Regarding Compulsory Insurance by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Regarding Compulsory Insurance

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 17:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 628
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:54 AM

Fines proposed for going without health insurance
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_over
haul

It really is beginning to carry the reeking aroma of the same broken model compulsory auto insurance does - which costs a hideous amount thanks to a captive market and often as not pays nothing, as one MUST pay for something they don't dare USE.

JB puts it in perspective.
Compulsary Insurance Won’t Work
http://www.motorists.org/blog/compulsary-insurance-will-not-work/

And so too does this nameless blogger who calls it like he sees it.
Why do we pay for car insurance again?
http://dontfearthetruth.com/2007/05/30/why-do-we-pay-for-car-insurance
-again/

Not sure if anyone remembers the Mississippi flooding over a while back, but the homeowners and auto insurance companies went so far in weaseling out of claims that in many cases they just said fuck the law, flipped their customers the bird and cancelled their policies.

And they got AWAY with that shit, yet we're still legally mandated to shovel our money into their coffers ?

I pay for something, I want what I pay for, and auto insurance offers me NOTHING cause I have to hold back extra money in my budget to cover an accident, since I know they will not pay if they can get out of it.

It's tribute, is what it is.

Fuck insurance, socialize health care - while distasteful to me, it's not nearly so much as giving one more red cent to the robber barons.

"Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!"

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:22 PM

DREAMTROVE

The system is of questionable merit anyways, but this is the element that bothers me most. It seems like more than a fiscal bear trap, but a form of population control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:51 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ever get the feeling that CNN is biased?..... Or that they are purposefully running "news stories" to influence the population before big decisions?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/08/news/economy/health_care_vaccinations/
index.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:48 PM

DREAMTROVE

Yes, Wulf, and Hugo Chavez wasn't really elected.
Sorry, you make a good point, they are, not surprisingly, trying to push this one through.

I don't want the Max Baucus "Pay or Pay or Die" bill. Single payer okay, it's not great fiscally, but who can care at this point, the dollar is a dead duck. We'll all start trading something else soon. I have to say on this, and on Afghanistan, I support the president over the democratic party.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Wulf, that's the thing, man.

EVERYONE has an agenda, all and every.

It's the honest folk who admit it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 3:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ever get the feeling that CNN is biased?.....

Your crazy. The mainstream media is so fair you'll NEVER see stories critical of President Obama or his policies. You can't get more fair then that.

Its true they are not nearly as fair as MSNBC (Hating Republicans is our business.), CBS (Why did all our viewers switch to FOXNews? I mean I bought this new blouse and nobody is watching.), ABC (Live from the White House...with no dissent allowed.), and NBC (Check out our fancy green logo cause the world is dying...which is also the Sunday night movie.).

Then there is FOX. I watched a story on FOX and they actually...get this...they actually showed what this Obama Czar dude said a long, long, long time ago (in March). I mean to smear someone using their own words...you can't get more bias then that.

I bet tonight they'll broadcast Obama's speech and people will see that on FOX and be against health care. Don't they understand? You can't show people what these folks are saying...then people wont support them. Thats almost as bad as people reading the bills themselves and going to their Congressperson and asking questions.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 3:48 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok... lol I guess I just thought that SOME news agencies still reported the news in an un-biased way. I mean, isn't that supposed to be how its done?

Also, as a side note, doesn't it piss you off that it actually works? Its manipulation, pure and simple, and people fall for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 5:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok... lol I guess I just thought that SOME news agencies still reported the news in an un-biased way. I mean, isn't that supposed to be how its done?

Theoretically ?
Nah, there's always bias, any time ya got humans in the mix it's gonna load towards their preferences, any time you got politicians, you're gonna have bullshit - look at the pharoahs press releases dug up out of Egyptian sand, they're every bit as fulla shit as the white houses, so it's not like this is nothin new.

However, an absolutely objective news source would be as boring as it is impossible, there's no fire, no spark - and admit it, it's FUN to watch some politician or policy you don't like get it's chops busted (You laughed at Dee handing Al his head, didn't you?) so the market calls for it.

So rather than trying to maintain a premise everyone KNOWS is completely phony (Fox News: Fair and Balanced ?) better that a source simply own up to it's bias right up front, which many of the better sources do, even when you'd THINK that would make their bias more obvious, it seems almost counter intuitive.

Some cases in point.

http://www.wsws.org/
Freely admitted socialist/marxist bent, and yet their reporting isn't half bad, and when it comes to workers rights they are pretty solid, having no more respect for "corporate" unions than you or I would.

http://www.csmonitor.com/
Straight up admission of religious backing, and yet they have a standard of journalism that has become heavily respected due to a high standard of ethics, and making every effort to lead by example.

So obviously just having a bias isn't necessarily direct manipulation, but in the hands of someone less ethical, like Hearst, or Murdoch, or even Ted Turner, who was a centrist but in the face of such a heavy load to the right within mainstream media* comes off as the MSM equivalent of a flaming liberal.

My personal nemesis on that front has always been Sinclair, cause the horrific standard of manipulation spawned by Hearst was carried into broadcast media by them, and being local, they were the first encounter I had with real propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

Quote:
Also, as a side note, doesn't it piss you off that it actually works? Its manipulation, pure and simple, and people fall for it.

A little, but then again I've been known to parlay it for my own advantage, especially when one of em overplays their hand so bad I can easily rip their message to shreds and thus cast doubt on them entire as a source.

There's also that I teach folks to see through it, no matter WHO does it, to distill their own opinions from all that is offered to them, and my gratitude that the "Anarchy" of the internet allows mankind enough information sources, both good and bad, to do so.

Simple questions, Complex Answers.
"What are the facts of the matter ?"
"Do I know this for SURE ?"
"How reliable/trustworthy is this source ?"
"Where's the evidence ?"

And so on, and so forth - one case in point, the elections in Afghanistan, which on the face of it are a sham cause if a foreign power (that being us) is deciding who can and cannot participate, one couldn't exactly call it a fair and free election anyhow, right ?

And the accusations of fraud - now, we can't KNOW, and yet NONE of the sources is all that reliable cause every damn one of em has a stake in it one way or the other, so that falls on lack of credibility NO MATTER WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

So we get to the *evidence*, regardless of who's submitting it, and comes along the proveable FACT that Kharazi somehow nailed down 100% of the vote in a region completely devoted to his opponent, a logical impossibility.

Bang, there's fraud - no two ways to slice that, and fraud by Kharazi, no doubt - which does NOT mean the other guy didn't cheat too, he just didn't cheat ENOUGH or didn't have foreign backing for his ballot box stuffing and cemetary voting - and it also doesn't prove exactly HOW MUCH either one may have done so.

All it proves is that there's enough fraud to cast serious doubt on the whole freakin election, and thus the results really do need to be discarded in order for even this pretense to have any credibility.

That's the trick, to sort the undeniable, proveable facts from the lies and distortions, and you can do that even by distillation from sources you know are less than reliable by distilling the information and cross-confirmation.

Which is of course, why the MSM would like to see the internet neutered, controlled, strangled.

Which sets a meme for what the powers that be would like to do to us, yes ?
(and right there is my anarchist bias, but backed up with a logical, reasonable assessment of why it has a proper place here, see ?)

All comes down to the ability to make up ones own mind - and the desire and will to do so, something I'd love to grant every soul on this rock, had I the power.

-Frem

*Just like framing the debate with the classic "big lie" strategy used in regard to "liberal bias" - did you know EVERY single independent study comes up with the exact same results I estimated off the cuff a couple years ago when we discussed it here ?

Right/Center/Left
65%/25%/10%

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 8:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

They never should have tried elections in Afghanistan in the first place...or Iraq. Neither country is ready for our form of "democracy" (such as it is), and may never be.

You don't go from (in Afghanistan) a tribal-leader government with a minimally-powered central government, to democracy in a few years...or a few decades. Just think how many hundreds of years it took for England to become a parliamentary democracy...and we want to impose our way of governing on a country that came from the time of Jesus to the twenty-first century in less than a hundred years? It's absurd.

Afghanistan was run for hundreds of years with a central shah who was smart enough to know he couldn't govern a whole country, and left the actual local "governing" to tribal leaders. It's been a mess since the shah was killed, as every invader has tried to set up their own form of government...and none of them work.

Of COURSE it was a fraud; it had no chance of being anything else! Afghan mentality doesn't believe democracy is possible, they've had too many centuries of "the way it has always been", and the way it has always been was corruption, "bakshish" (payoffs), power by might, and so much more. What's a little piece of paper got to do with any of that??

We're fools to go into countries we know nothing about and can't even conceive of and blithely decide for them that democracy should work. Well meaning, dumb Americans, as usual.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 10:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It really is beginning to carry the reeking aroma of the same broken model compulsory auto insurance does

Its nothing like the broken model of auto insurance...its a completely different broken model.

There is no law saying you have to have auto insurance. Only if you want to drive is it mandatory. So is a license (a car helps too). You don't want the insurance, don't drive.

This compulsory health insurance does not give you any sort of choice. You can't decide to go without, you can't even decide to 'take your chances and if you die, die free'.

What's wrong with that? Well for starters this is America. Sure we have to compromise on certain things. Speed limits, hunting season, NFL blackout games. But how we live our lives is our business and if you make it your business, then its time for one of us to just pack up and move a hundred miles to the left. Thats the American way.

Government should not come between me and my doctor, even if my doctor is nobody at all. I lived, by choice, without insurance cause I wanted to use my money to pay for my car. Thats my choice, not theirs. Now I have insurance, by choice, cause I'm gettin old. My choice (the inurance part, not the gettin old part).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

Nik

It's actually the British form in Iraq, they rejected ours. I'm not sure that democracy is progress tho, or that anyone needs to be ready for it. It's probably some sort of disease

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 5:04 PM

DREAMTROVE

Back to topic...

I'm confused. What exactly is the policy?
Somewhat worried too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE