Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 260

Thread: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Good to see you still have that active fantasy life.

    When you can add something useful to the coversation, please let us know.
    I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question.

  2. #192
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,255

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This does not address my post.
    The answer to your post is the answer to the question i have asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If is it deemed civil, how does it meet the justifications for levying civil penalties?
    The very nature of the pigouvian tax... Forcing people to pay more for alcohol than they do for say apples is in essence, a civil penalty on purchasing alcohol. This applies for off road diesel fuel vs on road diesel fuel, but more or less as a means of funding the highway system. And yet.......... You are being levied/taxed/fined whatever you choose to call it, for driving a truck on the road.

    The reason for a fine of any type is to discourage and/or internalize the externality the behavior associated with the act of being fined.

    They put people in jail for punching other people in the mouth. Why? To deter them from punching people in the mouth.

    They fine you for running a red light if you happen to get caught. Why? To keep you from running red lights.

    They charge you extra for purchasing alcohol. Why? To discourage you from purchasing more.

    They charge you more for "on road" diesel than off road diesel. Why? (This is where it gets tricky so please pay attention) To keep businesses from free riding. You see, when a truck drives on the road, its not a big problem. But when 30 million trucks are driving annually on the road, it tends to eat up the asphalt. There is nobody here that would deny the benefits from having trucks transporting goods, but there are those who could clearly identify a problem; the owners of those trucks are gaining much more than the consumer of which they provide the service to. This is commonly identified when social benefit < social cost, which translates into something called deadweight loss. Due to the fact that there are trucks driving on the road, there are some externalities (negative consequences associated with the partaking of an action).

    These policy makers really do not know what to do about this, because repairing roads becomes expensive. So they ask economists, "what can we do."

    The economist replies, "internalize the externality by taxing the act." What happens is rather interesting. Of course, because the demand for trucking is rather inelastic (no other alternatives really), the quantity effect<price effect, and therefore the activity is not discouraged in a negative way. But.... And this is the meat of my response; the tax does in fact create a stream of revenue of which road repair is not burdened on everyone, but on those whose benefits of the road are exceeding the social benefits trucking.

    We can synthesize this quite eloquently into the current heath care debate. Maybe you are not causing hospitals and other consumers to "pick up the tab" thereby increasing costs for everyone. But, there are those who do. Are we to expect the government not to tax a guy who only uses the road infrequently with his diesel truck? Of course not, the transactional costs associated with identifying that specific demographic and targeting them outweighs the both the social and private benefit gained. And the demand for medical care is probably the only good/service that can be called perfectly inelastic (the slope of the demand curve (given a specific first and second derivative) is undefined)

    So if you want to engage in activity that infringes on the rights of others, you are going to have to pay a tax. Why? To discourage this type of activity and "internalize the externality".

    Understand now?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #193
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question.
    Its not running....its Goobie dancing the Stinger Shuffle...


    Tap a tap a tap a
    Last edited by disneydude; 09-10-09 at 11:28 PM.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #194
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    I've read this thread with great interest and its an issue I wasn't firmly committed to one side or another, so I want thank the folks that have engaged in a civil, insightful discussion.

    The way I see it a vast percentage of folks who willingly decide not to have insurance are unable to cover the costs of treatment for any catostrophic medical conditions or accidents. They are essentially rolling the dice (usually because they are young and healthy) that they won't be hit by some medical disaster. We can argue if this is a good choice or bad choice, but I don't have a problem with folks making a personal choice. The problem is when the consequences of those choices affect the rest of us. With freedom of choice comes the responsibility of living with the consequences of those choices. What we have here is where the profits of the choice are privatized, but the losses of that choice are at least occassionally subsidized.

    As Khandar has pointed out, its simply not feasible to deny immediate, emergency, life saving care on the basis of having or not having insurance. It creates far more problems than it solves. So someone else is going to end up paying for the emergency care of folks who choose not to have medical insurance and cannot pay for it (and I have no doubt a VAST majority of those who choose to not have insurance cannot pay the bill for emergency life saving treatment). Should hospitals or taxpayers be required to pay for the consequenes of another person's personal decision? So why not make those who cause the problem in the first place (folks who purposely choose not to have health insurance to save a few bucks each month)?

    That said, I think this is a realtively minor issue in terms of overall healthcare costs.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  5. #195
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The answer to your post is the answer to the question i have asked.
    hardly -- see below.

    The very nature of the pigouvian tax...
    The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.
    Therefore, none of this applies.

  6. #196
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question.
    I notice that, rather than add to the conversation, you're focusing on me.

    Must be the lack of relevant content on your part.

    Now, do you care to discuss the issue, or are you going to continue to troll?

  7. #197
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,255

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    hardly -- see below.


    The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.
    Therefore, none of this applies.
    I beg to differ. What is the difference between a pigouvian tax and a fine?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #198
    Educator a777pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Flower Mound, in the basement
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 08:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    815

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    I came into this world fighting, screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.

  9. #199
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    I beg to differ. What is the difference between a pigouvian tax and a fine?
    It should be -obvious- that taxes and fines are not the same thing

    Fines are penalties imposed for a 'wrongful act'
    -Criminal fines are punishment for criminal acts;
    -Civil fines are restitution for costs borne by the government due to your actions

    The point in all of this is NOT the 'deterrece' value of the fines, but the fact that if you want to impose a fine, you have to have the structure to do so - you either have to arrest and try someone, or that someone has to have commited an act that created a cost to the government.

    Does the proposal create a criminal fine or a civil fine?
    If the former, does the FBI arrent you and are you tried in federal court?
    If the latter, on what basis can you recoup a cost that hasnt been borne?

  10. #200
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,255

    Re: Fines proposed for going without health insurance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It should be -obvious- that taxes and fines are not the same thing

    Fines are penalties imposed for a 'wrongful act'
    -Criminal fines are punishment for criminal acts;
    -Civil fines are restitution for costs borne by the government due to your actions

    The point in all of this is NOT the 'deterrece' value of the fines, but the fact that if you want to impose a fine, you have to have the structure to do so - you either have to arrest and try someone, or that someone has to have commited an act that created a cost to the government.

    Does the proposal create a criminal fine or a civil fine?
    If the former, does the FBI arrent you and are you tried in federal court?
    If the latter, on what basis can you recoup a cost that hasnt been borne?
    So you are letting yourself get caught up in subjective lingo? Why? Lets rephrase the OP.

    Taxes proposed for going without health insurance. If someone does not carry health insurance, they will have to pay a tax equivalent to the fine.

    So tell me, do you have a problem with this?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •