On August 3rd vote NO on proposition C

[Mike in South City]

google it and let me know how you're voting.

[itsjustme]

google it and let me know how you're voting.

Vote YES!!!!!!

[cards_252]

Fuck that.

[Automotive Daddy]

The Missouri Health Care Freedom Amendment, Proposition C will appear on the August 3, 2010 statewide ballot in Missouri as an legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The proposed measure aims to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance.[1][2][3]
Backers of such amendments are opposed to President Barack Obama’s new health care plans. The measure does not advocate a particular plan but measure advocates say the measure will "protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.[4]

I vote yes....fuck the government and their trying to run my life.

[Mike in South City]

The Missouri Health Care Freedom Amendment, Proposition C will appear on the August 3, 2010 statewide ballot in Missouri as an legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The proposed measure aims to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and bans punishment for those without health insurance.[1][2][3]
Backers of such amendments are opposed to President Barack Obama’s new health care plans. The measure does not advocate a particular plan but measure advocates say the measure will "protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.[4]

I vote yes....fuck the government and their trying to run my life.
atta boy! fuck requiring anyone to have health insurance. if they fall off a ladder, just let them get free health care at the local ER. It's the American way!!!!!

[cards_252]

I've never voted for anything in my entire life.

Not even one of them GND contests that LLG and Cheesy get al excited about.

[Automotive Daddy]

The vast majority of people in this country that want health insurance have it, end of story.

[itsjustme]

The vast majority of people in this country that want health insurance have it, end of story.

Over 1 trillion in debt.

Thanks for change Obama.

[cards_252]

I blame all the bi-partismships who refuse to reach across the ailse.

[Mike in South City]

The vast majority of people in this country that want health insurance have it, end of story.
it's not about who "wants" it. It's about the people who don't have it, but get it for "free" when they need it.....just for fun, define "vast majority"....nevermind, it's obvious you are clueless.

[Automotive Daddy]

Over 1 trillion in debt.

Thanks for change Obama.

Yea....the change is coming, its coming for my kids, they will be fucked so hard they won't know what the fuck happened, and they will look to us and say "thank a fucking lot, you morons"

[Mike in South City]

Over 1 trillion in debt.

Thanks for change Obama.
What we had a surplus? that's right, we did...until Dubya took office. Seems so long ago.

[Mike in South City]

Yea....the change is coming, its coming for my kids, they will be fucked so hard they won't know what the fuck happened, and they will look to us and say "thank a fucking lot, you morons"
your kids were fucked when they got your DNA

[Automotive Daddy]

Define why I and the millions of other tax paying citizens of this country should fund horse shit like this, you my friend, don't have a clue.

[Automotive Daddy]

your kids were fucked when they got your DNA

Go save a whale.

[Mike in South City]

Define why I and the millions of other tax paying citizens of this country should fund horse shit like this, you my friend, don't have a clue.
still waiting on your "vast majority" number.

[Automotive Daddy]

still waiting on your "vast majority" number.

85% shit for brains.

[Mike in South City]

Go save a whale.
shit!!! I'm dealing with a real genius here.

[Mike in South City]

The vast majority of people in this country that want health insurance have it, end of story.

just for fun, define "vast majority"

85% shit for brains.
I rest my case

[Automotive Daddy]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fuijaqwlbkekvupdi99h9w.gif

I'd say you are dealing with a genius here.

[Automotive Daddy]

I rest my case

ok....then you define "vast majority" if 85% isn't then what the hell is?

[Mike in South City]

ok....then you define "vast majority" if 85% isn't then what the hell is?
for fun, let's assume your numbers are accurate. Do you think these 85% that are insured all have shitty, average, or good health insurance policies? Or are they all "equally" insured and have no worries when it comes time to use that insurance?
How about those idiotic 50 million that ain't got no insurance...actually, it sounds better if we say 15%.

[Automotive Daddy]

for fun, let's assume your numbers are accurate. Do you think these 85% that are insured all have shitty, average, or good health insurance policies? Or are they all "equally" insured and have no worries when it comes time to use that insurance?
How about those idiotic 50 million that ain't got no insurance...actually, it sounds better if we say 15%.

You asked, I gave you an accurate number.....now you want to twist what I said. I said, "the vast majority of people in this country that want it, have it" and they do.

Since when does what I have need to equal what you and everybody else have?
Sounds like wealth distribution to me again. For fun, how about the tax payers go out and buy the 30 percent that don't own a car like you and I an automobile so that when they get sick, and need to go use that free (i mean tax payer funded) insurance, they can get to the hospital. Or better yet, why don't we the tax payers buy the families that don't have 2 cars another one, because we sure wouldn't want them not to have two like their neighbor.

Listen, you and I can go round and round all night, but the simple fact is I vote yes on Prop C. You asked, I answered, if you don't want to hear opinions
then don't ask. I am simply against ANY government telling me how to spend MY tax dollars. I don't give a shit if it's a Democrat or a Republican, if you ask me they are all a bunch of fucking liars and crooks.

[Automotive Daddy]

atta boy! fuck requiring anyone to have health insurance. if they fall off a ladder, just let them get free health care at the local ER. It's the American way!!!!!

Why not just spend some more tax payers money, and hire all of them some body that does odd jobs, so that they don't fall off the ladder, then we kill 2 birds with one stone. We have also just created 50 million new jobs!!! There that sounds good, the American people are so stupid, they will have to buy this scenario, hey, what's not to like, we saved the 15% that don't have health insurance a big expensive trip to the ER, and we created new jobs. Now I am sure we will have to pay the handy man $50,000 plus, we would not want him to feel "unequal"

[stewy]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fuijaqwlbkekvupdi99h9w.gif

I'd say you are dealing with a genius here.

not that it is relevant to either argument, but I was not polled, therefore, clearly, it is not representative of the ENTIRE population over 18, it is just a "slice" or sample of the public... and henceforth.

[Automotive Daddy]

it's not about who "wants" it. It's about the people who don't have it, but get it for "free" when they need it.....just for fun, define "vast majority"....nevermind, it's obvious you are clueless.

Define clueless?

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fuijaqwlbkekvupdi99h9w.gif

[Automotive Daddy]

not that it is relevant to either argument, but I was not polled, therefore, clearly, it is not representative of the ENTIRE population over 18, it is just a "slice" or sample of the public... and henceforth.

Do you have health insurance?
I do, and I wasn't polled either.....so I am assuming 85% might be a bit light.

[fatkid]

Over 1 trillion in debt.

Thanks for change Obama.

yep that 1 trillion in debt has been all accrued in the last 2 years, definitely none of that was created in the previous 8.

[st. louisville cards]

I'm not going to argue MISC because he did a good enough job of making himself look like a fool.

not that it is relevant to either argument, but I was not polled, therefore, clearly, it is not representative of the ENTIRE population over 18, it is just a "slice" or sample of the public... and henceforth.

I assume the 1st part of your post is a joke.
But as far as the over 18 thing, if it included people under 18 the rate would go up. Those under 18 are the most insured group (of families who actually can't afford health insurance, many of them make sacrifices to ensure that their kids are insured). Also the 18-24 year old age group is the least insured age group (also the most affordable age group)

yep that 1 trillion in debt has been all accrued in the last 2 years, definitely none of that was created in the previous 8.
I love how if you don't like Obama, the immediate response is you must love Bush. Bush's approval rating was 30% when he left office, Unless Obama's approval rating is 70%, there a lots of people who don't think either are doing a good job and who think both of them spend/spent recklessly.

[TyWebb]

I love how if you don't like Obama, the immediate response is you must love Bush. Bush's approval rating was 30% when he left office, Unless Obama's approval rating is 70%, there a lots of people who don't think either are doing a good job and who think both of them spend/spent recklessly.

If you say things as inane as

Over 1 trillion in debt.

Thanks for change Obama.

then I'd venture a pretty safe guess that you not only voted for bush twice, but supported many of his policies.

[Luca Toni]

I don't give a fuck about left or right.....I'm voting yes on this motherfucker -

[Mozer4]

I understand the point behind trying to make everyone have health care, but the problem is there's a serious question about its constitutionality.

As far as the debt, the President appointed Erskine Bowles to chair a commission to examine our debt. Bowles, a Democrat and Obama's hand picked appointee, came out and said that if we don't stop the massive spending the country will go broke. Bush was definitely a bad president, no doubt about it. But Fatkid and MISC, to blame Bush for Obama's ridiculous escalation of our debt is, well, ridiculous.

[Flappy McB]

Define why I and the millions of other tax paying citizens of this country should fund horse shit like this, you my friend, don't have a clue.

I will be voting against it.

AD, just for shits and grins, I will tell you that you already pay for it. In higher premiums, copays and deductibles. The nice part about this bill is that it makes the current freeloaders pay up.

I also think Peter Kinder is sort of a corrupt moron

[Flappy McB]

then I'd venture a pretty safe guess that you not only voted for bush twice, but supported many of his policies.

I did, and that doesn't mean I can't disagree with the current Administration. So there!

[fatkid]

I love how if you don't like Obama, the immediate response is you must love Bush. Bush's approval rating was 30% when he left office, Unless Obama's approval rating is 70%, there a lots of people who don't think either are doing a good job and who think both of them spend/spent recklessly.

the statement made by the person i quoted insinuated that Obama was responsible for the 1 trillion in debt that we have.

I don't get this line of thinking........to me it shows an ignorant view on politics, so i gave an ignorant answer back.

Now if he would have said that obama isn't doing anything about the 1 trillion in debt that he inherited and he is making it worse then he would have a valid argument and i couldn't make an ignorant statement back.

[st. louisville cards]

the statement made by the person i quoted insinuated that Obama was responsible for the 1 trillion in debt that we have.

I don't get this line of thinking........to me it shows an ignorant view on politics, so i gave an ignorant answer back.

Now if he would have said that obama isn't doing anything about the 1 trillion in debt that he inherited and he is making it worse then he would have a valid argument and i couldn't make an ignorant statement back.

We have a lot more than $1 Trillion in debt....but just for the record Obama is doubling up Bush's shitty Debt management.

[fatkid]

We have a lot more than $1 Trillion in debt....but just for the record Obama is doubling up Bush's shitty Debt management.

you know what i mean.....that the whole 1 trillion that he is supposedly responsible for adding was going to be added regardless of who the president was because of a shitty economy and some decisions that were made by the previous administration. Now is he doing anything about curbing that debt? No, and that will be his downfall, but to try and pin all that yearly debt on Obama is insane.

[st. louisville cards]

you know what i mean.....that the whole 1 trillion that he is supposedly responsible for adding was going to be added regardless of who the president was because of a shitty economy and some decisions that were made by the previous administration. Now is he doing anything about curbing that debt? No, and that will be his downfall, but to try and pin all that yearly debt on Obama is insane.

You are correct in saying it would be insane to pin the debt on Obama (something many conservatives are doing). The main reason Obama catches so much flak is because Bush set new debt records and Obama is doubling those. Plus Obama is in office and in charge, so its his problem to deal with and he's fucking it up worse.

[rfriday]

not that it is relevant to either argument, but I was not polled, therefore, clearly, it is not representative of the ENTIRE population over 18, it is just a "slice" or sample of the public... and henceforth.
How could a person with your education not understand statistics? If the sample is legitimate in size and randomness, it is accurate. I have no idea whether or not this poll is accurate, but to suggest that the poll is inaccurate because not every single person was polled the poll is just wrong.

[fatkid]

You are correct in saying it would be insane to pin the debt on Obama (something many conservatives are doing). The main reason Obama catches so much flak is because Bush set new debt records and Obama is doubling those. Plus Obama is in office and in charge, so its his problem to deal with and he's fucking it up worse.

now that is a valid argument

[Picante]

How could a person with your education not understand statistics? If the sample is legitimate in size and randomness, it is accurate. I have no idea whether or not this poll is accurate, but to suggest that the poll is inaccurate because not every single person was polled the poll is just wrong.

What is the sample size and what is the SD? Gallop is a joke to many due to their practices.

[st. louisville cards]

now that is a valid argument
http://crujonessociety.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/seinfeld-high-five.jpg

[Flappy McB]

I think the American public, aside from the hardcore Tea Partier's, was willing to go along with our President's "spending" in light of the Recession. However, I really think the turning point in his Presidency has been the BP oil leak. It changed the way the Electorate has looked at him. He has really appeared weak and ineffectual, regardless of his ability to do anything about it in the first place.

Like it or not, the American Voter wants a President that is forceful and Harry Truman-like when these national issues come up, and Obama hasn't done that.

[rfriday]

How could a person with your education not understand statistics? If the sample is legitimate in size and randomness, it is accurate. I have no idea whether or not this poll is accurate, but to suggest that the poll is inaccurate because not every single person was polled the poll is just wrong.

What is the sample size and what is the SD? Gallop is a joke to many due to their practices.
Read much?

[Master Splinter]

I think the American public, aside from the hardcore Tea Partier's, was willing to go along with our President's "spending" in light of the Recession. However, I really think the turning point in his Presidency has been the BP oil leak. It changed the way the Electorate has looked at him. He has really appeared weak and ineffectual, regardless of his ability to do anything about it in the first place.

Like it or not, the American Voter wants a President that is forceful and Harry Truman-like when these national issues come up, and Obama hasn't done that.

I don't think there's been a president like that in awhile. All politicians are so wishy washy these days. Don't make a decision because there's bound to be someone who doesn't agree.

[Flappy McB]

I don't think there's been a president like that in awhile. All politicians are so wishy washy these days. Don't make a decision because there's bound to be someone who doesn't agree.

I think that Bush was to his own downfall. He really didn't seem to give a crap what people wrote or said about him. Katrina is where my theory loses steam.

From what I have read and having talked with my folks, because I was too young to remember, Obama really seems to be channeling his inner Jimmy Carter.

[beercats2000]

atta boy! fuck requiring anyone to have health insurance. if they fall off a ladder, just let them get free health care at the local ER. It's the American way!!!!!


Here is my concern. I was in the ER last week with LBC. SHe was there for a very legitimate health issue, and yes, we have insurance. The ER was "over capacity" that night. 75 people waiting to be seen. MANY (because I heard them talking to each other) were there for basic shit. Like "I'm here because my throat hurts" or "my daughter has been coughing a lot". The ER is their doctor, because they don't have insurance, and they aren't going to pay for it anyway. My concern comes in that these same people, aren't going to pay for insurance. They aren't paying taxes, since they aren't working, so you can't tell me they are going to get penalized in some way. So, it's me and you that are going to pay for them. I think the idea of having everyone insured is great, I think the process in which we decide to do it is the problem, and I don't think the current plan is the right one, and like many others have said, this has zero to do wth Repub/Dem for me. I'm done caring about parties, I want something that works.



How could a person with your education not understand statistics? If the sample is legitimate in size and randomness, it is accurate. I have no idea whether or not this poll is accurate, but to suggest that the poll is inaccurate because not every single person was polled the poll is just wrong.


I"m guessing/hoping he was joking with that part of his comment.

[BigAlCardsFan]

I don't think the government should REQUIRE people to have health insurance. If you don't want it, don't get it. Fine.

BUT, the flipside to this needs to be, or nothing will change, that if you do NOT have insurance you pay up at the ER, or wherever you are, or no service.

That way everyone gets to make their own decision about this, but the "free lunch" no longer is an option.

[My Internet Persona]

I love MISC, when you dont agree with him, he turns to personal attacks. Way to get your point across buddy.

[beercats2000]

I don't think the government should REQUIRE people to have health insurance. If you don't want it, don't get it. Fine.

BUT, the flipside to this needs to be, or nothing will change, that if you do NOT have insurance you pay up at the ER, or wherever you are, or no service.

That way everyone gets to make their own decision about this, but the "free lunch" no longer is an option.


Fine in theory, but doctors aren't going to let people die.

[BigAlCardsFan]

Fine in theory, but doctors aren't going to let people die.

I agree.

But the doctor has to decide. The government / insurance companies won't pay up.

That's the point I was getting at.

(ultimately, the insurance companies are the ones who've screwed this all up, by paying doctors $X per month, no matter which patients they see, or how often..) Doctors don't need government payment to make ends meet..

Another thing is to throw out frivolous malpractice suits. That would help as well.

[So Taintastic]

In 10 years personal genome sequencing will cost about $1,000 (it costs about $350,000 right now). It will only be a matter of time before insurance companies force people to get sequenced before they provide coverage, and the people who throw up the genetic red flags will have a hell of a time getting coverage, even if you lead a healthy lifestyle.

Then there will be issues in people wanting to have children, because they and their spouse are "high risk" parents because they carry certain genetic markers for inheritable diseases, the insurance companies already bitched up a storm when Obama said they have to cover children with pre-existing conditions, I don't think they'd have any problem telling high risk parents they won't cover any inheritable diseases their children have if they had previous knowledge of the risk.

The government, like it or not, will have to get involved. Otherwise we'll have insurance run eugenics programs in America.

[st. louisville cards]

Fine in theory, but doctors aren't going to let people die.

No, but a hospital administrator who admits patients will. Before you see a doctor in the ER, someone checks you in, if the law didn't require hospitals to take ER patients, then the person checking people in could simply require a credit card or cash to pay to see the doctor.


In 10 years personal genome sequencing will cost about $1,000 (it costs about $350,000 right now). It will only be a matter of time before insurance companies force people to get sequenced before they provide coverage, and the people who throw up the genetic red flags will have a hell of a time getting coverage, even if you lead a healthy lifestyle.

Then there will be issues in people wanting to have children, because they and their spouse are "high risk" parents because they carry certain genetic markers for inheritable diseases, the insurance companies already bitched up a storm when Obama said they have to cover children with pre-existing conditions, I don't think they'd have any problem telling high risk parents they won't cover any inheritable diseases their children have if they had previous knowledge of the risk.

The government, like it or not, will have to get involved. Otherwise we'll have insurance run eugenics programs in America.

If you have a kid that is genetically predisposed to get certain diseases, don't you have a responsibility to save money to pay for treatment of the disease?


As long as we have our current health care system, costs will never come under control.

[Flappy McB]

Fine in theory, but doctors aren't going to let people die.

The law requires that patients be treated, regardless of ability to pay. And, like I said earlier, BC, you are already paying for the uninsured patients, through higher deductibles, premiums and copays. The only difference now is that the Gov is requiring people to pay for insurance.

[So Taintastic]

If you have a kid that is genetically predisposed to get certain diseases, don't you have a responsibility to save money to pay for treatment of the disease?


As long as we have our current health care system, costs will never come under control.

What if you don't have kids yet, but if you do, you're at a high risk to have a child with an inheritable disease?

If the insurance companies won't cover it if you go through with having a child and it does have a disease, or if you don't make enough money to pay for a lifetime worth of treatments for that child, should you not be able to reproduce?

[beercats2000]

No, but a hospital administrator who admits patients will. Before you see a doctor in the ER, someone checks you in, if the law didn't require hospitals to take ER patients, then the person checking people in could simply require a credit card or cash to pay to see the doctor.



So, you think the admin person is just going to let the guy having a heart attack, that doesn't have any money, die? I doubt it. Keep in mind, when they have "serious" problems, like my wife did last week, they didn't even check us in or ASK for an insurance card, until about 30 hours later. They were too busy just making sure she was okay. I don't think that is going to change. I'm not saying I know what the exact answer is, but I'm just telling you that hospitals aren't going to let people die in their parking lots. It's just not realistic.

[beercats2000]

The law requires that patients be treated, regardless of ability to pay. And, like I said earlier, BC, you are already paying for the uninsured patients, through higher deductibles, premiums and copays. The only difference now is that the Gov is requiring people to pay for insurance.


See, this is where I disagree. I firmly believe the biggest problem when it comes to uninsured people, are those that either don't have a job, or have a job but live in poverty. Those people still aren't going to pay for insurance, and there is no way to "penalize" them. I don't think the problem stems from 22-26 year olds that just don't feel like buying insurance through their company.

[Bmac]

plain and simple...we're all fucked either way.

[Jesus Quintana]

The vast majority of people in this country that want health insurance have it, end of story.

That, quite possibly, is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

[Flappy McB]

See, this is where I disagree. I firmly believe the biggest problem when it comes to uninsured people, are those that either don't have a job, or have a job but live in poverty. Those people still aren't going to pay for insurance, and there is no way to "penalize" them. I don't think the problem stems from 22-26 year olds that just don't feel like buying insurance through their company.

Correct, the poor will be subsidized, so they can have a regular doctor to treat the minor issues they show up in the ER fro now.

The healthy kids that don't have insurance now will have to buy and increase the risk pool.

[st. louisville cards]

What if you don't have kids yet, but if you do, you're at a high risk to have a child with an inheritable disease?

If the insurance companies won't cover it if you go through with having a child and it does have a disease, or if you don't make enough money to pay for a lifetime worth of treatments for that child, should you not be able to reproduce?
Maybe your shitty genes shouldn't be reproducing!*

Health insurance as we use it isn't really insurance; it is a poorly conceived, poorly executed, shitty health program that people belong to. If it was actually just insurance (the way your car and home are insured) it would be affordable and it could pay for major problems.
If your car insurance was like your health insurance, Safe Auto would be paying for you oil changes, car washes, flat tires, etc. If a 3rd party was paying those bills do you think $15.99 oil changes would exist?

So, you think the admin person is just going to let the guy having a heart attack, that doesn't have any money, die? I doubt it. Keep in mind, when they have "serious" problems, like my wife did last week, they didn't even check us in or ASK for an insurance card, until about 30 hours later. They were too busy just making sure she was okay. I don't think that is going to change. I'm not saying I know what the exact answer is, but I'm just telling you that hospitals aren't going to let people die in their parking lots. It's just not realistic.
I think a reasonable person can tell the difference between "I'm having a heart attach" or a "I have a knife in my stomach" vs "my throat hurts".

That, quite possibly, is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

No....not really, 85% is by itself vast, but of the 15% who don't have insurance 1/3 of those are people who CHOOSE to not have insurance (mostly 18-24 year olds). Of the 10% that allegedly can't afford insurance I'd argue that at least half of those people say they can't afford insurance, but they can afford things like cable, new clothes, etc.

[RolandC]

I agree with Bmac and Cards_252 on this issue.

[The Ice]

I agree with Bmac and Cards_252 on this issue.in that we are fucked? I agree.

[RolandC]

in that we are fucked? I agree.

Yes and the bipartmanships stuff too.

[Jesus Quintana]

No....not really, 85% is by itself vast, but of the 15% who don't have insurance 1/3 of those are people who CHOOSE to not have insurance (mostly 18-24 year olds). Of the 10% that allegedly can't afford insurance I'd argue that at least half of those people say they can't afford insurance, but they can afford things like cable, new clothes, etc.

Where do you get 1/3 of that 15% choose not to have health insurance? That presupposes that they can afford it, but simply choose not to get it. Just because you are an uninsured 18-24 year old does not equate to choosing not to have insurance. Do you also factor in knowledge or awareness? Most people who fit in that category are not in school and make very little money.

His comment was that most people who want insurance have insurance. Sticking with that statement and ignoring any others factors, including costs, if you ask everyone in this country, do you want health insurance, every sane person would respond affirmatively.

[st. louisville cards]

Where do you get 1/3 of that 15% choose not to have health insurance? That presupposes that they can afford it, but simply choose not to get it. Just because you are an uninsured 18-24 year old does not equate to choosing not to have insurance. Do you also factor in knowledge or awareness? Most people who fit in that category are not in school and make very little money.

His comment was that most people who want insurance have insurance. Sticking with that statement and ignoring any others factors, including costs, if you ask everyone in this country, do you want health insurance, every sane person would respond affirmatively.

Lets take a board field trip to see a movie. 100 boarders are going, 85 of them want to see A-Team, but since 85 of 100 isn't most we are going to see Twilight.

And yes, most 18-24 year olds without insurance are CHOOSING to not have insurance, its 5-6 hours of minimum wage work to get health insurance. Being ignorant that you can get insurance cheap at 20, is a de facto choice to not get insurance.

The people at the 1:20 mark of this video are exactly what I'm talking about.

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=560'></script>

[Automotive Daddy]

Where do you get 1/3 of that 15% choose not to have health insurance? That presupposes that they can afford it, but simply choose not to get it. Just because you are an uninsured 18-24 year old does not equate to choosing not to have insurance. Do you also factor in knowledge or awareness? Most people who fit in that category are not in school and make very little money.

His comment was that most people who want insurance have insurance. Sticking with that statement and ignoring any others factors, including costs, if you ask everyone in this country, do you want health insurance, every sane person would respond affirmatively.

My comment was "the vast majority who want it have it" 85% is a "vast majority" The other 15% that don't have it.......of course they want it. Yes no big news flash here, everybody wants health insurance. I have a problem with the 15%. Those are mostly the same people that want everything, and have nothing because they won't get out and do something about it. This country has become a nation of whiners. We are the greatest naton in the world. We are free to make our own destiny, go out and do it. I know there are those in that 15% that for one reason or another physically cant, but for the most part those people chose to "live off the system" and bitch about everything. Get off your lazy asses, and go make something of yourself. Quit being a burden on society. If you ask everyone in this country if they want a 10 million dollar house, they would respond affirmatively. What the damn point you are trying to make here.......we all want everything, but take little responsibility in actually going out and making something positive happen.

[Automotive Daddy]

I don't think the government should REQUIRE people to have health insurance. If you don't want it, don't get it. Fine.

BUT, the flipside to this needs to be, or nothing will change, that if you do NOT have insurance you pay up at the ER, or wherever you are, or no service.

That way everyone gets to make their own decision about this, but the "free lunch" no longer is an option.

Agreed.

[Automotive Daddy]

See, this is where I disagree. I firmly believe the biggest problem when it comes to uninsured people, are those that either don't have a job, or have a job but live in poverty. Those people still aren't going to pay for insurance, and there is no way to "penalize" them. I don't think the problem stems from 22-26 year olds that just don't feel like buying insurance through their company.

Agreed.

[Automotive Daddy]

I love MISC, when you dont agree with him, he turns to personal attacks. Way to get your point across buddy.

He loves the "hit and run" tactic.

[Midnight]

we should change social security too. i don't want them taking that out of my check.

[Automotive Daddy]

we should change social security too. i don't want them taking that out of my check.

Agreed....let them take it out, but I WANT TO MANAGE MY MONEY. I want to say where it gets invested, not the government, they can't manage shit.