# Compulsory Health Insurance



## manifold (Nov 10, 2009)

A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).

What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2009)

I suppose the primary differance is that the IRS has far more experiance in enforcing the collection of the money than any new agency would.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?



Taxes are an arrangement between government and the citizen.  The mandate is between a private company and a citizen.  Government can compel paying taxes but they cannot compel you to buy something.  In any case, taxes are due for a service where apportioning benefit would be difficult.  Like roads or defense.  Where the benefit is direct, like health insurance, gov't has no business imposing a tax.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?



You make some very good points. I'd just like to add that I don't have any problem at all with government encroaching upon someone's "liberty" to dip into my wallet to pay for their medical expenses.

IMHO - No one has the "liberty" to demand that I pick up 100% of the tab for THEIR healthcare expenses. If they can afford to contribute to their own care - they should.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?



You present a false dichotomy.  We do not have and no one has proposed a tax to pay for health insurance as an alternative to the individual mandate.  The burden of the individual mandate will fall on Americans who are voluntarily uninsured, various estimated as between 17 million and 20 million, who could afford to buy health insurance but choose not to, who, under current law are responsible for their own medical expenses except in those few cases in which they spend themselves into poverty and qualify for Medicaid; the tax burden for these few is tiny.

Without the individual mandate, the cost of the proposed insurance reforms other than the subsidies, insuring people with pre existing conditions at standard rates, a disability waiver of premium and a cap on out of pocket expenses, would impose such higher costs on insurers that premiums would rise by as much as 30%.  The intent of the individual mandate to try to shift the entire cost of these reforms on to these 17 million to 20 million people who choose to be responsible for their own medical expenses.   It is, in effect, a tax on the exercise of personal freedom.  

An alternative that has been proposed by many, mostly Republicans, is a sliding scale subsidy to help those with pre existing conditions to pay the higher premiums for high risk health insurance, and a mechanism for cost sharing with the states for such a purpose in included in the recent Republican counter proposal to HR 3962, and of course, this was McCain's proposal during the recent election.   Under this proposal, only those who needed help to pay for the higher premiums of high risk insurance who receive financial aid, so the cost of paying for the reforms would be less and the benefits more progressively distributed, and since this cost would be spread over the entire population, the subsidies coming from the general fund, the per capita cost would be tiny compared to the thousands of dollars a year the individual mandate would require the voluntarily uninsured to pay.  

Clearly, on this point, it is the Republicans who have come up with the more progressive proposal and the Congressional Dems who are on the dark side of history.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?



Simple answer....

You only are forced to pay taxes if you opt to have an income.

FOr the first time in our history, you are forced by government to buy something the very second you are born....and this mandate is with you for your entire life.

There is absolutely no option....no choice.....and it will lead to other choices lost as time goes on.

It is not about healthcare.......Conservatives are not against the healthcare part.......it is about government mandates.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?


The massive (Kucinich estimated 70 Billion) amount of new revenue the private insurance companies will get from this has the smell of a back-door bailout. However, if you believe their intentions are good, it's merely another unintended consequence of a half-baked plan.

Either way, it's really really stupid and it's the young who will suffer.... folks 18-29 who would normally never buy health insurance since they don't really need it are the victims here.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 10, 2009)

Ok, here's some laws for you..... how about a law  that:

1. You pay for your own housing.
2. You pay for your own food.
3. You support your children.
4. You don't have children you can't afford... repeatedly.
5. You pay for your own education.

I mean, as long as we're mandating that we take care of ourselves and not burdon others such as seems to be the argument for "mandatory" health insurance...


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> ...



No...we are ALL vicrtims....For the first time government will be able to mandate you buy soimething every year for the length of your life.

It is setting a precedent that contradicts the whole idea of our republic to begin with.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


You realize of course, that the "model" for this is compulsory auto insurance. Never mind that you don't need to buy auto insurance if you don't own an auto...


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Thats the point. You opt to buy an auto...and thereofre you are mandated to buy auto insurance.....but the point is it is all based on the original option to buy an auto....

There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison.....your parents OPTED to have a child....but you yourself did not opt to be conceived......

This is a very slippery slope we are heading towards.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...


But that's precisely the "precedent" they are citing.

Never mind that it's not valid, since when did they ever have valid arguments or comparisons?


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



I must question ANYONE who is gullible enough to see auto insurance as an identical...or even similar model to the healthcare mandate.

One is based on options and the other is based on no option at all.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...


I couldn't agree more.

I am merely pointing out the argument they are using.


----------



## manifold (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...




You mean like you wouldn't need to buy health insurance if you don't want to be a US resident?  As long as we're quibbling over unrealistic choices, isn't that a "choice" too?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> You mean like you wouldn't need to buy health insurance if you don't want to be a US resident?  As long as we're quibbling over unrealistic choices, isn't that a "choice" too?


You mean you chose to be born?

Interesting take.


----------



## manifold (Nov 10, 2009)

And an even more interesting read.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...


You would still be a resident. You would merely have a new address.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



A newborn does NOT have that choice. So no...it is not a choice.

Dont avoid the reality of the bill... for GOOD OR BAD......it will be the first time in our history that an individual is mandated to buy something with no choice whasover....

Such a mandate truly needs to be analyzed before signed into law


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Nov 10, 2009)

All politicians should unanimously vote this Socialist Nightmare down. This so-called Health Care Reform Bill doesn't reform anything.  It actually makes things much much worse instead. Our politicians should always work to expand our Freedoms & Liberties,not take more of them away. Surely we can have real Health Care reform without taking Citizens' rights away. The coming Senate vote should be a unanimous Nay vote if our politicians still care about our Constitution and its Citizens.


----------



## Meister (Nov 10, 2009)

In several states you can purchase an auto without insurance, if you post a bond, same could be done with healthcare.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> In several states you can purchase an auto without insurance, if you post a bond, same could be done with healthcare.



And in all states you can simply opt not to buy a car......personal choice.

The minute you are born, you are forced to have insurance....regardless of ANYTHING.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> A newborn does NOT have that choice. So no...it is not a choice.
> 
> Dont avoid the reality of the bill... for GOOD OR BAD......_*it will be the first time in our history that an individual is mandated to buy something with no choice whasover*_....
> 
> Such a mandate truly needs to be analyzed before signed into law


Not exactly....We're forced to go to the state for criminal prosecutions.

Somehow, I don't think O.J. would have got away with murder if the Browns and Goldmans could have paid for the bet prosecutors they could find.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 10, 2009)

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means _or intention_ to pay.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > A newborn does NOT have that choice. So no...it is not a choice.
> ...



if we OPT to prosecute.

Point well made, but, again, there is an option there.

There is absolutely no option involved in the madate of this bill.....at least for the first several years of your life.

It will be historic if passed...and open the floodgates to many other "choices" we currently enjoy.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...
> 
> and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...
> 
> then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means _or intention_ to pay.



One has the option to go into the innusrance business or not. One has the option to build and operate a hospital.

If you do not want to run an insurance company that is forced to enrol one with pre-existing conditions....then do not go into the business.

Simple solution......mandate insurance companies to enrol those with pre-exisitng conditions....and mandate that premiums are set at a level to allow no more than a certain profit rate....and let the business owners decide if they want to go into or stay in the business.

Why must we mandate THE PEOPLE to do something with NO option?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...
> 
> and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...
> 
> *then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.*


Wrong.

Indigent care is paid for locally, at least where I live. It's part of our property taxes. For the public hospital district. Private hospitals don't _have_ to provide indigent care, but do anyway in life-threatening circumstances.

But of course, you're deflecting away from the primary issue, erecting a feel-good strawman in order to do so.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...
> ...


 
I am doing no such thing.  I am discussing an issue that I would like to discuss, which I had brought up in another thread which is being ignored.

As for not having to provide care...that is absolutely wrong.  A hospital is mandated to provide care for anyone that shows up.  They are legally not allowed to ship non-paying individuals to different hospitals.  And locally here, indigent care is given for free...the cost of which is handed on to other paying customers.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Nov 10, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...


Yes, a PRIVATE hospital can and does "ship" non life-threatening indigent cases to the public hospitals.

Your argument is a strawman. NO ONE is against indigent care. They are against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT mandating it universally.

I happily pay my property tax. It includes monies for the local PUBLIC hospital district. It does NOT include any for PRIVATE hospitals.

See your strawman blown away yet? Go back and read your first post here.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



I believe my response below helps. Here it is again....

One has the *option* to go into the innusrance business or not. One has the *option* to build and operate a hospital.

If you do not want to run an insurance company that is forced to enrol one with pre-existing conditions....*then do not go into the business*.

Simple solution......mandate insurance companies to enrol those with pre-exisitng conditions....and mandate that premiums are set at a level to allow no more than a certain profit rate....and let the business owners decide if they want to go into or stay in the business.

Why must we mandate THE PEOPLE to do something with NO option?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Yes, a PRIVATE hospital can and does "ship" non life-threatening indigent cases to the public hospitals.


Happened to me, in Asheville, NC.


----------



## American Horse (Nov 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> I suppose the primary difference is that the IRS has far more experience in enforcing the collection of the money than any new agency would.



This raises the level of government coercion through the IRS by an entire order of magnitude.  

It used to be a person could go out and work in the underground economy taking checks for payment, never mind cash, if the jobs were small enough and not tax deductible by the customer there was no risk for them, even when they got caught up with.  Now they are being threatened with fines and even jail time.  These are the types of threats that are hard to ignore.

There are also lots of people at the beginning of a small business career who are healthy and need the edge that offers them to get started; a part of that edge is they do not have to pay for health insurance. Little do they know that an individual policy (except for a few states like Maine, NJ, NY, etc) is really quite affordable.  

This new insurance/tax regime will cost them much more than if they'd gone out and bought their insurance in the existing free market.  They will understand that be more likely to give up initiating their own business career, and go to work for people they'd rather not work for.  This is not a recipe for high productivity.  In this way more folks will become more dependent rather than independent.  

Would you consider starting a small business knowing the new added costs you will endure if you are going to need to have employees? This will dampen new small business start-ups and new employment that would come from those start-ups.


----------



## manifold (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



You make some very good points.

I'm still not sure I see it as quite as slippery a slope as you do though.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Well...lets look at it this way.

The reason for healthcare reform is healthcare is deemed as a necessity in life.
I agree.

So is food. The highest markup in food is at the retailer. Should the government open a government gorcery and MANDATE that all people MUST buy a certain amount of food a day...or be fined?...Bear in mind, the fine is written into the bill as a means to help support the bill......

Of course, this sounds absured...but lets do this...

replace the word "healthcare" with the designatrion of (ITEM X)....and apply it to ANYTHING deemed as necessary to life......

You will see how this can easily set a trend....

Burial servies? Expensive, profit driven, a must in society....is that next?
Food?
Clothing?

America was NEVER built on the iodsea of government mandating NO CHOICE.

There are better solutions that have been presented by BOTH sides of the aisdle and ignored.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> ...


Children wouldn't be forced to pay for health care...but their parents may be. Seems like a cons dream.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Mandate...children will be mandated to be covered at a cost.....first time in our history ANYONE will be madated BY GOVERNMENT to spend money.....without any option whatsoever.


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

if you define compulsory as required by law then whats the penaly for definace???


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 10, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Yes, a PRIVATE hospital can and does "ship" non life-threatening indigent cases to the public hospitals.


 
In my state, that would mean indigent cases would all have to be shipped out of state.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...


Not really. If you are homeless you are subject to arrest.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


 
You make a great point.  I agree.

I firmly believe that there should be serious insurance reform.

I don't think that individuals should be forced to purchase health insurance, but I think that health insurance should be made far more affordable than it is.

I also don't think that businesses should be penalized for not providing insurance for their employees, but that they should be given incentives to provide them.


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

so if your imprisoned how long ???? and the fine????


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?



We've got a law that mandates you have car insurance.  Millions of people can't afford it and drive without it, hence those WITH car insurance end up paying extra for "uninsured motorist protection".  

What makes you think a law regarding health insurance will be any different?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

So, let me get this straight.  Because someone without insurance may or may not end up with unpaid medical bills- government should remove the choice of paying for insurance over say, education, from the individual, ostensibly to protect others from being faced with higher costs....  so why limit this to insurance?   This seems like a great argument to have government take over all industry....


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Or their more affluent neighbors


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 10, 2009)

I think we need to nationalize the insurance companies, make them all non-profit with a cap on the top salaries.  Any extra money they take in should be redistributed to the policy holders at the end of the year like USAA does.

We need to change the law and allow hospitals to purchase their supplies outside the medical field.  Why should they pay $20 for a small bottle of Tylenol when they can get a big one at Costco for $5?

Hospitals should also be non-profit.  Only instead of putting all that extra money into building private wings, they should be forced to put at least 1/2 of it back into the hospital to lower the bills on the incoming patients, or redistribute it to those that paid too much for their treatment in the first place.

The say for treatment should be up to the doctor's and their patients, NOT the insurance companies.

Years ago I was in the hospital for a bad back.  At first they shot me up with all kinds of drugs saying "We're going to give you enough painkiller that you can get up and walk out of here."  

I asked "And what happens when I can't get up in the morning?"

"We'll deal with that when the time comes".  Yeah sure, like they were going to be in my bedroom when I woke up in the morning.  Thankfully my sister is an RN and came in and looked at the chart.  She told them "You've already given her enough to knock out an elephant, if she still can't move, more isn't gonna change anything".  They'd done xrays and found nothing and thought it was just muscle spasms which I will admit I suffer from.  Thankfully my sister forced them to admit me and do a cat scan in the morning where they discovered I had a swollen disc.  Apparently, insurance companies don't pay for treatment for muscle spasms but they will for a swollen disc.  Even so, everyday the insurance company was saying they were going to refuse to pay for another day, and I just asked them were they gonna pay for the ambulance to take me  home, because I still couldn't walk.  It took me a week in the hospital before I could walk with a walker and many weeks before I got well enough to walk without the walker.  I felt the insurance company made things worse, not better for me.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



And you have the choice to use a homeless shelter.....you are NOT mandated to pay money for shelter.

You can do your best to punch holes in what I am saying...but you can not.

This is the first time in our history that an individual is mandated to purchase soemthing...a mandate that is levied the second they are born and carried through to the day that they die....with the only choice being to leave America....and that choice does not come into play until they are 18 years of age.

Are we ready for such a precedent to be set?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You make a great case for a program that gives housing to the indigent at taxpayer expense.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Look at it this way...

The only other time Government had mandated something was the draft.

How well did that go over?

But this is mandating ALL...and mandating that ALL that can, spend money.

Very dangerous precedent indeed.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...


If you don't have money to purchase insurance you can use Medicaid...that's not going to change. You can't get money out of a homeless person. I really think you're going overboard. We are mandated to do all kinds of things.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You are tossing "income" into this. That is irrelevant. Who are you to determine if my income is enough for me to secure a safe life for myself where I can also buy health insurance? WHo are you to determine whether or not I am concerned about losing my job and FOOD is more impoortant to me than healthcare?

And please...offer me ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT MANDATE that forces me to spend my money.

NAME ONE...dont simply say there are many.


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Look at it this way...
> 
> The only other time Government had mandated something was the draft.
> 
> ...



The first mandate created by any government is taxes.

Of course, it is possible to fund a small government without taxes.  But this is a really really small government that only an anarchist could love.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


And the left would like to see even more government control over individual choices....


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

> And please...offer me ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT MANDATE that forces me to spend my money.


Social Security


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Look at it this way...
> ...


You can get around many/most taxes by not participating in the taxed activity. This is one of the salient points here.

Please try to keep up.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> > And please...offer me ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT MANDATE that forces me to spend my money.
> 
> 
> Social Security



Nope. I can opt to not work.
Next?


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

amrchaos said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Look at it this way...
> ...



Nope. I can opt to not work.
Keep on trying...you will not find a single thing.

THIS is a first.  no way around it....you MUST be insured.


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

if you don't buy it then its a 250K fine and up to 5 years in the pen.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> > And please...offer me ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT MANDATE that forces me to spend my money.
> 
> 
> Social Security


Socialist Insecurity is still voluntary.

Although it's made almost impossible to earn a living without signing up, it's still voluntary.

http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/SocSecVoluntary.pdf


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

namvet said:


> if you don't buy it then its a 250K fine and up to 5 years in the pen.



Incorrect...If you do not report yourself as one who refuses to buy insurance, and thus not pay the penalty, you are subject to a 250,000 fine and up to 5 years....

And wait until you see the COP clause that will NEED to be put into it....

COP? Citizens on Patrol.....offered incentives to report those that refuse to insure themselves.

It will get quite ugly.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > And please...offer me ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT MANDATE that forces me to spend my money.
> ...



yeah - right


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Great response.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...


 You're the one that brought income into it. If you don't earn income....you don't pay taxes. If you don't earn income...you also don't have a way to purchase insurance. So the "mandate" ... if there really is one..._cannot be enforced if you don't earn income._


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



it's just as good as yours.

silly semantic BS.
Click your heels three times and wish your lil' heart away.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > And please...offer me ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT MANDATE that forces me to spend my money.
> ...


You can also opt to not be an American. *poof* there goes your mandate.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You are tying two different things together.....

So we can go this way.

I am disabled and the only living child of my father who left me JUST ENOUGH MONEY TO LIVE.

I do not work, I do not pay taxes......

You need to stop punching holes in what I am saying....it is valid and has been a debate amongst my peirs for months....and believe me...I am a legal idiot compared to some of these guys and women.......they are correct....this is HISTORIC if passsed.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > if you don't buy it then its a 250K fine and up to 5 years in the pen.
> ...


Now you've become a raving lunatic.

Have a nice day.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

if you opt not to work - if you opt to be destitute then you don't have to purchase insurance either - poof - no mandate. So there is no "first to make me spend my money mandate."

AS I said - silly semantic BS.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



a two week old can not make that decision.....but a two week old MUST be insured by law.

Not gonna kill what I am saying...maybe if you watched REAL NEWS you would be aware of the fact that this is one of the PRIMARY concerns amongst the legal community.

But please...continue watching the news that does not want you to know what they do not want you to know.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...





Sure;  you are always free to leave anytime your heart desires.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



Oh your saying that there is a mandate to make a two-week old spend THEIR money on health insurance?????????????

Repeat after me - silly semantic BS.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sure;  you are always free to leave anytime your heart desires.


Not so.

Try leaving without permission, i.e. a passport.


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > if you don't buy it then its a 250K fine and up to 5 years in the pen.
> ...



isn't that what i just said???

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual: 

 Section 7203  misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. 

 Section 7201  felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years. [page 3]

your neatly boxed in here.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


No less silly semantic BS than that which gets shoveled every time socialists whine and cry about "chillldrreeennn living in poverty".


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



my arrangements were made last nov


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

namvet said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > namvet said:
> ...


Ah...Jesus...this isn't true, we debunked it weeks ago when MidnightMaurader tried to pull the same bullshit.

You people are fucktards.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

namvet said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 10, 2009)

I need the form to register as an illegal alien.  It seems to be the preferred status for living in the US.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Nov 10, 2009)

Obama needs some pointers.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



No one side of the aisle and no one political ideology has a monopoly on silly semantic BS.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Obama needs some pointers.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You just dont get it...maybe by design......but you just dont get it.

I used a 2 week old to offset the argument of "who would not want to work" crap.

OK so how about this.....I will make it easy.

I have no legs,  have money, I prefer not to work. I do not need to pay taxes as I do not work. I do not need health insurance as I have enough money to get by and I prefer saving it for food.

Jeez....it is a unique mandate and all you want to do is prove me wrong as oipposed to say to yourself...well, even though it is a great thing and along the lines of my beliefs, that guy is making a valid point...it is very historic and very unique.

Or do what you do....deny the truth. I really dont gve a fuck.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 10, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Obama needs some pointers.



I never thought I would say this....but that was a great post!
Hysterical!
Seriously...not being sarcastic....
Thumbs up!


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...








and my wife and i will be enjoying life in a country whose cost of living is 1/4 of what your paying

and you have to cough it up for your deathcare or go to jail. but you know what they say. better YOU than me

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail 


[URL="http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583"]link[/URL]

shall we send you a post card ??? ​


----------



## Chris (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance.  Opposition based on principal I understand.  It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty.  But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?



Why should we be required to pay money to insurance companies that will use that money to lobby Congress to deny us coverage?


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

If healthcare ever passes, it should induce a unique situation into the U.S. legal system; i.e., American citizens refusing to pay the tax, and pleading NOT GUILTY on the grounds of SANITY!


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

> I have no legs, have money, I prefer not to work. I do not need to pay taxes as I do not work. I do not need health insurance as I have enough money to get by and I prefer saving it for food.


But you will NEED healthcare at some point - that's the point where your "choice" to not insure yourself will cost the rest of us money - unless you can cover ALL the costs with the cash you have on hand. And if you have that kind of cash on hand - food wouldn't be an issue at all.

Everyone thinks they are made of steel - will NEVER use any part of our healthcare system - so when they fail to prepare for that inevitability - EVERYONE else has to pick up the tab.

The problem is NOT that I don't get it - the problem is that I DO get it - the bill for YOUR healthcare that is .,....


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> > I have no legs, have money, I prefer not to work. I do not need to pay taxes as I do not work. I do not need health insurance as I have enough money to get by and I prefer saving it for food.
> 
> 
> But you will NEED healthcare at some point - that's the point where your "choice" to not insure yourself will cost the rest of us money - unless you can cover ALL the costs with the cash you have on hand. And if you have that kind of cash on hand - food wouldn't be an issue at all.
> ...



People who are obese use more medical resources than others.  Fat bitches like you will cause me to pay more.  Should the government decide what goes into your feedbag so as not to cost me anything?


----------



## Chris (Nov 10, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > I have no legs, have money, I prefer not to work. I do not need to pay taxes as I do not work. I do not need health insurance as I have enough money to get by and I prefer saving it for food.
> ...



Then tax sodas and cigarettes and alcohol to make up the difference.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Actually, it should be decided what Nodog can eat, as she cannot be trusted to make the right dietary choices.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 10, 2009)

You will die at some point and may not have enough money to cover your outstanding debts.  These debts cause a burden on those of the living.  You therefore, must carry life insurance.

Your lack of education may mean that a job is not available for you.  You will require assistance.  Therefore, you are required to get an education to at least an associates degree.

You may get injured and not be able to work.  Therefore, you are required to carry disability insurance.

You may commit a crime and be unable to work or contribute to your costs of inprisonment.  This will fall as a burden on society.  You are required to carry criminal insurance.

You have no comon sense and may commit acts which are costly to society.  Please submit your common sense insurance premium post haste.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> You will die at some point and may not have enough money to cover your outstanding debts.  These debts cause a burden on those of the living.  You therefore, must carry life insurance.
> 
> Your lack of education may mean that a job is not available for you.  You will require assistance.  Therefore, you are required to get an education to at least an associates degree.
> 
> ...




You are describing liberal dreamland.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 10, 2009)

Punk is trying to stalk me around the boards and fling what I'm sure he/she considers to be aggravations at me because I took him/her to the cleaners and trashed his/her lil' illusion of personal responsibility.

It's pretty funny - and a sure sign he knows he lost his lil' argument BADLY.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 10, 2009)

Actually, we can't determine your actions with any degree of certainty.  Please turn over all your money and decision-making to us immediately.

Sincerely,
Congress


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> Punk is trying to stalk me around the boards and fling what I'm sure he/she considers to be aggravations at me because I took him/her to the cleaners and trashed his/her lil' illusion of personal responsibility.
> 
> It's pretty funny - and a sure sign he knows he lost his lil' argument BADLY.



Not even close.  Your posts just happen to express extreme leftist thinking- which is fun to respond to.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> I think we need to nationalize the insurance companies, make them all non-profit with a cap on the top salaries.  Any extra money they take in should be redistributed to the policy holders at the end of the year like USAA does.
> 
> We need to change the law and allow hospitals to purchase their supplies outside the medical field.  Why should they pay $20 for a small bottle of Tylenol when they can get a big one at Costco for $5?
> 
> ...



Yeah. that's a great idea.  Not.
In E.Germany they had a similar system.  The gov't controlled all the hospitals and all the doctors were gov't employees.
And guess, what: their health care system was third rate at best.  There was no incentive for doctors or hospitals or anyone to do their job, much less be innovative and cutting edge.
That's what happens when you eliminate the profit motive: people quit caring about their jobs because its the same pay no matter how little they work.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2009)

Demonstrate where Obama's plan 'socializes' the hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, laboratories, etc.  What a moron you so often are, Rab.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

Fabian Society: Information from Answers.com

Rube.


----------



## Tony_S (Nov 10, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to nationalize the insurance companies, make them all non-profit with a cap on the top salaries.  Any extra money they take in should be redistributed to the policy holders at the end of the year like USAA does.
> ...



This alleged 'public option' is not based on any previous or modern European models. This public option is a corporatist model. It serves two purposes: to dump those with preexisting conditions on the state and to increase subsidies to the health insurance companies. We're going to end up subsidizing the bonuses and salaries of the jackals running these insurance companies. The US government basically exists to dole out corporate welfare, whether it's to defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, investment banks, insurance companies, etc.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Demonstrate where Obama's plan 'socializes' the hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, laboratories, etc.  What a moron you so often are, Rab.



Its the unintednded (or intended) consequence of having a public option that has the largesse of taxpayer contributions "competing" with businesses that actually have to make a profit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2009)

You have to prove the those consequences.  You can't.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have to prove the those consequences.  You can't.



Of course not.  But if a business casn save money by dumping employee health insurance with the public option safety net- they will.

And that is but one of the myriad of unintended consequences that will result when a 1900 page monstrosity is put into action.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 10, 2009)

Those consequences are far from unintended.


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance. Opposition based on principal I understand. It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty. But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).
> 
> What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?


 

The very _FACT_ that *YOU* have to ask such an inane question regarding individual _RESPONSIBILITY_ speaks volumes of your thought processes.


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have to prove the those consequences. You can't.


 

What's to PROVE that IF you don't sign onto a PLAN and get JAILTIME, -AND- a FINE?

The PROOF is there. It's _INTENTIONAL_ for the sake of CONTROL by the Washington Elitists_._

_Are *YOU* 'Normally*_ this dense in real life?


----------



## namvet (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Demonstrate where Obama's plan 'socializes' the hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, laboratories, etc.  What a moron you so often are, Rab.



Demonstrate where is don't


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Those consequences are far from unintended.


 
These people are fuck'n astounding in their thought processes aren't they?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Those consequences are far from unintended.



Agreed.  perhaps I should have said "hidden"


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Demonstrate where Obama's plan 'socializes' the hospitals, pharmacies, doctor's offices, clinics, laboratories, etc. What a moron you so often are, Rab.


 
Another MORON that hasn't even tried to read the PLAN that was passed by the House. Until you DO?

*SHUT UP* about it and stop yer lying you ignorant TWIT.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2009)

None of you have read the plan, obviously.  No where does it "socialize" health care.  It reforms health insurance.  What is your problem then, if you guys can't prove your assertions.

You are simply mad as well as irrelevant.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> None of you have read the plan, obviously.  No where does it "socialize" health care.  It reforms health insurance.  What is your problem then, if you guys can't prove your assertions.
> 
> You are simply mad as well as irrelevant.



Noone has read the bill, little boy.  Which is a big phucking problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > None of you have read the plan, obviously.  No where does it "socialize" health care.  It reforms health insurance.  What is your problem then, if you guys can't prove your assertions.
> ...




Hi, Punk!  If that is true, which I don't believe, then it sounds like the Dems learned how to legislate as did the GOP majority in Tom DeLay's day.

So you are saying that you don't know what's in the bill, but somehow the "intended consquences" (look above) are obvious, and that is socialism?


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> None of you have read the plan, obviously. No where does it "socialize" health care. It reforms health insurance. What is your problem then, if you guys can't prove your assertions.
> 
> You are simply mad as well as irrelevant.


 

No some of us HAVE read it. It is YOU that remains the ignorant son of a bitch that hasn't, and ignores the warning to the threat of your Liberty.

I'll be willing to bet that your a low-wage troll with NO Healthcare plan that thinks it's peachy-keen to ROB others at the point of a GUN (FED GOVERNEMNT) to get others to pay your way, aren't you?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Socialized medicine will be the natural by-product of a public option.  Thats what happens when you introduce a "competitor" that does not have to concern itself with profits into an industry.  And who do you think is well acquainted with a 1900 page bill filled with references to toher legislative acts being modified or repealed?  You think Pisslosi has a clue what is in it?  Even Clinton recognizes that this bill will have all sorts of unintended consequences.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > None of you have read the plan, obviously. No where does it "socialize" health care. It reforms health insurance. What is your problem then, if you guys can't prove your assertions.
> ...



T- I am on your side- but noone could possibly have read that legislative sham without committing suicide.


----------



## The T (Nov 10, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
*Some of US* know the pertinent parts, and it's a fuckin' nightmare. Makes FDR and LBJ look like saints.

We know that this is nothing more than Government CONTROL cloaked in *CARING* for dumbfucks that could care less about taking responsibility for themselves, Affording Illegals access, Affording those that didn't care to use a CONDOM paid ABORTION Rights, and most importantly? GROWTH of a Government that is MORE interested in their growth, and POWER over you and I than they are holding people responsible for their own care.

It's a power play at the force of sending YOU and I to JAIL if *WE* don't comply.

It's the kind of legislation that needs to be slapped DOWN, along with the bastards that wrote it, and VOTED for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2009)

Let's see: medicare has socialized and eliminated the private health industry, and the U. S. Postal Service has eliminated the private parcel post industry, according to the standards set by T and Punk.

Hmmm . . . and one of you says that there is no bill to read and the other one has read it.   Hmmm.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 10, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's see: medicare has socialized and eliminated the private health industry, and the U. S. Postal Service has eliminated the private parcel post industry, according to the standards set by T and Punk.
> 
> Hmmm . . . and one of you says that there is no bill to read and the other one has read it.   Hmmm.



Medicare is an exclusive club, and the PO itself is slowly dying.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 10, 2009)

Your model is premised on the concept that government competition eliminates private industry.  

You have not demonstrated that medicare and the postal service are exceptions that prove your rule.

In other words, you are just a bogeyman going "ooga booga, the government is going to yet ya."


----------



## manifold (Nov 11, 2009)

Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

There have been some pretty solid points made on both sides.

OldandTired is absolutely correct about this being a new precedent.  The way he's couched his position, you cannot shoot any holes in his logic.

What is unclear is the amount of risk that is associated with setting this new precedent.

Because as others have pointed out, in practical terms this isn't entirely unlike an income tax since it would only be levied on those earning an income.

Neither side is wrong on this particular point IMO, it just comes down to a subjective determination of the risk/reward trade-off.  As it stands, I'm completely unclear on the potential rewards so I'm disinclined to support assuming the risk.  However, this issue still doesn't concern me nearly as much as the public option.  This is simply a law.  One that can be reversed.  The public option is a bell that realistically cannot be unrung.


----------



## Chris (Nov 11, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Such ignorance is amazing to me.

National health insurance is not "socialized medicine."

Only a few countries in the world have socialized medicine(England, Cuba), and it doesn't work as well as national health insurance.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 11, 2009)

You have zero room to maneuver talking about another's ignorance, chump.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 11, 2009)

So.. please indulge us... where is national health insurance such a hit?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 11, 2009)

And if the governement can make such a go of it, and for so much less, why not nationalize EVERYTHING?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 11, 2009)

Soggy, go ahead and open High Living Standard Countries, then study it, and tell us what they all have in common but we don't.  You will answer your questions.  And: thanks for asking.


----------



## keee keee (Nov 11, 2009)

Soggy thats next


----------

