Congress followed the People's Mandate

[travelinman67]

Welcome to California.

Been living under that system for auto insurance for over a decade...

...the state has an office and call center in Thousand Oaks that employs 1,700 +/-...

...linked with the insurers...

...who notify them of lapses in coverage...

...so the state can immediately suspend the vehicle registration...

...which triggers a fine and fee to reinstate registration...

...after paying a penalty to the insurer to reinstate coverage...

...from insurers who have to be licensed by the state...

...and pay a percentage of net to the beholden.



On the east coast, it's called "pizzo".

Most states have that for autos. However, if I don't want to pay, at least I can choose not to buy a car. However, under this plan, I breathe, therefore I must purchase health insurance (not health care).

Why must a person choose whether to live with or without a car to facilitate the govt. and insurers conspiracy to extort from the public? The state has mandatory minimum coverage, and the so-called "high risk" pool that was supposed to be co-underwritten with state funds has been co-opted into a low-income insurance pool. The high risk premiums were so expensive, nobody could afford them (an example...under age 25, one injury accident + one point = $5,000 annual premium liability only).

And since California consumers cannot shop with non-CA licensed insurers, and the licensing fees are intentionally steep to stifle competition (i.e., basically 10 insurers holding 98% of market), there's little that can be done.

Now, my question is...

...was govt.'s involvement beneficial to the people, or the industry and govt. itself?

[houndawg]

I can get unemployment, welfare, food stamps, government subsidized housing and now healthcare if I'm unemployed.

There is now, finally absolutely NO incentive to EVER find a job.

You can't get unemployment if you didn't pay in, Z.

Until there are enough jobs for everybody who can work, your reasoning fails. Again.

Of course, if there were enough jobs to go around, you'd be among the first to squeal about opening the border because Americans won't work cheap enough........

[houndawg]

Most states have that for autos. However, if I don't want to pay, at least I can choose not to buy a car. However, under this plan, I breathe, therefore I must purchase health insurance (not health care).

Why must a person choose whether to live with or without a car to facilitate the govt. and insurers conspiracy to extort from the public? The state has mandatory minimum coverage, and the so-called "high risk" pool that was supposed to be co-underwritten with state funds has been co-opted into a low-income insurance pool. The high risk premiums were so expensive, nobody could afford them (an example...under age 25, one injury accident + one point = $5,000 annual premium liability only).

And since California consumers cannot shop with non-CA licensed insurers, and the licensing fees are intentionally steep to stifle competition (i.e., basically 10 insurers holding 98% of market), there's little that can be done.

Now, my question is...

...was govt.'s involvement beneficial to the people, or the industry and govt. itself?

the answer, of course, is.......whoever funneled more bribe money through their lobbyists.......

[ASUMountaineer]

Most states have that for autos. However, if I don't want to pay, at least I can choose not to buy a car. However, under this plan, I breathe, therefore I must purchase health insurance (not health care).

Why must a person choose whether to live with or without a car to facilitate the govt. and insurers conspiracy to extort from the public? The state has mandatory minimum coverage, and the so-called "high risk" pool that was supposed to be co-underwritten with state funds has been co-opted into a low-income insurance pool. The high risk premiums were so expensive, nobody could afford them (an example...under age 25, one injury accident + one point = $5,000 annual premium liability only).

And since California consumers cannot shop with non-CA licensed insurers, and the licensing fees are intentionally steep to stifle competition (i.e., basically 10 insurers holding 98% of market), there's little that can be done.

Now, my question is...

...was govt.'s involvement beneficial to the people, or the industry and govt. itself?

I didn't say I agreed with it, but I did say, "at least."

[AZGrizFan]

I can get unemployment, welfare, food stamps, government subsidized housing and now healthcare if I'm unemployed.

There is now, finally absolutely NO incentive to EVER find a job.

You can't get unemployment if you didn't pay in, Z.

Until there are enough jobs for everybody who can work, your reasoning fails. Again.

Of course, if there were enough jobs to go around, you'd be among the first to squeal about opening the border because Americans won't work cheap enough........

Those who are pennenially unemployed don't NEED unemployment. They're the welfare pros.

And you know nothing about me if you think THAT'S my stance on immigration.

[native]

You can't get unemployment if you didn't pay in, Z.

Until there are enough jobs for everybody who can work, your reasoning fails. Again.

Of course, if there were enough jobs to go around, you'd be among the first to squeal about opening the border because Americans won't work cheap enough........

Those who are pennenially unemployed don't NEED unemployment. They're the welfare pros.

And you know nothing about me if you think THAT'S my stance on immigration.

I would actually INCREASE immigration, but it would be orderly, legal, and we would weed out jackasses who don't want to be Americans first and learn to speak English IN ADDITION to their native tongue. We would not have to deny them entitlements because before we open immigration there would be no unearned entitlements for anyone.

[AZGrizFan]

Those who are pennenially unemployed don't NEED unemployment. They're the welfare pros.

And you know nothing about me if you think THAT'S my stance on immigration.

I would actually INCREASE immigration, but it would be orderly, legal, and we would weed out jackasses who don't want to be Americans first and learn to speak English IN ADDITION to their native tongue. We would not have to deny them entitlements because before we open immigration there would be no unearned entitlements for anyone.

Well, that's where your plans fall all to hell.

Deny entitlements.


That's some funny shit.

[D1B]

In 2008, the VOTERS overwhelming elected Democrats to the House, Senater and Presidency.

A major hallmark of the election was health care reform.


Despite the greatest efforts of the radical right to subvert the will of the people, the people prevailed.



A great day for Democracy - the people have spoken!

Nice Jon. Thanks buddy! Well said.

[D1B]

You can't get unemployment if you didn't pay in, Z.

Until there are enough jobs for everybody who can work, your reasoning fails. Again.

Of course, if there were enough jobs to go around, you'd be among the first to squeal about opening the border because Americans won't work cheap enough........

Those who are pennenially unemployed don't NEED unemployment. They're the welfare pros.

And you know nothing about me if you think THAT'S my stance on immigration.

Wrong again. I respect your intelligence, but you don't what the fuck you're talking bout here. You say this shit all the time riddled by the vision of Reagan's black, pregnant welfare quen.

Welfare aint fucking easy to get, unless you are mentally ill.

[Chizzang]

Spot on.

During the election, thousands of pundits and political analysts attempted to warn voters that Obama and Company would wreak economic havoc upon America and pull all stops to impose socialist policies on it's people.

Yet voters elected the Dems anyway.

Americans got what they voted for.

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

[AZGrizFan]

Spot on.

During the election, thousands of pundits and political analysts attempted to warn voters that Obama and Company would wreak economic havoc upon America and pull all stops to impose socialist policies on it's people.

Yet voters elected the Dems anyway.

Americans got what they voted for.

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

WRONG.

Kennedy (a donk) got us into Viet Nam. Nixon (a Rep) got us out. I believe you were alive when Nixon got us out....maybe not CONCIOUS, but alive.

But you're right about the social programs.

[Chizzang]

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

WRONG.

Kennedy (a donk) got us into Viet Nam. Nixon (a Rep) got us out. I believe you were alive when Nixon got us out....maybe not CONCIOUS, but alive.

But you're right about the social programs.

Reading Rush Limbaughs History books again..?
Kennedy was a senator when Eisenhower escalated troops into Vietnam..

[OL FU]

Spot on.

During the election, thousands of pundits and political analysts attempted to warn voters that Obama and Company would wreak economic havoc upon America and pull all stops to impose socialist policies on it's people.

Yet voters elected the Dems anyway.

Americans got what they voted for.

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

Same point but different take.

Americans vote in republicans because they are tired of the increasing welfare state and they get war. They then vote in democrats because they are tired of war and they get the increasing welfare state. In other words we can't win

[HI54UNI]

Spot on.

During the election, thousands of pundits and political analysts attempted to warn voters that Obama and Company would wreak economic havoc upon America and pull all stops to impose socialist policies on it's people.

Yet voters elected the Dems anyway.

Americans got what they voted for.

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

If you're 45 you weren't alive when Eisenhower was elected. Nixon would've been the first Republican elected and he didn't get us in a war.

Do you even read the shit you post?

[89Hen]

In 2008, the VOTERS overwhelming elected Democrats to the House, Senater and Presidency.

A major hallmark of the election was health care reform.

If it makes you sleep better Jon. I know the nightmare that is the upcoming mid-terms will be haunting you for the next 7+ months.

[travelinman67]

WRONG.

Kennedy (a donk) got us into Viet Nam. Nixon (a Rep) got us out. I believe you were alive when Nixon got us out....maybe not CONCIOUS, but alive.

But you're right about the social programs.

Reading Rush Limbaughs History books again..?
Kennedy was a senator when Eisenhower escalated troops into Vietnam..

Military advisers were sent into Vietnam under Truman. He established the MAAG (Military Assistance Advisory Group), which was the mechanism for U.S. assistance to South Vietnam throughout Eisenhower's administration. Although two U.S. military advisers were killed in '59, they were not there on a combat mission, merely genuine advisers. Kennedy was the first to send combat troops in May of '61.

Eisenhower never sent combat forces into Vietnam. Do your homework, Hippie.

Next.

[travelinman67]

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

Same point but different take.

Americans vote in republicans because they are tired of the increasing welfare state and they get war. They then vote in democrats because they are tired of war and they get the increasing welfare state. In other words we can't win

So...

...Repubs start war on the welfare state that Dem's establish...

...which, in all fairness, means the Dem's start the wars.

[kalm]

Most states have that for autos. However, if I don't want to pay, at least I can choose not to buy a car. However, under this plan, I breathe, therefore I must purchase health insurance (not health care).

Why must a person choose whether to live with or without a car to facilitate the govt. and insurers conspiracy to extort from the public? The state has mandatory minimum coverage, and the so-called "high risk" pool that was supposed to be co-underwritten with state funds has been co-opted into a low-income insurance pool. The high risk premiums were so expensive, nobody could afford them (an example...under age 25, one injury accident + one point = $5,000 annual premium liability only).

And since California consumers cannot shop with non-CA licensed insurers, and the licensing fees are intentionally steep to stifle competition (i.e., basically 10 insurers holding 98% of market), there's little that can be done.

Now, my question is...

...was govt.'s involvement beneficial to the people, or the industry and govt. itself?

You and I agree here. Government mandates directly benefiting an already inefficient private system. The worst of both words. Mussolini would be proud.

[houndawg]

Spot on.

During the election, thousands of pundits and political analysts attempted to warn voters that Obama and Company would wreak economic havoc upon America and pull all stops to impose socialist policies on it's people.

Yet voters elected the Dems anyway.

Americans got what they voted for.

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with one of my favorite posters here, for accuracy's sake: George W Bush wasn't elected when he decided to be a "war President" and invade the wrong country. He was appointed by the SCOTUS.

Most of the voters voted for somebody else.

[89Hen]

Bush wasn't elected when he decided to be a "war President" and invade the wrong country. He was appointed by the SCOTUS.

Most of the voters voted for somebody else.

I love having you around dawg.

[GannonFan]

As far as I can tell America always "gets what it voted for"
In my entire life every time a republican has been elected we've gotten into a war (every time)
Every time a Democrat was elected we expanded social programs... (every time)

I'm 45 years old... and this is already a trend - it's not new and it's not News

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with one of my favorite posters here, for accuracy's sake: George W Bush wasn't elected when he decided to be a "war President" and invade the wrong country. He was appointed by the SCOTUS.

Most of the voters voted for somebody else.

Darn that electoral system, eh? And darn all those newspaper investigations after the SCOTUS action that still found that Bush won Florida, and hence the election.

People still thinking that Gore won the election - they're like the Democratic version of the Birthers on the Republican side - both parties have their share of loons, apparently.

[AZGrizFan]

Bush wasn't elected when he decided to be a "war President" and invade the wrong country. He was appointed by the SCOTUS.

Most of the voters voted for somebody else.

I love having you around dawg.

If for nothing else, at least there's entertainment value, huh Hen?

[Skjellyfetti]

Darn that electoral system, eh? And darn all those newspaper investigations after the SCOTUS action that still found that Bush won Florida, and hence the election.

People still thinking that Gore won the election - they're like the Democratic version of the Birthers on the Republican side - both parties have their share of loons, apparently.

Noone will ever know who would have won Florida had a full recount been performed.

It's erroneous to say Gore would have won it. And it's erroneous to say that Bush would have won it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w ... orida.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

I love having you around dawg.

If for nothing else, at least there's entertainment value, huh Hen?

He is so easy to best in argument, the dawg must really a conk plant.

[AZGrizFan]

Darn that electoral system, eh? And darn all those newspaper investigations after the SCOTUS action that still found that Bush won Florida, and hence the election.

People still thinking that Gore won the election - they're like the Democratic version of the Birthers on the Republican side - both parties have their share of loons, apparently.

Noone will ever know who would have won Florida had a full recount been performed.

It's erroneous to say Gore would have won it. And it's erroneous to say that Bush would have won it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/w ... orida.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ralph? Is that you?