18 total posts
I've said similar
Over and over again I've pointed out it isn't really a "tax" in spite of SCOTUS misruling on that and it removes one's right to choose whether to purchase healthcare insurance or not. It's forcing a service upon people, one that interferees with their right of privacy and doctor confidentiality also. Slavery is a good word for it, because it sure isn't freedom.
should we do away with all required insurance?
or rather the requirement to buy insurance of any type.
do away with the requirement
do we do away with
requiring to pay into SS and medicare?
I'm curious actually how far you or any others think we should go in not requiring people to engage in different things.
What about car liability?
As far as I can think of right now, car insurance, social security (require retirement payment), medicare (require retirement medicale insurance) are the only coverages you're required to participate in by law.
Now you have to have bonds and/or insurance to engage in some business, but I'm guessing that would be a different category?
You have to have insurance, car or home, to get a loan, but that's an option, you don't have to buy on credit (supposedly).
You know I've long advocated
freedom from car insurance requirements, instead having those who want to be insured by it for themselves and have insurance against those who choose to not be covered.
Remember how property insurances started? Arsonist would come into a county, burn a couple barns, then go around selling insurance and point to the barns that burned recently. It started out as a protection racket. You bought the insurance your barn didn't burn, fail to buy the insurance and your barn became then next example to use for selling everyone on insurance coverage.
SS is supposed to be a pension plan. Just because it's been corrupted and abused doesn't change that. Many will NEVER use SS, dying beforehand, others will NEVER collect back what they put in and the interest that should have been earned on it over the years they contributed. A few may collect all they paid, the interest that would have accumulated and more.
Nobody is required to take SS, nobody is required to take Medicare. You have a choice to sign up for it or not. Even to this day there are some groups exempted from paying into both.
there may be groups excepted from
medicare and social security, but I don't think everyone has the choice.
I think most of the wage earners are required to pay social security tax and medicare tax.
I don't think I've ever seen anything like an opt in or opt out form or option on any job I've worked.
Sounds more like those that claim you can't be force to pay federal income tax. They usually find that can only be true as long you own nothing in your name.
you can choose not to take SS or medicare
I guess, but I don't think most of us have any option about paying into it.
If you eliminate the requirement for car insurance....
.....a lot of really stupid people will opt out and the cost for everyone else will go up astronomically, since there will be a much higher likelihood that your next accident will be with an uninsured motorist.
James, your opinion is unusual and not widely representative
I still find this an awkward and inapt equivalence.
One thing treated people as non-human, and as property, the other offers people the certainty that they will not die because they cannot afford treatment. In particular it assures that they will be able to consult a family physician and get treatment for high blood pressure before it causes grave damage, or any number of conditions before they progress to life-threatening or debilitating stages.
Just because it is uttered by a renowned African American surgeon does not make it Holy Writ. It is just an opinion as liable to error as mine or anyone else's.
More and more people
are discovering that your and the Dems and the President's statements aren't true, Rob.. "certainty that they will not die because they cannot afford treatment".........they are actually finding that their PREMIUMS have doubled or tripled and their deductibles are higher than being tripled under Obamacare and that paying the penalty/tax is far cheaper. In today's economy, the weekly take home pay is less than before due to higher taxes (the median take home pay is over $5000 less per year now since BO took office) and no longer having full time work, so if the take home pay is less, how are they going to afford to pay an additional huge bill?
We all tried to tell you this was going to happen and nobody who believes that 'spreading the wealth around' is a great thing wanted to hear it.
Another example of small companies getting screwed...and having to pass that along to their employees....A temporary agency that started up in 2008 or 2009 has 18 full time employees with insurance covered by the employer. They also have about 60 temporary employees that they didn't have to provide insurance for before because these employees worked outside the agency on temporary assignment but got their paychecks from this employer because the actual company they temporarily worked for paid the agency instead of putting these people permanently on their payrolls. These temp employees don't work every week, or even every day, but rather fill in for other people on sick leave or maternity leave or went on vacation. But under Obamacare, they are now required to be covered with insurance by the temp agency. The cost would have put this relatively new but successful company out of business.......so they are forced to take away the insurance they were offering to the 18 full time, in office, workers and pay the penalty instead just so they can survive as business owners and keep people working.
Obamacare has turned into a Catch-22 for everyone concerned......you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And it is pitting employers against employees just as this divisive president has pitted parties against parties, the haves with the have-nots, races against each other, religions against each other, doctors against their patients, etc. more than any one person has ever been able to do all on his own in our country's history.
A quote of yours and a comment
not meant for just you alone. You said...an I can agree;
"Just because it is uttered by a renowned African American surgeon does not make it Holy Writ. It is just an opinion as liable to error as mine or anyone else's."
So why is also (and often) said that there are some racial feelings that cannot be understood and legitimately expressed by anyone of other than one of the historically affected race? If that's true, then only a black person would be qualified to make the statement made by Mr. Carson...or so I'd think. Would the words have the same power if spoken by a well known white person? Supposing he'd said that the ACA is another step toward freedom from slavery. Should those words be taken any differently as to their inerrancy?
don't you get it?
the minute a black person starts "acting white" as defined by the un-achieving members of the black community, their opinion no longer is valid.
Dr. Ben Carson needs a refresher course on slavery
Being that he is a black American I'm doubly shocked that he would make such an asinine comparison.
Would that be just as asinine
as Biden's comment about Romney wanting to 'put you all back in chains'?
"...back in chains" sounds fairly specific
A target audience who once was would be so again. Then again, we know good 'ol Joe doesn't always think before speaking.