• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Bill Fines People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage

UtahBill said:
We make people buy atuo insurance before letting them drive, but some break that law and drive anyway. Likewise, some refuse to buy health insurance but LIVE anyway. Problem is, they want health care on demand without having a paid up policy that pays for the health care, or adequate resources to pay for it.

If adults won't pay for health insurance, we should let them die where the injury occurs. no sense wasting an ambulance trip on someone who WANTS to die.:roll:

I assume you have adequate coverage?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm sure that if the stakes went high enough, people would learn quite quickly that it's time to get coverage, unless they are financially well off enough to cover themselves, which is a small minority of the nation.
 
phattonez said:
I really don't understand how people call themselves libertarians and talk like this.
Click to expand...

You'll find my views are quite consistent.

Anyway, if you can't afford it, why do you deserve it? What right do you have to the labor of anyone else?
Click to expand...

I never said anyone deserves health care. I do believe, however, that refusing a person immediate, life-saving treatment is not an option. If a man is wheeled into an emergency room with a crushed spleen and he doesn't have insurance are we just going to throw him out onto the street to die? That's insane.

Scenarios where a person requires immediate care in order to save their life is one of the only things I'm willing to subsidize via taxes.

Moreover, the current system, whether us libertarians like it or not, forces society to incur the financial burden of uninsured people who obtain treatment but do not pay. If that's how the current system is going to work then individuals must be incentivized to purchase their own damn health insurance, instead of expecting you and I to foot the bill. Principle does not preclude pragmatism.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
You'll find my views are quite consistent.



I never said anyone deserves health care. I do believe, however, that refusing a person immediate, life-saving treatment is not an option. If a man is wheeled into an emergency room with a crushed spleen and he doesn't have insurance are we just going to throw him out onto the street to die? That's insane.

Scenarios where a person requires immediate care in order to save their life is one of the only things I'm willing to subsidize via taxes.

Moreover, the current system, whether us libertarians like it or not, forces society to incur the financial burden of uninsured people who obtain treatment but do not pay. If that's how the current system is going to work then individuals must be incentivized to purchase their own damn health insurance, instead of expecting you and I to foot the bill. Principle does not preclude pragmatism.
Click to expand...

Hey Mr. Libertarian, if your house catches fire, do you deserve to have the Fire Dept. put it out? If you are being beaten for holding such asshat opinions, do you deserve to have a policeman intervene? If you want to drive to town to attend a Tea Party, do you deserve a paved road? i could go on, and on and on, but Libertarians will continue to deny the need for infrastructure as they continue to use it.
 
WillRockwell said:
Hey Mr. Libertarian, if your house catches fire, do you deserve to have the Fire Dept. put it out? If you are being beaten for holding such asshat opinions, do you deserve to have a policeman intervene? If you want to drive to town to attend a Tea Party, do you deserve a paved road? i could go on, and on and on, but Libertarians will continue to deny the need for infrastructure as they continue to use it.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between local and national services?
 
UtahBill said:
We make people buy atuo insurance before letting them drive, but some break that law and drive anyway. Likewise, some refuse to buy health insurance but LIVE anyway. Problem is, they want health care on demand without having a paid up policy that pays for the health care, or adequate resources to pay for it.

If adults won't pay for health insurance, we should let them die where the injury occurs. no sense wasting an ambulance trip on someone who WANTS to die.:roll:

I assume you have adequate coverage?
Click to expand...

Not everyone needs health insurance though. I college student who is trying to pay off student loans will probably not require a lot of medical treatment. There is no reason they need to pay 3 grand a year to go to a doctor twice in the same year. It would be cheaper for them to pay for their own treatment. Health insurance is not needed at all times, you do not need it consistently until you are older.

Let people choose it is their right. Maybe they make a mistake, but they should have the freedom to make that mistake. This is like the government telling everyone that they have to by some type of peanut butter. You can by any type you want, but you shouldn't have to buy any at all. If you are allergic to peanuts it will do you no good, they same as health insurance will do you no good if you are the average, healthy college student.
 
Polimaster said:
Not everyone needs health insurance though. I college student who is trying to pay off student loans will probably not require a lot of medical treatment. There is no reason they need to pay 3 grand a year to go to a doctor twice in the same year. It would be cheaper for them to pay for their own treatment. Health insurance is not needed at all times, you do not need it consistently until you are older.

Let people choose it is their right. Maybe they make a mistake, but they should have the freedom to make that mistake. This is like the government telling everyone that they have to by some type of peanut butter. You can by any type you want, but you shouldn't have to buy any at all. If you are allergic to peanuts it will do you no good, they same as health insurance will do you no good if you are the average, healthy college student.
Click to expand...

Stay in college. It's obvious you still have a lot to learn. What happens when the "healthy" college student breaks his leg playing basketball? Or the healthy college student is in a car accident? Does the healthy college student have the means to pay cash for their medical services?
 
Shep Dawg said:
Stay in college. It's obvious you still have a lot to learn. What happens when the "healthy" college student breaks his leg playing basketball? Or the healthy college student is in a car accident? Does the healthy college student have the means to pay cash for their medical services?
Click to expand...

If the college student breaks their leg, or does anything similar, then they will get emergency treatment and the hospital can just write off any expenses. And before you say it I know the bill then gets sent to the tax payers because a hospital is non-profit (which is what allows them to write it off in the first place), but that is what universal health care is. A college student can get the treatment and not have to pay for the services.

And generally a healthy college student will not suffer any serious injuries, GENERALLY, so why pay 12 thousand dollars over the course of a four year college for something that chances are you will not use, and do not need. I think a 40,000 dollar tuition is enough.
 
Ethereal said:
I never said anyone deserves health care. I do believe, however, that refusing a person immediate, life-saving treatment is not an option. If a man is wheeled into an emergency room with a crushed spleen and he doesn't have insurance are we just going to throw him out onto the street to die? That's insane.

Scenarios where a person requires immediate care in order to save their life is one of the only things I'm willing to subsidize via taxes.

Moreover, the current system, whether us libertarians like it or not, forces society to incur the financial burden of uninsured people who obtain treatment but do not pay. If that's how the current system is going to work then individuals must be incentivized to purchase their own damn health insurance, instead of expecting you and I to foot the bill. Principle does not preclude pragmatism.
Click to expand...

I think removing the ability for someone to use bankruptcy to not pay medical bills would be a great start as well as removing the statute of limitations for collections and credit reporting.

If someone spent their time and money to make you well again you shouldn't be able to skirt paying that bill.
 
Polimaster said:
If the college student breaks their leg, or does anything similar, then they will get emergency treatment and the hospital can just write off any expenses. And before you say it I know the bill then gets sent to the tax payers because a hospital is non-profit (which is what allows them to write it off in the first place), but that is what universal health care is. A college student can get the treatment and not have to pay for the services.

And generally a healthy college student will not suffer any serious injuries, GENERALLY, so why pay 12 thousand dollars over the course of a four year college for something that chances are you will not use, and do not need. I think a 40,000 dollar tuition is enough.
Click to expand...

So why are you opposed to UHC? What is so special that only college students get free health care, and not say...single parents? If a portion of my taxes are going to pay for the college students health care while they are in college, shouldn't I expect the college student to then pay something towards the next generation of college students health care, once they get a job?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think removing the ability for someone to use bankruptcy to not pay medical bills would be a great start as well as removing the statute of limitations for collections and credit reporting.

If someone spent their time and money to make you well again you shouldn't be able to skirt paying that bill.
Click to expand...

I agree. There needs to be some kind of recourse for people who have severe and immediate medical needs but they should be held accountable if they failed to take the proper precautions e.g., purchasing health insurance.

If you can afford health insurance and choose not to purchase it you should be held legally and financially responsible for any costs your transfer to society.
 
Ethereal said:
I agree. There needs to be some kind of recourse for people who have severe and immediate medical needs but they should be held accountable if they failed to take the proper precautions e.g., purchasing health insurance.

If you can afford health insurance and choose not to purchase it you should be held legally and financially responsible for any costs your transfer to society.
Click to expand...

They already do this with some student loans.

I think federally subsidized student loans cannot be included with a bankruptcy filing.
 
Polimaster said:
Not everyone needs health insurance though. I college student who is trying to pay off student loans will probably not require a lot of medical treatment. There is no reason they need to pay 3 grand a year to go to a doctor twice in the same year. It would be cheaper for them to pay for their own treatment. Health insurance is not needed at all times, you do not need it consistently until you are older.

Let people choose it is their right. Maybe they make a mistake, but they should have the freedom to make that mistake. This is like the government telling everyone that they have to by some type of peanut butter. You can by any type you want, but you shouldn't have to buy any at all. If you are allergic to peanuts it will do you no good, they same as health insurance will do you no good if you are the average, healthy college student.
Click to expand...

The key word is PROBABLY, and that is what insurance is all about. You don't buy car insurance just before you have an accident, because you don't know if or when you might have the accident. Likewise, you don't know what major illness might strike you even tho you think you are too young and healthy...the whole premise of insurance is to spread the risks...
or don't you understand the purpose of insurance?
 
Ethereal said:
I never said anyone deserves health care. I do believe, however, that refusing a person immediate, life-saving treatment is not an option. If a man is wheeled into an emergency room with a crushed spleen and he doesn't have insurance are we just going to throw him out onto the street to die? That's insane.

Scenarios where a person requires immediate care in order to save their life is one of the only things I'm willing to subsidize via taxes.

Moreover, the current system, whether us libertarians like it or not, forces society to incur the financial burden of uninsured people who obtain treatment but do not pay. If that's how the current system is going to work then individuals must be incentivized to purchase their own damn health insurance, instead of expecting you and I to foot the bill. Principle does not preclude pragmatism.
Click to expand...

The current system is flawed. Take out compulsory labor and I like it. We don't deserve the labor of anyone else.

WillRockwell said:
Hey Mr. Libertarian, if your house catches fire, do you deserve to have the Fire Dept. put it out? If you are being beaten for holding such asshat opinions, do you deserve to have a policeman intervene? If you want to drive to town to attend a Tea Party, do you deserve a paved road? i could go on, and on and on, but Libertarians will continue to deny the need for infrastructure as they continue to use it.
Click to expand...

No, no, and no. We pay for all of those things. It would be insane of me not to use them after paying for them through taxation.

UtahBill said:
The key word is PROBABLY, and that is what insurance is all about. You don't buy car insurance just before you have an accident, because you don't know if or when you might have the accident. Likewise, you don't know what major illness might strike you even tho you think you are too young and healthy...the whole premise of insurance is to spread the risks...
or don't you understand the purpose of insurance?
Click to expand...

But if someone doesn't want it, that's their decision.
 
phattonez said:
The current system is flawed. Take out compulsory labor and I like it. We don't deserve the labor of anyone else.
Click to expand...

So how do you propose we deal with people that require immediate life-saving care yet lack insurance? Just let them expire in the streets?
 
Polimaster said:
If the college student breaks their leg, or does anything similar, then they will get emergency treatment and the hospital can just write off any expenses. And before you say it I know the bill then gets sent to the tax payers because a hospital is non-profit (which is what allows them to write it off in the first place), but that is what universal health care is. A college student can get the treatment and not have to pay for the services.

And generally a healthy college student will not suffer any serious injuries, GENERALLY, so why pay 12 thousand dollars over the course of a four year college for something that chances are you will not use, and do not need. I think a 40,000 dollar tuition is enough.
Click to expand...

Why in the world should everybody pay for their health care because they thought it better to spend money on something besides health insurance? Just because they have other expenses doesn't mean we should be footing the bill for their irresponsibility. Should a person be exempt from paying for their health coverage because they decide to spend $40k on a vacation cabin? I think not.

By the way, my last medical fiasco racked up a total bill of around $80 grand, all insured. And I'm in tip top condition, healthy eater, active, hell I hadn't even had a cavity before- but obviously statistics didn't keep me safe.
 
Last edited:
First of all, i have no idea why people are so against this. Who gives a ****, seriously? If you have your own health care coverage, you will not have to pay a fine: Conversely, if you do not, you are most likely eligible for government sponsored coverage, AKA medicaid.

I have major medical coverage that costs me less than $1,000/ year, paying for my own physicals etc... out of pocket. I am having trouble understanding how i will be "forced" to pay the so called "fine". For those of you who do not have insurance, and are outraged.... ugh....:thinking why???? It makes very little sense, and i'll tell you why.

If I am driving my vehicle without insurance, and something happens in which either myself is seriously injured, much less someone else, I am looking at some serious out of pocket expenditures. Yet for about $1,500/year, i can obtain $2 million worth of various liability in case i injure myself, others, and property. To tell you the truth, i will not drive 100ft down a road in a car that is not insured for me to do so.

One month in ICU can cause an excess of $300k... therefore it makes no sense, IMHO, not to "hedge your bets".
 
Ethereal said:
So how do you propose we deal with people that require immediate life-saving care yet lack insurance? Just let them expire in the streets?
Click to expand...

They don't deserve the labor of others. The world owes us nothing.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
First of all, i have no idea why people are so against this. Who gives a ****, seriously? If you have your own health care coverage, you will not have to pay a fine: Conversely, if you do not, you are most likely eligible for government sponsored coverage, AKA medicaid.

I have major medical coverage that costs me less than $1,000/ year, paying for my own physicals etc... out of pocket. I am having trouble understanding how i will be "forced" to pay the so called "fine". For those of you who do not have insurance, and are outraged.... ugh....:thinking why???? It makes very little sense, and i'll tell you why.

If I am driving my vehicle without insurance, and something happens in which either myself is seriously injured, much less someone else, I am looking at some serious out of pocket expenditures. Yet for about $1,500/year, i can obtain $2 million worth of various liability in case i injure myself, others, and property. To tell you the truth, i will not drive 100ft down a road in a car that is not insured for me to do so.

One month in ICU can cause an excess of $300k... therefore it makes no sense, IMHO, not to "hedge your bets".
Click to expand...

I give a **** because the government is legislating my personal decisions. It's like saying you don't have to worry about government going through your dirty laundry as long as you've done nothing wrong.

Vehicle insurance is a completely different situation. When you are in an accident you cause damage to yourself and someone else. So you need insurance to cover that damage to the other person. Not so with health insurance. There you are only harming yourself.
 
phattonez said:
I give a **** because the government is legislating my personal decisions. It's like saying you don't have to worry about government going through your dirty laundry as long as you've done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

You are a risk to others if you do not have health insurance, and something happens to you. Reason be, the hospital will have to either work on you pro bono, or, your lack of payment will force prices to increase.

Vehicle insurance is a completely different situation. When you are in an accident you cause damage to yourself and someone else. So you need insurance to cover that damage to the other person. Not so with health insurance. There you are only harming yourself.
Click to expand...

I am not speaking in those regards. Would you drive (continuously)in a car without insurance if only yourself was at risk? If your answer is yes, than i question your rationality; as there is a difference between a man and a boy. A man takes care of himself, and would not put his family (or himself) at risk. A boy on the other hand is concerned about "doing what i want".

It's fools who refuse to take government medical coverage, or get their own coverage, and end up getting hurt all while unable to pay thousands of dollars in bills, who drive up the costs, or cost other people their lives. There are only so many pro bono medical cases available to a single medical facility. Taking up the coverage when you could have been financially covered is completely irresponsible.
 
phattonez said:
They don't deserve the labor of others. The world owes us nothing.
Click to expand...

Ideology does not equal reality, no matter what side of the spectrum you claim to represent....
 
phattonez said:
They don't deserve the labor of others. The world owes us nothing.
Click to expand...

So, we just let them die in the streets? That's your position?

How would you go about implementing this insane policy? Should medical professionals delay treatment until the patient's insurance status is verified?

"Well, we COULD have saved Mr. Smith's life, but we had to wait until his insurance status was verified. Sadly, by the time we realized he did indeed have health insurance, he had already expired during the confirmation period."

Yea, that sounds like a brilliant plan...:roll:
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
First of all, i have no idea why people are so against this. Who gives a ****, seriously? If you have your own health care coverage, you will not have to pay a fine: Conversely, if you do not, you are most likely eligible for government sponsored coverage, AKA medicaid.

I have major medical coverage that costs me less than $1,000/ year, paying for my own physicals etc... out of pocket. I am having trouble understanding how i will be "forced" to pay the so called "fine". For those of you who do not have insurance, and are outraged.... ugh....:thinking why???? It makes very little sense, and i'll tell you why.

If I am driving my vehicle without insurance, and something happens in which either myself is seriously injured, much less someone else, I am looking at some serious out of pocket expenditures. Yet for about $1,500/year, i can obtain $2 million worth of various liability in case i injure myself, others, and property. To tell you the truth, i will not drive 100ft down a road in a car that is not insured for me to do so.

One month in ICU can cause an excess of $300k... therefore it makes no sense, IMHO, not to "hedge your bets".
Click to expand...

I believe the fear is that it will destroy or cripple the private industry. That this is a slippery slope to the government taking over the medical industry.
 
For some reason i cannot see public health care "out competing" private health care on either cost or quality. This is America, we spend more on everything, including national defense, drugs, and health care.

In the US, quality is somewhat relative to price.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
For some reason i cannot see public health care "out competing" private health care on either cost or quality. This is America, we spend more on everything, including national defense, drugs, and health care.

In the US, quality is somewhat relative to price.
Click to expand...

It can't. That's why it will pass the cost on to everybody else- whether they are privately insured or not. It won't be long before the bill comes along imposing a fine upon everybody that declines government coverage, even those under a private policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom