More of a "take away" of my freedom of choosing whether or not I want health insurance than a take over (at least for now). The loss of freedom of choice is more threatening to me than any government incompetence accompanying a take over (and the federal govt is largely incompetent, wasteful and inefficient).

 

Please don't respond that a speed limit is a take away of my freedom to drive how fast I want. Minimal govt interference in our lives is necessary, particularly those that are designed to protect the safety of innocent others. Forcing me to get health insurance so that the rates are cheaper for every one else is not necessary. Which is why I'm opposed to Social Security. If forces me to save for my retirement. Saving for retirement is a smart thing to do. The govt has no business forcing me to do it however. If I haven't saved enough, I die starving or heaven forbid, needing my family to take care of me.

But it still should be my choice. Smart choice by the Tea Party to use the "Don't Tread On Me" slogan by the way.

 

If you don't carry health ins or have a cheap policy, get a catastrophic illness, and can't pay all the bills, I really don't want to pay for you just because you chose to exercise the freedom not to protect yourself or your family. (nothing personal!!) Everyone has accepted that they have to maintain auto insurance. Even me and the only policy I've ever collected on is a health insurance policy.

LN, Would you or anyone that you know exercise their right to not have health insurance? I'm of the opinion that the only people who don't have health insurance do so because they can't afford it not because they don't want it.

 

I remember a number around 15 million can afford insurance but chose not to insure. Mostly the under 30 crowd. That was maybe a year and a half ago so I'm sure that number has come down. At the time that was about half the number of uninsured being kicked around.

Fair question Ace. In my opinion (and its obviously based on a guess since I it's impossible for me to know), GW didn't want to risk losing any Congressional support for the war that would be caused by calling for cuts to programs supported by members of Congress or increased taxes. If I am correct, it was a total mistake by GW and a very disappointing approach by him. Either the war is justified and the cuts/new taxes required, or it shouldn't be waged. Throughout the war while GW was in office, I think GW and his handlers had the approach of "make things as normal for America as they could be" with the war going on. I don't know if they thought that was a lesson learned from Vietnam or not. Perhaps they knew that the total effort in Iraq was going to take a long time and they felt that Americans don't have the stomach for long, drawn out military endeavors. In in order to "keep the stomach" as long as possible they had to minimize the adverse affects on Americans. Hence, not require cuts to domestic programs and not raise taxes.

 

It's somewhat easy for me to say it was a mistake by GW since I wasn't privy to all the discussions being held by GW, his handlers, military leaders and members of Congress. But barring that info and knowing the thinking, that is my opinion.

 

I agree. I think GW should have asked us all to have some "skin in the game." I think that should have happened before we attached Afghanistan. In particular, I think he should have eliminated or scaled back the tax cuts. If I'm planning on spending a lot of money and a significant, long term expense pops up in the meantime, I'm probably not going to spend the money or I'm going to spend a lot less. GW had a lot of goodwill at the time. I would have respected him more if he explained the need to stop the tax cuts.

 

I'm not sure why he did it either. I suspect he thought he'd get less resistance if people thought everything was going to continue on as normal. But, if you thought that you (and that's a generic "you") wouldn't have to pay for the war, you could have used the "gov't-run, freedom taking over," health plan to get yourself checked out.

While you continue to spout republican talking points, I am trying to figure out why we didn't create some method to pay for the war. At its onset, many believed it was the right thing to do . . . would not patriotic Americans been up for a little tax increase to help pay for a "needed" war.

 

I have not said one thing about Republicans or Democrats or even GWB

 

You asked a question that you admitted was going to sound partisan but was an honest question.

 

I took you at your word.

 

I gave you an honest answer and your response seems to be to dismiss it as Republican talking points because you apparently didn't like the answer.

 

If you wanted us to assume you had an honest question without an ulterior motive behind the question, than you should give the same courtesy to the responses you get.

 

I have no clue what the Republican talking points are and just know what I believe. Take it for what you want, I don't really care.

 

The reason being is that unless we bow down and agree with you, you won't give us the courtesy of an honest discussion because it doesn't fit what you believe.

 

You won't give me the decency that you asked when posing your question.

 

When you are willing to give the same courtesy to the responses you get that you have asked for in the question, I will LOVE to talk with you.

Which billion dollar spending decrease are you talking about that was propsed between 2003 and 2008

 

And we have long agreed with you that the Republicans were wrong on their spending increases and wasteful spending.

 

They ran as a party anti-Democratic out of control spending and proved during that span, they were no different in that regards to the Democrats.

If you don't carry health ins or have a cheap policy, get a catastrophic illness, and can't pay all the bills, I really don't want to pay for you just because you chose to exercise the freedom not to protect yourself or your family. (nothing personal!!) Everyone has accepted that they have to maintain auto insurance. Even me and the only policy I've ever collected on is a health insurance policy.

 

You are falsely assuming that I'd expect or want you to pay for my health needs if I didn't have insurance and falsely assuming that I think the govt should pay for my health needs if I didn't have insurance.

You are falsely assuming that I'd expect or want you to pay for my health needs if I didn't have insurance and falsely assuming that I think the govt should pay for my health needs if I didn't have insurance.

 

That wasn't my assumption about you or anyone else. Anyone who doesn't carry health insurance and can't afford to pay their bills will cost those that carry insurance either through increased taxes (if any governmental program pays the unpaid expenses) or in increased medical expenses (if the hospital or doctor has to absorb the unpaid expenses).

I started a thread on the topic I am about to post on 5 years ago when my father received his heart transplant. The surgeons are a blessing to my family but I also am realistic enough to see what it does to the insurance world.

 

My father's pacemaker, heart issues that led to his heart transplant has cost close if not in access to a million dollars.

 

No way that he, myself and all my family have come close to that figure in our premiums.

 

While I am obviously not saying that we need to stop these type of procedures, I also realize that we have become smart enough in our medical procedures that there is no way we can afford some of them.

 

I have had 5 years of extra life with my father that I am so very thankful to the Lord in providing and so very grateful to the doctors, nurses and medical staff, but that is at a cost of $200,000 per year. And not a cost to me.

Besides, as the Democrats feared with the Bunning blockade, cutting something to pay for something will lose them votes. And they are mostly about keeping their job by spending and giving out money to voters.

 

I apologize, I did not realize that this was an answer to my question regarding tax cuts or spending cuts during the Iraq war. I should have assumed that you were referring to years 4 and following of the war when the Dems came into control of Congress.

I started a thread on the topic I am about to post on 5 years ago when my father received his heart transplant. The surgeons are a blessing to my family but I also am realistic enough to see what it does to the insurance world.

 

My father's pacemaker, heart issues that led to his heart transplant has cost close if not in access to a million dollars.

 

No way that he, myself and all my family have come close to that figure in our premiums.

 

While I am obviously not saying that we need to stop these type of procedures, I also realize that we have become smart enough in our medical procedures that there is no way we can afford some of them.

 

I have had 5 years of extra life with my father that I am so very thankful to the Lord in providing and so very grateful to the doctors, nurses and medical staff, but that is at a cost of $200,000 per year. And not a cost to me.

 

Enjoy the time with your dad and do not dwell on the cost. Insurance is spreading the risk. It's all around us. You may feel that you've received more than your fair share from health insurance, but I'd bet that you've paid more than your fair share for others.

That wasn't my assumption about you or anyone else. Anyone who doesn't carry health insurance and can't afford to pay their bills will cost those that carry insurance either through increased taxes (if any governmental program pays the unpaid expenses) or in increased medical expenses (if the hospital or doctor has to absorb the unpaid expenses).

 

I don't think a doctor or hospital should be required to provide health services that they won't be paid for any more than I expect an apartment owner to be required to provide an apartment to some one unable to pay rent, no matter how desperate and needing the prospective tenant may be for a roof over their head and shelter.

 

Lawyers provide lots of free legal services to the poor every year. Should we require every one in the States to have legal insurance to make sure the cost of those pro bono services aren't passed on to all paying clients? I don't think so.

 

The whole concept of forcing me to have health insurance to keep your health insurance costs lower disagrees with me and my beliefs. You are certainly entitled to think differently.

I don't think a doctor or hospital should be required to provide health services that they won't be paid for any more than I expect an apartment owner to be required to provide an apartment to some one unable to pay rent, no matter how desperate and needing the prospective tenant may be for a roof over their head and shelter.

 

Lawyers provide lots of free legal services to the poor every year. Should we require every one in the States to have legal insurance to make sure the cost of those pro bono services aren't passed on to all paying clients? I don't think so.

 

The whole concept of forcing me to have health insurance to keep your health insurance costs lower disagrees with me and my beliefs. You are certainly entitled to think differently.

 

So you don't have car insurance I take it, AND you don't pay taxes that help fund the public defenders office. COOL.

 

The comparison is Apples to Oranges. Millions of people can go through life NEVER needing/using a lawyer. The same is not true of medical care.

No one is turned away if they need help. It is not a perfect system, but it is better than a government in charge. Which is what will happen, no matter what they or you believe. Medicare and Mediciad may provide a service, but they are wasteful programs. I do not want that for my health care, now or in the future.

All government programs, no matter how well intentioned, wind up being wasteful, over budget, bureaucratic programs.

How'd we get from Iraq to health insurance?

So you don't have car insurance I take it, AND you don't pay taxes that help fund the public defenders office. COOL.

 

The comparison is Apples to Oranges. Millions of people can go through life NEVER needing/using a lawyer. The same is not true of medical care.

That is apples to oranges. You have to have car insurance to protect others. You are not required by law to carry car insurance to protect yourself just liability.