obamacare

[GG]

You've been checkmated. So easy. You better hope help arrives soon. You could never stand on your own and argue, you are just a pathetic little tag along. Tom, come bail this jerk out!

 

That's not even as good as njsue. Try again.

[Fezmid]

If the court strikes down mandates, does that mean the mandate for buying auto insurance is also unconstitutional?

It's not a Federal mandate, it's per state. That's a HUGE difference. (aside from the obvious difference of being charged for being alive vs. being charged for buying a product).

 

Wisconsin, for example, just recently forced motorists to buy car insurance if they live in the state. Before 2010, it was optional.

[IDBillzFan]

It's not a Federal mandate, it's per state. That's a HUGE difference. (aside from the obvious difference of being charged for being alive vs. being charged for buying a product).

 

Wisconsin, for example, just recently forced motorists to buy car insurance if they live in the state. Before 2010, it was optional.

Fez, notfernuthihn', but it's generally understood in these parts that anyone using the "car insurance" argument to justify mandatory health care is essentially the TBD equivalent of a Bills fan who can't stop arguing that Willis McGahee was actually smarter than he let on.

[DC Tom]

You've been checkmated. So easy. You better hope help arrives soon. You could never stand on your own and argue, you are just a pathetic little tag along. Tom, come bail this jerk out!

 

Actually, you're doing a perfectly fine job kicking your own ass in this case.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

It's not a Federal mandate, it's per state. That's a HUGE difference. (aside from the obvious difference of being charged for being alive vs. being charged for buying a product).

 

Wisconsin, for example, just recently forced motorists to buy car insurance if they live in the state. Before 2010, it was optional.

That's not a huge difference at all. The government is forcing you to buy something. Who cares what level of government is doing it. Saying its a different level of government is only pointing out the backruptcy of your argument.

 

Actually, you're doing a perfectly fine job kicking your own ass in this case.

LOL, thank you very much for proving my point.

 

 

*I knew you couldn't resist trying to save his dumb ass

[IDBillzFan]

That's not a huge difference at all. The government is forcing you to buy something. Who cares what level of government is doing it. Saying its a different level of government is only pointing out the backruptcy of your argument.

Not to mention, all Trent Edwards really needed was just a little more time.

[WorldTraveller]

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected.

 

You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee.

 

So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges

[Fezmid]

Fez, notfernuthihn', but it's generally understood in these parts that anyone using the "car insurance" argument to justify mandatory health care is essentially the TBD equivalent of a Bills fan who can't stop arguing that Willis McGahee was actually smarter than he let on.

 

So I got trolled? D'oh, that's why I don't come here often. lol

[3rdnlng]

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected.

 

You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee.

 

So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges

 

 

You're new here, so you can be forgiven. Never, ever, ever respond to Davey with more than a sentence or two, and certainly no more than one specific but simple thought. You could make his head explode. Davey is a useful target for the rest of the board when we don't want to exert any effort in totally annihilating someone.

[DC Tom]

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected.

 

You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee.

 

So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges

 

You're new here, so let me 'splain it to you:

 

DiN's an idiot. No one takes him seriously.

[Wacka]

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected.

 

You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee.

 

So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges

 

 

My insurance company sends notice to the finance company that I am covered twice a year. I got a letter last week saying that I wasn't covered and if I didn't show coverage, the finance company would require me to pay $135/mo a year more. The insurance company changed their PO box # and didn't tell the insurance company. Got it all settled over the phone.

[B-Man]

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected.

 

You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee.

 

So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges

 

 

 

I don't care if you're new here or not, that was a very good explanation. Thanks for posting.

 

 

But its true.........there is no reason to reply to DIN with common sense........its beyond him.

 

.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

You're new here, so let me 'splain it to you:

 

DiN's an idiot. No one takes him seriously.

Damn, you and 3rding are turning into the same person!! Does that happen when you swallow enough of each others arguments?

 

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected.

 

You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee.

 

So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges

That's a bad argument. Do you have to get insurance when you own a gun? That can hurt someone also.

 

But you being uninsured does hurt society if you get sick and then just dump your expenses on the rest of society to pay for it. so its completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected. the parties being all of us.

[WorldTraveller]

Damn, you and 3rding are turning into the same person!! Does that happen when you swallow enough of each others arguments?

 

 

That's a bad argument. Do you have to get insurance when you own a gun? That can hurt someone also.

 

But you being uninsured does hurt society if you get sick and then just dump your expenses on the rest of society to pay for it. so its completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected. the parties being all of us.

I would hardly consider that to be a "bad" argument, of course it is subjective and that characterization largely depends on the value of the opinion of the person offering the critique. Having said that, the example you offered isn't half bad. The main difference I would offer is that most vehicular accidents are just that, involuntary mishaps. in other words accidents

 

On the other hand the vast majority of gun incidents are willful actions committed by the party at fault. So it isn't so much a monetary compensation issue as much as a penal one. Also in regards to property damage you would be hard pressed to see many cases where physical monetary damage or the need for recourse as a result of a gun issue

[DC Tom]

But you being uninsured does hurt society if you get sick and then just dump your expenses on the rest of society to pay for it. so its completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected. the parties being all of us.

 

This argument would carry more weight if your counter-proposal wasn't "Don't even get sick, and dump your expenses on the rest of society."

 

Really...just who the !@#$ do you think is going to pay for Obamacare?

[Doc]

Damn, you and 3rding are turning into the same person!! Does that happen when you swallow enough of each others arguments?

 

 

That's a bad argument. Do you have to get insurance when you own a gun? That can hurt someone also.

 

But you being uninsured does hurt society if you get sick and then just dump your expenses on the rest of society to pay for it. so its completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected. the parties being all of us.

Good point. Let's pass a mandate forcing insurance on anyone that handles sharp objects.

 

And, who is getting "hurt" because of the uninsured? And how "hurt?"

 

Don't worry Dave. You won't ever have to insure your insults.

[GG]

Really...just who the !@#$ do you think is going to pay for Obamacare?

 

Internet forum trolls.

[/dev/null]

Really...just who the !@#$ do you think is going to pay for Obamacare?

 

Well duh, the 1%

[IDBillzFan]

Really...just who the !@#$ do you think is going to pay for Obamacare?

I think everyone knows now that Obamacare is paid for with Obamamoney.

 

Has you gots you some Obamamoney? Remember, the more baby mommas you got, the mo' Obamamoney you got.

[Taro T]

“SCOTUS struck down 53 federal statutes from 1981-2005."

 

 

 

 

RedState

 

Obama’s remark is the kind of bullying tactic we’ve come to expect from him — the only way he knows how to react to any real or potential discomfiture.

 

And that’s because this is a man who has never heard the word “no.” All along his glide path to power, as he was handed off from one enabler to another, he’s been told he’s the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being anyone has ever known, and he erupts in petulant frustration when reality intrudes upon his narcissistic fantasy.

 

.

Well, if the quote had been

 

"Ultimately, I’m confident hoping that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law with this many pages in it that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress democrats"

 

he would have at least been truthful. What he actually said is a whopper even by politician standards.