OK...I've bit my tongue long enough

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by SayOw

That argument is already too late and has already been ignored...

ie: auto insurance

Not the same, but good try.

The mandate on auto insurance exists because driving is a choice. Do not want to pay auto insurance? Do not drive a car. Further delving into the matter, auto insurance is typically for at-fault accidents. If you were to cause somebody [or their vehicle] harm when driving, you should have to pay for their damages. Having auto insurance helps you afford to pay it, so that the cost does not hit you unexpectedly.

Where do I have the choice to opt-out of this Federal mandate?

Nick

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Not the same, but good try.

The mandate on auto insurance exists because driving is a choice. Do not want to pay auto insurance? Do not drive a car.

Good point... because most people choose NOT to drive so they aren't forced to do anything...[/sarcasm]

And as far as the at fault points...could be applied to most every day activity then... a person should have some sort of insurance in case they cause an accident while walking down the street or at a place of business, etc... really, your rationale for accepting the choice of auto insurance could be applied to the mandate for insuring everyone for everything because anything (in today's society) could be construed as your fault ... and if you don't have insurance, who is going to help subsidize that?

[StockTrader]

Well, I was expecting a good counter-point, but instead I got a bunch of garbage.

Do we really need auto insurance? No. But what people found was that you could pay into a system using small amounts of money over a long period of time, and then 'use' that money as coverage if you ever needed it. The catch being that if I need money one month into my coverage, I have access to it. Insurance only exists for convenience; end of discussion.

As for walking down the street and causing somebody harm, enter the courts. If you are walking down the street with a lion on a chain, and that lion causes damages to a person or business, then someone can take them to claims court, and settle their losses in that way. I am sure some company somewhere would love to sell you 'walking insurance.'

Nick

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Do we really need auto insurance? No.

Yet, if you want to drive the government makes you have it...essentially my point...

End of discussion...

[StockTrader]

Well, not exactly. It was a hypothetical statement. The government could just say, "No insurance, but all bills will be sent to your house and become your responsibility."

Just restating a previous point, but one can opt not to drive. If they do so, then they are not forced to pay for the insurance.

If I do not want to pay for HI [which, personally, I always will], then I will be fined. An article that I just came across today said that the IRS might withhold federal returns, in order to collect. Where is the choice in that? Unless you already answered that question, and I just overlooked it ...

Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds.

Nick

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

The government could just say, "No insurance, but all bills will be sent to your house and become your responsibility."

Exactly, and I think that's what some people would prefer... instead they make it the law of the land that mandates you have to have insurance.

And your whole don't drive and don't pay is totally unrealistic as you want to paint my previous analogies... the automobile is a primary component of the majority of households in America today... to simply dismiss the fact that it is a government mandate that requires you to have auto insurance by simply not driving is totally unrealistic... everyone knows the method to not paying sales tax...don't buy anything...is that going to happen? No.

To me, it seems like you are trying to justify an unreasonable government insurance mandate, yet dismissing the next...whereas I feel any and all government mandates of this kind are equally an infringement upon a person's liberties and freedom of choice.

[StockTrader]

Do you not have legs? No legs, then a wheelchair? No wheelchair, can you find one? What about a bicycle? If you do not have a bicycle, what about a friend? Do not want to call a friend, what about a taxi?

I am not saying the mandate is good. I am all for trying out new systems. I may even purpose doing away with auto insurance for the next election [not this one; I have to garner interest in the idea, first]. I am merely showing you that with one, I have a choice -- as unreasonable as you think it may be -- and with the other I have literally no choice.

Nick