• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More physicians leaving private practices

Oh, BTW, minimum required insurance by state (The first two numbers refer to bodily injury liability limits and the third number refers to the property damage liability limit. The first two numbers in 25/50/20 would mean in an accident each person injured would receive a maximum of up to 25,000 with only 50,000 allowed per accident (ex. 2 people needing 25,000, if the need is more such as 3 people needing 25,000 then whoever files first gets first access to the 50,000 limit and you may be sued for the rest if the accident was your fault!). The last number refers to the total coverage per accident for property damage which in this case would be 20,000.)

# Alaska 50/100/25
# Alabama 20/40/10
# Arkansas 25/50/15
# Arizona 15/30/10
# California 15/30/5
# Colorado 25/50/15
# Connecticut 20/40/10
# Delaware 15/30/5
# Florida 10/20/10
# Georgia 15/30/10
# Hawaii 20/40/10
# Idaho 20/50/15
# Illinois 20/40/15
# Indiana 25/50/10
# Iowa 20/40/15
# Kansas 25/50/10
# Kentucky 25/50/10
# Louisiana 10/20/10
# Maine 50/100/25
# Maryland 20/40/10
# Massachusetts 20/40/5
# Michigan 20/40/10
# Minnesota 30/60/10
# Mississippi 25/50/25
# Missouri 25/50/10
# Montana 25/50/10
# Nebraska 25/50/25
# New Hampshire 25/50/25
# New Jersey 15/30/5
# New Mexico 25/50/10
# Nevada 15/30/10
# New York 25/50/10
# North Carolina 30/60/25
# North Dakota 25/50/25
# Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
# Oklahoma 10/20/10
# Oregon 25/50/10
# Pennsylvania 15/30/5
# Rhode Island 25/50/25
# South Carolina 25/50/25
# South Dakota 25/50/25
# Tennessee 25/50/10
# Texas 30/60/25
# Utah 25/65/15
# Virginia 25/50/20
# Vermont 25/50/10
# Washington 25/50/10
# Wisconsin 25/50/10
# West Virginia 20/40/10
# Wyoming 25/50/20

I don't see any 0 values for New Hampshire nor Wisconsin.


Oh, aren't we clever?.....

States that Don’t Require Car Insurance: New Hampshire

The only states that do not require mandatory car insurance as of 2010 and for its drivers are New Hampshire and Wisconsin. However, the unofficial Department of Motor Vehicles guide writes that it depends on the circumstances as to whether or not you actually need it. For any driver, not having coverage remains risky.

For example if the accident you become involved in involve drugs or alcohol, your case may be reviewed per requirements. In such a case, the state of New Hampshire may suspend, or even revoke, your driver’s license should you not be able to cover the fiscal damages of the other party that is injured. Cleary, getting a DUI conviction can cost more than increased insurance rates.

States that Don’t Require Car Insurance: Wisconsin

The laws that govern the state of Wisconsin are a paradox. While there is no mandatory law that requires its residents purchase auto insurance, citizens of the state have to be able to prove their ability to pay for damages in the event of an auto accident if they are the ones at fault. The unofficial Department of Motor Vehicles guide says that this can be done in a number of ways.

First the motorist can carry liability insurance on the vehicle.
Second they can put a cash deposit of $60,000 or more down with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Finally they can file a bond with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation as well.
If a motorist happens to get stopped in Wisconsin by a police officer in the do not have insurance, an independent investigation will be led by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the case will be put under review.

States that Don't Require Car Insurance

Now this was as of 2010.....Anything newer?

j-mac
 
I looked up the minimum insurance by state and came up with requirements in both New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Do they have specific laws where they don't have minimum requirements?
NH doesn't require you to have insurance.

They require proof that you can meet certain financial liabilities should they arise from an accident. Insurance is just one way that you can provide proof of your ability to meet those potential costs


Section 264:20 Amount of Proof of Financial Responsibility.

264:20 Amount of Proof of Financial Responsibility. – Proof of financial responsibility shall mean proof of ability to respond in damages for any liability thereafter incurred, as a result of accidents which occur in New Hampshire, arising out of the ownership, maintenance, control, or use of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer in the amount of $25,000 because of bodily injury or death to any one person; and subject to said limit respecting one person, in the amount of $50,000 because of bodily injury to or death to 2 or more persons in any one accident, and in the amount of $25,000 because of injury to and destruction of property in any one accident. Whenever required under this chapter such proof in such amounts shall be furnished for each motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer registered by such person.​
 
NH doesn't require you to have insurance.

They require proof that you can meet certain financial liabilities should they arise from an accident. Insurance is just one way that you can provide proof of your ability to meet those potential costs


Section 264:20 Amount of Proof of Financial Responsibility.

264:20 Amount of Proof of Financial Responsibility. – Proof of financial responsibility shall mean proof of ability to respond in damages for any liability thereafter incurred, as a result of accidents which occur in New Hampshire, arising out of the ownership, maintenance, control, or use of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer in the amount of $25,000 because of bodily injury or death to any one person; and subject to said limit respecting one person, in the amount of $50,000 because of bodily injury to or death to 2 or more persons in any one accident, and in the amount of $25,000 because of injury to and destruction of property in any one accident. Whenever required under this chapter such proof in such amounts shall be furnished for each motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer registered by such person.​

OK, I got you. There's requirement to show that you can be financially responsible should you get into an accident and that can either be personal finances which you would have to demonstrate or insurance?
 
OK, I got you. There's requirement to show that you can be financially responsible should you get into an accident and that can either be personal finances which you would have to demonstrate or insurance?
afaict
0123
 
You choose to go to the doctor, that's another choice which is involved.

People don't always go to the doctor for life threatening things. That's more emergency room, and we all pay for that via taxes. We don't turn anyone down at the emergency room.

But you have to purchase health insurance under the new mandate whether you choose to go to the doctor or not. Even if you use homeopathic therapy and/or faith healing or just don't go to the doctor you still have to purchase the health insurance.

If you were required to purchase auto insurance whether you had a driver's license or not, then it would be a fair comparison.

Like I said, I am all for UHC, just not a health insurance mandate because it seems to me like it would be a much better fix for helping to reduce the costs of care and ensure that everyone is treated fairly and there is no middleman to mandate a purchase from.
 
I looked up the minimum insurance by state and came up with requirements in both New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Do they have specific laws where they don't have minimum requirements?

don't know
just googled to find out whether those states imposed insurance requirements on drivers and found that wisconsin imposed that requirement a couple of years back. the 49th state to do so
 
But you have to purchase health insurance under the new mandate whether you choose to go to the doctor or not. Even if you use homeopathic therapy and/or faith healing or just don't go to the doctor you still have to purchase the health insurance.

If you were required to purchase auto insurance whether you had a driver's license or not, then it would be a fair comparison.

Like I said, I am all for UHC, just not a health insurance mandate because it seems to me like it would be a much better fix for helping to reduce the costs of care and ensure that everyone is treated fairly and there is no middleman to mandate a purchase from.

Car insurance is dependent, though, upon a car. Health insurance is dependent upon health. You can divorce yourself from a car, but not so much from your health (well you can do it once). The health is constant. If you were born with a car and couldn't get rid of it, it'd be the same deal. The point is that in order to exercise any amount of our control over our property, be that property a car we purchased or the body we're born with, there are government laws which require us to purchase forms of insurance. Thus the original statement that "government can't force somebody to buy anything." is obviously incorrect because the government already forces us to buy lots of stuff, including car insurance.

Fact of the matter is, they have the guns and they can make us do whatever they want and the rest of y'all will be too busy pointing your finger at the other side to do anything about it.
 
Red herring.

Well, considering that the entire OP is non sequitur, I'm sure some will give me a bit of an allowance in this case.

You are equating tax money expenditure,

Mandated taxes become government funds which in turn become legally allocated expenditures. This occurs at the local, state and federal level.

and one that is constitutionally mandated in the enumerated powers,

We're Constitutionally mandated to have over 800 foreign bases?

to buying state insurance coverage on a car?

You asked:
"Can you tell me what else the Federal Government requires that I buy as a part of being a citizen of the US?"

I answered. Try to keep up with your own thread drift.

You really think we are that stupid?

j-mac

I don't know enough about you to make that call at this point. However, I am leaning in one direction over the other...
 
Last edited:
But you have to purchase health insurance under the new mandate whether you choose to go to the doctor or not. Even if you use homeopathic therapy and/or faith healing or just don't go to the doctor you still have to purchase the health insurance.

I wouldn't mind allowing people who had some religious or conscientious objection to health care to receive a waiver from the mandate. But as for people who just don't go to the doctor...I think it's fair to assume that they WILL want to go to the doctor in the event of an emergency or severe illness. And thus the mandate is necessary.

roguenuke said:
If you were required to purchase auto insurance whether you had a driver's license or not, then it would be a fair comparison.

Like I said, I am all for UHC, just not a health insurance mandate because it seems to me like it would be a much better fix for helping to reduce the costs of care and ensure that everyone is treated fairly and there is no middleman to mandate a purchase from.

There's not really any way to make UHC work (at least the type of UHC under consideration) without an insurance mandate. Otherwise people will just game the system by waiting until they get sick to sign up for health insurance.
 
I wouldn't mind allowing people who had some religious or conscientious objection to health care to receive a waiver from the mandate. But as for people who just don't go to the doctor...I think it's fair to assume that they WILL want to go to the doctor in the event of an emergency or severe illness. And thus the mandate is necessary.



There's not really any way to make UHC work (at least the type of UHC under consideration) without an insurance mandate. Otherwise people will just game the system by waiting until they get sick to sign up for health insurance.

but isn't that the Constitutional objection it now faces
this is not a tax to be levied but a government compelled obligation to purchase something from a vendor
can the government impose such an obligation upon a citizen to buy something from a third party
 
but isn't that the Constitutional objection it now faces
this is not a tax to be levied but a government compelled obligation to purchase something from a vendor
can the government impose such an obligation upon a citizen to buy something from a third party

Yes, it can. There is no practical distinction between this and a tax, because no one is actually FORCED to buy health insurance...they just have to pay a fine to the government if they don't. So for all practical purposes, it's the equivalent of giving a tax credit to anyone who DOES purchase health insurance. And we do that sort of thing all the time. You can get a tax credit when you take out a mortgage from a private lender, you can get a tax credit when you hire a moving company (in some circumstances), you can get a tax credit when you pay tuition at a private school, you can get a tax credit when you buy solar panels from a private company, etc. Any of those things could just as easily be construed as a tax upon people who don't do them, since the net effect is exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Oh? Or are we just being dishonest. If I want to drive, I have to have insurance. The government forces me to buy that. The statement was "tThe government can't force people to buy something. " But the government forces us to buy a lot of stuff. Car insurance included. Thanks for playing.

State, not Federal.
 
Yes, it can. There is no practical distinction between this and a tax, because no one is actually FORCED to buy health insurance...they just have to pay a fine to the government if they don't. So for all practical purposes, it's the equivalent of giving a tax credit to anyone who DOES purchase health insurance. And we do that sort of thing all the time. You can get a tax credit when you take out a mortgage from a private lender, you can get a tax credit when you hire a moving company (in some circumstances), you can get a tax credit when you pay tuition at a private school, you can get a tax credit when you buy solar panels from a private company, etc. Any of those things could just as easily be construed as a tax upon people who don't do them, since the net effect is exactly the same.

since it is not a tax obligation, i do not find the Constitutional basis to compel this purchase from a third party, potentially a for-profit vendor
that establishes a precedent which could have negative implications for all citizens

that a penalty could be levied because one failed to make the government compelled purchase from the third party vendor does not in any way modify the reality that the law obligates the citizen to enter into such transaction with a private concern

i will be interested to hear/read the government's argument before the supreme court on this matter defending its Constitutional authority to require all citizens to buy from a private vendor what the citizens may not want
 
Oh, BTW, minimum required insurance by state (The first two numbers refer to bodily injury liability limits and the third number refers to the property damage liability limit. The first two numbers in 25/50/20 would mean in an accident each person injured would receive a maximum of up to 25,000 with only 50,000 allowed per accident (ex. 2 people needing 25,000, if the need is more such as 3 people needing 25,000 then whoever files first gets first access to the 50,000 limit and you may be sued for the rest if the accident was your fault!). The last number refers to the total coverage per accident for property damage which in this case would be 20,000.)

# Alaska 50/100/25
# Alabama 20/40/10
# Arkansas 25/50/15
# Arizona 15/30/10
# California 15/30/5
# Colorado 25/50/15
# Connecticut 20/40/10
# Delaware 15/30/5
# Florida 10/20/10
# Georgia 15/30/10
# Hawaii 20/40/10
# Idaho 20/50/15
# Illinois 20/40/15
# Indiana 25/50/10
# Iowa 20/40/15
# Kansas 25/50/10
# Kentucky 25/50/10
# Louisiana 10/20/10
# Maine 50/100/25
# Maryland 20/40/10
# Massachusetts 20/40/5
# Michigan 20/40/10
# Minnesota 30/60/10
# Mississippi 25/50/25
# Missouri 25/50/10
# Montana 25/50/10
# Nebraska 25/50/25
# New Hampshire 25/50/25
# New Jersey 15/30/5
# New Mexico 25/50/10
# Nevada 15/30/10
# New York 25/50/10
# North Carolina 30/60/25
# North Dakota 25/50/25
# Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
# Oklahoma 10/20/10
# Oregon 25/50/10
# Pennsylvania 15/30/5
# Rhode Island 25/50/25
# South Carolina 25/50/25
# South Dakota 25/50/25
# Tennessee 25/50/10
# Texas 30/60/25
# Utah 25/65/15
# Virginia 25/50/20
# Vermont 25/50/10
# Washington 25/50/10
# Wisconsin 25/50/10
# West Virginia 20/40/10
# Wyoming 25/50/20

I don't see any 0 values for New Hampshire nor Wisconsin.

And I don't see a link validating these numbers. I don't know how many others are wrong, but Louisiana is no longer 10 20 10, its 25 50 something. That's been changed for several years.
 
that a penalty could be levied because one failed to make the government compelled purchase from the third party vendor does not in any way modify the reality that the law obligates the citizen to enter into such transaction with a private concern

Only if you think of it in terms of "We want you to do A, and if you don't we're going to penalize you by making you do B." That's pretty subjective. A more neutral reading of the law would be "We're compelling you to do either A or B, take your pick." So no one is being forced to buy private insurance, any more than anyone is being forced to pay the government a fee for being uninsured. You have two distinct options, and you can choose the one that you like better.
 
Only if you think of it in terms of "We want you to do A, and if you don't we're going to penalize you by making you do B." That's pretty subjective. A more neutral reading of the law would be "We're compelling you to do either A or B, take your pick." So no one is being forced to buy private insurance, any more than anyone is being forced to pay the government a fee for being uninsured. You have two distinct options, and you can choose the one that you like better.


Wait a minute here. Is it a tax or not? If you are telling me that I have to purchase health Ins. in order to avoid a fine, that is the government forcing me to purchase something. If you are saying that I only have two choices in a supposedly free country how does that add up?

Face it, there are some real problems with this HC law that Obama is pushing on us.

j-mac
 
Wait a minute here. Is it a tax or not?

Essentially, yes.

j-mac said:
If you are telling me that I have to purchase health Ins. in order to avoid a fine, that is the government forcing me to purchase something.

No. Your options are A) Buy health insurance, or B) Pay the government an additional 2.5% of your income.
The fact that you think that means "I have to buy health insurance in order to avoid coughing up 2.5% of my income" is nothing more than YOUR subjective interpretation of the law, which isn't found anywhere in the text. You could just as easily view it as "I have to cough up 2.5% of my income in order to avoid buying health insurance."

j-mac said:
If you are saying that I only have two choices in a supposedly free country how does that add up?

Umm because there are countless things where you only have two choices?

j-mac said:
Face it, there are some real problems with this HC law that Obama is pushing on us.

Indeed there are. They just aren't the problems you've identified.
 
Essentially, yes.



No. Your options are A) Buy health insurance, or B) Pay the government an additional 2.5% of your income.
The fact that you think that means "I have to buy health insurance in order to avoid coughing up 2.5% of my income" is nothing more than YOUR subjective interpretation of the law, which isn't found anywhere in the text. You could just as easily view it as "I have to cough up 2.5% of my income in order to avoid buying health insurance."



Umm because there are countless things where you only have two choices?



Indeed there are. They just aren't the problems you've identified.


Ok, so after Obama declared for months that this isn't a tax, and no taxes would be raised on the poor, and middle class, he raises them by up to 25% in many cases. So it is a case of choose your lie I guess. Either he was lying when he said it wasn't a tax, or he is lying now.....Either way....

j-mac
 
Ok, so after Obama declared for months that this isn't a tax, and no taxes would be raised on the poor, and middle class, he raises them by up to 25% in many cases. So it is a case of choose your lie I guess. Either he was lying when he said it wasn't a tax, or he is lying now.....Either way....

I'm not really interested in what politicians say for political posturing (I could point out that Republicans swore up and down it was a tax, until the law passed and they filed a lawsuit saying the opposite). I'm more interested in the substance of the law.
 
Only if you think of it in terms of "We want you to do A, and if you don't we're going to penalize you by making you do B." That's pretty subjective. A more neutral reading of the law would be "We're compelling you to do either A or B, take your pick." So no one is being forced to buy private insurance, any more than anyone is being forced to pay the government a fee for being uninsured. You have two distinct options, and you can choose the one that you like better.

i don't follow you here
the two options for a citizen are to (a) pay the private third party as directed by the federal government; or (b) pay a fine to the federal government for not doing (a)
notice how it still revolves around the federal government forcing you to buy something from a private vendor whether you want it or not, or incurring a fine if you fail to make a purchase from that private third party vendor
if you believe that is Constitutionally sound then you would also recognize that the federal government passing legislation compelling you to buy natural gas from a natural gas provider, whether you use natural gas or not, or want natural gas or not, would be found legal
i will stay with 'no'
 
i don't follow you here
the two options for a citizen are to (a) pay the private third party as directed by the federal government; or (b) pay a fine to the federal government for not doing (a)
notice how it still revolves around the federal government forcing you to buy something from a private vendor whether you want it or not, or incurring a fine if you fail to make a purchase from that private third party vendor

Look at it this way: The law raises your taxes by 2.5% of your income. However, if you choose to get health insurance, the government will give you a tax credit for 2.5% of your income. The government gives tax credits for purchases made in the private sector all the time, with everything from solar panels to mortgage interest to eyeglasses.

justabubba said:
if you believe that is Constitutionally sound then you would also recognize that the federal government passing legislation compelling you to buy natural gas from a natural gas provider, whether you use natural gas or not, or want natural gas or not, would be found legal

Yes, I see no reason why that would be unconstitutional. (Whether it would be good policy is a separate question). But regardless, the scenarios aren't exactly comparable because in your scenario they're forcing you to buy natural gas, whereas the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually force you to buy health insurance. You can pay 2.5% of your income instead.
 
Last edited:








More lies....So much for keeping your doctor....

j-mac


J, why wouldn't they still keep thier doctor? They are still in practice, so why do you think the doctor would change? Please, explain further.
 
I do not hesitate to tell everyone that Obama is incapable of telling the truth.

The cuts in Medicare have cause Doctors to drop elderly patients because they can't afford to receive only 1/3 of what it costs to treat them.

Obama care is frighten to me because it well place severe limits on what treatment older patients can receive. Obama claims no death panels.

Okay I believe it but it's a matter of semantics. Remember a rose by any name.

There was a time when I would never consider saying what I have said about Obama and Bush but we are in harms way, out continued existence as the greatest, freest, Nation on Earth is at stake.
 
Back
Top Bottom