Poll of the Day > so GOP plans to get rid of obamacare

(+) Yeah! (+)

adjl posted...

That's a pretty reasonable requirement, actually. It makes sure other people on the road don't have to pay if you screw up. Given that you are not perfect and infallible, that's always a possibility. Even on the off chance you actually are, you're still going to want all the other people on the road that aren't to be able to pay for any of their screw-ups that affect you, and given that there's really no way to determine who's actually never going to do anything wrong, a blanket requirement is the best way to ensure that coverage.

Sure, it makes sense on the macro level. But on the micro for most individual cases, they're paying into what is essentially a required lottery. The average amount people pay into car insurance over a lifetime is about 100k. The majority of people will never get 100k out of the system and are thus paying for the small amount of people that will take out more than that. Someone is obviously getting screwed over in this equation.

As a safe driver, I would prefer to take the chance that I will eventually cause an accident. Hell, I could just save the money that I'm paying into car insurance and use that to pay off any incidents that occur and still come out ahead so long as I don't cause some catastrophic accident.

The only benefit of having car insurance is preventing that catastrophic incident. Otherwise it will never pay off.

On that note, I would also be okay with providing catastrophic health insurance to every person that can't afford it as well. So if you get cancer or some shit, then fine, it's covered.
---

Zangrief posted...

I donate over 10% of my income per year to charities. Not all of them US based. So stick that presumption up your ass.

Only 10% Wow. That's next to nothing bro. Just 30 cents more out of your wallet and you could save a life.

But instead you're being a selfish asshole and donating only 10% of your income. You make me fucking sick.
---

Smarkil posted...

so long as I don't cause some catastrophic accident.

The only benefit of having car insurance is preventing that catastrophic incident. Otherwise it will never pay off.

That's the thing though, we never know if/when we will get into a car accident or the extent of the damage. I'll agree it's one big gamble/lottery system but some folks might not be able to pay for these catastrophic incident and I am not sure if some folks want to "win" this gamble/lottery and end up having to "cash-in".

Nowadays cars have almost too much tech in them. If someone rear-end me it won't be just some hundreds to replace the bumper but probably some thousand or so for the bumper and sensors inside the bumper and this is just for a simple fender bender.
---

Donating money if your itemizing your tax returns is often a net bonus in cash for you, instead of actually hurting you at all. It's one thing if you donate and don't get anything out of it yourself, it's another if donating not only reduces your taxable income (so you have less money you pay taxes on), but drops you down a tax bracket as well (so, for instance filing jointly with 70k income, could drop your total tax bracket by 10%....saving you way more then you donated (saying you donated $5 to drop the bracket, you would pay 15% instead of 25% on only 65k and, so a net savings of over $7000 (while you donated $5000), so a net profit of $2000. That is of course not including any other advantages you would get form going with itemized deductions (Which on top of dropping your tax bracket could reduce your total taxable income by 50%...meaning unlike the stardard deduction of 15k for a married couple, you could drop it by 35k, end up paying 15% instead of 25% of that 35k as well.

But whatever, this is not a tax discussion.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

That's the thing though, we never know if/when we will get into a car accident or the extent of the damage. I'll agree it's one big gamble/lottery system but some folks might not be able to pay for these catastrophic incident and I am not sure if some folks want to "win" this gamble/lottery and end up having to "cash-in".

Nowadays cars have almost too much tech in them. If someone rear-end me it won't be just some hundreds to replace the bumper but probably some thousand or so for the bumper and sensors inside the bumper and this is just for a simple fender bender.

That's the other thing. Cars should theoretically be getting safer. And once self-driving cars become a thing, are those people still going to be charged insurance on them because they own and operate the car? Will it be at the same rate as non-self driving car owners?

My car has automated lane assist and cruise control. Which means I set it on the freeway and it will keep me in the lanes and automatically brake/speed up when necessary. It also has collision detection and automatic braking. Should I be paying the same amount in insurance as a car that is identical in cost to mine but doesn't have that safety feature?
---

Smarkil posted...

Zangrief posted...

I donate over 10% of my income per year to charities. Not all of them US based. So stick that presumption up your ass.

Only 10% Wow. That's next to nothing bro. Just 30 cents more out of your wallet and you could save a life.

But instead you're being a selfish asshole and donating only 10% of your income. You make me fucking sick.

How much do you donate? You have no business giving anyone shit for how much they donate. At least he does.
---

Smarkil posted...

That's the other thing. Cars should theoretically be getting safer. And once self-driving cars become a thing, are those people still going to be charged insurance on them because they own and operate the car? Will it be at the same rate as non-self driving car owners?

My car has automated lane assist and cruise control. Which means I set it on the freeway and it will keep me in the lanes and automatically brake/speed up when necessary. It also has collision detection and automatic braking. Should I be paying the same amount in insurance as a car that is identical in cost to mine but doesn't have that safety feature?

Given that some states/insurances kinda consider both drivers at fault, I have doubts it will change. Its just baffling that you could be safely driving down a road, someone hit you, and now the insurance consider you a high risk policy holder and raise your premium.

Personally I am fine if car insurance was optional but in turn that could mean more of the burden would be on the insurance itself if the policy holder is hit by an uninsured driver.
---

Smarkil posted...

Zangrief posted...

I donate over 10% of my income per year to charities. Not all of them US based. So stick that presumption up your ass.

Only 10% Wow. That's next to nothing bro. Just 30 cents more out of your wallet and you could save a life.

But instead you're being a selfish asshole and donating only 10% of your income. You make me fucking sick.

Your back must be sore after carrying those goal posts.

None of your supposed "point", which is completely off the mark by the way, changes what I said originally. Considering 30 cents out of their pocket is probably far under 1% of their income, and they think it's more important to keep than to help their fellow man.

You can make some more false equivalencies if you want, but it won't change the base truth of the matter.

Zangrief posted...

Your back must be sore after carrying those goal posts.

None of your supposed "point", which is completely off the mark by the way, changes what I said originally. Considering 30 cents out of their pocket is probably far under 1% of their income, and they think it's more important to keep than to help their fellow man.

You can make some more false equivalencies if you want, but it won't change the base truth of the matter.

That's my point, dip. If you already pay 10% of your income to charity and other such institutions, why should you be required by the government to pay X amount more? That just encourages people like you or like me to take away from regular charitable contributions because you have to pay more.

If you can find a way to get these people health insurance without it affecting my bottom line, then fine. I couldn't give less of a fuck. But I've already drawn my line in the sand for what I want to donate to people (WILLINGLY) and so have you.

My point was that it should be up to you to decide how much you can afford to pay or not pay to help other people. Not the government.
---

Smarkil posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

That's the thing though, we never know if/when we will get into a car accident or the extent of the damage. I'll agree it's one big gamble/lottery system but some folks might not be able to pay for these catastrophic incident and I am not sure if some folks want to "win" this gamble/lottery and end up having to "cash-in".

Nowadays cars have almost too much tech in them. If someone rear-end me it won't be just some hundreds to replace the bumper but probably some thousand or so for the bumper and sensors inside the bumper and this is just for a simple fender bender.

That's the other thing. Cars should theoretically be getting safer. And once self-driving cars become a thing, are those people still going to be charged insurance on them because they own and operate the car? Will it be at the same rate as non-self driving car owners?

My car has automated lane assist and cruise control. Which means I set it on the freeway and it will keep me in the lanes and automatically brake/speed up when necessary. It also has collision detection and automatic braking. Should I be paying the same amount in insurance as a car that is identical in cost to mine but doesn't have that safety feature?

Self-driving cars are not 100% error-proof. It was either last year or 2015, a guy was riding one and due to a freak error, it ended up smashing into the underside of the trailer of an 18-wheeler, killing him.
---

Notice how smarkil conveniently ignored my question on how much he donates?

Yea, he's your typical dickwad Republican that only gives a shit about himself.
---

Smarkil posted...

Should I be paying the same amount in insurance as a car that is identical in cost to mine but doesn't have that safety feature?

A number of insurance companies will reduce your premiums if you have those safety features, actually. Car insurance is fairly good for taking into account your risk level as a driver, and pushing more of the cost burden onto the higher-risk drivers.
---

adjl posted...

Smarkil posted...

Should I be paying the same amount in insurance as a car that is identical in cost to mine but doesn't have that safety feature?

A number of insurance companies will reduce your premiums if you have those safety features, actually. Car insurance is fairly good for taking into account your risk level as a driver, and pushing more of the cost burden onto the higher-risk drivers.

Should this not be the same for healthcare?
---

Erik_P posted...

Notice how smarkil conveniently ignored my question on how much he donates?

Yea, he's your typical dickwad Republican that only gives a shit about himself.

I didn't ignore your question. I just ignored you. If anyone else had asked it, I might answer it.
---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Question;
Why do liberals think Obamacare is some magical thing that saved America?

Personally I don't think it saved America. It is a step in the right direction but definitely had a lot of kinks to hammer out.
---

Smarkil posted...

Erik_P posted...

Notice how smarkil conveniently ignored my question on how much he donates?

Yea, he's your typical dickwad Republican that only gives a shit about himself.

I didn't ignore your question. I just ignored you. If anyone else had asked it, I might answer it.

Ignoring me means you're ignoring my question, you silly conservative.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Question;
Why do liberals think Obamacare is some magical thing that saved America?

Personally I don't think it saved America. It is a step in the right direction but definitely had a lot of kinks to hammer out.

And rather than fix the kinks, Republicans decided to throw it away and rob millions of Americans of their health insurance. They'd best remember that come November 2018....
---

TyVulpine posted...

Republicans decided to throw it away

Except they're actually not.
All the republican plan does is beat obamacare with a hammer, adding even more kinks.

Smarkil posted...

Should this not be the same for healthcare?

It should not, because health care isn't optional. You have far, far more control over how well you drive (or if you drive at all) than you have over how much health care you'll need. Yes, there are instances where somebody only needs health care because of something that is in their control, but on a larger scale, that is not the case.

Additionally, having it as a tax allows the fee to reflect the taxee's means. People with more money to pay for better insurance don't necessarily need better health care. Quite the opposite, in fact. Socioeconomic status is VERY strongly correlated with overall health levels, despite the fact that the quality of insurance available to people displays precisely the opposite of that correlation. A traditional insurance model with adjustable rates therefore cannot cover the actual needs of a health care system.
---

Smarkil posted...

Zangrief posted...

I donate over 10% of my income per year to charities. Not all of them US based. So stick that presumption up your ass.

Only 10% Wow. That's next to nothing bro. Just 30 cents more out of your wallet and you could save a life.

But instead you're being a selfish asshole and donating only 10% of your income. You make me fucking sick.

I was reading this topic, as I do all political topics, for entertainment.
Then I read this.
Please tell us that you're being sarcastic.
If you're not, your math skills are so poor you should not add another post to this topic.
10% is more than 30 cents per day unless he makes less than 900 per month
---

InfestedAdam posted...

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Question;
Why do liberals think Obamacare is some magical thing that saved America?

Personally I don't think it saved America. It is a step in the right direction but definitely had a lot of kinks to hammer out.

---

I just find it ironic that Trump praised Austrailia's healthcare system when it's precisely the opposite of what he and his party of moneybags are insisting on.
---

Zeus posted...

Second, lower-priced healthcare is more affordable so people would be able to buy it legit.

And not be covered for anything, legit.

I had that shit tier health insurance once and then found it was worthless when I needed it. Stopped buying health care after that.

adjl posted...

You have far, far more control over how well you drive (or if you drive at all) than you have over how much health care you'll need. Yes, there are instances where somebody only needs health care because of something that is in their control, but on a larger scale, that is not the case.

You can definitely have a lot of control over how much healthcare you need. The majority of this country is overweight. 35% are obese. 29 million have type 2 diabetes. These are all severe health issues that can be prevented or even cured by eating reasonably healthily and getting off the couch once in a while.

I mean, I just looked up the statistic for overweight people in the country and it's over 70 god damn percent. God damn. And you know, being overweight or doing extreme sports, not vaccinating yourself (which I despise) or whatever is all totally fine. As long as you don't force other people to foot the bill for you. I'm not subsidizing that decision.

My go-to example for this is that fat asshole boogie2988 (Francis). He goes on screeds all the time about he needs Obamacare or he'll die and shit like that. The dude is 500+ pounds and shows no signs of wanting to change that. I would also like to point out that he's making six figures and could pay for his own healthcare out of pocket if he so chose.

Now obviously he's an extreme case. But the point is that if the money for healthcare is coming out of my taxes and not optional, then I expect that money to be used efficiently. I want them to be doing everything they can to minimize that cost and that leads us down a path of taxing soda, taxing fast food, etc. to deincentivize people from doing unhealthy things. I don't want that.

I want people to do whatever they want but I also want them to pay the price for it themselves.

The health cases that are not the result of poor decisionmaking should mostly fall under relatively small costs like minor sicknesses and what not or should be covered by my aforementioned idea of having catastrophic health issues covered.

In any case. As I've said before, if they can put in some subsidized system that doesn't affect my bottom line, then by all means. In the mean time, I lost 700 bucks out of my pocket when I opted not to have healthcare. Then when I started working for a company that provided health insurance, the premium and deduction both doubled which made a ton of people angry.
---

Meanwhile, a hundred years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFoC1gkExI