• 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!

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

Kandahar said:
That's just stupid. You could say the same thing about private insurance. The other members of your private insurance plan are taxpayers too. That doesn't mean "the taxpayers" are paying for it.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. With private insurance everyone who has private insurance is agreeing to this and are free to leave it any time they wish. Forcing tax payers to pick up the tab and people voluntarily getting insurance are two separate things.
 
theangryamerican said:
You specifically said the cost me having to go visit the ER after getting hit by a bus would NOT be paid by the taxpayer because of my premiums. If my premium doesn't cover it all, where is the rest of the insurance money going to come from?
Click to expand...
everyone else's premiums. next question?
 
I need to find a third party I really agree with. I'm at a loss right now and have been avoiding political discussions almost entirely because of how things have been going in Washington.

The man I voted for has been completely disappointing to me. The Congress has followed his lead in their decision to leave the American people high and dry.

Sadly I am now of the opinion that my vote was wasted. And it would have been wasted no matter who I voted for. :(
 
apdst said:
The Dems had already planned to fine people for not carrying health insurance. This is nothing new and sure as hell isn't a Republican invention.

I think the Dems are doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot, though.
Click to expand...

that is a very good point, friend, the FACT of fines has been central to waxman-rangel, hr3200, since its inception

check out the date on the AP source i linked a couple posts up

it's stunning how little is known about what they say by some of the good folk who do so much talking in this forum

the FINES are NOT news

(except that BAUCUS embraced em, yesterday, ie, the SENATE)

word is OUT already on what the prez is gonna do TONITE

his entire presidency rides on tonite, we all know, as he addresses joint session summoned by himself to announce his NEW APPROACH

y'know, the FINAL strategy underlying the obamacare push, the one axelrod and gibbs were UNABLE to articulate as recently as sunday cuz leadership STILL had not determined exactly what the heck it wanted to do

shocking how IMPROVISATIONAL---and ADMITTEDLY so---is this admin concerning the comprehensive distribution of SIXTEEN PERCENT of the us economy

not to mention, the health and well being of all legal and illegal americans

why, we're still working on it, we don't want to commit ourselves, don't want to rule anything out---gibbs and axelrod both are OPEN about their still half-cooked status on mtp and this week with stephy

well, word's out early on their FINAL "new approach"

it's the OLD one---hr3200

no triggers

no co ops

public option is IN

baucus gave his SIX til 10am this morning

LOLOLOL!

there ya go

hurry hurry hurry is the hark

next up---3200 hits the floor of pelosi's place

it's gonna have a LOT of trouble

it will either win by a very few votes or lose by very few

23 dems (or something like that) have already said no

she can afford to lose 39, or so

mike ross, bluedog leader, added his NAY subsequent

makes 24+

either way, she might clear HOUSE

but upstairs is gonna be impossible

pelosi/obama might try for reconciliation, it now looks like

hurry hurry hurry

obama characteristically CAVED to pelosi in private meeting yesterday

obama always caves to pelosi

seniors are gonna REVOLT

mccaskill's HEAD is on THE BLOCK

as well as two dozen others

smart money is NO WAY can they get it thru on reconciliation

but they might

if they do, it's the end of the party

3200 is extremely unpopular, problematic

and for more reasons than just the fines

it cuts medicare and medicaid half a tril

it includes illegals, in that e-verify was specifically stripped (heller amendment)

it generalizes abortion

it taxes small biz

it "surcharges" upper incomes

it bends the COST CURVE the wrong way, significantly, said cbo---this is a BIGGIE, the actuarial underpinning of obamacare at its conception

it taxes benefits, ala john mccain

but, most in the gut TODAY, NOW, because politics is in the gut---it is PERCEIVED as foot in the door incrementalism to eventual total nationalization

that is, the buzzy issue going forward from here is gonna be---privates are gonna be driven under by being forced to compete with a subsidized public rival

hr3200 is a PIG, and that aint politics

well, at least obama FINALLY made up his mind

wed morning, early am, 12 hours before HIS deadline

LOLOLOL!

good luck with it, folks
 
Well, We should have expexcted some kind of crap like this for thinking that politicians could fix something. Now we will get a gutted health plan that you will be fined for if you do not want it.

Anybody know what the status will be for illegal aliens coming up over the border to have babies born in US hospitals? Or any other medical procedure that may be required for illegals for that matter. Or is that ok to be paid for with the taxpayers dime? They damn sure ain't going to have any insurance.
 
Kandahar said:
Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with financial aid to those who can't afford it. This plan is no exception. No one is going to be fined because they can't afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

The fine is suppose to be a mechanism to force people to get health insurance. Otherwise, if you leave it up to the individual, he/she likely wouldn't do it. And considering the raising cost of emergency room treatment (whether to illegals or not), it makes sense to mandate that everyone has health care.
 
Just make it mandatory.. does not matter how you get it, just make it mandatory to have basic healthcare insurance... the Swiss do it, and it works.. and yes it is private insurance.. expensive as hell, but still private run.
 
theangryamerican said:
Flawed argument, you're assuming I don't have an emergency fund piled away that could completely cover my costs.

There's no reason I should be required to pay for health insurance when my lack of it would not hurt anyone but me.

If I had government healthcare, the taxpayers would be paying for my care anyway, what's the difference?
Click to expand...

But by you not having health insurance, you ARE hurting others. You just don't know it. I certainly didn't until I began to listen to both sides on the health care debate. How do you hurt others in this regard? By others having to pay that little extra hidden cost in their health insurance premium that goes towards covering the uninsurance for emergency room care. But if everyone has health insurance, that hidden cost goes away. As such, you've helped bring down the cost of health care.
 
theangryamerican said:
Comparing mandatory health insurance to compulsory auto insurance is ridiculous. Auto insurance is mandatory due to the the fact that you have the ability to cause injury or damage the property of others.

Who's property am I that they can demand that I provide coverage to protect myself? I'm not hurting anyone if I elect to not have health insurance...
Click to expand...

With the exception that if you show up at a hospital uninsured and need treatment, they will pass the costs of your treatment on to everyone else. Thus, everyone else ends up financially responsible for your not having insurance.
 
another issue bigtime on the rise NOW (cuz politics is like the weather) is tort reform

if you want comprehensively to reform health care, mr president, how could you fail to look at the hundreds of billions WASTED each year on DEFENSIVE MEDICINE?

this aint me talking, here, folks, it rarely is

i'm just telling you what's going on in the city

never forget, by the way, that the president's prime impetus for pushing a reform in the first place has always been ECONOMIC---we can't afford to do nothing, he's said a thousand times

simply fyi

carry on
 
Objective and Southern, you both need to please read the WHOLE post before responding, I already addressed that issue.
 
Zyphlin said:
How about instead of fining people for choosing, you know that whole freedom thing, not to purchase insurance and choosing to take that chance simply because it may cost hospitals money you remove the requirements that hospitals MUST care for people regardless of whether or not they can pay?
Click to expand...

Sure we will just make sure the admitting in hospital emergency rooms is staffed exclusively with diagnosed sociopaths and psychopaths so that they will no the will have no qualms at all about denying life saving treatment to those that are uninsured.

In this world we live in, you know, reality, where people have lives that are dictated at least partially by conscience, government requirement or not, no one is just going to let someone bleed to death in the street simply because they don't have the ability to pay for treatment. So any way you slice it, those costs will still be passed on to the insured.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure we will just make sure the admitting in hospital emergency rooms is staffed exclusively with diagnosed sociopaths and psychopaths so that they will no the will have no qualms at all about denying life saving treatment to those that are uninsured.

In this world we live in, you know, reality, where people have lives that are dictated at least partially by conscience, government requirement or not, no one is just going to let someone bleed to death in the street simply because they don't have the ability to pay for treatment. So any way you slice it, those costs will still be passed on to the insured.
Click to expand...

It is kind of like that here in the Philippines. It is a hard cruel way to go but if you do not have the money or the insurance you die.
 
moe said:
It is kind of like that here in the Philippines. It is a hard cruel way to go but if you do not have the money or the insurance you die.
Click to expand...

Frankly, the United States is not the Philippines. Regardless of whether someone is a liberal or a conservative here, in the end, when you get down to it, we all tend to not turn our backs on our fellow man when he is in need. I would argue that is one of the reasons why we are arguably the greatest nation in the history of civilization, and a nation like the Philippines is still largely a third world nation.

Government mandate or not, no one in a United States E.R. is simply going to deny life saving treatment to someone if they don't have the ability to pay for it.
 
If you have hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars in liquid assets, why on earth would you not want to protect it buy purchasing health insurance? A one month hospital stay in an intensive care unit can cost an excess of $500,000, not counting rehabilitation costs (and opportunity costs of not being able to earn an income to pay off other fixed living expenses).

Which is why i question the rationality (and validity) of those who state that they are wealthy and do not purchase medical insurance. If you are too dense to understand the benefits of having various insurance policies in case of an emergency, i promise you one thing, you will not be wealthy for long. Unless of course you are a trust fund case, or won the powerball, etc....

The simple fact that people do not have insurance and "**** happens" causes health care costs to rise every year, even though medical technology is ever progressing.

Think about it, how much did it cost for a computer 10 years ago? Even under the guise of inflation, it is much cheaper to purchase one that is 1000 times more powerful/useful. Now given the inelastic demand in something as important as health care, i am not expecting costs to decrease, but there should be a way to keep it from (oops) increasing by double digit % points year over year.
 
Last edited:
It amuses me that Dems complain about Reps for 'trying to legislate their morality' yet here they are trying to legislate what every american has to do
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Government mandate or not, no one in a United States E.R. is simply going to deny life saving treatment to someone if they don't have the ability to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a gray area. If you go to the ER for a headache only to find out you have a brain tumor that requires extensive surgery, and they find that you have good enough insurance not to be covered by a government plan, but not good enough to cover the cost; you might not get that brain surgery that might save your life. Not saying you will not, but i have seen it happen before.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure we will just make sure the admitting in hospital emergency rooms is staffed exclusively with diagnosed sociopaths and psychopaths so that they will no the will have no qualms at all about denying life saving treatment to those that are uninsured.

In this world we live in, you know, reality, where people have lives that are dictated at least partially by conscience, government requirement or not, no one is just going to let someone bleed to death in the street simply because they don't have the ability to pay for treatment. So any way you slice it, those costs will still be passed on to the insured.
Click to expand...

So are you telling me that the majority of the costs from treating uninsured people has to do with life threatening, emergency, bleeding to death in the street type of issues?

Somehow, from over the years of reading on this stuff, those circumstances don't seem to be the majority that is the biggest issue across the country. There is a difference between a hospital choosing to help a dieing man, and being forced to give emergency care to someone that comes in with a dinged up wrist or a lingering cold.

And indeed, if the vast majority of this issue is people who simply can't "Afford" health insurance, then why are you going to punish people who could afford it but choose not to...and if something happens to them may be financially well off to take care of it save for extreme circumstances...while letting those that are causing the problem continue to cause the problem.

As I said, its nothing but a justification to take more money from some people and give it to others, only this time its using an issue created in part by government meddling in the first place to justify it while at the same time not dealing with the issue at all.

Liberals keep harping on a right to privacy, a right to determine things for your own body. My health is my own god damn body and its private to ME and its none of the governments business to tell me what I must or must not do to keep it healthy, nor am I going to get on board with anything that further makes my body, my health, MYSELF "Government Interest". History has shown us, far to many times, what happens when you start making something come under the umbrella of what the government says it has a vested interest in and there's no way I'm going to give my body as one of those things. It amazes me at the hypocracy of liberals who shout down and decry conservatives non-stop over the abortion thing, over a right to privacy, over ones own choice to do what they want with their body and the government should have zero control over it at all.....and yet want the government interfering with our bodies in every other way.
 
The Prof said:
that is a very good point, friend, the FACT of fines has been central to waxman-rangel, hr3200, since its inception

check out the date on the AP source i linked a couple posts up

it's stunning how little is known about what they say by some of the good folk who do so much talking in this forum

the FINES are NOT news

(except that BAUCUS embraced em, yesterday, ie, the SENATE)

word is OUT already on what the prez is gonna do TONITE

his entire presidency rides on tonite, we all know, as he addresses joint session summoned by himself to announce his NEW APPROACH

y'know, the FINAL strategy underlying the obamacare push, the one axelrod and gibbs were UNABLE to articulate as recently as sunday cuz leadership STILL had not determined exactly what the heck it wanted to do

shocking how IMPROVISATIONAL---and ADMITTEDLY so---is this admin concerning the comprehensive distribution of SIXTEEN PERCENT of the us economy

not to mention, the health and well being of all legal and illegal americans

why, we're still working on it, we don't want to commit ourselves, don't want to rule anything out---gibbs and axelrod both are OPEN about their still half-cooked status on mtp and this week with stephy

well, word's out early on their FINAL "new approach"

it's the OLD one---hr3200

no triggers

no co ops

public option is IN

baucus gave his SIX til 10am this morning

LOLOLOL!

there ya go

hurry hurry hurry is the hark

next up---3200 hits the floor of pelosi's place

it's gonna have a LOT of trouble

it will either win by a very few votes or lose by very few

23 dems (or something like that) have already said no

she can afford to lose 39, or so

mike ross, bluedog leader, added his NAY subsequent

makes 24+

either way, she might clear HOUSE

but upstairs is gonna be impossible

pelosi/obama might try for reconciliation, it now looks like

hurry hurry hurry

obama characteristically CAVED to pelosi in private meeting yesterday

obama always caves to pelosi

seniors are gonna REVOLT

mccaskill's HEAD is on THE BLOCK

as well as two dozen others

smart money is NO WAY can they get it thru on reconciliation

but they might

if they do, it's the end of the party

3200 is extremely unpopular, problematic

and for more reasons than just the fines

it cuts medicare and medicaid half a tril

it includes illegals, in that e-verify was specifically stripped (heller amendment)

it generalizes abortion

it taxes small biz

it "surcharges" upper incomes

it bends the COST CURVE the wrong way, significantly, said cbo---this is a BIGGIE, the actuarial underpinning of obamacare at its conception

it taxes benefits, ala john mccain

but, most in the gut TODAY, NOW, because politics is in the gut---it is PERCEIVED as foot in the door incrementalism to eventual total nationalization

that is, the buzzy issue going forward from here is gonna be---privates are gonna be driven under by being forced to compete with a subsidized public rival

hr3200 is a PIG, and that aint politics

well, at least obama FINALLY made up his mind

wed morning, early am, 12 hours before HIS deadline

LOLOLOL!

good luck with it, folks
Click to expand...

whatinthehelldidyoujustsay
 
Zyphlin said:
So are you telling me that the majority of the costs from treating uninsured people has to do with life threatening, emergency, bleeding to death in the street type of issues?

Somehow, from over the years of reading on this stuff, those circumstances don't seem to be the majority that is the biggest issue across the country. There is a difference between a hospital choosing to help a dieing man, and being forced to give emergency care to someone that comes in with a dinged up wrist or a lingering cold.

And indeed, if the vast majority of this issue is people who simply can't "Afford" health insurance, then why are you going to punish people who could afford it but choose not to...and if something happens to them may be financially well off to take care of it save for extreme circumstances...while letting those that are causing the problem continue to cause the problem.

As I said, its nothing but a justification to take more money from some people and give it to others, only this time its using an issue created in part by government meddling in the first place to justify it while at the same time not dealing with the issue at all.

Liberals keep harping on a right to privacy, a right to determine things for your own body. My health is my own god damn body and its private to ME and its none of the governments business to tell me what I must or must not do to keep it healthy, nor am I going to get on board with anything that further makes my body, my health, MYSELF "Government Interest". History has shown us, far to many times, what happens when you start making something come under the umbrella of what the government says it has a vested interest in and there's no way I'm going to give my body as one of those things. It amazes me at the hypocracy of liberals who shout down and decry conservatives non-stop over the abortion thing, over a right to privacy, over ones own choice to do what they want with their body and the government should have zero control over it at all.....and yet want the government interfering with our bodies in every other way.
Click to expand...
Nailed! Slam dunk! I suspect this whole public option thing is another sneaky way to use tax dollars to pay for abortions.
 
Zyphlin said:
So are you telling me that the majority of the costs from treating uninsured people has to do with life threatening, emergency, bleeding to death in the street type of issues?

Somehow, from over the years of reading on this stuff, those circumstances don't seem to be the majority that is the biggest issue across the country. There is a difference between a hospital choosing to help a dieing man, and being forced to give emergency care to someone that comes in with a dinged up wrist or a lingering cold.
Click to expand...

Hospitals, other than county ones in some circumstances, are not legally compelled to treat you for non-life threatening conditions in the event you are uninsured.

And indeed, if the vast majority of this issue is people who simply can't "Afford" health insurance, then why are you going to punish people who could afford it but choose not to...and if something happens to them may be financially well off to take care of it save for extreme circumstances...while letting those that are causing the problem continue to cause the problem.
Click to expand...

I think any notion of requiring insurance would also be coupled with assistance to those that can't afford it.

Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring insurance. However, we also have the issue of a large number of people simply opting not have it which results in the costs for the treatment should they need it being passed on to others. So simply doing nothing is not a good option. If you don't like the idea of requiring medical insurance to live or work in the United States, then come up with a better option, that is actually realistic, that addresses the problem.
 
Freedom: living your life the way you wish, not the way someone else wants you to.

Anyone disagree with that?
 
Harshaw said:
Freedom: living your life the way you wish, not the way someone else wants you to.

Anyone disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Not at all. However, liberty is also limited in that one individuals choices cannot limit the liberty of others. Moreover, there is the whole concept of social contract. In order to get to live and work in the United States, this great piece of prime real estate we have here, certain things are required of you. You have to pay taxes, you can't just dump toxic chemicals out in you yard, you have to insure your vehicle if you drive on our roads, and so on.

Its not as black and white as those on either side would like it to be.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Hospitals, other than county ones in some circumstances, are not legally compelled to treat you for non-life threatening conditions in the event you are uninsured.



I think any notion of requiring insurance would also be coupled with assistance to those that can't afford it.

Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring insurance. However, we also have the issue of a large number of people simply opting not have it which results in the costs for the treatment should they need it being passed on to others. So simply doing nothing is not a good option. If you don't like the idea of requiring medical insurance to live or work in the United States, then come up with a better option, that is actually realistic, that addresses the problem.
Click to expand...

The cost of uncompensated treatment is about $40 bn a year.

The total medical expenditure is $2.5 tn a year.

Uncompensated treatment makes up about 1.6% of medical expenditure.

There's not much of a "problem" to address.

Question, though -- how many people who could afford insurance, but choose not to buy it, then go on to seek treatment and stiff a hospital on the bill?

In other words, does this "solution" address any problem at all? If so, what are the numbers of these well-off medical bill stiffers?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not at all. However, liberty is also limited in that one individuals choices cannot limit the liberty of others.
Click to expand...

No one choosing not to have health coverage limits anyone else's liberty in any way, shape, or form. That's absurd. The only thing that does is the government (i.e., liberals who favor this kind of thing) taxing you to pay for someone else's poor choices. The government doesn't have to do that. So it's the government limiting liberty, not the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom