Europe Is Baffled by the U.S. Supreme Court

[Ninjahedge]

First of all you can opt out. All state allow self insurance by posting a bond and many small business and large businesses with fleets do understanding insurance is a rip off and builds biggest building in town and pays largest salaries. It's suckers game and poor value over the long haul.

So all I need is to put up $200,000 in trust and I am home free?


Wow, why did I not think of that??!?

You can't with Obamacare. By virtue of being born a US citizen you are forced into this insurance scam.

Scam is mislabeling. It is an ill-fit medical care system. It falls short and leaves too much corporate slack in it to work the way it was intended.

I would call it "CompromisedCare" rather than Obama, as many tenets in it were originally proposed and supported by the Republicans just a few years ago.

Second, you also have option like not driving and don't have to buy auto insurance.

No, again an incredibly stupid statement. You do not drive, in 95% of the US, you do not work, and in some areas, you do not LIVE since everything is so far away from "home". Having to give up something you need to live in the US (without considerable inconvenience) because you are forced to buy something in order to do so is akin to making it mandatory.

It is like getting a license & Insurance to have sex. You know you don't really NEED to do it!

 

[Moonbeam]

So all I need is to put up $200,000 in trust and I am home free?


Wow, why did I not think of that??!?

Well, not only do you have to put up the 200,000 but you have to more concerned about losing what you pay for insurance than you are about the risk you will lose the 200,000. I would definitely opt for the 200,000 if I was sure I wouldn't get sued and be liable for it.

 

[Zebo]

It's only 15K in my state, unlimited vehicles. You'd didn't think of it because the market is makes money by selling you a scam not by telling you there are other options.

And that's the point, there is no option with Obamacare but buy from someone who's business is to deny you care when you pay for care. e.g. a defective product. Fraud IMO.

 

[Zebo]

Well, not only do you have to put up the 200,000 but you have to more concerned about losing what you pay for insurance than you are about the risk you will lose the 200,000. I would definitely opt for the 200,000 if I was sure I wouldn't get sued and be liable for it.

Auto Insurance doesn't absolve you whatsoever from personnel liability, it only cushions the blow and I'd argue makes ppl more reckless raising those rates too over an above massive profit and salaries insurance companies make off you.

 

[ElFenix]

Auto Insurance doesn't absolve you whatsoever from personnel liability

right but there's a reason people usually settle within policy limits

 

[cybrsage]

No, again an incredibly stupid statement. You do not drive, in 95% of the US, you do not work, and in some areas, you do not LIVE since everything is so far away from "home". Having to give up something you need to live in the US (without considerable inconvenience) because you are forced to buy something in order to do so is akin to making it mandatory.

This is why Justice Roberts said he viewed the government forcing you to buy insurance no different than the government forcing you to buy a car when the government tried to argue they were not the same thing.

 

[JulesMaximus]

They are baffled?

There must not be any Conservatives in Europe.

The answer is simple.

Ship the sick to Europe.

4-5-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/europe-baffled-u-supreme-court-220944850.html

Europe Is Baffled by the U.S. Supreme Court


Europe is scratching its head over possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down President Obama's signature legislative achievement. As the judiciary and the Obama administration trade legal barbs over the high court's authority, the idea that health care coverage, largely considered a universal right in Europe, could be deemed an affront to liberty is baffling.

The Guardian's Kevin Powell called the debate "surreal" in his Monday column. "Wasn't the point to make sure the richest and most powerful nation on the planet could protect its own people, as other nations do?" he wrote. "If Americans are promised not just liberty but life and happiness, is there not a constitutional right to affordable healthcare?"

In the German edition of The Financial Times, Sabine Muscat is astonished at Justice Antonin Scalia's argument that if the government can mandate insurance, it can also require people to eat broccoli. "Absurder Vergleich" reads the article's kicker, which in English translates to, "Absurd Comparison." In trying to defeat the bill, Muscat writes, Scalia is making a "strange analogy [to] vegetables."

There is no right to anything in this country... not even freedom.

The only ones with rights in this country are corporations and special interest groups with loads of money.

 

[Exterous]

No, again an incredibly stupid statement. You do not drive, in 95% of the US, you do not work, and in some areas, you do not LIVE since everything is so far away from "home". Having to give up something you need to live in the US (without considerable inconvenience) because you are forced to buy something in order to do so is akin to making it mandatory

No - its not. This is not about the ease with which you could live its about the right to make the choice how you live. If it really was important enough to live without a car and car insurance you can do it. In fact many Americans already do. It might mean moving to a large city. It might involve other compromises but the point is that you can choose to make those compromises

Furthermore its your opinion that not having a car is a considerable inconvenience. Its possible and does happen that owning a car is an inconvenience. Again - this is not about how one person views convienence and has odd definitions of 'live' but about ones right to choose how they live

 

[dmcowen674]

There is no right to anything in this country... not even freedom.

The only ones with rights in this country are corporations and special interest groups with loads of money.

<Sarah> On

You betcha

<Sarah> off

 

[bfdd]

Like I said, European Liberty and Rights are different philosophically than American Liberty and Rights. In Europe liberty and your rights stem from the government giving them to you, in America you're born with them and it's the governments job to protect them. Seriously people stop confusing the two. There's a reason "God" is so big in the USA and it is because our liberty is granted by whatever "God" you choose to believe in.

 

[Ninjahedge]

No - its not. This is not about the ease with which you could live its about the right to make the choice how you live. If it really was important enough to live without a car and car insurance you can do it. In fact many Americans already do. It might mean moving to a large city. It might involve other compromises but the point is that you can choose to make those compromises

Furthermore its your opinion that not having a car is a considerable inconvenience. Its possible and does happen that owning a car is an inconvenience. Again - this is not about how one person views convienence and has odd definitions of 'live' but about ones right to choose how they live

It is not an opinion Ext, it is a fact.

For the majority of the US (Cali being Ironically one of the areas), being w/o a car is a PITA.


From my memories of growing up, college, and other commutes (as well as living in Palo Alto, Boston, and the NYC area), w/o mass transit it is very difficult to live without one.

Impossible? No. But when you build an infrastructure and social net around the automobile, it gets very difficult to operate w/o it.

Difficult, time consuming AND EXPENSIVE. Not everyone can afford rent near the city, and to suggest they can shows an ignorance of the actual cost of convenience (come take a look at rents in Hoboken, for instance).

So, if someone is willing to live at a considerable disadvantage, they can not pay insurance and not get a car. That is being leveraged.

 

[Exterous]

It is not an opinion Ext, it is a fact.

For the majority of the US (Cali being Ironically one of the areas), being w/o a car is a PITA.

Considering something an inconvience at all is entirely based on opinion. If it helps the definition of fact is "A thing that is indisputably the case". We have situations where it most certainly is indisputedly NOT the case. The Amish seem to be doing quite well, for example, and they tend to live no where near a big city

Now you might be able to say that the majority of Americans would consider it a PITA for them but that does not make it a fact that it is globally a PITA for everyone

From my memories of growing up, college, and other commutes (as well as living in Palo Alto, Boston, and the NYC area), w/o mass transit it is very difficult to live without one.

Immaterial anechdotal evidence. I could just as easily throw in mine about the guy who walks/rides his bike past my parents' house 15 miles to McD every day rain snow or shine and says he doesn't ever want to buy a car...

Impossible? No. But when you build an infrastructure and social net around the automobile, it gets very difficult to operate w/o it.

Difficult, time consuming AND EXPENSIVE. Not everyone can afford rent near the city, and to suggest they can shows an ignorance of the actual cost of convenience (come take a look at rents in Hoboken, for instance).

And yet we have entire segments of the population that are capable of living and getting around without a car. We already covered one that does not need to live near a city. Another group in particular belies your capitalization of expensive: college students*. Clearly groups of people can lead a productive car-free lifestyle

*Some do it because they can't afford it. Others do it because it is too expensive/difficult to park. Even more do it for various reasons centering around attending a school out of state/coutry

So, if someone is willing to live at a considerable disadvantage, they can not pay insurance and not get a car. That is being leveraged.

That is entirely YOUR OPINION. It is entirely possible that someone would disagree with you and that - FOR THEM - the benefits out weight the cons. I don't know why you would try and tell them that their views on how they prefer to live their life are wrong?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Again, bottom line.

In a country that was built at several stages along the development lines of commuting, transportation, and shipping via automotive transportation, not having one puts one at a severe disadvantage that is difficult to surmount.

You can site the one guy that rode his bike to work, like my FIL who rode his bike along Queens Boulevard and a section of the highway to work as a janitor at the NYT, but given the opportunity and the ability to do so, he would have gladly driven and made his work day several hours shorter and less physically taxing.

 

[BoberFett]

Then live and work in the city and ride the bus. I thought Democrats are all about public transportation and sustainable living? Why are you living in the suburbs sucking up resources like an evil conservative?

 

[Exterous]

In a country that was built at several stages along the development lines of commuting, transportation, and shipping via automotive transportation, not having one puts one at a severe disadvantage that is difficult to surmount.

Again - that is YOUR opinion. I have already put forth groups of people who do not consider it a severe disadvantage. Why do you get to decide that your view is right and theirs is wrong? This country was founded on the ability of people to decide (within reason) how they want to live their lives

You can site the one guy that rode his bike to work, like my FIL who rode his bike along Queens Boulevard and a section of the highway to work as a janitor at the NYT, but given the opportunity and the ability to do so, he would have gladly driven and made his work day several hours shorter and less physically taxing.

Just because he would have gladly driven does not mean other people would have

 

[Ninjahedge]

Then live and work in the city and ride the bus.

I do.

I thought Democrats are all about public transportation and sustainable living?

Not necessarily.

Why are you living in the suburbs sucking up resources like an evil conservative?

1. Conservatives are not "evil"
2. Liberals are not all granola crunchers
3. The majority of people live in the suburbs.
4. The city costs LOTS of money and is just not practical for most people, including, ironically, the people who work there.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Ext, It is a fact that most people drive and prefer driving in the US.

You can dance around the semantics as much as you like, we are not married and I am not going to say "You're right dear".

 

[Exterous]

Ext, It is a fact that most people drive and prefer driving in the US.

You can dance around the semantics as much as you like, we are not married and I am not going to say "You're right dear".

There is no dancing - you simply don't understand what an opinion or a fact is. Also I have never argued about how many Americans drive or prefer to drive so I see no reason why you bring that up now.

As an American citizen you are never forced against your will to buy a car and car insurance. Buying car insurance is not a mandatory requirement for citizenship. It is a FACT that you can live in America and survive (and often live well) without a car as evidenced by the many people who do it everyday. It is an OPINION that it is an inconveinece. This is not a fact because many people make the concious decision to not own a vehicle because it would be an inconvienece/unnessesary/costly etc. Whether they are in the majority or minority of the population is immaterial. Even if we were to take your stance that 95% of the population drives that still leaves over 12,000,000 people in the US over the age of 16 who are living without a car/car insurance*

Therefore this statement is false:

Having to give up something you need to live in the US (without considerable inconvenience) because you are forced to buy something in order to do so is akin to making it mandatory.

Now you may be of the opinion that the two are related but your opinion certainly isn't a fact.

I also certainly don't expect you to admit you are wrong as that pretty much never happens around here


*http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

 

[DominionSeraph]

i chose #3

And so you choose #1.

 

[Zebo]

Like I said, European Liberty and Rights are different philosophically than American Liberty and Rights. In Europe liberty and your rights stem from the government giving them to you, in America you're born with them and it's the governments job to protect them. Seriously people stop confusing the two. There's a reason "God" is so big in the USA and it is because our liberty is granted by whatever "God" you choose to believe in.

You should read some European constitutions. They have inalienable rights many were copied after ours. We used to be pretty respected as countries saw democratic revolutions and they looked to us. Hell we wrote the constitutions for several. Guess what? - one of our rights is to make any type of system we want - we have that liberty.

 

[cybrsage]

Not having health insurance is simply an inconvenence for most people if not having a car is simply an inconvenience for most people. The two are still so similar that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to buy a car.

Or worse, they can force you to buy monthly bus passes even if you never ride the bus.

 

[bfdd]

It's only 15K in my state, unlimited vehicles. You'd didn't think of it because the market is makes money by selling you a scam not by telling you there are other options.

And that's the point, there is no option with Obamacare but buy from someone who's business is to deny you care when you pay for care. e.g. a defective product. Fraud IMO.

This is truth. I was looking into importing JDM cars and how to legally drive them on the road without going through all the bullshit of converting them etc etc. Basically you get a business license and a auto dealer/re-sellers license and you can get dealers plates. From there you post a 50k bond(this was for California) and you're able to "back" your cars as a form of "insurance." So now your illegal skyline R33 or silvia s14 are now legal due to you having 1. dealers plates and 2. "insurance". lols

You should read some European constitutions. They have inalienable rights many were copied after ours. We used to be pretty respected as countries saw democratic revolutions and they looked to us. Hell we wrote the constitutions for several. Guess what? - one of our rights is to make any type of system we want - we have that liberty.

Just because they copied us or liked what we had, does not mean they understand it or even view it the same way. Hell I talk to Europeans on the regular and I'm constantly reminded of the "rights their Governments" give them. Not protect for them, but GIVE them.