The Glade 4.0

Furthermore, if you don't want to pay auto insurance: don't drive.

Don't want to pay health insurance under Obamacare? Die.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

This varies state to state. Kansas, for instance, requires any registered vehicle to have insurance, regardless of running condition or road worthiness.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

This would be an incorrect statement based on my quick search.

Registration is only required for those vehicles that will be and are capable of being operated on public roads. Kansas law appears (according to documents on the KDOT website) to have the same categories I listed in my statement and states that mandatory insurance is not required for those categories.

So, you support a single payer or NHS style system then?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

/facepalm

_________________
The Dude abides.

I'm dying to hear how you came up with that Str... err.. conclusion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Please explain how that is what you conclude from what I wrote. I really, truly, do not understand your logical process on that one.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Well, you talked about how if people couldn't afford a plan under Obama's proposal, they would just have to suck it up and die. It sounded to me as if you objected to that sort of situation, perhaps on a moral level. If we had a system with absolutely no government option what so ever, the same situation would exist, only it would be Private companies instead of the President. In the end, there's not much of a difference.

So, if you object to a situation where people that can't afford health
insurance should just die, then it's not so big a leap to conclude that you would support a situation where that was not the case. NHS style system would be just such a situation.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I believe you completely missed the point Monte.

DFK was adding an additional comment to my post on the preceding page regarding the inaccuracies of using required auto insurance as analog to required health insurance.

This.

I didn't mention affordability. I mentioned avoiding the "tax-via-mandatory-premium."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I don't know, Ladas. You're right, he was illustrating how the two don't exactly compare, but he also seemed to be saying that a situation where a person can't afford health coverage was much worse than one in which they can't afford car insurance. And I would agree with him.

So it led me to my next natural question - if he objects to a situation in which people that cannot afford health insurance are supposed to just die, then it would stand to reason that he might support a situation in which that was not an issue.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Aside from the fact that you apparently have me and DFK! confused, under Obamacare you must have health insurance. What he was objecting to was clearly the mandate to have it whether you want it or not. Under a private-only system, there would be nomandate to have it at all, so the same situation would not exist.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Nope, not what I was saying at all. I was speaking solely to the avoidability of the tax/premium in question.

Even if you didn't know my meaning because you couldn't take non-verbal cues what with this being the intertubes and all, which is fair enough, the contextual basis for my statement doesn't convey that and neither does my language.



That would indeed be a potentially correct conclusion if the premise were not incorrect.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Oops! You're right, my bad.

Yes, but the same problem that he seemed to object to is still there - if you can't pay for coverage, you just get to die. He *seemed* to be objecting to that, and that was confusing to me. Remember, we aren't talking about people that *can* pay for coverage and refuse to do so, but instead about people that cannot afford it.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, he wasn't objecting to that problem. He was objecting to the problem that if you want to not pay for coverage under Obamacare the only way to do that is to die. There is no option to do without healthcare coverage under Obamacare.

Not everyone wants health coverage, and just because someone cannot afford coverage does not mean they want it. In fact, even if you want it, and can't afford itt, that does't mean your only option is to die because most medical conditions are not life-threatening.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Then you are badly misreading his comment and attributing context that doesn't exist.

Whats more, you have just provided another excellent example of how mandatory auto insurance is in no way relevant to the discussion of mandatory health insurance.

Technically speaking, and to be fair, that isn't true.

It's just that if you want to go without coverage you pay a tax instead of a mandatory premium.



Either way, the only way to avoid the cost is to cease to be, to become an ex-human, to shuffle loose the mortal coil!

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

In other words, the only way to opt out is to cease to exist?

_________________

And you are not required to insure your car. You are required to have liability insurance. You are required to insure against damage to other cars/property that you may cause.

The need for this is obvious, and is not analagous to health insurance at all.

Do you not think that health issues can affect other people, Aegnor? What about things like H1N1?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

How one can go from "here is the flaw in your logic darksiege" to what you just implied is beyond me.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Overblown sensationalized fearmongering crap.

Oh noes! Its killed a few thousand people! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

Seasonal flu kills 250 - 500k people worldwide a year.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

"Affect other people" is not the same thing as "damage you may cause". If you actually injure another person, then your insurance or you should pay for it; it's not a health insurance matter. Someone catching a communicable disease from you is not the sam, however, is not the same as you causing injury in an auto accident or otherwise. A disease behaves of its own accord; it isn't an event that causes injury due to one's negligence. At best, this would be an argument to have insurance to pay someone else's bills if they get sick or hurt because of you, but even if we extended that beyond the extent to which its already true, it would be impossible in most cases to prove who caught what from who, and in many cases it would be family members giving it to each other.

Finally, most health problems are not communicable diseases or injuries caused by others while auto accidents always mean negligence of some sort by someone, even in cases with very strong mitigating circumstances.

The two situations are not comparable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I mean, I *suppose* you could follow someone around and sneeze on them, cough at them, and just maybe you could be held liable if they get sick...

But for the most part, its just being an inconsiderate prick if you go to work if you have the flu or something.

And being an inconsiderate prick isn't illegal. Otherwise, Kanye would be getting his gay fish pounded in a federal pen.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Sorry, I thought about addressing this line, but figured it was a waste of time as it was too ridiculous. I think DE has it covered now though.