Indeed. But if you had no choice to use that car, then you'd be forced to buy that insurance, because nobody wants you to become a liability on the road.

Can you not use your health? Never be exposed to sickness, danger and cancer?

If I choose to become a danger for others, I will have to take action to make sure I limit this danger appropriately. I don't find anything wrong with that.

I am all for forced health insurance.

I just don't think it's the same as car insurance, which is completely voluntarily and depends only on my decision to use a car or not. I guess doctors are forced to buy malpractice insurance. But that doesn't mean that malpractice insurance is something that is forced on EVERYONE.

Not here it isn't.

So you're a danger to others simply because you drive?

This is ridiculous. It's not uncommon to hear news of someone involved in an auto accident that doesn't even have a drivers license let alone auto insurance. Maybe if our benevolent government has the IRS control auto insurance things will change. Until then, apples and oranges. One can even buy that cheap auto insurance that doesn't pay out, in some states, just to get a check in the box. Hell, just to show how well regulated all that is, not auto insurance per se but, I forgot to register my car until recently. I drove it around for 14 months, until one day I was looking for the registration. I thought I'd paid it, and mailed it in, but I didn't. Had I been pulled over it would have cost me, instead I saved some money.

Good Democrat talking point though.

All of this is the problem caused by bad law enforcement, not bad legislation.

Seriously, is your country falling appart?

Ask the proper people http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Auto insurance requirements are created and enforced by the states, and only apply to those who wish to drive. You have the option to walk, bike, take public transit, carpool, or otherwise get a ride if you can't or won't buy auto insurance.

Medical insurance is now a federal requirement, and applies to everyone, period. The only option you have to avoid it (and the fines and potential jail time for noncompliance) is to be dead.

It's really not an apt comparison at all.

I find it interesting how some continue to compare car insurance with health insurance. They are not the same thing. If you get hurt in your car does your car insurance handle the bill? No, your healthcare insurance does, if you don't have any, Emergancy does and either the Gov't pics up the tab or you get billed later. But car insurance does handle accidents you caused to others or what other cause to you. Does healthacre insurance help someone else if you are responsible for their healthcare problem? Not that I know of, thats why people sue.

In simple terms car insurance is in case you hit someone else or they hit you.

Health insurance is incase you yourself need medical care.

That is why car insurance is mandated, because it's not fair that you incompetence or bad luck behind the wheel caused someone else pain and suffering.

Now, can we all drop this whole car insurance vs health insurance comparison already?

LOL, you make it seem as if this does not happen where you are from. Utopia must be as good as they say, right?

Well, I don't know where you live, but here in Ireland I only have to get car insurance unless I want to drive.

Apparerently. You spoke of a liability, I call it a danger. Either way the law says, here, that I must get car insurance if I want to drive a car on a public road.

Yes another good point. They are public roads, not private. You can buy a vehicle and drive it as much as you want, without insurance, license, or registration, as long as you do it on your private property. I (and all US citizens) will be required to have health insurance, even if we never leave our homes or private property.

Of course private property might be one day be a thing of the past. The government just nationalized student loans to pay for Obamacare...what's next?

Well, last time I checked, you won't be treated in your private home for cancer.

Things seems to degrade, but I know it's only because things change from what they used to be to something else. From some people's point of view, that might come of as "degradation", since what they held dear no longer is and gets replaced.

In other word, people don't like change.

But there is a difference between change and having an impotent law enforcement.

How will they make sure that the Amish and Indian tribes follow that law?

Timely.

No, health insurance and car insurance aren't exactly the same, but anyone who drives has to have car insurance whether they want it or can afford it or not.

The fawning sycophantic media (i.e., not Fox or the WSJ) are in full-on 'lipstick on the pig' mode, with righteous indignation at the bill's critics thrown in for good measure.  I don't think it will succeed the way they think it will succeed, to paraphrase Inigo.

Clarification:  Even some on Fox are being a bit sycophantic, to be sure.

I've noticed... reminds me of the scene when Michael convinces Tome Hagen that killing a cop isn't really a big deal cause their freinds in the media could easily depict him as a "corrupt cop who got what was coming"

One man's news report is another man's propaganda.

I really am puzzled about this element of U.S.. The non-neutrality of the news outlet.

I never said there was none, only that freedom is not all its cracked up to be in Canada.  before her speech was cancelled, she was threatened by the Provost at the University.  Threatened for what?  Nothing more than attempting to speak her mind.

Did I say it did?  I was only pointing out that Canadians are not as free as they would like to think.

Yes, but follow this:

Coulter was threatened for "speaking".  The Speech was cancelled for "threatened violence".  So apparently in Canada, you can say what ever you want.  As long as OTHERS do not threaten violence.  And that is freedom?  I would be very scared of my freedom of speech when some lunatic can threaten violence IF I SPEAK.

BINGO!  Kyro gets an A+

IN many cases you will.  But that is immaterial to Nitro's point.

Fewer little law enforcement officers?

Due to the treaties, if a Native America never leaves the reservation, or works in a reported job, there will be no way.  However, even they are required to file income taxes if they work outside the treaty land.  Same aas Amish - the IRS.

That is by their own choice.  They are free to be objective (like Fox, the #1 news organization in the country today) or cranial enemas to the democrats (as are virtually all the rest).  We do not have to like it, but there is nothing (thankfully) that any of us can do about it - other than not support them with our patronage.  Which is what is happening for the most part, and why most are on the brink of fiscal ruin.

Or, you know, be a cranial enema to the republicans (Fox News) or free to be objective (the rest of news media).

YOU claim that Fox News is objective. But it's an opinion far from making unanimity.

How do you establish objectivity beyond a doubt?

The ironic thing is that people still have to die whether they get health insurance or not. Death is unavoidable. And in the past, if you got cancer, it killed you and no arguing. But now that a few scientists have done something noble (far from all of them) and decided to fight disease, they have the power to give you a reprieve from death (hopefully so that you can live honorably in your extension).

Even though it is something morally good, it is not something natural. And you do not have a right to it. You do, on the other hand, have the right not to pay someone who has taken a good knowledge and decided to do something bad with it, like extort you. But I do not consider expensive medicine as much extortion (although that is certainly a factor) as it is the result of the way people have decided to appropriate property.  

The doctor was only able to gain his knowledge and skill because wealthy entities paid for the research that backs his procedure. A garbage man, on the other hand, is considered too unimportant to be given an amount of property comparable to the research and devices involved in such a life saving procedure, and so he cannot trade what he has for what he needs to save his life. The garbage man works just as hard as anyone else, and he is just as human. But some humans do not consider him equal to themselves, since he could never have done anything like invent a cure for cancer. And so while a few people, who are considered more important and better (mostly by themselves), have the amount of property they need to trade with the doctors who can save lives, the others who are not considered important enough to have that property do not have enough to trade. The question becomes, 'Should we force those who we consider more important to give up some of their property so that people who we consider unimportant can live fuller lives?" 

I know a few doctors, some of them mostly good and some of them wholly evil, and in neither case can they save you from death. They can only delay it. Not to sound morbid, but science does not save lives. It merely prolongs them.

Some people would take advantage of that power to extort the unhealthy. Others would only require a just and due payment that you cannot afford. In neither case did the doctor cause your problem, and should you die because either an evil doctor would not help a poor man or because a good doctor simply COULD not, the doctor did not cause your death. Not to sound communist, but the way property is appropriated caused your death more so than the doctor. And it did not cause your death at all, really. It was merely the disease.

Now there are two solutions. 1) Take the property from those who have it and give it to those who don't so that all men "created equal" can have full lives, not just those considered important enough to save. 2) Let nature run it's course on the unimportant and just save the elite, if that can be done, by any trade of material wealth.

I think the new health care bill is an attempt to do the first, in an effort to meet some "greater good". However, it is not right to steal from men. On the other hand, what we are talking about just amounts to taxation, involuntary charity. And most people would agree that that is ok. 

And can you explain why? Obviously because insurance was meant as a means to protect the person who gets hit. If you get into an accident because someone hit you, is it your insurance who corevs the damages? Not necessarily, the other vehicles insurance covers the damages (unless special circumstances). With health insurance it's all for you, has nothing to do with other people. That's the difference. You are responsible for your own health and you have the choice to provide the means to maintain it. In an accident the person who caused the accident is responsible, you don't have a choice. That is why car insurance was made mandatory because people could not afford or refused to pay for the other persons pain and suffering and were probably sued in order to get something out of them.