Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9148130.jpg

Because I literally spent thousands of dollars on car insurance and if I receive $100 worth of damage on my car, I still have to pay money. Then if you use your insurance money, your payment might increase.

Most insurance prefer to only cover stuff that wont likely happen. That's why people of certain ages or health conditions have to pay much more.

EDIT: That's why your age, location, sex, previous driving history, etc. all pay a part in your insurance prices. Companies only want to insure the people who wont need it.



Because the likelihood of you actually needing it or even breaking even is not likely at all. However, if or when you need it, you need it. If not you, then the next guy. Somebody will need that money



Like State Farm decided to give back money to people each year who don't get in accidents. Insurance companies can easily make it where the consumers can get more bang for the buck, but they wont because they know people will suck it up and drive on.



Yes, I do and if you took more than 5 seconds to think before typing, you would understand as well.

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 1:56am by Almalieque

Car insurance protects you from other people and from yourself to a certain extent. I agree that it's a necessary evil. However, it's still affordable for most people, ie the vast majority of people who drive. I pay about $70 a month, for a $1000 deductible to replace my car if it gets totaled. I'm not sure of the other logistics, but I'm pretty sure the rest is just bare bones what my state requires, plus free towing and road side assistance.

My mom pays my health insurance for me, because she can afford it and it helps her sleep better at night. I don't even know what my deductible is, but it's probably more than $1000 for the year. I don't get dental, vision, or any sort of mental health coverage. My co-pay for doctors visits is $30, and prescriptions are only covered by 50% in most cases. This plan which does me very little good, costs my mom about $150 a month. Even with this insurance, I wracked up over $1200 in doctors visits trying to get my ADHD diagnosed and then get the medication dosage figured out.

I strongly disagree with the idea that health insurance is a necessary evil. Health insurance helps increase the cost of health care, and it is a complete and utter waste of money. I wish we just had single payer health care already. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but it's not anywhere near where we should be.

That doesn't contradict my statement. I'm referring to the concept of insurance, not particularly in one instance. Not everyone has to participate in insurance to make it necessary. There just has to be a source of money available. That source can easily come from a percentage of the population and not 100% of the population. This is why I argued if a person is likely to use it, then that person needs to pay as well. Since health affects everyone, then everyone should be putting money into the pot.



This isn't charity. Insurance companies are out to make money just like every other business in the world and they make their money from people who don't use the insurance company's money. They do not make money from people who are constantly in the hospital, wrecking vehicles, losing phones, etc. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but that's reality.



My point is that the amount of money you spent in insurance doesn't play a factor in your replacement. That can be good or bad, but more likely bad than good. If you just got a car and only paid one months insurance, then you come out on top. If you've been paying insurance for years with no accidents, you having to pay $200 for a fender bender is no bueno.



It's not exactly the same but It's the same concept. As of today (assuming my assumption is accurate), I fully support Obamacare based off the concept that it is a "necessary evil". As I said, most people don't want to overlook a person having a stroke because they are not insured; however, individuals not dumping their money into the insurance pot, makes it worse on others who pay. As an individual, you should have the choice not to have dental check ups, prostate check ups, breast exams or go to the doctor for anything and be comfortable with dying on the side of the road. We don't live in that type of society. If you get hurt, someone will treat you and the expenses have to be paid.

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 4:47am by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 6:10am by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 1st 2012 6:18am by Almalieque

It doesn't sound like that's what he's saying. It sounds like he supports Obamacare, but I'm not really sure what point he's trying to make.

Structurally, there's no difference between private health insurance (whether obtained individually or employer-provided) and a single-payer government system. Except that with the former, you have the option not to participate. Or, at least, you used to.

If you look at the two on the most basic of levels, sure. Beyond that, there's a huge difference between the two. Especially the way health insurance companies currently operate in this country.

Whether it was intended as a tax or not, you could certainly reach the same result with a tax and a conditional reprieve.



Your government creates financial incentives with tax breaks all the time.

I'd hate to be tasked with upholding such a phantom distinction.



Of course it does. Not everything that affects the distribution of risk is insurance. Maybe you don't know what insurance is? That's fine.

Everything's fine.

Actually it doesn't contradict anything. I was referring to insurance in a general sense and I was provided with a link specifically referring to universal health care. As I said, regardless if YOU are actually paying for insurance or not does not negate the concept of insurance. Hence, a country that does not mandate insurance does not counter my argument. You would have to provide and contrast countries that have NO insurance policies in order to begin to contradict my statement. Unless you believe people ENJOY paying for insurance for the sake of paying and not to actually be insured, then my statement remains valid.

My comment was 90% tongue in cheek. My only issue, what I found humorous, was the word "tax". What we're doing is buying health insurance, not paying a tax. I (vaguely) understand it can't be put that way due to laws about Congress and commerce, but it comes across as talking sideways, "It depends on what the definition of "is" is" crap.

I have no problem with everyone buying insurance. I see it as no different than the Government saying "We can't afford to keep supporting you broke *** old folks that didn't save any money, from now on, you sorry, sagging sacks of unproductive **** are going to pay a "tax" into Social Security before the burden of supporting you bankrupts the Country".


IMHO much of the "It's unconstitutional" outcry is less about the Constitution and more about "Goddammitt, I'm broke enough already!, Inflation up, gas up, food up, everything's going except my wages and here's a new "tax". FFS when does it start getting better?

You may be right. Not that I'm one to talk though. Even though I'm a middle aged man, I do not fully understand the Constitution either. Primarily because I've never read the entire thing. Oh, I've started to many times, but it's dreadfully dull. There's a serious lack of boobies and explosions. It's also oddly verbose to be so vague. They use a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. I think back then they got paid by the letter.

That depends on which definition you use.

Envious?