magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 You're kidding right?no... i'd really like to see that happen, the ponzi scheme has gone on long enough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I don't see where you are going with "everyone will be involved in the system at some point". That doesn't mean the government should be involved in every business we all get involved with, I can't get my mind around the leap it takes to find it okay for the government to decide the businesses I use.It's not, just health care. The fact that, by and large, everyone uses it (with some oddball rare exceptions), and via the other thread:You are already paying for poor people's healthcare through taxes (Medicare) and higher medical costs (uninsured person goes to the ER for treatment and never pays). Their involvement only means that the cost is driven up such as is already is now by making the businesses give away free services.I don't know where you're pulling this information from and how it applies to this healthcare setting. No one is "giving away" anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Their involvement only means that the cost is driven up such as is already is now by making the businesses give away free services.I don't know where you're pulling this information from and how it applies to this healthcare setting. No one is "giving away" anything.medicare/medicaid... forcing us to foot the bill for poor people and old people...(i'm assuming) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 no... i'd really like to see that happen, the ponzi scheme has gone on long enough...They are creating a new tax or fine or penalty...call it what you will.Tax waivers have existed for a long time. No new precedent there. The precedent is requiring Americans to purchase a consumer product.If they create a new Kick in the Balls Tax, but you can have it waived by proving that your balls have already been kicked repeatedly. You win, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) It's Constitutional. And given the healthcare crisis in this country, it pretty much was the tipping point to institute a law following the "General welfare" clause.I don't think kicking people in the balls would promote general welfare - unless the requirements were IQ-based, or fitness-based (like 'everyone who can't run a sub-30 minute 5k' doesn't need to have fat lazy kids, so kick them in the nuts!). Edited June 28, 2012 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 But Obama said it absolutely is not a tax, I'm confused! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thought experiment time...What if this were the "american personal protection act"Police are overloaded by robberies, and it is getting out of control to where the police can't keep up. A new law is written requiring you to purchase and maintain a firearm for personal protection in your home. should you refuse for economical reasons (religous reasons are almost always waived) you pay a penalty to help reimburse the police fund...pay for overtime, supplies, etc..where would you stand on such a mandate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thought experiment time...Nice try with a snarky history lesson.Two words: National Guard.Also, If I own the required gun, do I get to stop paying taxes to support the police? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thought experiment time...What if this were the "american personal protection act"Police are overloaded by robberies, and it is getting out of control to where the police can't keep up. A new law is written requiring you to purchase and maintain a firearm for personal protection in your home. should you refuse for economical reasons (religous reasons are almost always waived) you pay a penalty to help reimburse the police fund...pay for overtime, supplies, etc..where would you stand on such a mandate?Easy. Every gun totin redneck on this here motersycle website would be against the gubment forcing us to buy anything, including guns. You just proved everyones point against this stupid law. Now, back to your normal, idiotic, commie blathering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 But Obama said it absolutely is not a tax, I'm confused!Shhh. You're not supposed to remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was asking a question, just looking for opinions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted June 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thought experiment time...What if this were the "american personal protection act"Police are overloaded by robberies, and it is getting out of control to where the police can't keep up. A new law is written requiring you to purchase and maintain a firearm for personal protection in your home. should you refuse for economical reasons (religous reasons are almost always waived) you pay a penalty to help reimburse the police fund...pay for overtime, supplies, etc..where would you stand on such a mandate?Multiple flaws with that, the police protection isn't a private business, no fucking way should anyone be forced to buy a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Multiple flaws with that, the police protection isn't a private business, no fucking way should anyone be forced to buy a gun.Yep, yep, & yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 so what if health care was actually "taken over" instead of this compromise?Would you be in favor of the government purchasing all of the hospitals and running them like they run the police and fire stations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 so what if health care was actually "taken over" instead of this compromise?Would you be in favor of the government purchasing all of the hospitals and running them like they run the police and fire stations?Ask the Canadians who come to the US to have surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 no fucking way should anyone be forced to buy a gun.My comment about the "snarky history lesson" was directed at this. The second Militia Act of 1792 required all men between certain ages to possess a musket and to report to militia duty periodically. So there is technically a precedent, but also a repeal.Public police agencies and the National Guard were the solutions to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted June 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 My comment about the "snarky history lesson" was directed at this. The second Militia Act of 1792 required all men between certain ages to possess a musket and to report to militia duty periodically. So there is technically a precedent, but also a repeal.Public police agencies and the National Guard were the solutions to this.We could go into the history of that but it had no bearing to the question being posed. I expect he was looking for continuity among the thought process of liking an outcome based on personal beliefs regardless of the means. I do not want the government to force a purchase from a business even if I like the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I understand, I just wanted to clarify where I was going with the "history lesson" comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was just curious, since this board seems to be in agreement that anyone who isn't armed to the teeth is naive and poses a threat to their family.It's nice to see the continuity on personal freedom at least...now how about seat belts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 I always wear a seatbelt in the truck and a helmet on the bike. Honestly, I have been known to wear the helmet in the truck, but that's another story.I still don't want the government telling me I MUST wear them. You don't want to wear something that will save your life.. so be it, let Darwin sort them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 As soon as there's a law passed that says hospitals are not compelled to treat the sick or injured if they don't have insurance, I'd be on board with that.I just hope you somehow remember to pin your insurance information on your unconscious body before the "amber lamps" shows up --- and then drives away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) As soon as there's a law passed that says hospitals are not compelled to treat the sick or injured if they don't have insurance, I'd be on board with that.is this an honest view?I'm all for personal liberty, but hospitals turning poor people away is a pretty cold view, I'm not saying I'm more compassionate than that, but I bet most people are...and I agree that this is the next step that needs to be taken if we are compelling hospitals to take everyone...what other business can you walk in, tell them you have no way to pay, and expect service? Edited June 28, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Which is exactly why that idea would never fly.Look, I'm a pretty stoic guy. My threshold for compassion isn't as low as others', but I can still empathize and realize that idea would not resonate with the vast majority of people.That being said -- just tell me the rules of the game, and I'll play the best I can within those rules. If the rules are no one gets treated without insurance or some way to verify your ability to pay, then you better believe insurance would be a priority for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Wow, very, very disappointed in this outcome. Hopefully the republicans can get a super majority in place to repeal the law all together. This is another nail in the coffin of the debt that is not sustainable by government and it accelerates the spiral to harsh decisions that will forever change the countries future. I'm not sure I will recognize this country in twenty years.Ditto! Anybody else here a flushing sound?So what product should we require people to purchase next? Hmm?Sad day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thought experiment time...What if this were the "american personal protection act"Police are overloaded by robberies, and it is getting out of control to where the police can't keep up. A new law is written requiring you to purchase and maintain a firearm for personal protection in your home. should you refuse for economical reasons (religous reasons are almost always waived) you pay a penalty to help reimburse the police fund...pay for overtime, supplies, etc..where would you stand on such a mandate?Against it 100%! Personal choice and personal responsibility should rain supreme! Apparently through the "general welfare" clause means whatever the Fuck the politicians can dream up. Why do we even have a constitution? What happened to personal responsibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.