Forbes: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

[twa]

Some reasonable;) people disagree

[frostyj]

Ever since insurance came along companies quickly began to realize that you had to balance your risk by having a pool filled with a spectrum of people from high risk to low risk groups. This applies to car insurance because if not everyone is required to carry it then the insurance companies would fail.

How does this fall into place with renters insurance? It is still out there but, you are not required to have it. Also, with car insurance you are only required to have coverage if you do not hold the title. Even in VA you don't have to have it, just pay $500 to register an unisured vehicle. Can't speak for other states.

[brandymac27]

How does this fall into place with renters insurance? It is still out there but, you are not required to have it. Also, with car insurance you are only required to have coverage if you do not hold the title. Even in VA you don't have to have it, just pay $500 to register an unisured vehicle. Can't speak for other states.

In NC, you MUST have full coverage if paying off the loan, but you HAVE to have liability even if you own the car. If you don't, your plate gets revoked and you pay a fine, plus you have to wait so many days (I think 30) before being able to get a new plate. You actually can't even get a license plate w/ out showing proof of liability insurance even if the car is paid for.

And TWA, it doesn't matter if you're not driving on public roads here. Liability insurance is required by law for vehicles, even if you plan on driving it out in the boondocks somewhere.

[SkinsHokieFan]

To be fair, that same Congress passed the "Alien and Sedition acts" which was CLEARLY unconsitutional.

And was signed by John Adams

[twa]

How does this fall into place with renters insurance? It is still out there but, you are not required to have it. Also, with car insurance you are only required to have coverage if you do not hold the title. Even in VA you don't have to have it, just pay $500 to register an unisured vehicle. Can't speak for other states.

It doesn't....renters and car comp ins cover your interests(and any lienholders)

He is conflating personal liability with public...the fact comp ins is not required should illustrate the error of that line of thinking

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 11:03 PM ----------

And TWA, it doesn't matter if you're not driving on public roads here. Liability insurance is required by law for vehicles, even if you plan on driving it out in the boondocks somewhere.

That is only if you register it

[frostyj]

You do not have to have car insurance if you demonstrate the ability to cover the minimum liability set,nor do you have to have it if you do not operate on public roads

The act of driving in the public exposes them to harm,hence the need for liability ins

Simply existing does not...nor do you need to be licensed to do so.

Liability insurance is required by law for vehicles, even if you plan on driving it out in the boondocks somewhere.

Farm Use

[shk75]

It doesn't....renters and car comp ins cover your interests(and any lienholders)

He is conflating personal liability with public...the fact comp ins is not required should illustrate the error of that line of thinking

No you guys are talking apples and oranges here. If you are to REQUIRE a person to hold a type of insurance, than you have to balance the risk pool through methods like mandates since insurance companies are not able to use techniques such as caps, drop people, or refuse to cover them. Also car insurance and health insurance can have catastrophic costs while many of the other types of insurance do not face these same risks.

[twa]

No you guys are talking apples and oranges here. If you are to REQUIRE a person to hold a type of insurance, than you have to balance the risk pool through methods like mandates since insurance companies are not able to use techniques such as caps, drop people, or refuse to cover them. Also car insurance and health insurance can have catastrophic costs while many of the other types of insurance do not face these same risks.

They don't cancel car ins where you live?

Comparing auto and health ins does not compute...I do understand why you feel the mandate is necessary,but that does not make it constitutional

[shk75]

They don't cancel car ins where you live?

Comparing auto and health ins does not compute...I do understand why you feel the mandate is necessary,but that does not make it constitutional

Yes but if they cancel one you can get another. Your rates may be higher if you have accidents or a bad record but you will find insurance. Right now many people cannot find health insurance no matter what and if they do they are faced with premiums that are just way too high. The point is that this reform is based around the concept of health access and it is trying to increase people's access to insurance. Insurers have agreed to end practices that were inhibiting consumers but they can only do so if their insurance pool is more balanced. I believe this is not unconstitutional because as I stated earlier I see no difference in a negative mandate versus a positive mandate.

[brandymac27]

That is only if you register it

You can't drive it if it isn't registered.

[chipwhich]

Insurers have agreed to end practices that were inhibiting consumers but they can only do so if their insurance pool is more balanced.

Unconstitutional or not, you really think the new health care bill will end insurers practices????? Really??????

[shk75]

Unconstitutional or not, you really think the new health care bill will end insurers practices????? Really??????

Well it requires them to stop placing caps on benefits, not be able to drop people because they get sick, and cant deny people because of preexisting conditions. It is much better than it was before in my opinion and has even been called by many as the health insurance industry reform and not health care reform.

[brandymac27]

Farm Use

I'm talking about regular cars/trucks/SUV's/etc.

[chipwhich]

It is much better than it was before in my opinion and has even been called by many as the health insurance industry reform and not health care reform.

For me personally, I don't judge reform by words. I can't say if it is health industry reform, because I can't prove it. I don't care what the talking heads say. Proof is in the pudding.

[shk75]

For me personally, I don't judge reform by words. I can't say if it is health industry reform, because I can't prove it. I don't care what the talking heads say. Proof is in the pudding.

They say it is health insurance reform because of the regulations that were passed, those are a fact not an opinion. Now whether you want to continue to be skeptical about health insurance companies remains up for debate but significant changes have been made.

[chipwhich]

They say it is health insurance reform because of the regulations that were passed, those are a fact not an opinion. Now whether you want to continue to be skeptical about health insurance companies remains up for debate but significant changes have been made.

OK, so show me.

[shk75]

OK, so show me.

I don't understand your point. Do you want me to show you that you can no longer deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, that you cannot place a cap on benefits, and that you cannot drop people?

[chipwhich]

I don't understand your point. Do you want me to show you that you can no longer deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, that you cannot place a cap on benefits, and that you cannot drop people?

No show me significant changes have been made.

It all sounds so promising.

Proof is in the pudding.

You think health care lawyers bowed down to our government plan and just take it?

You so naive to think this fixes things?

Money fills pockets. I don't think things are as rosy as you think. But it sounds good right????

[shk75]

No show me significant changes have been made.

It all sounds so promising.

Proof is in the pudding.

You think health care lawyers bowed down to our government plan and just take it?

You so naive to think this fixes things?

Money fills pockets. I don't think things are as rosy as you think. But it sounds good right????

Trust me I would be the last to tout these reforms as the fixes that were needed for our system. However, I think some of the changes are a step in the right direction and will hopefully be expanded upon in the future.

[chipwhich]

Trust me I would be the last to tout these reforms as the fixes that were needed for our system. However, I think some of the changes are a step in the right direction and will hopefully be expanded upon in the future.

Hence my point, before championing them as steps in the right direction, lets make sure they are stepping that way in the first place.

I don't know if they are, and neither do you. It's all lawyers speak and talking heads speak. And past performance isn't promising.

[Mooka]

The author is incorrect. The 1798 relief act did not require seaman to purchase insurance. It taxed ship owners for each seaman aboard. The tax to be used for the building of hospitals. It did authorize the ship owners to take the tax out of the seaman's pay, but the burden was placed solely on the ship and not on the seaman.

Yea, kind of a sloppy article. The guy linked it:

\

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

[aREDSKIN]

A bad example because one could simply not become a seaman and avoid this tax.. This was a tax on a specific industry with specific risks involved. The Obama ream is a tax of simply being.

[Madison Redskin]

A bad example because one could simply not become a seaman and avoid this tax.. This was a tax on a specific industry with specific risks involved. The Obama ream is a tax of simply being.

If a guy had been working as a seaman for 15 years, he wouldn't have much choice but to continue working as a seaman.

Also, Obamacare won't tax people for "simply being;" it will tax them for remaining in the country. You can always move.

[Hubbs]

I think that's the winning strategy. Make a minimum level of care a taxpayer-funded universal "right". Let private insurers compete to offer plans that pick up where the government coverage lets off.

Although I think it might have to cover more than basic care. For example, I think it should cover screenings for those medical conditions where it's cheap to fix them if you catch them early, but if you don't, then it'll cost you millions before it kills you anyway.

As a male who recently turned 50, I think a colonoscopy fits that description, for example.

Help cut down on big-ticket items that we could have fixed, cheap, if the patient had been screened.

The real sticking point is where to draw the line. No matter where it is, there will be a whole bunch of people who are just barely on the wrong side of it who can't afford more coverage and who will die from terrible diseases. If you move the line to provide care for them as well, you just end up saying no to the next "layer" of just-barely-uncovered people with equally tragic stories. It's easy to say that "basic care" or a "minimal level" of insurance coverage should be a "right," and it's easy to say the focus should be on preventative care. It's hard to say what those terms actually mean.

(That's not to say that I think it's a fundamentally bad idea. I just think implementing it would be extraordinarily difficult.)

[Larry]

A bad example because one could simply not become a seaman and avoid this tax.. This was a tax on a specific industry with specific risks involved. The Obama ream is a tax of simply being.

So, your position is that the Constitution forbids Congress from passing laws that apply to everybody?