Seems impossible to talk about "liberty" these days without someone redirecting onto the Tea Party, the GOP, or whatever thought-terminating cliché will distract from the conversation. Ah well.
Seems impossible to talk about "liberty" these days without someone redirecting onto the Tea Party, the GOP, or whatever thought-terminating cliché will distract from the conversation. Ah well.
I think this perception may be another case of seeing what we want to see. There have been lots of "Tea Party types" (whatever that means) expressing concern over both. Actually, I'm not aware of anyone, "Tea Party Types" or not, in favor of the NSA's domestic surveillance activities, although you may be better informed than me since you're probably closer to the ideological demographic in power, you know, the one who's actually defended the NSA's actions.Originally Posted by Lainey
As for the Patriot Act, you might recall that the initial version was quite popular with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. It passed the House on a vote of 357 to 66, and the Senate (which had a Democratic majority) on a vote of 98 to 1. The finished result turned out to be so vast that many elements have been roundly criticized by just about everyone, while other elements have maintained bipartisan support, which makes it difficult to score overall support or opposition by someone's version of proper ideology.
Overall, on both issues I think it's safe to say that the allegation of "nothing but the sound of silence" from "Tea Party types" is incorrect.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well, Alan, actually it's EXACTLY like this.
Living in the US is a privilege. Part of that wonderful package is the FACT that you will be treated, whether you are covered or not, whether you have a dime in your pocket or not, whatever your race, religion, sex...at whatever cost it takes to scrape your butt off the pavement and keep you alive. See, you can own your body, but if you use it (drive on the streets) you need to prove coverage to cover those who you might harm (doctors, hospitals, ambulance drivers, emergency workers, labs, clinics, rehab, etc..) when you cause a wreck (get in a wreck..or have a heart attack, cancer, broken bones, gunshot, whatever)
The analogy is actually pretty spot on. Health insurance isn't to pay you. It's to pay all the folks who spend time and money to fix you up and send you back out, to drive that body on US roads. Thanks for making the case for the ACA.
*FYI, the right has called wolf so many times with the default 'liberty' defense, they have ruined any chance of ANYONE taking them seriously in cases of real liberty infractions. Sorry guy. You seriously run the risk of making the cry of 'liberty' as much a joke as Sarah Palins 'Death panels' or the NRA's...well, just about anything the NRA says.
I know we'll disagree on this but no, it isn't exactly alike. Let's review a few comparisons.
The auto insurance comparison is flawed because the Individual Mandate tax (I think they're actually calling it a Shared Responsibility Tax now) hits people who refuseto participate in compulsory commerce. For a more accurate comparison, we’d have to implement a special tax penalty against people who refuse to purchase and drive a car. And if we did such a thing, what do you suppose would happen to the cost of auto insurance?
Which brings us to another huge reason this comparison is absurd: auto insurance is"insurance". It fits the functional definition of an insurance program: the buyer pays a modest amount, on a steady basis, to purchase financial protection against unanticipated, catastrophic expense. This protection is very affordable for safe drivers, because the insurance companies are permitted to measure risk against reward, and charge lower premiums for those deemed less likely to make expensive claims. A driver who gets into many accidents, and submits a high volume of claims, can expect to pay much higher premiums, as can people who fall into groups known to have a high level of risk, such as young men.
A wide range of options is offered to the buyer of an auto insurance policy, who is invited to shop around between many different providers to get the best deal. The buyer can accept higher levels of financial risk – larger deductibles, lower maximum payouts, and less comprehensive coverage – in exchange for lower premiums. The value and nature of the covered automobile, which was freely chosen by the driver, is also a strong factor in determining the price of coverage.
Auto insurance does notpay for routine vehicle maintenance, gasoline, or optional enhancements to the car. It is possible to purchase separate maintenance programs that provide such services at a discounted rate, in exchange for pre-payment, but no one thinks it would be a good idea to fold those maintenance plans into insurance policies.
So, in order to make them EXACTLY alike, we'd need to make everyone purchases automobile insurance, whether they owned or operated an automobile or not, ensure that everyone had exactly the same level of mandated coverage, and force a pricing structure to ensure that your neighbor down the street with two DUI convictions and a driving record consisting of several accidents resulting in serious bodily harm or death to bystanders paid no more than you who have not so much as a single speeding ticket on your record. Then, to top it off, we'd need to look at your neighbors income to determine how much you should contribute to the cost of his coverage.
Other than that, I guess you could say that they are EXACTLY alike, but I wouldn't.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Peggy and Alan (Itchy and Scratchy :-)!) you guys are both right. While the Individual Mandate does require most people to have health insurance, there are certain exempt classes - one being low income. So technically, like choosing to not own or drive a car and HAVE to buy auto insurance, one can choose to be very low income and not be required to buy health insurance. And you wouldn't be required to pay any penalties (or even any income taxes). Of course this is for "taxable income" only since assets aren't counted. So technically someone with very large non-taxable or tax-deferred financial assets but who had a low income, wouldn't HAVE to buy insurance and wouldn't have to pay a penalty.
Who are the individuals Exempt from Paying the Health Insurance Tax Penalty for Not being insured
Any individual who falls within one of the scenarios listed below will not have to pay the Health Insurance Tax penalty, if they do not have a health insurance plan with the “essential benefits”
◾If you are an individual who cannot afford coverage. The term unaffordable relates to a person whose contribution toward minimum essential coverage would be greater than 8% of their annual household income. The monthly contributions are calculated at 1/12 the annual household income. This is used to determine if the individual exceed the 8%.
◾If you are an individual taxpayers with income below the tax filing threshold
◾Individuals who qualify for a hardship exemption. This exemption is available to individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid because their state chose not to participate in Medicaid expansion. Or individuals who have another hardship that prevents them from being able to afford coverage.
◾If you are an individuals who have experience a gap in minimum essential coverage of less than 3 consecutive months within one calendar year
◾Members of religious groups that object to coverage on religious principles
◾Members of non-profit religious organizations where members share medical costs. Often referred as Health care sharing ministries.
◾Prison inmates
◾Non U.S. citizens
◾Native American tribe members
I think that the ACA has been a VERY good thing for many people - especially those who had pre-existing conditions and couldn't find affordable health insurance or were completely denied coverage. I can also see that it would be a good thing for individuals who want to retire early (but I have moral issues with this myself - i.e. why should Alan have to work and pay taxes to pay for my free or low cost health insurance so that I can play beach volleyball all day long) or for people who can get subsidies . But like all good things there are also many people who have had big premium and deductible increases, as well as tax increases or loss of employer coverage. So while I think it's been a blessing and help for many, it's also been a negative thing for many others.
Alan, Alan, Alan...sigh..If you own and use a car, you HAVE to have insurance. It's the law. It is, in fact, required. It's the first thing a cop will ask for if he/she stops you for ANYTHING. If you don't have insurance, you can't drive a car. Period.
Do you own a body? Do you use it? CAn it break down on the street/at work/at home/in the shower? Yes, yes, and yes. I suppose we could insist that people without health insurance should just stay in bed with the covers pulled up to their chins, but even there they could suffer a heart attack. By simply breathing they are 'driving' their bodies.Do you know what the average heart attack costs? We are in the hundreds of thousands range here pretty quickly.
Are your car repairs going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars? No. Is your body repair going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars. Very easily, unfortunately.
Let me ask you this? For all the deadbeats who don't want to buy insurance, or for those who want to continue with their junk insurance that doesn't really cover anything, who will pay? Who will pay that $200,000 for their heart attack? Who do you think should pick up that bill?
Who should pay for the poor kids ear infection? Or should he just stay home and suffer? I'm asking you because I really want to know who you think should pay?
Do you think we shouldn't have a car insurance requirement? Do you think mortgage companies shouldn't be allowed to require home insurance?
Or maybe we should have universal health care, cut out the insurance companies altogether, since your problem seems to be asking people to buy insurance.
Peggy I agree with what you have posted 100%. I'd also prefer universal health care myself as insurance companies make my skin crawl - just don't trust them, never have, never will, I'm a firm believer some things such as health care should not be done at a profit - but that's a topic for another thread. I do believe that even with my issues I've had with DES, that ObamaCare overall is a good thing for those who have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long - the working poor. Something else that is nice now is that I am not so unlimited as to where I can eat if I ever eat out as I made a pact a few years back not to eat at places that don't offer healthcare to their employees(with a few exceptions, such as when I am travelling). I also don't feel guilty shopping at places that don't offer health care as I know the cashiers are more than likely PT and on Medicaid. So one benefit of ObamaCare for me is reduction of guilt in shopping some places. Rob
It's not the law in my state, it is perfectly possible to own a car here, not register it, and not insure it. It's not the law in most states I suspect.
Now, if you intend to primarily drive or park on public roads, and don't fall into one of the many exempt use categories, you of course are required to register and have insurance.
Not all the US is suburbia/urban, not all vehicles are used on public roads.
There are whole communities in my county where vehicles are not registered or insured, and yet are driven on the roads in those communities.
And yet you have no guilt when you shop in Mexico and take advantage of their wonderful prices and service, which are built atop the blood of tortured and oppressed people.
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013...hapters/mexico
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote