Helmet Laws in Obamacare?

[DJW]

Well, I suppose if you live in a State where: seat belts aren't mandatory, cellphone use isn't prohibited while driving, your headlights don't have to be on when it's raining, where selling isn't a 32oz soda isn't a crime, it's not against the law to get a tan under 18, or buy cigarettes under 21, or you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle...then the idea that the insurance companies don't have the power to bend legislation in their favor would probably sound like a "conspiracy theory."

In NY...we know better.

Welcome to the Obamanation, where what I think is "good for you,".... is reason enough.

[bmchevy]

Any way you look at it the purpose of obamacare is control, along with climate change and the use of safety as a tool to get people to willingly give up freedoms.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by DJW

Well, I suppose if you live in a State where: seat belts aren't mandatory, cellphone use isn't prohibited while driving, your headlights don't have to be on when it's raining, where selling isn't a 32oz soda isn't a crime, it's not against the law to get a tan under 18, or buy cigarettes under 21, or you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle...then the idea that the insurance companies don't have the power to bend legislation in their favor would probably sound like a "conspiracy theory."

In NY...we know better.

Welcome to the Obamanation, where what I think is "good for you,".... is reason enough.

Strange. None of those are Federal laws. I thought anything not specifically granted to the Feds by the constitution was left to the States to decide. Now you seem to be against that as well.

I guess I'm seeing a trend here, Danny boy...

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Strange. None of those are Federal laws. I thought anything not specifically granted to the Feds by the constitution was left to the States to decide. Now you seem to be against that as well.

I guess I'm seeing a trend here, Danny boy...

What's that got to do with his point? Only a fool would think that government isn't oppressive, Boney boy.

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by DJW

Well, I suppose if you live in a State where: seat belts aren't mandatory, cellphone use isn't prohibited while driving, your headlights don't have to be on when it's raining, where selling isn't a 32oz soda isn't a crime, it's not against the law to get a tan under 18, or buy cigarettes under 21, or you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle...then the idea that the insurance companies don't have the power to bend legislation in their favor would probably sound like a "conspiracy theory."

In NY...we know better.

Welcome to the Obamanation, where what I think is "good for you,".... is reason enough.

Could be wrong but I doubt there is a single state that does not have at least one or more of those laws on the books.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Some just have to be the forum jester, they can't help it. Rather than intelligent conversation, spiteful comments rule the day spiced with smilies.

On the subject, I tried reading the law but I just don't have the attention span to get through more than a few pages at a time. They may as well write these things in a foreign language. I would not be surprised if other restrictions and regulations are given birth in the name of this law. From my understanding, the law laid the groundwork for additional rules and regulations not currently in place.

So, not having read the Obamacare documents, you really have nothing intelligent to add other than your wild eyed assumptions which you want us to believe are "intelligent conversation." That, at least, deserves a few smilies.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by thrasher

So, not having read the Obamacare documents, you really have nothing intelligent to add other than your wild eyed assumptions which you want us to believe are "intelligent conversation." That, at least, deserves a few smilies.

So, not having read the Obamacare documents, you really have nothing intelligent to defend other than your blind belief which you want us to believe are "intelligent conversation" either. That, at least, also deserves a few smilies.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by thrasher

So, not having read the Obamacare documents, you really have nothing intelligent to add other than your wild eyed assumptions which you want us to believe are "intelligent conversation." That, at least, deserves a few smilies.

My comments were based off of interpretations of others that have attempted to decipher the health care act. It is true that I have not read the entire law although I have probably read more than most citizens. On the other hand I stand by my comment about forum jesters making spiteful comments laced with smilies. I won't attempt to persuade you to add intelligent conversation on the topic. That would just waste my time and annoy you.

[utrvp]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

My comments were based off of interpretations of others that have attempted to decipher the health care act. It is true that I have not read the entire law although I have probably read more than most citizens. On the other hand I stand by my comment about forum jesters making spiteful comments laced with smilies. I won't attempt to persuade you to add intelligent conversation on the topic. That would just waste my time and annoy you.

I suspect very few if any on this forum have read the actual bill in it's entirety and of those if any who have, none of them understood it. It requires a great deal of time and a background reading legal documents to be able to comprehend the language in Obama Care.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Strange. None of those are Federal laws. I thought anything not specifically granted to the Feds by the constitution was left to the States to decide. Now you seem to be against that as well.

I guess I'm seeing a trend here, Danny boy...

Well, no.

The Seat Belt law, like Medicaid, may be State Legislation as far as implementation, but it's pushed down on to the States by the Feds as blackmail. Just like the State health insurance exchanges will be. The States have to cooperate or lose their share of Federal tax receipts. In the case of Medicaid, the unfunded Federal mandate it's bankrupting your State bonesy.

The Feds first require the Medicaid coverage, then mandate who and what has to be covered. They pay approximately 55% of the total bill...if the State agrees to all of the Feds' standards for coverage.

It works just like the Seat Belt law.

But you knew that bonesy, you just wanted to use the word "danny boy" in a sentence.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by BigD

So, not having read the Obamacare documents, you really have nothing intelligent to defend other than your blind belief which you want us to believe are "intelligent conversation" either. That, at least, also deserves a few smilies.

WRONG. (and very unoriginal, BTW).

First, I'm not defending anything. Second, how could one inject "intelligent conversation" into a thread about a particular aspect of Obamacare when no one here has any relevant facts WRT the Obamacare documents? Anyone except YOU, that is. So please, BigD, enlighten us with your "intelligent conversation" on the thread topic from having read the Obamacare documents. Man, this should be good!! I can't wait!

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by utrvp

I suspect very few if any on this forum have read the actual bill in it's entirety and of those if any who have, none of them understood it. It requires a great deal of time and a background reading legal documents to be able to comprehend the language in Obama Care.

Exactly. As with others, the bill was written by lawmakers, so one would have to have a background in law to comprehend it.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

My comments were based off of interpretations of others that have attempted to decipher the health care act. It is true that I have not read the entire law although I have probably read more than most citizens. On the other hand I stand by my comment about forum jesters making spiteful comments laced with smilies. I won't attempt to persuade you to add intelligent conversation on the topic. That would just waste my time and annoy you.

Your comments/posts are simply just wild eyed assumptions and rumors, salty, nothing more. No facts, no "intelligent conversation"... just your wild eyed assumptions. When your supposed "intelligent conversation" is completely void of relevant facts, how could it be anything else? Smilies are much more appropriate.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Your comments/posts are simply just wild eyed assumptions and rumors, salty, nothing more. No facts, no "intelligent conversation"... just your wild eyed assumptions. When your supposed "intelligent conversation" is completely void of relevant facts, how could it be anything else? Smilies are much more appropriate.

Although I am not an expert on the subject, I have devoted time to attempt an understanding of it. It is widely accepted and acknowledged by both republicans and democrats that the health care act provides for "additional rules and regulations not currently in place." That was my contribution to the subject.

Let's look at your contributions,

...it's an excellent rightwingnut conspiracy theory. ...rabid rightwingnuts...

...a perfectly good rightwingnut conspiracy theory...

...wild eyed assumptions...

WRONG. etc. etc. etc.

Wow Trasher, so profound! Please enlighten us, what is your source of information?

[Shaw_2112]

I don't doubt for a minute that legislators, whether they be Federal or State, will try to use the ACA as vehicle for limiting "risky" behavior in the name of the common good. Whether it be helmet laws or the soda tax... I don't understand why people think that giving the Gov't more power is a good thing...