Failure is an option as long as it is the rights fault. Coming soon from a liberal drone near you. If only the r's hadn't underfunded it everything would be peaches and cream.
Hippie Love Fest wrote: Archer, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about this?
In your opinion, does this elevate women? Is this really what feminists of days gone by truly fought for? Do you believe casual sex is a government entitlement?
Hmmm... the ad is real, the question has been put to Archer, and Archer has gone to ground. I'm laughing at her all the way from Prague (Got Internet? It's easy to laugh at someone from across the globe).
In Archer's defense, (Never thought I would say that.) the ads do look more like the work of the Onion rather than a Colorado health insurance board. You do have to admit they grab your attention and maybe the uneducated youth can be beguiled with "free birth control"*
*but now your health insurance premiums will increase by $2500 per year. So that free birth control is now actually $10 a pill and doesn't protect you from STD's.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: Why is the mandate such an issue for health insurance but auto insurance is not?
I thought that particular strawman had been exposed for what it was already, an entirely invalid argument. We'll start with the fact that you only have to purchase auto insurance if you own a car and you drive the car on a public road. You can own a vehicle and drive it on your private property without purchasing either insurance or registering that vehicle with the State. We'll also note that you are not compelled to purchase automobile insurance to operate a bike on the public roads or in order to ride public transportation. Your failure to purchase automobile insurance if you don't own a car, or if you ride a bike instead of inside a car, doesn't subject you to being taxed by the federal government for your failure to purchase a car and insurance either.
There are two instances where your argument is invalid, only one is necessary to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument.
Automobile insurance is mandated by the state, not the federal, government and not all states require it. New Hampshire comes to mind.
Unlike almost every other state, New Hampshire does not automatically require motorists to carry an auto liability insurance policy or provide some of financial backing in order to drive a vehicle within its boundaries.
And the mandated insurance has nothing at all to do with any benefits for me and everything to do with benefitting others should my actions cause them harm. The coverage which is required by State laws is liability insurance, insurance which doesn't cover me if I am injured in an accident nor my property which might be damaged as a result of that accident. It covers only passengers in my vehicle and those outside of my vehicle. Another point of failure for the argument offered up by archer.
What the (un)Affordable Care Act can be likened to, if we wished to conflate auto insurance to health insurance at all that is, would be an automobile policy which provided me with free oil and air filter changes and allowed me to pay a set fee to the mechanic when I took the vehicle in for repairs. Whatever it cost to fix the vechicle would be paid by the insurance company, there would be no maximum amont over which the repair would not be covered. I could get the windshield replaced whenever there were chips in it "at no cost to me", get it repainted every few years to remove the scratches, get a blown engine or transmission rebuilt or replaced for a fraction of the cost of what it would otherwise cost me and what I paid for car insurance would have not a thing to do with my driving record or my claim record because everyone would be paying the same rate as I do for the same insurance. Funny, but my car insurance policy looks nothing like that.
The rate I pay is directly the result of my driving record and my claims history. I can choose the amount of coverage that I wish to purchase or choose not ot have collision or comprehensive coverage. I am not required to purchase a car insurance policy that covers routine care of the vehicle, provides tires at no cost to me, and other necessary components of mantaining the vehicle or be taxed for my failure to purchase such insurance either.
So why do "progressives" keep trying to conflate the mandate to purchase car insurance with the mandate to purchase health insurance? Your guess is as good as mine . . .
www.factcheck.org/2013/11/the-keg-stand-obamacare-ads/
Let’s clear this up: The edgy “got insurance?” Obamacare ads that have gone viral on the Web were not created by the Colorado state exchange or any other governmental agency, nor are they taxpayer-funded, as two Republican congressmen have claimed.
The ads are the joint product of two nonprofits that have nothing to do with a separate government-funded campaign to get the word out about the new health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
PrintSmith wrote: What the (un)Affordable Care Act can be likened to, if we wished to conflate auto insurance to health insurance at all that is, would be an automobile policy which provided me with free oil and air filter changes and allowed me to pay a set fee to the mechanic when I took the vehicle in for repairs. Whatever it cost to fix the vechicle would be paid by the insurance company, there would be no maximum amont over which the repair would not be covered. I could get the windshield replaced whenever there were chips in it "at no cost to me", get it repainted every few years to remove the scratches, get a blown engine or transmission rebuilt or replaced for a fraction of the cost of what it would otherwise cost me and what I paid for car insurance would have not a thing to do with my driving record or my claim record because everyone would be paying the same rate as I do for the same insurance. Funny, but my car insurance policy looks nothing like that.
Interesting comparison PS
What ObamaCarCare (not insurance) would look like:
Mandatory Government defined essential benefits:
Liability (Unlimited)
Collision (Up to the market value of the car)
Comprehensive (same as above)
Windshield Crack Coverage
Rental coverage
Free Oil changes, tune ups- no co-pay
Free set of tires every 30,000 miles
Any Maintenance with $25 co-pays
Repairs after deductable
Same coverage for 1990 Chevy and 2014 Corvette
Same coverage for good and bad drivers
Premiums based on Income FPL %
Fine err shared responsibility payment for lack of coverage
Gold/Silver/Bronze options available with same coverage/ just different deductible and premium cost.
Annual Premiums- probably $2K-4K/car
20% Overhead administrative waste added to all the above costs. + taxes
Sign me up!
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
they look to be in their early to mid 20's.......(enough said).....
