Ty Webb;681353 wrote:For those of you who the the HCR Bill and dont have insurance,what happens if you get cancer??
Then you have to face the consequences of your actions. It's called being responsible and independent.
What if I somehow find some brilliant business and make millions, and I'm then able to pay in the case that I get cancer, why should I still be obligated to buy?
Or, what if I simply have reserved myself to living as I wish, and if I get cancer, I'm okay with just dying? Shouldn't I be allowed to?
Ty Webb;681353 wrote:You'll most likely go straight to an insurance company to get a policy...and they will tell you Sorry but you have a pre-exsisting condition and can't have coverage.
The result of my own actions. I bear the consequences. That's called "personal responsibility." Few Americans know anything about it, so keep it on the down low.
Ty Webb;681353 wrote:Wether any of you want to admit it or not....the HCR bill is a great thing and will continue to great things for many years to come
The HCR Bill is an example of the government telling the population that regardless of what they want to do with
their own lives, the government knows best.
That is the antithesis of freedom.
dwccrew;681361 wrote:Wouldn't that be my own fault for not having insurance?
If you could afford it, yes. If you could not (been there), you search like hell for a job that offers it.
dwccrew;681361 wrote:It is a choice (risk) I would have made. I know the consequences of not having insurance (for the record, I do have health insurance), so why am I being FORCED to obtain it or face penalty. Wake up kid! Just the government forcing its will on the citizens.
Yep.
Think of it like this: The next time someone wants you to make a life choice you don't want to make, and you're tempted to think, "Uh, you don't know me, and this is MY life, not yours," remember this conversation, because the HCR Bill is just that: Someone who isn't you, doesn't know you, and hasn't even met you deciding they know more about how you should live your life than you do.
Ty Webb;681365 wrote:How in the hell is that taking away liberty when it it HELPING people??
Liberty is synonymous with independence. That's the notion that you are free to make your own choices. Seriously, look up "liberty" in the Dictionary. You won't find anything remotely close to "someone helping you." In fact, it's almost the opposite.
Ty Webb;681365 wrote:In my mind,taking away liberty is taking away your right to choose to where to live,If you want to have children and how many,to choose where you want to work.
And what bank you use, and what store at which you shop, what clothes you wear, and what you spend your money on ... like their brand of health insurance.
dwccrew;681375 wrote:Sure it is, you are forcing someone to purchase a product or service to prevent something catastrophic. How is it different? Please explain.....
It's not.
Ty Webb;681379 wrote:Would you rather pay say $90 a month or go hundreds of thousands(or perhaps millions) of dollars in debt?
Me, personally? $370 a month (what it's costing me) is more preferable.
For what it's worth, not having health insurance doesn't ensure that you'll be going hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. What if you think you'll never have an issue like that, and you end up being right? No peace of mind was covered (since you already thought you'd be fine), and the money was all taken from you by force against your will.
bonelizzard;681380 wrote:Your kid's future of quality public education could change drastically if SB5 passes.
I sure hope SOMEthing changes. Our education system should be second to none, given how much money we put into it. Yet our students are the laughing stock of the globe in that sense.
Ty Webb;681399 wrote:I do enjoy how NO ONE would answer my question.....
If you're not intelligent enough to but health insurance on your own,you should be forced to buy it
And I think that if someone is not intelligent enough to buy home/renter's insurance, tornado insurance, earthquake insurance, hurricane insurance, pet insurance (if they have pets), flood insurance, fire insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, any other kind of insurance I may have forgotten, then they should be forced to, right? Do you have all those? You should. If you don't, you will be forced to have them and pay for every single one every month on the off chance you need them. You have no say in the matter. You WILL have them, like it or not.
Basically, you're not smart enough to realize you need every single one of them, but we're smarter than you, so we're going to live your life for you. Aren't you glad you don't have to make any decisions in life? Glad you have no say in what you do and don't buy? Glad you don't have any say in how you are protected?
What happens when protecting you ventures into the territory of firearms? What if someone comes into your house with a gun? What will you do then? You will be forced to purchase a government-issued $1,200 gun, as well as $150 worth of ammo. Don't like guns? Tough. You obviously aren't smart enough to realize you need one to protect your home, so we'll make that decision for you and make you buy one.
CenterBHSFan;681419 wrote:Not sure if it's your intention or not but you're coming off like government should legislate our intelligence level according to its own arbitrary special interest.
I actually think that's what he believes. I honestly didn't think I'd run into pure, unadulterated socialism like that. I try not to throw around the term "socialism" like a lot of the GOPers do around here (it gets widely abused), but someone who believes that the government should control what you buy and how you protect yourself ... what else would you call that?
