Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere near Canada
    Posts
    35,894

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting S.T. Ranger
    View Post
    Again, I have lost the freedom I once had not to get insurance if I chose not to. I did have insurance until the law made it unaffordable for me.




    I am wondering if it might be approached once the taxes are levied. I know that sounds simplistic, but at that point we will see an actual exchange of monies whereas now no monies have changed hands.

    To be realistic, I think it is a matter of "You can't fight City Hall," lol, but, I still identify it as the Government regulating what should be private enterprise, which should bother everyone.




    This is what is disturbing about the current trend of governmental power being expanded into the public arena: just like law was promoted with what is beginning to look like bald-faced lies, such as keeping the insurance we had and doctors we had, why would we be foolish enough to think that the terms of taxation are going to stay the same?

    I mean...really?

    Is that how taxation usually works?

    And that it is given in terms of percentage of income is a big deal.

    The bottom line is that for some...they are going to have to decide between the lesser of two evils. buy the bloated insurance policies, or pay anyway.




    You're right...you are simplifying the matter, right out of reasonable relevance.

    I asked earlier for an example of a parallel, and gave car insurance as an example. That is not a parallel. Nor is having a license. The government does not require anyone to have a license, or a relevant issue...insurance on cars they are not forced to own.

    It is not a coincidence that governmental regulation came with a dramatic increase of cost (in my own personal case almost double) as well as the consequences of the deceitful and dishonest way it was promoted by which it was made law.

    I simply do not understand how this was something the past election held as a primary issue when a more pressing issue was the economy itself.




    Thanks for that, llworking, it puts things in perspective.




    And that is precisely the point.

    It was stated in a manner of "The Government is not forcing you to get insurance," but the truth is that if an ultimatum is given which does not allow for an actual independent choice made by the one given the ultimatum, then it is in fact a matter of forcing something on the People which was not before the case, much less the law.

    Thanks for pointing that out.




    Again, not a good parallel, nor can we compare it to something like standard insurances we acquire for things we, not the Government, decide to buy, like houses or cars or boats.

    We were already "paying for it" in regards to the healthcare that those who do not have insurance already had available to them. No hospital in the country could have refused to treat someone who requested help, and at that point they could apply for government assistance, which at this point, it is really a matter of making the options so that one that cannot afford the increased costs of healthcare...they are forced to apply for governmental assistance.



    Advanced economic nations?

    Would you mind expanding on that?

    They can still do that with the funds they are extorting from citizens who do not want to comply with this law.

    It's like the taxes are minimal.

    How about this for a parallel for you guys to think about: governmental regulations of HVAC standards, most of which have behind them an effort to save the environment, have actually put heating and cooling beyond the reach of those with less money. They are then forced to hire unlicensed, unqualified, and often unethical "contractors" to repair or replace heating systems which can oftentimes mean life or death literally for that person. If they can afford to do anything at all, that is.

    The parallel is to the increase of cost, because no-one is forced to have heating or cooling (except for landlords, as I understand it, who have to maintain 65 degrees for the tenant). But it is the regulation which causes the increase in cost. Beginning in January of 2015, 14 SEER will be the minimum.

    Lot of tax money being made there, but we wouldn't think the dollar has anything to do with this, would we?




    Depends on what you would define "reasonable" as. And I question these polls. Have you ever been part of one? If so, you would be the first person I have ever spoken to that has. And as far as polls go, they usually are supportive of whatever cause one supports, and an unreliable method of obtaining the sentiment of the People. I would venture a guess that we could find polls which show a margin of disfavor, unless we qualify the poll or limit it to a particular aspect of an issue. I myself would support this, but that would not yield a favorable view towards governmental extortion.



    Insurance companies going under? If that is a valid possibility, I would suggest that perhaps that might not be such a bad thing. As Americans it is just my belief we would have overcome such an event. Haven't we always? Did America collapse at any point in our history due to companies going under?




    Well, you ask for an alternative, and I have one for you: let's get some people in there who have a little common sense when it comes to stewardship of the funds that are already available.

    Sounds pretty simplistic, I know, but the fact is that waste and lawsuits are two areas which have seriously impacted healthcare. The abuse of the system by those who have no intention of paying their own way could be curtailed quite extensively, I believe.

    Here's another aspect: the psych racket. Mental health is a big business these days, and doesn't matter who you are, there is a diagnosis and a medication for you, just waiting.




    The "poor" were already covered, we generally call it welfare. No discrimination of age, sex, or race, all you need is to sound legitimate. And not even that sometimes.

    There are legitimate cases and I am personally glad that we have programs for those that are in desperate straits, really. but anyone that doesn't think that the system is being a willing victim of fraud is simply not paying attention.

    We could likely fund free health insurance simply by imposing drug testing for welfare recipients.



    Could you expand on that?




    Not sure I do believe a goal of insuring everyone is a worthy cause. In fact, by making governmental assistance ridiculously easy I think we do more harm than good. I agree, those that legitimately need help...help. But those that use the system so they do not have to work...those are the ones that should be penalized.

    This extends to employment issues as well. Had an employee file for unemployment when he was still working with me. Told them that, they didn't care. Despite the fact that he said he had been fired. Sent the same paperwork four times, all four times making it cvery clear he didn't even meet the requirements their own agency require, and the result? He got the benefits.

    So sue me for firing him. lol




    And why is that? Because everyone wasn't doing their fare share?

    That is certainly true, but the wrong people are the ones charged with this. I was paying for a policy out of my own pocket, and they want me to now pay for me and someone else?

    Forget it.



    I agree. It is unfortunate that this is the change we got. Instead of laying responsibility on those that truly impacted healthcare negatively, those that were contributing positively are the ones affected.

    The true change that was needed was better oversight of the use of the funds that were already available.

    Another example would be home healthcare. My mother has medicare and after breaking a leg received a home health nurse five hours a day five days a week and well past the time when she even needed it. Her nurse told me about a veteran who has no family and who is not mobile and cannot do for himself who only "qualified" for two days a week.

    What kind of sense does that make?



    That is not what happened? I guess I can understand someone viewing it that way.




    Sorry, but that doesn't mean a lot as far as I am concerned, any more than Obama deciding to issue pardons to illegal immigrants.




    Here's a clue: get rid of the nitwits running things now. Enforce a little common sense back into governmental agencies and demand that some of the nonsense going on now...stop. Stop funding those that use the system. Demand stricter laws governing suits. Stop increasing costs of insurance doctors have to pay because of lawsuits.

    No sense in talking about a new "system" until some common sense is applied. This new system is going to fare no better as long as we have the same nitwit policies and practices which played a far greater role in the decline and strength of healthcare in America.




    Hope I haven't disappointed you.






    If the percentage of Americans that object to this law has no impact on laws like this being enacted, do you seriously think that your advice here means something?

    I agree solutions are going to make some people unhappy, but consider that from my perspective: I was perfectly happy paying for a health insurance policy that I waited about 7 years to afford. If things were ran in simply a common sense manner then yes, people will be unhappy that they are no longer allowed to bilk the system and impose a burden on those who do pay taxes as well as pay out of their own pocket for something that is not a constitutional right, but a privilege earned. No-one is owed anything in this country that can be bought. That means food, clothing, shelter...much less health insurance. You have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, but nowhere is it written you can do it on someone else's dime. We stand apart as the first country I know of built on common sense principles such as that. Historically, the rule of law was the stronger guy dines, while the weaker dies. In this country we do not survive through injury to others, but a strengthening of self. No-one stopping us from achieving what we want to achieve, except ourselves.

    Me, I don't need insurance, because I have always subscribed to the Abrahamic Plan, and that has been sufficient. But that doesn't mean that as an American citizen...I can't protest a government that as far as I am concerned, has become lawless, and the precedent only forebodes an increase to that trend, and an end to what has made America the greatest nation this earth has ever seen.
    Well of course I had to oversimplify it. It was the only way to climb down and meet you at your own level.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    OH10
    Posts
    17,019

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    According to our recent Presidents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are only outdated pieces of paper. We signed away our right to freedom with the Patriot Act.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting Disagreeable
    View Post
    According to our recent Presidents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are only outdated pieces of paper. We signed away our right to freedom with the Patriot Act.
    I didn't sign it.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,429

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting Disagreeable
    View Post
    According to our recent Presidents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are only outdated pieces of paper. We signed away our right to freedom with the Patriot Act.
    The Declaration of Independence is not law and not the source of any enforceable rights in this country. The U.S. Constitution does, of course, guarantee certain rights to the public, though most Americans have a poor understanding of what those rights are.

    In any event, it is up the citizens of the country to challenge the government when it goes too far. Unfortunately, as much as a lot of Americans like to grouse about how bad government is, not all that many are really interested in doing anything about it. After all, in most elections it’s considered great turn out if you can get even half the registered voters to show up, and there are lots of citizens who are not even registered to vote at all. In many elections, the majority of adult citizens simply don't bother to vote so we get government by the minority who do vote. Those Americans who are so disinterested in their government and their rights that they won't even bother to take the little time it takes to vote, much less take any more active role to pursue changes they want, deserve the government they get.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Governmental Strongarming

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The Declaration of Independence is not law and not the source of any enforceable rights in this country. The U.S. Constitution does, of course, guarantee certain rights to the public, though most Americans have a poor understanding of what those rights are.

    In any event, it is up the citizens of the country to challenge the government when it goes too far. Unfortunately, as much as a lot of Americans like to grouse about how bad government is, not all that many are really interested in doing anything about it. After all, in most elections it’s considered great turn out if you can get even half the registered voters to show up, and there are lots of citizens who are not even registered to vote at all. In many elections, the majority of adult citizens simply don't bother to vote so we get government by the minority who do vote. Those Americans who are so disinterested in their government and their rights that they won't even bother to take the little time it takes to vote, much less take any more active role to pursue changes they want, deserve the government they get.
    It's called apathy and is the result of decades upon decades of actually voting but realizing it doesn't make a lick of difference. Whomever gets voted in is no better than the one voted out. The machine is so big it is too powerful to overcome by the lowly citizens. We are on a runaway path to onerous laws that criminalize the most mundane of activities as well as exaggerate minimal crimes to ridiculous levels .


    When you see the government sue money (Yes, state v. $$$ (using actual state name and amount) and the owner of the money loses because he cannot prove it was legitimate rather than the government having to prove it was illegal gains, there is a problem.

    When you see an average citizen arrested merely for raising his voice when angered with no sign of threatening activity, there is a problem.

    When you see a 76 year old man rousted by a cop, that was actually in the wrong on top of everything else, there is a problem.

    When you see cops arresting people (still) for video taping in a public venue, especially given the amount of press it has received over the last several years, there is a problem

    and btw, Illinois is currently working on a law that again criminalizes recording the police while in the activities of their duties.


    Many complain about the Patriot Act (which the People had no control over), the ACA, which while I realize something had to be done, I really don't believe this fixes the problems, and many other issues, where the People have no real input and no actual control over whether they are subjected to it or not; there is a problem.

    voting doesn't make a difference (and this is from a guy that votes at every major election and most minor elections for the last ~35 years). It's not just that what I vote for doesn't pass or the guy I voted for wasn't elected; it's that in the end, nothing changes but the name on the door of the pres, senator, representative, whatever; but what the person on the other side of the door is saying doesn't really change.

    I do not recall ever voting for who I saw as "the guy". I voted for the guy running against the guy I did not want in office. The lesser of two evils. It's depressing that in over 30 years, I have yet to see somebody I really wanted to win run. Every time, there is a guy that I really don't want to win and a guy that seems less destructive to our country. I'm usually correct in my appraisal of the first guy and wrong on the second.

    I'm tired of watching our rights eroded into nothingness. Everything is deemed "reasonable" so it is Constitutional. Searches are allowed with the slimmest of reasoning. When challenged, it isn't deemed wrong because it is an intrusion, but that the intrusion is "minimal" and as such, reasonable. Have you ever been searched? Would anything ever make that intrusion "minimal? Ever had a cop threaten to arrest you for nothing other than not kissing his ass and bowing to his authority? Of course there will be some other reason on the books but in the end, it was the result of nothing more than a power trip by the cop.


    and speaking of the Patriot Act;

    one word; terrorism


    by using that one word, the government is effectively allowed to do just about anything it wants to. They don't even need to justify the use of the word terrorism but even worse; what is terrorism actually? It is applied to anything today. The news does it because it sells. The government does it because it allows free reign over the people but really; just what is the definition that allows the government to walk on the Constitution while they imprison you. In the loosest of terms, anything that incites fear into others is terrorism. That is essentially every crime of violence out there. Is that what the new laws made to address "terrorism" were intended to be applied to? I suspect they actually are even though they are saying; oh no. We are talking about international terrorism or terrorism from foreign nationals or some other ambiguous classification but in the end, it is being applied to the same old crimes we have had in this country for many many years.



    This is no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is a government that has it's own life and it demands the lowly citizen comply or be punished.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Can You Sue the Government for Requiring Health Insurance

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    maybe it would have been better of you hadn't.

    You do have rights but it doesn't take a citizen to have these rights. They are inalienable, not because you are a citizen but because you are a human. Maybe you should read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    your a funny little man. Tell me sir, in florida since I'm a citizen do I have a right to bear arms outside without a ccw which i need permission from my servant to have?

    well, a pre-teen children is not required to do the first 2 (presuming they have the income typical to a child). Beyond that, not all adults pay taxes and not all of them serve on a jury. The requirement to pay taxes is based on income and possessions. The requirement to serve on a jury is a matter of law.

    not sure where you buy your products, gas,etc,etc. but every citizen in America pays some kind of tax friend

    um, no.

    awesome, since your so hip on founding documents, perhaps you could tell us what kind of contract the 1780 Massachusetts constitution talks about. After that perhaps you can dazzle us with how societies are formed without social contracts


    I will gladly except the answers you provide. What answers I will accept is up to me.
    Yeah my mobile uses auto correct, but I guess it is better to point out a spelling mistake then show ignorance about the issues.

    Good job!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Can You Sue the Government for Requiring Health Insurance

    Quote Quoting Yesme
    View Post
    Yeah my mobile uses auto correct, but I guess it is better to point out a spelling mistake then show ignorance about the issues.

    Good job!

    then? Than maybe? or did you mean then? Given your ramblings I'm just not sure. Were you saying it's better to do one or the other or that it's better to do one after the other?

    your a funny little man. Tell me sir, in florida since I'm a citizen do I have a right to bear arms outside without a ccw which i need permission from my servant to have?
    you're

    and you have a servant? wow. how much does that cost you annually? Is he like a concierge or does he do specific tasks?

    but why would you need permission from your servant? I mean, after all, isn't the point of having a servant being able to tell them what you want them to do for you? I guess you're one of those progressive folks that allow the servants to eat at your table rather than making them eat in the kitchen. Shame on you. You will spoil the servant and then he will want more and more. Next thing you know there is going to be a national movement where all servants will want to eat at the massa's table.


    not sure where you buy your products, gas,etc,etc. but every citizen in America pays some kind of tax friend
    you are not obligated to buy anything that is taxed. Grow your own food. Ride a bike or a horse.

    You said it is a duty to pay taxes; it's not. It is a choice. If you don't want to pay taxes, simply don't do things where there is a tax associated with it.


    awesome, since your so hip on founding documents, perhaps you could tell us what kind of contract the 1780 Massachusetts constitution talks about. After that perhaps you can dazzle us with how societies are formed without social contracts
    You're one of them sovereign citizens, aren't you?

    but what do I care about Massachusetts?

    seriously dude, I'll not waste my time, especially since you really don't want to hear what I have to say anyway.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Can You Sue the Government for Requiring Health Insurance

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    then? Than maybe? or did you mean then? Given your ramblings I'm just not sure. Were you saying it's better to do one or the other or that it's better to do one after the other?

    you're

    yes please avoid the issues and point out the spelling, the last gasp of a dying belief.

    and you have a servant? wow. how much does that cost you annually? Is he like a concierge or does he do specific tasks?

    but why would you need permission from your servant? I mean, after all, isn't the point of having a servant being able to tell them what you want them to do for you? I guess you're one of those progressive folks that allow the servants to eat at your table rather than making them eat in the kitchen. Shame on you. You will spoil the servant and then he will want more and more. Next thing you know there is going to be a national movement where all servants will want to eat at the massa's table.

    the state is our servant, oh I get it now, that is why they are called public SERVANTS.

    you are not obligated to buy anything that is taxed. Grow your own food. Ride a bike or a horse.
    ah, grow your own food on your own... Ah shit property taxes, you were saying. Oh yeah you were saying, grow your own food, make your own cloth to make your own clothes. Your not that bright it seems
    You said it is a duty to pay taxes; it's not. It is a choice. If you don't want to pay taxes, simply don't do things where there is a tax associated with it.


    You're one of them sovereign citizens, aren't you?
    a citizen can never be a sovereign. A citizen is subject to the authority of a sovereign. Again the bulb is pretty dim it seems
    but what do I care about Massachusetts?

    seriously dude, I'll not waste my time, especially since you really don't want to hear what I have to say anyway.
    I would love for you to tell me how societies are formed if not by social contract? What mechanism binds people together in civil society if not the social contract?

    I'm really interested for your nuggets of knowledge on this topic professor.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Can You Sue the Government for Requiring Health Insurance

    Yesme;854246]I would love for you to tell me how societies are formed if not by social contract? What mechanism binds people together in civil society if not the social contract?
    love, nothing but love


    ah, grow your own food on your own... Ah shit property taxes, you were saying. Oh yeah you were saying, grow your own food, make your own cloth to make your own clothes. Your not that bright it seems
    rent your home; live in the woods,

    grow hemp and make cloth out of that. Hula skirts made from grass. You sound kind of like the skirt kind of guy., Maybe the grass skirt will trip your fancy.


    You're (spelled correctly so take note) just trying to find a way to be lazy, aren't you? Get off your ass and do things that allow you to avoid paying taxes, if that is what you choose.




    it is a choice, not a duty or obligation.

    You're not bright at all given you keep misusing the word; your when you mean you're.

    a citizen can never be a sovereign. A citizen is subject to the authority of a sovereign. Again the bulb is pretty dim it seems
    talk about dim bulbs; search for sovereign citizens on the internet. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you


    t
    he state is our servant, oh I get it now, that is why they are called public SERVANTS.
    actually, a public servant is an employee of the state, not the state itself. They are called that because they perform tasks that serve the residents of their jurisdiction.

    You need permission from the state, not the public servants.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere near Canada
    Posts
    35,894

    Default Re: Can You Sue the Government for Requiring Health Insurance

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    love, nothing but love

    I believe glue is also an effective method of binding...

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Health Insurance: Health Care Expenses With Primary and Secondary Health Insurance
    By screa34 in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 11:31 AM
  2. Modification of Support: Judge Orders Government Subsidized Insurance for Multimillionaire's Child
    By yadontsay in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-25-2012, 10:40 AM
  3. Health Insurance: Requiring Spouse to Use Employer's Insurance
    By jbayer in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 11:59 AM
  4. Health Insurance: Can a Health Insurance Require You to Have Comp Insurance
    By fustrated 4444 in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-25-2011, 08:28 AM
  5. Job Benefits: Health Insurance
    By bellabimba in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-29-2006, 01:32 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources