I know the difference. You seem to want to think I’m too stupid or stubborn know the difference so you can score more points. I don’t believe the difference really matters. For one, The health care mandate is constitutional. And I don’t see much of a practical difference between a federal law and a law enacted in 47 states that affects nearly every adult in those states.
It’s a “fantasy” that many people’s livelihoods in America depend on owning a car? Most people commute to work by car. Just because some people live in large cities with good public transportation doesn’t mean everyone does. Living in a rural area or many suburban areas would be extremely difficult without a car (unless you went back to archaic modes of transportation). 87% of Americans commute to work by car. The 95% number was from this website.
I don’t know or care if you’re stupid or stubborn. I have no desire to score points with you. In fact, you’re the one who engaged me. You asked me a question and I answered it factually.
Yes, the mandate is Constitutional. I don’t really care if you see a practical difference between federal laws and state laws. There is a difference whether you see it or not. How this eludes you with the recent SCOTUS decisions involving both Obamacare and the Arizona immigration laws, I admit, is puzzling. But it’s not anything I’m going to spend my time trying to figure out.
I don’t think it is not a fantasy that many people’s livelihoods depend on owning a car. But you did not qualify your statement with “many” or “most people” earlier:
[QUOTE=Swords to Plowshares]
95% of households own a car. Livelihoods depend on owning one.
[/QUOTE]
Now, if that is what you meant, which is possible, then we have no disagreement on that point. But without a qualifier such as “many”, “a lot of”, even “most”, I took your phrasing to be universal. Which is perfectly reasonable.
If someone phrases something ambiguously, such that there are two possible interpretations, and one of them is obviously wrong, why on earth would you interpret it that way? Did you seriously think Swords to Plowshares was under the impression that every single person’s livelihood depended on a car, that his statement was intended to be universal?
[QUOTE=Swords to Plowshares ]
Where’s the outrage over mandatory car insurance for vehicle owners?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
There is none. Because 1) as mentioned, it’s the state doing it, not the federal government. 2) If you don’t want to buy car insurance, easy, don’t own a car. As tens of millions of people do not.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Swords to Plowshares]
95% of households own a car. Livelihoods depend on owning one.
The state vs. federal distinction is a cop-out. Car insurance is compulsory in 47 states.
[/QUOTE]
I took his first two sentences to mean that people need cars for their livelihoods. I went back and reread the exchange before my last response to him and acknowledged that there is indeed another reading of what he said. (I don’t know what more you want, Mr. Moderator of All Debates.) But if I tell you that: cows are brown, it’s reasonable for you tho think that I’m putting forth the proposition that brownness is a necessary component of cowhood. It’s certainly not as explicit as me saying: all cows are brown, nor: some cows are browns. There is room for misreading it either way, but the structure he used, without the limiting modifier, is assumed to convey a generally universal proposition. (The “generally” allowing for the possibility of albino cows, painted cows, etc.)
Now, if I cared a whole bunch and was arguing with him in a court of law, perhaps I would have first asked for clarification of what he meant. And perhaps I should have done that here. But with someone who simply seems intent to have an argument with me, I don’t invest that kind of time. And as I said, I did go beck and acknowledge that there was another perfectly valid interpretation. But that doesn’t even seem to be the point of disagreement. He seems to think that the difference between federal law and state law are inconsequential.
It’s all part of an article speculating on how compliance with the health care mandate will go. But if 25% of Oklahomans won’t buy car insurance despite fairly steep penalties for not doing so, i can’t see very many Oklahomans taking the health insurance mandate very seriously. And with the lack of enforcement options available to the IRS, it’s unlikely they’ll pay the penalty either.
I could be totally wrong, but I suspect that there’s a correlation between people who fail to arrange their taxes appropriately (i.e., to avoid a refund situation), and people who will fail to obtain insurance. Both suggest at least some level of financial irresponsibility. (Not that everyone in either group is irresponsible, of course).