Instead, Obama aand his power-hungry cadre of tunnel-vision imbeciles in the Dem party are plunging the nation further into unmanageable debt, Uber-nanny statism and the inevitable higher taxation onus on everyone, either through higher rates on “the rich”, or by a coy manifold of disguised “user fees”, “adjustments”, “means testing”, etc.

Obama: Pure Lies, or Pure Idiocy?

Or both?

Most of the liberals that are getting their panties in a bunch over Joe Wilson’s objection during Obama’s speech last night seem to be thrilled with saddling our country with a British-style system of socialized medicine, yet they recoil in…

Cripes, is anyone else getting tired of Jimbo posting State statutes, offering half information and basically doing the “Razzle Dazzle” (See: Chicago the Musical) in a really lame attempt to convince himself that the Federal government forcing people to buy health insurance (whether they want it or not) is JUST LIKE State governments requiring people to have liability insurance in order to drive their cars on the public roads?

No matter how many State statutes you post, they are simply NOT the same thing! There are literally millions of people who have CHOSEN to do without auto insurance and not ONE of them is going to have to pay a $3,800 fine to the IRS for their failure to obey a universal government mandate.

What ever happened to that concept called “freedom”? Our current Federal government seems bound and detremined to remove even the last vestigages of that idea from the citizens of this nation.

Fatal on September 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

And remember, the state mandates are for LIABILITY INSURANCE: the state doesn’t care whether you buy collision insurance for YOUR car!!!

So the health insurance analog to mandated “auto insurance” would be health insurance which covers ONLY OTHER PEOPLE WHO YOU MADE SICK!!! This kind of insurance would be a whole lot cheaper than health insurance for yourself: no coverage mandates and no pre-existing conditions to pay for: only isolated and highly improbable events.

Jimbo et al are furiously trying to pursue a very weak and irrelevant “straw man” argument.

–Not if it’s a one-person show for a while. And the proposed plans do give an exemption or credit to very small businesses (I don’t remember which).

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM

They also raise taxes, depending on how much money the small employer is making, as much of it is treated as income.

Hope you both have a great day.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM

You too. Have fun at work.

–Your insurance premiums aren’t just for the actual health care you use in a year. They are also to cover the chances that you might get really sick/have a baby/etc. and the probable costs involved in those situations.

If some of the health reforms pass, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some people decide they can now be “free” by working for themselves and starting up a business.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM
That’s illogical. Under plans like these, the entrepreneur has to insure all employees, thus increasing the cost of starting up a new business.

–Not if it’s a one-person show for a while. And the proposed plans do give an exemption or credit to very small businesses (I don’t remember which).

This has been an interesting debate and I thank you both for your civility and real responses to the questions raised. Would that we could do this on a national level, something good might come of it.

Hope you both have a great day.

I do think people are generally underestimating the number of people who stay employed by a company rather than venturing out themselves because of health insurance concerns. If some of the health reforms pass, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some people decide they can now be “free” by working for themselves and starting up a business.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM

But, they are not forced to make that choice. The predicament is a result of things that can be rectified with some simple reform, but still, if one chooses to remain in a job because they have health care insurance rather than venture out to provide for themselves, they have made a choice.

We actually made that choice. My husband could have moved to another company and made more money, but opted instead for the security of his current job in order to maintain insurance. I didn’t agree to that, but at the time he was the sole bread winner and needed to feel secure.

We have made many such choices throughout the years. We didn’t buy a newer, bigger, more expensive house. We kept our old cars in good working condition to avoid a car payment. We eat at home, haven’t taken expensive vacations and spend little on outside entertainment. Those choice allowed me to be a stay at home mom, gave my kids a very stable and secure home and put us in the position to help fund their college educations.

Liberty, what a great thing. You can reap the rewards of your actions, but you better be prepared to suffer the consequences as well.

Once they tie your medical health to your behavior, they will have all the excuse they need to refuse.

Jvette on September 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Exactly.

Oh, you drink soda, alcohol, smoke cigarettes, don’t jog, etc.?

Just because the government doesn’t have to make a profit doesn’t mean it won’t still worry about costs. The worst a private insurance company can do is refuse to cover you. The government can refuse to provide you with medical care.

And I don’t consider this a significant infringement on my freedom, Esthier.

Because this is exactly what you want. You already have insurance and want to force something on other people.

I wouldn’t consider it an infringement on my freedom either if I only wanted a law that would cheapen my bills but increase others’.

If some of the health reforms pass, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some people decide they can now be “free” by working for themselves and starting up a business.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM

That’s illogical. Under plans like these, the entrepreneur has to insure all employees, thus increasing the cost of starting up a new business.

Besides, wouldn’t it just be easier to allow employees to take their health insurance with them?

–You have a right to legal representation in some (mostly serious criminal) situations, Esthier. If you can’t afford representation, the state will appoint you a lawyer at no cost to you. That’s different than you having the ability to choose the lawyer you want in all cases and not having to pay for it.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Exactly my point. I actually have a right to get a lawyer, but I don’t have the right to a MRI.

We’re talking about giving premium health care as though it’s a right even though an actual right, like legal representation, is the lowest form of care.

I’d still rather have an elimination of the pre-existing coverage and a requirement to have insurance, instead of relying on other’s charity. It’s more secure.

Jimbo3 on September 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM

It won’t be once the government takes control.

Once they tie your medical health to your behavior, they will have all the excuse they need to refuse. It is happening in every country with universal coverage and care. It will happen here.

I do think people are generally underestimating the number of people who stay employed by a company rather than venturing out themselves because of health insurance concerns. If some of the health reforms pass, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some people decide they can now be “free” by working for themselves and starting up a business.

Several companies I’ve worked for do allow people to opt out of health insurance, but they required that those people show they had other coverage (such as through a spouse).