There’s a HUGE difference, though. You don’t have to buy auto insurance until you chose to buy a car. Don’t want to pay it, don’t buy a car. No problem.
You don’t want to pay for health insurance? Just never become sick or get into an accident. No problem.
You’re also a fucking idiot. Jesus, they’re everywhere. 
Hey, it’s Chucklehead! Disagree and you’re an idiot. Simple as that. Look, Chucklehead, if you see something wrong with what I wrote, feel free to point it out and counter it.
Hmmm, I guess if there’s nothing wrong with with what I wrote, given your need to come off as imbecilic as a jack-in-the-box, you’re free to comment on what I didn’t write. As you did.
:rolleyes: Good ole Chucklehead.
Man… it’s so weird hearing my Uncle tell me stories of how he went to high school/college with a dude that he and their freinds used to call “The Cooch” and now to see that apparently he’s become the AG of my state.
With a nickname like The Cooch, I’d expect him to be a cooler laid back dude!
Disagreements are fine. You however aren’t able to think worth a shit. You have proclaimed that there are big differences in that you chose to drive, and as such you take on the costs of driving when you do.
However, you do *not *choose to get sick. Getting sick is a part of the human condition and everyone will need healthcare at some point. So, since you have chosen to live, you need health care. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see this.
So, how about you defend your stupid fucking position?
Can I ban people for bad analogies? Is that a thing I can do?
I think I should totally be able to do that.
I’d at least expect him not to be a butthole.
Just slightly to the front of one.
Eventual Result:
*Your direct line to one of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a total dipstick. *
I’m all for it. Since my analogy makes perfect sense.
He’s saying that removing the rules against discrimination against homosexuals is in no way encouraging the discrimination against homosexuals.
I’m saying that removing specifically the rules against something does encourage people to do it.
Removing the rules against smoking pot would encourage people to smoke it.
Removing the rules against driving over 65 mph would encourage people to do so.
Removing the rules against rape for a specific person would encourage rapists to seek them out.
Removing the rules against discriminating against homosexuals would encourage those that want to discriminate against them to do so.
Do you disagree with what I’ve said there?
That’s not what made it a bad analogy.
You’re wrong already. I said “there’s a huge difference”, singular. And there is.
[QUOTE=Lobohan;12236805However, you do *not *choose to get sick. Getting sick is a part of the human condition and everyone will need healthcare at some point. So, since you have chosen to live, you need health care. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see this.
So, how about you defend your stupid fucking position?[/QUOTE]
I already did defend it. You are simply not forced to pay for auto insurance. Period. Fact. That was the ONLY point I made. try rereading the post, you twit. You seem to agree with that even. You then raise a counter-point that, valid as I think it is, does not vitiate the point I made. The fact that you don’t realize this is further evidence that you aren’t too well suited to this whole debate board thing. That and the childish, shitty, petulant attitude that you display anytime someone disagrees with you.
Supporters of health insurance reform should probably abandon the analogy to auto insurance. Magellan01 has a point, people are not forced to drive, therefore making auto insurance an optional expense.
Of course, because the health insurance individual mandate would work like every other tax administered by the federal government, its a perfectly constitutional manifestation of Congress’s power to tax and spent for the general welfare.
Once again, you miss the point. They don’t force you to get auto insurance unless you drive. They also don’t force you to get health insurance unless you’re alive.
Not everyone drives, but everyone is alive, for awhile at least. So auto insurance is a good analogue.
As for my attitude, disagree with me all you want, but at least do it for logical reasons.
Just to make my point:
Person A earns $160,000 in income, but recently purchased a home, and receives a $7,500 tax deduction. Person B earns identical income in the same year, but did not purchase a home, thus, all things being equal, will pay more in federal income taxes than Person A.
And if the health care bill passes?
Person A earns $160,000 in income, and is enrolled in a health insurance plan. Person B earns identical income in the same year, but decided not to purchase health insurance. All things being equal, Person B will pay more in income taxes than Person A.
The individual mandate works just like every other tax.
Ah, bad as in evil. Well this is the pit.
Nope. The former allows one to avoid the tax. The latter doesn’t. Simple. Why you cannot grant this simple point (which does not settle the HC debate) is baffling, if not entertaining. Try rereading my original post—AGAIN. The only point I was making is that arguing for the individual mandate portion of the HC plan by comparing it to auto insurance is a bad analogy. One is not like the other.
But, please, by all means, continue to do so.
All analogies become false at some point of extension. That is why some people don’t use them at all in arguments, it is an illustration of something else that is similar in many ways but not all that will help the listener to understand the point. I don’t think that the government should force us to buy auto insurance, but I’m not moving to Somalia over it. Same with health care.
Not to change the topic from health insurance or analogies but this Cuccinelli guy is quite a butthole (to use Diogenes the Cynic’s vernacular).
Seems he just might be a “birther” too.
And being a conservative he is definitely and absolutely opposed to gun control.
He received the NRA endorsement for his 2009 campaign.
Gee it’s nice to see that the Virginia Tech “fracas” of 2007 didn’t taint his opinion about the 2nd Amendment.
I know this is the Pit and all, but that’s still no reason not “to fight ignorance”, so . . .
. . . can anyone tell me (in terms a six-year-old can understand) what “deem and pass” aka the “self-executing rule” actually means. I checked the Wiki page, but didn’t find it particularly helpful. And an example would be nice, too.
And, as I said, this is the pit, so a hearty, but non-partisan, ‘fuck you!’ to all.
Thanks!
Huh? Why would you think that I think that?