Political Compass

BlueYonder said:
The government already forces you to buy car insurance in order to legally and safely operate a vehicle. If you're not buying it, god help us all.
Click to expand...

We are not FORCED to purchase car insurance. If you want to drive a vehicle, than you must purchase insurance. Those that don't drive, don't have to purchase car insurance.

mandatory health insurance just because your a U.S. Citizen VS. mandatory car insurance IF you decide to drive a car on public roads = APPLES AND ORANGES

This is a tired, lame and completely false comparison that I see on every left wingnut site.
 


popeye said:
We are not FORCED to purchase car insurance. If you want to drive a vehicle, than you must purchase insurance. Those that don't drive, don't have to purchase car insurance.

mandatory health insurance just because your a U.S. Citizen VS. mandatory car insurance IF you decide to drive a car on public roads = APPLES AND ORANGES

This is a tired, lame and completely false comparison that I see on every left wingnut site.
Click to expand...
You're not forced to live in the US. You can live someplace else that won't force you to buy health insurance (Zambia, maybe?). Find a banana republic that'll have you, and save some kaching.

The point of the mandatory health care is to prevent people from continuing to mooch off the system while others pay, thereby lowering costs for everyone. I know it's not libertarian, but sometimes we have to pay the price to live in a civilized way. This no doubt has you inflamed, but it's how I feel about health reform (which looks inevitable, so deal).
 
BlueYonder said:
You're not forced to live in the US. You can live someplace else that won't force you to buy health insurance (Zambia, maybe?). Find a banana republic that'll have you, and save some kaching.

The point of the mandatory health care is to prevent people from continuing to mooch off the system while others pay, thereby lowering costs for everyone. I know it's not libertarian, but sometimes we have to pay the price to live in a civilized way. This no doubt has you inflamed, but it's how I feel about health reform (which looks inevitable, so deal).
Click to expand...

completely different issue. a car is on public roads, and it's a hazard to others to not have car insurance. you can live in your own house, on your religious compound, etc or whatnot and not endanger others by lacking health insurance.
 
politicsg.png



I remember taking this a couple years ago and I've definitely become more libertarian in terms of economic issues, ever since getting into IM. When you work like 1000 hours to make your first 1000 bucks online and then some motherfucker wants to tax it, while the bum down the street gets $1000 a month for doing nothing, your reality kind of goes SNAP.
 
papajohn56 said:
completely different issue. a car is on public roads, and it's a hazard to others to not have car insurance. you can live in your own house, on your religious compound, etc or whatnot and not endanger others by lacking health insurance.
Click to expand...
If you have a support system such as the Amish do, where nobody buys it and they take care of themselves, fine. They would probably be exempt. The rest of us would rely on charity care if disaster visited, or become destitute because of the cost of paying for treatment is so onerous.

I get the drift that a lot of the objections to the reform is because of the mandate, the principle of the thing. As if being covered, and being free from worry would be such a bad thing.

And what about the public roads you mention? Why should I pay for roads in Oregon when I live in NY? Doesn't that violate my rights? Or do we all have responsibilities to pitch in and contribute to where the need is, for the sake of the public good? Maybe one day I'll need to drive on a road in Oregon. Maybe one day you'll need some medical care, even though you're fit and healthy today. Why should other people pay their share but you don't - because you're too libertarian to pull your own weight?
 
BlueYonder said:
If you have a support system such as the Amish do, where nobody buys it and they take care of themselves, fine. They would probably be exempt. The rest of us would rely on charity care if disaster visited, or became destitute because of the cost of paying for treatment is so onerous.

I get the drift that a lot of the objections to the reform is because of the mandate, the principle of the thing. As if being covered, and being free from worry would be such a bad thing.
Click to expand...

What about people who choose to not have insurance and prefer to pay cash or make monthly payment deals with the hospital? I know people who do this and it saves them money.
 
BlueYonder said:
And what about the public roads you mention? Why should I pay for roads in Oregon when I live in NY? Doesn't that violate my rights? Or do we all have responsibilities to pitch in and contribute to where the need is, for the sake of the public good? Maybe one day I'll need to drive on a road in Oregon.
Click to expand...

Commerce clause allows this. The federal government is allowed to foster interstate commerce.
 
papajohn56 said:
What about people who choose to not have insurance and prefer to pay cash or make monthly payment deals with the hospital? I know people who do this and it saves them money.
Click to expand...
It depends on the degree of care.

Sore throat = money saved.
Brain tumor = money lost.

The point is to protect us all from catastrophe.
 
BlueYonder said:
It depends on the degree of care.

Sore throat = money saved.
Brain tumor = money lost.

The point is to protect us all from catastrophe.
Click to expand...

Then why don't we get rid of anti-competitive laws, scale back "insurance" so it doesn't cover everything including your kid's acne and let people save money by only paying for catastrophe insurance instead? Car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes and tire rotations, why should health insurance pay for "routine maintenance"?
 
papajohn56 said:
Then why don't we get rid of anti-competitive laws, scale back "insurance" so it doesn't cover everything including your kid's acne and let people save money by only paying for catastrophe insurance instead? Car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes and tire rotations, why should health insurance pay for "routine maintenance"?
Click to expand...
We should, but the insurance lobby, and the pharmaceutical lobby and the AMA has been historically been blocking any attempts at competition (your good ideas are a form of health insurance reform), which is what got us here today.

The public option was meant to be a form of competition (shot down), allowing drugs to be imported from Canada is a form of competition (shot down). Allowing insurance to be sold by out of state companies is also competition (shot down). The industry is sucking 17% of our GNP yearly, and it's growing, so any attempt to curb the beast has been heavily opposed by them (Harry & Louise, anyone?).

Your clean and simple idea would not be acceptable to the industry and their army of lobbyists because it reduces their compensation, capice?

The bill about to come to the floor right now isn't great, but it's something. At least they can't cancel your insurance when you get sick, and the best part is spreading the risk means everybody gets covered even if they're sick.
 
pre-existing conditions denial is tough, because what if someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, and then the next day signs up for an insurance plan expecting to be paid in full?
 
me....Im gona game the sytem like millions of other fools are. I have determind that I am gona pay the minamal penalty for not having insurance UNTILL i get sick (IF I DO) then I will buy into this fucked up bill and have my medical problem solved.
 
Have any of you seen healthcare cost increase charts over the past 40 years?

EVERY SINGLE TIME the government passes a healthcare law, the cost of healthcare goes up 15%-25%.

The reason healthcare costs so much isn't the insurance companies, hospitals or any evil corporation , it's the government controlling those industries!

When medicare was passed in the 60s , it increased the cost of healthcare anywhere from 50% to 200% (Depending on who you listen to).

The government is passing laws to fix laws they passed years ago. Medicare is broke, social security is broke, every single thing they try to pass is broken from the start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guerilla
pcgraphpngphp.png


It strikes me as odd that so many people here are squarely in the Libertarian segment of this graph, but there has never been a viable Libertarian candidate.

Either this is a good thing for the future (because the age demographic of WF and AM, in general, skews very young among voters) that we may see a time when we have more than 2 political parties. Or...

It means that a growing contingent of the U.S. population will find themselves hemming and hawing between two unpalatable political choices perpetually in the future, as both the Democrat and Republican parties cater to their extreme ends as a 'base' of support.
 
phillian said:
It strikes me as odd that so many people here are squarely in the Libertarian segment of this graph, but there has never been a viable Libertarian candidate.
Click to expand...

Get back in the kitchen, little missy.

Politics are for men only, you should know that by now.

:banana_sml:
 
phillian said:
It strikes me as odd that so many people here are squarely in the Libertarian segment of this graph, but there has never been a viable Libertarian candidate.
Click to expand...

It's likely because the authoritarian candidates have most of the power. Meanwhile the authoritarian supporting press belittle and mock Libertarian candidates like Kucinich and Ron Paul. Not surprising more Authoritarian probably also usually means more Aggressive. Victory usually goes to the most aggressive.

Who wouldn't want a first lady like this?

5oFPT.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom