grit. It’s still a turd.
____________________________________
Yes, but it’s a turd Trump says is going to be a “beautiful thing!”
With one caveat I agree with you. Some states mandate minimal car insurance in order to drive on the road.
I understand the thought process behind it, but feel it is a flawed idea as it drives prices up and those without insurance are still without insurance just risking the fine/ticket.
I don’t like being told how to manage my affairs with my vehicles and I certainly don’t want to be told what health insurance I’m required to have. They tried to do it with Obamacare, to have it jokingly called a tax. The new bill should not allow for mandated coverage period.
This.
The fact that most of us get health insurance through the companies we work for is a historical artifact that has its roots in the post-war industrial boom. Prior to WWII, company subsidized health insurance was almost unheard of. The entire concept needs to be done away with, because it has been the lever to come between the people and their health care. For years, many, if not most folk had a complete disconnect between what was paid for health insurance and the actual costs of it. It wasn't really until the 80s that you started to see things like co-pays and larger deductibles that were intended to give individuals a little 'skin in the game' as to their health-care costs. For many people, they didn't really even have any idea how much this was costing them. There was no real connection between the services they were getting and any actual costs that were incurred.
It has gotten so bad now, that people don't even understand what insurance actually is. People have been making comparisons to auto insurance, which I think is apt, because it brings many things to the forefront. Let's take the dreaded "pre-existing conditions" thing. Any time we talk about repealing Obamacare, democrats and other socialists start screaming about "pre-existing conditions" because they have no idea how insurance works or what it is really for. Suppose you buy a car, and decide not to get insurance because you don't expect to need it. Everything goes well for a few years, and you save all that money on insurance you would have paid, and use it to buy other things. Then, much to your surprise, you get into an accident. Now, based on the way socialists talk about it, if you buy an insurance policy from State Farm or whomever, that company would now be on the hook for paying to fix your car, even though you didn't have insurance on it prior to your accident. If that were the case, what rational person would buy insurance until after they needed it for something?
One of the reasons having health insurance tied to a job, is that these days, people are much more mobile in the workforce than they were in the 40s and 50s. This can cause some rather bad things to happen from an insurer point of view. Let's say that Bob has been working for the same company for several years, and gets sick. Let's say it's something covered so the insurance company is paying for his treatments. Now, let's say that Bob has to change jobs (for whatever reason). Sure, he may get insurance from a new company, but he has ongoing medical issues. Should this be paid by the original insurance company or the new one?
When I change jobs, I don't get new auto or home insurance. Why the hell should I have to get new health insurance? I think this is the root of the problem. There are actually many other issues, but I think it is this that has brought us to this mess.
I don’t think we should have mandated health insurance coverage either. In regards to car insurance, IMO driving a car is a privilege, not a right. When dealing with a 1-2 ton steel missile going down the road at 55 - 60 miles an hour (and more), you are taking on a lot of responsibility. What happens when you wreck into someone else and they have to go to the hospital? Why should they have to pay those hospital bills and damage to their car because of something you caused? Also, if you do not outright own your car, but the bank has given you a loan on it, why shouldn’t they require you to insure their investment, requiring you to have full coverage?
I don’t think we should have mandated health insurance coverage either. In regards to car insurance, IMO driving a car is a privilege, not a right. When dealing with a 1-2 ton steel missile going down the road at 55 - 60 miles an hour (and more), you are taking on a lot of responsibility. What happens when you wreck into someone else and they have to go to the hospital? Why should they have to pay those hospital bills and damage to their car because of something you caused? Also, if you do not outright own your car, but the bank has given you a loan on it, why shouldn’t they require you to insure their investment, requiring you to have full coverage?
To me it’s a matter of overwriting the law. either a person is criminally/grossly negligent, etc in causing an accident or not. Doesn’t matter if it is a car or cutting down a tree or fooling around with stuff in a store they shouldn’t be.
The key is “you are taking on responsibility”. How can someone assume responsibility for something that is mandated on them. It seems an oxymoron to me.
If you wreck you pay what you are responsible for - period. Garnish wages, etc if the one at fault doesn’t have coverage. They do it for other things - heck I’ve seen ex-husbands jailed for failing to pay support. One or two cases and people will insure on their own.
As to the loans - the bank took the risk - which is why they charged interest. Those banks can require insurance as part of the loan process without the need for additional laws. Private contract.
I’m not sure if you were disagreeing with me on allowing companies to provide health insurance or not but get no tax incentive compensation. If you were, my reply would be that I believe the marketplace would take care of this and no company would end up supplying health insurance as part of their benefits package. But I would never mandate that they couldn’t provide it. Leave it up to the company to decide. In the end, most of us would not have it through our workplace under this scenario IMO.
I think the marketplace left to it’s own devises could come up with ways to incentivize people to live healthier lives and get their annual checkups. That ultimately could drive down health care costs, American’s living healthier lives. Your annual checkups is a very good way to prevent a majority of major illnesses yet somehow so many people don’t do this simple thing. I’m not sure why we have to incentivize people to stay healthy but we (at least the health insurance companies) do. But the market place could come up with creative solutions, I’m sure.
If there was no law, I’m sure all banks would require the insurance. They would be insane not to. As for your other scenario, it doesn’t work for me. You talk about treating it as a criminal matter and garnishing wages, but you can’t squeeze blood from a rock and if someone doesn’t have the money or makes very little workwise, that’s small comfort to the aggrieved party sitting in a hospital. It’s also small comfort to the doctors and hospital treating that person not getting paid for services rendered.
In the end, no one is forcing you to drive a car. It’s your choice or not. You can ride a bike, take a bus, walk all things not requiring you to have insurance. It’s a privilege, therefore to use the privilege I have no problem with mandating insurance.
I suppose you could make the analogy that before cars we had horses and no one required horse insurance. My answer to that would be that there were no three horse pileups causing people to be injured and/or killed to my knowledge so it’s not the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.