What else will Congress require you to have?

[Thunder]

So, Congress has required all Americans to buy health insurance.

And some folks are arguing that this will open the floodgates, with more and more laws requiring Americans to buy more & more things.

So, what do you think Congress will next require you to have?

edit: in 1792, Congress required all white-men between 18-45 to own a rifle, ammo, and a bag.

 

[mike2810]

Car insurance. States require it but unless caught no penality. So Congress will move to make it a federal requirement. Fail to prove to the IRS, your fined.

 

[MaggieD]

So, Congress has required all Americans to buy health insurance.

And some folks are arguing that this will open the floodgates, with more and more laws requiring Americans to buy more & more things.

So, what do you think Congress will next require you to have?

edit: in 1792, Congress required all white-men between 18-45 to own a rifle, ammo, and a bag.

I don't know what else they may next require us to have, but I think that, as time passes, focusing on healthcare causes states to look at helping people end their own lives when they so choose. One can hope.

 

[Thunder]

Car insurance. States require it but unless caught no penality. So Congress will move to make it a federal requirement. Fail to prove to the IRS, your fined.

but ONLY if you own a car.

if you don't own a car, you aren't required to own car insurance.

other than the Militia Act of 1792, this is the first time govt. has required you to buy something independent of any other possession.

but to add to your point, in many places folks with a bike...are required to wear a helmet.

folks with a house, are required to own certain types of insurance.

folks with a federal loan, are often required to own flood insurance.

but again, this is about required ownership independent of other things.

 

[obvious Child]

You know what?

Let people opt out of Obamacare....if they signed a waiver that states "I _____, under sound judgement declare to opt out of the PPACA with the explicit statement that if I require medical attention at any time after signing and are unable to pay for it, healthcare providers are required to ignore my medical problems, provide no healthcare services whatsoever, even in the event it leads to my death."

 

[Thunder]

You know what?

Let people opt out of Obamacare....if they signed a waiver that states "I _____, under sound judgement declare to opt out of the PPACA with the explicit statement that if I require medical attention at any time after signing and are unable to pay for it, healthcare providers are required to ignore my medical problems, provide no healthcare services whatsoever, even in the event it leads to my death."

I started a thread saying JUST THAT. I think its a good idea.....except for the fact that once we watch someone die on the street for signing this waiver, we're gonna feel horrible.

and what about the children of parents who sign this waiver? yep, too many holes.

 

[CriticalThought]

Congress can't require me to have anything. They can only tax me if I don't have something. Chances are that politicians aren't going to sacrifice their political careers to pass such taxes. If being taxed for not having health insurance is so unpopular, then I doubt they are lining up to add any new taxes.

 

[Thunder]

Congress can't require me to have anything. They can only tax me if I don't have something. Chances are that politicians aren't going to sacrifice their political careers to pass such taxes. If being taxed for not having health insurance is so unpopular, then I doubt they are lining up to add any new taxes.

Milton Friedman would agree with your logic.

however, requiring you to have something and penalizing you if you don't, is the same thing.

 

[CriticalThought]

I started a thread saying JUST THAT. I think its a good idea.....except for the fact that once we watch someone die on the street for signing this waiver, we're gonna feel horrible.

and what about the children of parents who sign this waiver? yep, too many holes.

Meh, I won't feel bad. If that is what it takes for people to wise up, then let's do it that way.

 

[CriticalThought]

Milton Friedman would agree with your logic.

however, requiring you to have something and penalizing you if you don't, is the same thing.

No it isn't. I can choose not to have health insurance and pay the tax. Requiring me to have health insurance would mean I would have to have health insurance no matter what. There is a big difference.

 

[obvious Child]

I started a thread saying JUST THAT. I think its a good idea.....except for the fact that once we watch someone die on the street for signing this waiver, we're gonna feel horrible.

I won't. They made their choice. They will pay for it. And once we have a few of those idiots dropping dead, we'll see all of these statements get shreded when people realize just how stupid they are in signing it.

and what about the children of parents who sign this waiver? yep, too many holes.

Simple. People can only opt out themselves. Not their dependents. So parents would be forced to get insurance for their kids until they hit 18 at which point the no longer minors can make their own choices.

 

[Thunder]

...Simple. People can only opt out themselves. Not their dependents. So parents would be forced to get insurance for their kids until they hit 18 at which point the no longer minors can make their own choices.

if this waiver exists, we would have to guaruntee health insurance for all minors with a govt. program.

we can't have children dieing because they parent's sign the waiver.

 

[CriticalThought]

if this waiver exists, we would have to guaruntee health insurance for all minors with a govt. program.

we can't have children dieing because they parent's sign the waiver.

You are not required to have health insurance under this law. If you don't want it, then just pay the tax. The only thing you will get is limited emergency care, which is pretty much the same you would have had before the law.

The rhetoric is just so idiotic. Paying a tax for not having something is not the same as being forced to have it.

 

[Goshin]

So, Congress has required all Americans to buy health insurance.

And some folks are arguing that this will open the floodgates, with more and more laws requiring Americans to buy more & more things.

So, what do you think Congress will next require you to have?

edit: in 1792, Congress required all white-men between 18-45 to own a rifle, ammo, and a bag.

Who knows, but I do know this: for politicians to suddenly be granted a new category/avenue/excuse to exert politicial power, and NOT abuse it, is a rare thing.

It's not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is greased and someone is PUSHING.

 

[Thunder]

Who knows, but I do know this: for politicians to suddenly be granted a new category/avenue/excuse to exert politicial power, and NOT abuse it, is a rare thing.

It's not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is greased and someone is PUSHING.

frankly, I don't expect a law like this, taxing people for not owning something, to be passed again anywhere in the USA, for many decades.

 

[Goshin]

frankly, I don't expect a law like this, taxing people for not owning something, to be passed again anywhere in the USA, for many decades.

Some reason for that, other than just unsupported opinion?

 

[TurtleDude]

You know what?

Let people opt out of Obamacare....if they signed a waiver that states "I _____, under sound judgement declare to opt out of the PPACA with the explicit statement that if I require medical attention at any time after signing and are unable to pay for it, healthcare providers are required to ignore my medical problems, provide no healthcare services whatsoever, even in the event it leads to my death."

I wonder why we never got that option with the SS ponzi scheme

 

[Thunder]

Some reason for that, other than just unsupported opinion?

how could someone answer the OP with anything but speculation?

 

[Paschendale]

Some reason for that, other than just unsupported opinion?

It took the massive social issue of public health and its rising costs to bring about healthcare reform. It's been in the works for decades, and has been badly needed, and it's taken this long to get it to happen. Big changes like this only come about from overwhelming need. If a congressmember introduced a bill tomorrow requiring that everyone own a cell phone, it would never pass. There is no such need. Only an issue like health, education, homelessness, or jobs can trigger this kind of change.

 

[American]

So, Congress has required all Americans to buy health insurance.

And some folks are arguing that this will open the floodgates, with more and more laws requiring Americans to buy more & more things.

So, what do you think Congress will next require you to have?

edit: in 1792, Congress required all white-men between 18-45 to own a rifle, ammo, and a bag.

In 1792 that requirement would have been moot, because you'd have been damn stupid not to.

 

[CriticalThought]

In 1792 that requirement would have been moot, because you'd have been damn stupid not to.

I imagine in 200 years, people will be saying the same about health insurance today.

 

[American]

I imagine in 200 years, people will be saying the same about health insurance today.

So you've talked yourself into believing that at the spending rate we're going that we'll be here then.

Sent from my blasted phone.

 

[Matt Foley]

How about Life Insurance being next.

but ONLY if you own a car.

if you don't own a car, you aren't required to own car insurance.

Do you think that matters anymore?

 

[Thunder]

How about Life Insurance being next.

Do you think that matters anymore?

yes, it does.

 

[Matt Foley]

yes, it does.

No it doesn't matter anymore.