Don't buy into Obamacare?

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

The Obama supporters are strangely silent on this subject. (actually its not strange)

I think everyone is tired of responding to the bullcrap.

Pretty much.

But for sh!ts and giggles - who here complains about mandatory car insurance? Anyone? Danno, does it bother you that you could face legal trouble if you are caught without car insurance?

it's not in some states.

No, all states do not require car insurance but they do require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway. While not all states require drivers to buy liability insurance to show financial responsibility, 48 states (plus Washing DC) do. These states do not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws:

1. New Hampshire

2. Wisconsin

http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content20009.aspx

Edited September 27, 2009 by charles!

[웃 910]

The Obama supporters are strangely silent on this subject. (actually its not strange)

I think everyone is tired of responding to the bullcrap.

Pretty much.

But for sh!ts and giggles - who here complains about mandatory car insurance? Anyone? Danno, does it bother you that you could face legal trouble if you are caught without car insurance?

I take it you are a big supporter of Romney care?

[MrsCat 6]

I take it you are a big supporter of Romney care?

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings your praises and you're miraculously cured by God?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Obama supporters are strangely silent on this subject. (actually its not strange)

I think everyone is tired of responding to the bullcrap.

Pretty much.

But for sh!ts and giggles - who here complains about mandatory car insurance? Anyone? Danno, does it bother you that you could face legal trouble if you are caught without car insurance?

I take it you are a big supporter of Romney care?

I'm not too familiar with Romney Care. I also don't think insurance mandates will work without a public option.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think I have ever commented on laws concerning POT.

Care to refresh my memory?

Why, smoke too much?

[Jenn! 918]

3. The auto insurance is not run by the Govt, the only exception I know of is, NJ tried it and went so far in debt it was a State-Emergency. Not sure what they do there now.

Auto insurance is highly regulated by the state government, some states more than others. NJ deregulated to some extent some years ago and MA did so just last year. That by no means implies that the government doesn't have its hands all over the auto insurance industry. For example, if no company wants to write particularly high-risk business, that risk gets thrown into an assigned risk pool. The losses for those risks are spread among all insurers writing business in that state, but the premium collected for those policies don't even begin to cover the losses. In other words, part of your auto insurance premium goes towards covering high-risk drivers that can't pay their own risk premiums, but need to have insurance because the law mandates it.

[rebeccajo 14]

3. The auto insurance is not run by the Govt, the only exception I know of is, NJ tried it and went so far in debt it was a State-Emergency. Not sure what they do there now.

Auto insurance is highly regulated by the state government, some states more than others. NJ deregulated to some extent some years ago and MA did so just last year. That by no means implies that the government doesn't have its hands all over the auto insurance industry. For example, if no company wants to write particularly high-risk business, that risk gets thrown into an assigned risk pool. The losses for those risks are spread among all insurers writing business in that state, but the premium collected for those policies don't even begin to cover the losses. In other words, part of your auto insurance premium goes towards covering high-risk drivers that can't pay their own risk premiums, but need to have insurance because the law mandates it.

Ooooooooooh!

Socialism!

But don't mess with our cars in America!

[Danno 1,228]

3. The auto insurance is not run by the Govt, the only exception I know of is, NJ tried it and went so far in debt it was a State-Emergency. Not sure what they do there now.

Auto insurance is highly regulated by the state government, some states more than others. NJ deregulated to some extent some years ago and MA did so just last year. That by no means implies that the government doesn't have its hands all over the auto insurance industry. For example, if no company wants to write particularly high-risk business, that risk gets thrown into an assigned risk pool. The losses for those risks are spread among all insurers writing business in that state, but the premium collected for those policies don't even begin to cover the losses. In other words, part of your auto insurance premium goes towards covering high-risk drivers that can't pay their own risk premiums, but need to have insurance because the law mandates it.

You bring up some good points.

1. Many of the problems with health insurance are in fact caused by Gov.

One example is the lack of "portability", the reason for that is many states control the insurance industry to such a degree they will not allow your Carrier in Utah to insure you in VA... if you should relocate there looking for work.

2. As for high risk drivers: You are absolutely right someone I know who has had several DUI's is in fact

having his insurance subsidized by Good Drivers so he can afford insurance.

I believe this was the exact model which Drove the state of NJ into emergency status as they were like BILLIONS in the red.

[rebeccajo 14]

3. The auto insurance is not run by the Govt, the only exception I know of is, NJ tried it and went so far in debt it was a State-Emergency. Not sure what they do there now.

Auto insurance is highly regulated by the state government, some states more than others. NJ deregulated to some extent some years ago and MA did so just last year. That by no means implies that the government doesn't have its hands all over the auto insurance industry. For example, if no company wants to write particularly high-risk business, that risk gets thrown into an assigned risk pool. The losses for those risks are spread among all insurers writing business in that state, but the premium collected for those policies don't even begin to cover the losses. In other words, part of your auto insurance premium goes towards covering high-risk drivers that can't pay their own risk premiums, but need to have insurance because the law mandates it.

You bring up some good points.

1. Many of the problems with health insurance are in fact caused by Gov.

One example is the lack of "portability", the reason for that is many states control the insurance industry to such a degree they will not allow your Carrier in Utah to insure you in VA... if you should relocate there looking for work.

2. As for high risk drivers: You are absolutely right someone I know who has had several DUI's is in fact

having his insurance subsidized by Good Drivers so he can afford insurance.

I believe this was the exact model which Drove the state of NJ into emergency status as they were like BILLIONS in the red.

I'm always fascinated when the Right talks about portability of insurance.

Not because it isn't a good idea.

But because it seems to fly in the face of States Rights.

Which I thought was a huge concern as it goes to constitutional law.

Which I thought was one reason the Right is concerned about a public option - or any reform for that matter.

[Danno 1,228]

3. The auto insurance is not run by the Govt, the only exception I know of is, NJ tried it and went so far in debt it was a State-Emergency. Not sure what they do there now.

Auto insurance is highly regulated by the state government, some states more than others. NJ deregulated to some extent some years ago and MA did so just last year. That by no means implies that the government doesn't have its hands all over the auto insurance industry. For example, if no company wants to write particularly high-risk business, that risk gets thrown into an assigned risk pool. The losses for those risks are spread among all insurers writing business in that state, but the premium collected for those policies don't even begin to cover the losses. In other words, part of your auto insurance premium goes towards covering high-risk drivers that can't pay their own risk premiums, but need to have insurance because the law mandates it.

You bring up some good points.

1. Many of the problems with health insurance are in fact caused by Gov.

One example is the lack of "portability", the reason for that is many states control the insurance industry to such a degree they will not allow your Carrier in Utah to insure you in VA... if you should relocate there looking for work.

2. As for high risk drivers: You are absolutely right someone I know who has had several DUI's is in fact

having his insurance subsidized by Good Drivers so he can afford insurance.

I believe this was the exact model which Drove the state of NJ into emergency status as they were like BILLIONS in the red.

I'm always fascinated when the Right talks about portability of insurance.

Not because it isn't a good idea.

But because it seems to fly in the face of States Rights.

Which I thought was a huge concern as it goes to constitutional law.

Which I thought was one reason the Right is concerned about a public option - or any reform for that matter.

Ahh Rebeccajo, you are always like three steps behind in this dance.

You automatically assume that the *Federal Gov* would need to take over in this area "to fix it".

This is where you keep stumbling over and over.

While I have not explored the "states Rights" angle to this, to decide if it is or is not even a issue in that regard, one thing is for certain.

If Obama can gather his race-baiting Professor pal... and the cop together for a beer and chat, it would seem he could use his charm and influence to bring States together to work out this "portability issue".

Heck most Governors I think are in his party as are most state bodies.

If he can't pull this off, how is he going to give a satisfactory performance on topics such as Iran and Afghanistan and peace in the Middle East?

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm always fascinated when the Right talks about portability of insurance.

Not because it isn't a good idea.

But because it seems to fly in the face of States Rights.

Which I thought was a huge concern as it goes to constitutional law.

Which I thought was one reason the Right is concerned about a public option - or any reform for that matter.

Ahh Rebeccajo, you are always like three steps behind in this dance.

You automatically assume that the *Federal Gov* would need to take over in this area "to fix it".

This is where you keep stumbling over and over.

While I have not explored the "states Rights" angle to this, to decide if it is or is not even a issue in that regard, one thing is for certain.

If Obama can gather his race-baiting Professor pal... and the cop together for a beer and chat, it would seem he could use his charm and influence to bring States together to work out this "portability issue".

Heck most Governors I think are in his party as are most state bodies.

If he can't pull this off, how is he going to give a satisfactory performance on topics such as Iran and Afghanistan and peace in the Middle East?

I'm three steps behind in the dance.

You're telling me you haven't explored the State's Rights angle but you think I'm behind in the dance?

Here's your dance card, Danno. Come back after you've had lessons.

Oh - And that bit about Obama being otherwise ineffective as a President if he can't close the deal on healthcare? Go back to school on that one too. You know, all those other Presidents like Roosevelt and Truman and Clinton who wet their pants in the oval office.

[zqt3344 21]

Ovomit sucks and is inept, he thinks talking at the UN will solve the USA problems, he is out of touch and fading fast.

Politico.com

September 25, 2009

Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.