"isn't there something in the bible against usury? Can't we use the bible to defeat credit cards and lenders and insurers?"

The biblical financial rules specifically prohibit charging or paying any interests at all. Under that system, you would not be able to get a car loan or a mortgage for a house, but would have to rent (at much higher monthly cost) until you'd put aside enough money to buy what you want.

It was partly because jews in renaissance Italy, for instance, being blocked from participating in other trades, decided to lend money while charging an interest (on the basis that while it was wrong according to their religion, too, it was better than making nothing) that people got an understanding of not just the profitability of money lending but the positive effect it had on social mobility, innovation and exploration and the general economy.

Another neat idea under Old Testament financial law was "Jubilee", whereby if Person A sold his land to Person B, after 50 years that land would automatically revert to Person A (or his heirs).  No matter what was built on it or done with it, it went back to Person A.

What does that remind me of? Copyright Reversals? Could it be ...?

So sure, you can "use the bible against banks and the credit card industry", but only if you want to bring us back to the 12th century.

And I sez: "Hello, Jason. You must be new to Newt Gingrich. Allow me to introduce you..."

"Why the hell should I not be able to get to work because I cant afford insurance? If its that important then they should foot the bill or have real public transportation. Why is it fair is only considered when the middle class or the wealthy are involved?"

You know, if it's so important that you drive to work, the government should foot the bill for a car for you. A solid, safe car that gets good mileage. They should also pay for your driving lessons, your gas, your registration, parking fees and tickets, check-ups and repairs and all other expenses related to you having a car.

Health care insurance is about something we all need, all our lives and that we cannot do without. It is in that respect that it makes sense for government to take care of it, to manage the general health.

Car insurance is about costs you have to bear in order to engage in the very dangerous business of driving. 

You say you're legally blind. Which presumably means you can't get a driver's license. But certainly you can see well enough to post here, so you have some eyesight. If you need a car to get to work, and you decide (like you and your mother have  decided with car insurance) that you know better than the people who made the laws saying legally blind people have no business driving in traffic, and you start driving around, should we just shrug our shoulders and say "It's okay. The poor guy needs to work? So what if he drives over some school children. Shit happens. "

How about people with other impairments that would affect their legal right to drive? From medical conditions to alcoholism? Should they be able to just rely on their own judgements? Should we accept that they have some sort of "right" to disregard these laws?

What if a car is so run-down that the brakes barely work, the gas-pedal gets stuck, the wheel is unreliable so the car is difficult to maneuver? Basically so run down that it doesn't meet the minimum safety standards for allowing it to remain on the road. Would your mother drive that car around? I mean, she's to poor to have it fixed, right? And when the government demands you keep the car maintained at a certain standard, it's to keep the poor down, right? Not because it's supposed to keep you safe.

No matter what, cars cost money. And driving a car is not a right, but a privilege, meaning you have to accept all the safety standards imposed. Car insurance that covers the other driver is precisely such a standard.

If she needs a car to get to work, but can't afford insurance, then I'm sorry but she should start looking around for a job that doesn't require her to drive, or one that can be reached by bicycle in less than an hour. Or start car pooling with someone. I'm sure if several people chip in, they'll be able to afford insurance for one car.

Alan Grayson

He's been targeted by Sarah Palin - she's made a hit list of Congressmen that she's going to try to take down, and this guy - one of the only people in congress who seems to give half a rat's ass about Americans - he's on her list.

I'm not going to ask you to contribute, but I will note that I sure as hell did, and I'll do it again.

I'd like to see any of those three guys running for President when Obama retires in 2016.

Why the hell should I not be able to get to work because I cant afford insurance? If its that important then they should foot the bill or have real public transportation. Why is it fair is only considered when the middle class or the wealthy are involved?

*****************

I know a whole lot of poor people who drive AND have car insurance. You can get a policy that costs a round $26 a month for just liability (which is all you're required to have). Don't sit here and try to make lame ass excuses for not having car insurance. You have no right to take away my transportation, because you just don't want to pay for something. How you can even think it's fair that someone hits you, totals your car and then you can't afford to pay to repair or replace it is beyond me. Shit happens? Get the hell out of here.

Sorry, but this isn't like health insurance. There is competition in the auto insurance industry, and there are affordable policies out there. I don't buy for a minute that car insurance is a way for the government to keep poor people poor. It's designed so that if you hit someone, you don't destroy their life. What if you hit someone and crippled them. They never get to work again and go bankrupt because you didn't have car insurance and they have to pay their own medical bills? That's completely fucking ludicrous.

So the government makes a law that you have to buy health insurance. [Assume for the moment this correctly characterises the Healthcare position, it may not but bear with me.]

How is this any different to the government making a law that you have to pay taxes for an army, a police force, a judiciary, this, that, and the other.

Haven't governments always insisted citizens do X, Y, and Z without the option (save for revolution, or voting out the government).

Also don't you *have* to insure your houses, what if one burns down damaging neighbouring property?

***

In an ideal honest world, we'd all put aside some of our wealth in a 'worst case' fund, and give it to anyone we knew who honestly needed it. 

Tax, and spend / Insure and spread risk, are mechanisms for dealing with the fact that we don't live in a tiny village in which we all can form a bucket chain when old man Mulligan's barn catches fire, and chip in for doctor's fees for his burnt hands from his trying to put it out. 

Simon BJ

That correction is not really correct.

****

Just for the sake of further accuracy, that wasn't my "correction" -- I merely quoted it verbatim from the NYTimes op-ed page. I'm certainly not siding with Mr. Gingrich on anything in this debate!