View Poll Results: Do you feel the government should be allowed to do this?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, explain

    2 7.14%
  • No, explain

    22 78.57%
  • I'm unsure

    4 14.29%
  • Regressive party vote

    0 0%
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 112

Thread: Fines for abortion?

  1. #41
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    No, it's completely outlandish to fine someone for not paying a bill before they are even presented with the bill.
    You ignored the actual content of my post that explains WHY it makes sense, and just repeated your talking point.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-09-09 at 04:12 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #42
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, it isn't. Not even close. In your example, they've actually stopped paying something
    They didn't stop paying their credit card bill. Is the credit card company being outlandish to assume that they will stop paying their bill, and increase their rates accordingly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    and the credit card companies can raise rates according to the the contract which the cardholder signed.
    That is a legal point, and is a separate issue from my point that it is hardly irrational to suspect that an individual will default when the statistics back that up. Sure, it's possible that any individual person will be one of the few who does not default...but businesses play the odds. The government should too.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-09-09 at 04:13 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #43
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    They didn't stop paying their credit card bill. Is the credit card company being outlandish to assume that they will stop paying their bill, and increase their rates accordingly?
    They agreed to pay their mortgage and they stopped paying. They're going back on their agreement.

    Someone who doesn't carry insurance, intentionally, never agreed to carry insurance. They have nothing to go back on.



    but businesses play the odds. The government should too.
    What else do you want to extend that analysis to? Anyone you want to lock up pre-emptively because "statistics" show they're eventually going to commit crimes? Or do you want to wait until they actually commit crimes?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Same thing here. It's perfectly logical for the government to assume that if you don't have health insurance, you'll default on your medical bills and stick the taxpayers with the bill. It's perfectly logical for the government to assume that if you don't have auto insurance, you'll default on your compensation to your potential crash victim, and stick him (or his insurance company) with the bill. And they should fine people accordingly, just like the credit card companies increase interest rates accordingly.
    Except in the case of the credit card company and mortages you're CHOOSING to voluntarily enter into an agreement KNOWING that there's a chance that if you do certain actions it will cause your rates to go up. You can't compare this to choosing NOT to buy something that the government has no business REQUIRING you to have.

    Secondly...

    You can't compare it to auto-insurance for the simple reason that there is an over riding state interest, at least partially, in this because you are utilizing that vehicle on government property (the road). And, as it is on their property, the government at least in a small way needs to be sure you're operating on it safetly. Thus why I have little issue with drivers liscenses or speed limits, etc.

    This again, is different than your body. The government has no good reason to have a vested interest in your body. They have no business in your having of insurance or not, unless PERHAPS at a point in time when you actually do SOMETHING that causes issue to other people.

    However sitting there, with no insurance, and not going to the hospital harms no one.

    You can not start FINING people for something that has absolutely no baring on anyone else in any way. This simply opens up the door for fining people who smoke, or drink soda, or eat fast food, or don't exercise 3 times a day, or any other thing you'd want that has to do with a body.

    It is only loosely like auto-insurance and NOTHING like credit card company agreements. You're having the government fine someone for something the government has no business in due to something the person MIGHT do. That's absolutely insane.

  5. #45
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You're having the government fine someone for something the government has no business in due to something the person MIGHT do. That's absolutely insane.
    And it's totalitarian to boot.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #46
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    They agreed to pay their mortgage and they stopped paying. They're going back on their agreement.
    Maybe I'm not explaining my analogy properly. The mortgage and the credit card are with two completely different institutions.

    Let's say I have a mortgage with Chase Bank, and I have a Visa credit card through Bank of America. If I stop paying my mortgage and keep paying my credit card, I haven't violated a single agreement I've made with my credit card company. Is it illogical of them to raise my rates anyway? Of course not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    Someone who doesn't carry insurance, intentionally, never agreed to carry insurance. They have nothing to go back on.
    So are you against auto insurance mandates as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    What else do you want to extend that analysis to? Anyone you want to lock up pre-emptively because "statistics" show they're eventually going to commit crimes? Or do you want to wait until they actually commit crimes?
    Hyperbole alert.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #47
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    And it's totalitarian to boot.
    To get you to do something it deemed beneficial, the government used to give you a tax break.
    Now it fines you if you don't do it.


  8. #48
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Except in the case of the credit card company and mortages you're CHOOSING to voluntarily enter into an agreement KNOWING that there's a chance that if you do certain actions it will cause your rates to go up. You can't compare this to choosing NOT to buy something that the government has no business REQUIRING you to have.
    We could argue all day over whether your putting yourself at risk and potentially sticking the taxpayers with a bill is a legitimate "choice" to make. But it's hardly irrational from an economic standpoint for the government to want to protect its investors (i.e. the taxpayers) from stupid behaviors (e.g. not owning health insurance), just like it isn't irrational from an economic standpoint for the credit card company to want to protect its investors from stupid behaviors (e.g. people who aren't paying their bills on time).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    You can't compare it to auto-insurance for the simple reason that there is an over riding state interest, at least partially, in this because you are utilizing that vehicle on government property (the road). And, as it is on their property, the government at least in a small way needs to be sure you're operating on it safetly. Thus why I have little issue with drivers liscenses or speed limits, etc.
    That is a pretty weak justification, as the government is never successfully sued for accidents that occur on its roads (unless the condition of the road itself is in question).

    What if someone lives in a small community with all-private roads, and never leaves? Should they have to purchase auto insurance? Well yes, because if they have an accident without insurance they're still going to stick the other party (or the other party's insurance company) with the bills, whether they're on public roads or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    This again, is different than your body. The government has no good reason to have a vested interest in your body. They have no business in your having of insurance or not, unless PERHAPS at a point in time when you actually do SOMETHING that causes issue to other people.
    The government has a vested interest in protecting its investors from economic harm, just like a credit card company does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    However sitting there, with no insurance, and not going to the hospital harms no one.
    No, but neither does driving without auto insurance and not having accidents. But no one ever PLANS to have accidents or go to the hospital, so this point is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    You can not start FINING people for something that has absolutely no baring on anyone else in any way.
    It DOES have baring on the taxpayers. Who is going to pay if you don't have insurance and can't pay your ER bill?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #49
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    We could argue all day over whether your putting yourself at risk and potentially sticking the taxpayers with a bill is a legitimate "choice" to make. But it's hardly irrational from an economic standpoint for the government to want to protect its investors (i.e. the taxpayers) from stupid behaviors (e.g. not owning health insurance),
    Odd.
    I thought the right to choose also meant you had the right to choose poorly, understanding that with every choice you made, you were responsible for the outcome.

    Remember that the government doesnt HAVE to pay for those that have no insureance, and so there is no basis for the argument that those that choose poorly place a burden on society.

    What if someone lives in a small community with all-private roads, and never leaves? Should they have to purchase auto insurance? Well yes
    Under the law, you only need auto insurance when operating the vehicle on public roads.

  10. #50
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Fines for abortion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Maybe I'm not explaining my analogy properly.
    No, you did -- it's just a bad analogy.

    The mortgage and the credit card are with two completely different institutions.
    So? The government and the hospital are (currently) two completely different institutions.


    Let's say I have a mortgage with Chase Bank, and I have a Visa credit card through Bank of America. If I stop paying my mortgage and keep paying my credit card, I haven't violated a single agreement I've made with my credit card company. Is it illogical of them to raise my rates anyway? Of course not.
    Are you taking the legal agreement into account, or aren't you? The agreement says the credit card company may raise your rates if you have late payments in other, unrelated accounts.

    But the point is, it's not "outlandish" for that clause to be there, because when you default on your mortgage, you're going back on your word and you are demonstrably a worse risk because you stopped doing what you promised to do.

    But if you don't carry insurance, you're going back on nothing; there's no history to draw from. You promised to do nothing.


    So are you against auto insurance mandates as well?
    If I were not, it wouldn't mean anything, because it's not the same thing at all. You can always not drive on a public road. What do you suggest? Not allow uninsureds out of their homes?

    And besides, it's doubly absurd because there's no income requirement for mandated car insurance. You don't get a pass because you "can't afford it." The schemes are not comparable.


    Hyperbole alert.
    You say so only because it demonstrates your "risk assessment" scheme of fining people before they've done anything, based on "likelihood," is absurd. Unfortunately, all of your arguments can be used to argue for pre-emptive lockups. If they can't, then please fully explain how.

    Besides, fines are punishment, and according to the 5th and 14th Amendments, punishments still require due process.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •