Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[BigRedMan]

The renters insurance only covers personal property of said renters. It us up to the landlord to provide "home" insurance on the structure itself. As far as personal property, it is the on the renters themselves. Trust me on this. I have renters insurance just for that, it only covers my personal belongings and that it is it.

[innocentbystander]

Tick,

When I was expanding my office cleaning company, I would talk to prospective clients and they would sometimes ask if I carried any liability insurance. I told them no. And if they insisted upon it then we wouldn't do business. Simple as that. In only two cases (my not carrying insurance) was that a deal breaker.

I wasn't mandated to have it, although it might have made sense for me to carry it since I "owned" something (a business.) I was responsible, so I didn't need it.

[bluetick]

BRM, your standard H/O4 renters form has two very basic parts. A) your personal effects, and B)your personal comprehensive liability.

I'm guessing you have the minimum liability amount of 100k. That covers premises liability, but it also covers you whereever you go and in most situations you find yourself in (excluding what you do behind the wheel or in the service of an employer).

If someone eats a bad steak at your apartment (or sticks the steakknife in their eye, or puts their hand on the grill, or breaks through the lawnchair beside the grill and breaks their back), your renter's policy provides primary liability. If you didn't have the coverage, then you're apartment complex would be the next avenue for the victim's compensation. Trust me - that's the way it works.

And IB is doing the Lord's work with his tenents, so I'll leave him alone on the subject

[bluetick]

Tick,

When I was expanding my office cleaning company, I would talk to prospective clients and they would sometimes ask if I carried any liability insurance. I told them no. And if they insisted upon it then we wouldn't do business. Simple as that. In only two cases (my not carrying insurance) was that a deal breaker.

I wasn't mandated to have it, although it might have made sense for me to carry it since I "owned" something (a business.) I was responsible, so I didn't need it.

Jesus, IB. I wouldn't know where to start.

Good luck.

[innocentbystander]

And IB is doing the Lord's work with his tenents, so I'll leave him alone on the subject

Thank you.

The dad has 4 kids, one in a wheelchair. So, mom must stay home. Dad doesn't have a pot to piss in, so I just take the terribly measly rent that he can afford to pay each month (amounts to just one week's "gross" pay), he keeps the place neat as a pin, and we leave it at that.

He told me the deal he and I worked out privately was (to him) a "...blessing from God."

[innocentbystander]

Lets switch gears a bit. Why should teaching be a lifetime career?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... er/239099/

But the lock-in problem is not limited to people entering and exiting the industry; it also applies to people who want to enter and exit school districts. An excellent teacher whose spouse got transferred from New York to Massachusetts suddenly finds themselves at the bottom of the seniority/salary ladder once again, and the pension credits that they spent so much time accumulating are, if not worthless, at least considerably devalued.

Why would we want a school system where essentially everyone over the age of thirty is a lifer, locked into a single district?

This union seniority aspect as it relates to people working in this government entitlement, mirrors exactly why flight attendants rarely (if ever) switch airlines and why pilots almost NEVER-EVER switch airlines. Think of your seniority and your pension!

[puterbac]

::sigh::

States force people to buy insurance all the time. My state makes me buy liability insurance, and it also makes me buy workers compensation for my employees. And as of March 1st of this year, it was mandated that I had to buy WC for myself as well. (thanks be to you, our new "less-government" Republican legislature)

Those are all privileges.

The Healthcare mandate penalizes you for being ALIVE which I'm pretty sure is one of those unalienable natural rights thingies.

[puterbac]

Romney said he was pro-choice. But he was only lying in order to win back in '94. People will understand!

And yeah Romneycare is virtually the same thing as Obamacare, but it's not unconstitutional, which makes that understandable too. Plus he needed to stay in power in a liberal state. He's actually extremely conservative. He just hid those qualities in order to win and stay in office. LEADERSHIP

At least that was a state issue. The feds weren't forcing it. The state was. Therefore if the state constitution allows it and the people there want it..fine. Just pay for it yourselves.

[puterbac]

There is no Federal law mandating auto insurance.

That's not the question. The question is where in the Constitution that says they can't pass such a law? The purchase of insurance is clearly part of commerce, which is a power specifically delegated to the Legislature of the United States in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. So unless there is somewhere in the Constitution that says they can't do it, then how is it unconstitutional?

10th Amendment? Where in the 10th Amendment?

(There is a legal argument on both sides, but most have no earthly idea what it is and just are spouting off).

[innocentbystander]

Romney said he was pro-choice. But he was only lying in order to win back in '94. People will understand!

And yeah Romneycare is virtually the same thing as Obamacare, but it's not unconstitutional, which makes that understandable too. Plus he needed to stay in power in a liberal state. He's actually extremely conservative. He just hid those qualities in order to win and stay in office. LEADERSHIP

At least that was a state issue. The feds weren't forcing it. The state was. Therefore if the state constitution allows it and the people there want it..fine. Just pay for it yourselves.

Exactly.

For those who do not want to buy insurance, they have the power to leave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

[Professor Tiger]

FWIW, if Gingrich really did call the Ryan budget "extreme," then he lost my vote.

[puterbac]

The images from the hitler movie in Germany...no subtitles there...amazing it was right at the spot in the spoofs...

[puterbac]

[puterbac]

[puterbac]

A scene we don't see in the spoof clips..

[puterbac]

And then a newspaper sitting out in a break room...

[puterbac]

And finally....

German MTV...

.

[Professor Tiger]

Is that Schwartzenegger on the right?

[Owlman]

I have to work/labor to make money to buy something against my will. If I choose not to (under Obamacare) then I pay an additional penalty. The Fed can't do that. If the Fed COULD do that (force me to buy insurance), why can't they force me to buy spinach? Or a house? Or anything?

So you use the 13th Amendment to say that you cannot be mandated to do anything. But then the 13th Amendment also applies to the states, therefore Romney's state mandate would also be unconstitutional

The Tenth Amendment allows "the state" the Freedom to do things (things the Fed can NOT do) not already outlined in the US

That's the view of 5 of the justices since 1996 (Lopez), although Kennedy changes now and then and it also was the view of the the SCOTUS between 1890 and 1937. Of course for most of our country's history, the understanding of the 10th Amendment from the inception of the country up to 1890 and from 1937 to 1996 was specifically different. The 10th Amendment simply was a reiteration of the Constitution (how about that. This was the policy of the country about the amendment by many of the people alive when the amendment was passed).

Now, to say that this is an area that is reserved to the states means that it traditionally always has been reserved to the states. To say that about health care would also mean that medicare is also unconstitutional, something that has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS.

By the way, in practice, this is not a mandate. What it is a tax to a small percentage of people. Which ones? The people that don't have any health insurance. The power to tax is part of the Constitution. (by the way, your definition of regulate is far to narrow and not accepted by any court.

[innocentbystander]

The Tenth Amendment allows "the state" the Freedom to do things (things the Fed can NOT do) not already outlined in the US

That's the view of 5 of the justices since 1996 (Lopez), although Kennedy changes now and then and it also was the view of the the SCOTUS between 1890 and 1937. Of course for most of our country's history, the understanding of the 10th Amendment from the inception of the country up to 1890 and from 1937 to 1996 was specifically different. The 10th Amendment simply was a reiteration of the Constitution (how about that. This was the policy of the country about the amendment by many of the people alive when the amendment was passed).

Now, to say that this is an area that is reserved to the states means that it traditionally always has been reserved to the states. To say that about health care would also mean that medicare is also unconstitutional, something that has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS.

By the way, in practice, this is not a mandate. What it is a tax to a small percentage of people. Which ones? The people that don't have any health insurance. The power to tax is part of the Constitution. (by the way, your definition of regulate is far to narrow and not accepted by any court.

The "state" has tremendous Federalized "power" that the Fed does NOT HAVE thanks to the 10th Amendment. A "state" sets it's own drinking age. A "state" sets its own state speed limit. A "state" sets it's own driving age. A "state" determines whether or not weed can be used medicinally.

Federalism is key here because the needs of one state may be dramatically different than the needs of another. How could Massachusetts residents possibly understand how difficult it is for Texas, Arizona, and California residents, regarding illegal immigration? Federalism allows those states to set up their own laws that they think might work there (that wouldn't work in Massachusetts.) Same could be said the other way around with health insurance.