Idiocy in Oklahoma

[texaspackerbacker]

The insurance commissioner of the normally great conservative state of Oklahoma has advocated FORCING people to get health insurance on penalty of losing their drivers license, among other things.

Who was it in this forum, either Howard or Bobblehead, I think, who favored a similarly horrendous attack on personal freedom? A small bit of solace is that at least, Rush Limbaugh sees it the way I see it: that this is a shameless attack on people's freedom.

[red]

is it that much different then forcing someone to have auto insurance?

that's one that's always bugged the shit out of me. i live in a no fault state, and in 15 years i've never been in an accident. yet i've been forced to spend so much on auto insurance that by now i could buy a new car if i had to

to me all insurance is a gamble. one that i am forced to take if i want to drive

[texaspackerbacker]

is it that much different then forcing someone to have auto insurance?

that's one that's always bugged the shit out of me. i live in a no fault state, and in 15 years i've never been in an accident. yet i've been forced to spend so much on auto insurance that by now i could buy a new car if i had to

I agree with you about that, but the health insurance thing is one step worse yet. At least they can make the case that you have to get the car insurance for the benefit of other drivers. The health insurance is strictly for yourself, yet they want to take that freedom away.

[Freak Out]

is it that much different then forcing someone to have auto insurance?

that's one that's always bugged the shit out of me. i live in a no fault state, and in 15 years i've never been in an accident. yet i've been forced to spend so much on auto insurance that by now i could buy a new car if i had to

to me all insurance is a gamble. one that i am forced to take if i want to drive

I live in a state where auto insurance is required but I have been hit twice by drivers that had no insurance...one had no license. Thankfully I pay extra for "uninsured motorist coverage". :lol:

It's so funny.....

[Partial]

The insurance commissioner of the normally great conservative state of Oklahoma has advocated FORCING people to get health insurance on penalty of losing their drivers license, among other things.

Who was it in this forum, either Howard or Bobblehead, I think, who favored a similarly horrendous attack on personal freedom? A small bit of solace is that at least, Rush Limbaugh sees it the way I see it: that this is a shameless attack on people's freedom.

You know what also gets in the way of personal freedom? When i have to pay for those DFIs to get pro-bono treatment in the hospital since they don't have insurance, and their cost gets passed on to me.

Health Insurance and Auto Insurance should be required imo. I am out over a grand from some asshole not having insurance and plowing into my car. Not only that, I have to pay extra to cover the fucker in uninsured motorist insurance.

[MadScientist]

Is he serious on this or just putting an extreme position out there to start discussions going? There's no way this idea is at all workable, so there's little chance of it getting implemented (I'd say zero, but with politicians, you never know).

Auto insurance is a little different, as it potentially involves a liability to a third party.

[bobblehead]

The insurance commissioner of the normally great conservative state of Oklahoma has advocated FORCING people to get health insurance on penalty of losing their drivers license, among other things.

Who was it in this forum, either Howard or Bobblehead, I think, who favored a similarly horrendous attack on personal freedom? A small bit of solace is that at least, Rush Limbaugh sees it the way I see it: that this is a shameless attack on people's freedom.

Tex...one of two ways you choose. Either you FORCE people to be insured or you let them suffer the consequences of choosing not to be....you don't make me pay for that bad choice.

Since we have no intentions of letting them suffer (even you have said this) then I think FORCING them to carry a policy is only fair....you are forced to have auto insurance or at least post a bond to pay for your damages to society, why are you allowed to inflate the health industry and suffer no consequences?

[bobblehead]

Is he serious on this or just putting an extreme position out there to start discussions going? There's no way this idea is at all workable, so there's little chance of it getting implemented (I'd say zero, but with politicians, you never know).

Auto insurance is a little different, as it potentially involves a liability to a third party.

as opposed to inflating the cost of health care and passing your cost onto the provider...wait...isn't the provider the third party who pays for you not having health insurance?

[texaspackerbacker]

The insurance commissioner of the normally great conservative state of Oklahoma has advocated FORCING people to get health insurance on penalty of losing their drivers license, among other things.

Who was it in this forum, either Howard or Bobblehead, I think, who favored a similarly horrendous attack on personal freedom? A small bit of solace is that at least, Rush Limbaugh sees it the way I see it: that this is a shameless attack on people's freedom.

Tex...one of two ways you choose. Either you FORCE people to be insured or you let them suffer the consequences of choosing not to be....you don't make me pay for that bad choice.

Since we have no intentions of letting them suffer (even you have said this) then I think FORCING them to carry a policy is only fair....you are forced to have auto insurance or at least post a bond to pay for your damages to society, why are you allowed to inflate the health industry and suffer no consequences?

Bobblehead, you have misstated the two extremes in this situation.

If you start with the presumption that anyone who needs it will be given lifesaving and other emergency care, then the extreme choices are: forcing everyone to get health insurance even if they consider it a waste of money AND government dominated health care as Obama, Hillary, and other liberals advocate. If you make the quantum grab of personal freedom that forcing people to get health insurance would be, then you still have the question of what if they don't, and they end up needing the care? As for the government solution, I think/hope you agree, Bobblehead, that among the MANY defects to that concept is that YOU and other "haves" would most certainly be paying for the health care of the "have nots"--and probably to a much greater degree than the current system.

The middle ground here is to basically do nothing. True, you and Partial and a lot of other successful Americans get soaked in the form of higher health care costs and insurance premiums--as obviously, the health care providers aren't going to just absorb the cost of treating the indigent. However, in the grand scheme of things, this cost to you all/us is negligible, especially in comparison to the cost of a government solution.

And to avoid that small cost, you would be willing to let intrusive government harrass and punish good normal Americans who decide they don't want to flush money away for health insurance? That doesn't sound very conservative or libertarian or Ron Paul or Bob Barr-like to me.

[TravisWilliams23]

I think most will agree that whatever the government gets involved with
they usually screw it up. For that reason alone I don't want ANY kink of
mandated government health care.

Health care providers get hammered with malpractice. The cost is
astronomical to the doctors and hospitals to cover themselves from
lawsuits. This cost is then passed on to us with higher premiums and
higher rates for services.

What if the gov't allows these health care providers a dollar for dollar
tax "break" for treating any uninsured patients? With an incentive to
the doctors and hospitals to make or keep more money, I would think
most would jump at it.

But on the other hand, why should I pay for my health insurance if
other can get treated for free? This is why socialism doesn't work.
You know the gov't is going to force the haves to pay for the have not's
and once they start universal health care we won't be able to get rid
of it.

[bobblehead]

The insurance commissioner of the normally great conservative state of Oklahoma has advocated FORCING people to get health insurance on penalty of losing their drivers license, among other things.

Who was it in this forum, either Howard or Bobblehead, I think, who favored a similarly horrendous attack on personal freedom? A small bit of solace is that at least, Rush Limbaugh sees it the way I see it: that this is a shameless attack on people's freedom.

Tex...one of two ways you choose. Either you FORCE people to be insured or you let them suffer the consequences of choosing not to be....you don't make me pay for that bad choice.

Since we have no intentions of letting them suffer (even you have said this) then I think FORCING them to carry a policy is only fair....you are forced to have auto insurance or at least post a bond to pay for your damages to society, why are you allowed to inflate the health industry and suffer no consequences?

Bobblehead, you have misstated the two extremes in this situation.

If you start with the presumption that anyone who needs it will be given lifesaving and other emergency care, then the extreme choices are: forcing everyone to get health insurance even if they consider it a waste of money AND government dominated health care as Obama, Hillary, and other liberals advocate. If you make the quantum grab of personal freedom that forcing people to get health insurance would be, then you still have the question of what if they don't, and they end up needing the care? As for the government solution, I think/hope you agree, Bobblehead, that among the MANY defects to that concept is that YOU and other "haves" would most certainly be paying for the health care of the "have nots"--and probably to a much greater degree than the current system.

The middle ground here is to basically do nothing. True, you and Partial and a lot of other successful Americans get soaked in the form of higher health care costs and insurance premiums--as obviously, the health care providers aren't going to just absorb the cost of treating the indigent. However, in the grand scheme of things, this cost to you all/us is negligible, especially in comparison to the cost of a government solution.

And to avoid that small cost, you would be willing to let intrusive government harrass and punish good normal Americans who decide they don't want to flush money away for health insurance? That doesn't sound very conservative or libertarian or Ron Paul or Bob Barr-like to me.

One more time tex...I would choose to let the free market work it out....but people like you get all "compassionate" and ruin the free market solution. Since you are going to FORCE ME to pay for someones health insurance through higher costs, then I would choose to REQUIRE them to carry a policy. Its a much more efficient system than that we are running now.

I'm saying you are forcing me to pay for negligence in one instance, but only for those that can't pay for a policy in the other....I choose the latter given that you are narrowing those 2 choices.

[texaspackerbacker]

Three Choices, not Two.

You've got the two extremes: Socialized medicine/ObamaCare/HillaryCare AND you have your way--tearing the heart out of the freedom of good normal Americans by forcing them to flush money away for insurance. Then you have the middle ground--the leave-it-the hell-alone/if-it-ain't-broke,don't-fix-it solution.

If you are so adamant for YOUR extreme, I'd have to say, you're just as bad as the leftists who want to rock our world with THEIR extreme.

What in the hell is wrong with just keeping the best quality and freest health care system in the world? Is freedom really costing you THAT MUCH that you want to give it up?

As I reread your post, it seems you favor a FOURTH solution--just letting the indigent die on the doorstep of the hospitals. OK, at least you're honest.

[sooner6600]

Date Line December 1, 2008
The Daily Ardmoreite

Lawmakers set to revive failed bills.

When lawmakers convene on 2.2.8 they will consider such measures
as mandating insurance coverage for AUTISM.

Abolishing legislative term limits, voter Id, and license plates with
"in God we Trust" and a bill called Religious Viewpoints Anti-discriminiation Act are also on the legislative lists.

Senator Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant; filed Senate Bill 1,
which would require insurance plans renewed on or after 1.1.10 to
cover autism.

The measure called "Nick's Law" for the child of a family who has
pushed for legislation that failed last year.

- - - - - - - - -

No Comment