• 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:
Then you especially need health insurance, because if you don't have the money to pay premiums, how would you ever pay your medical bills?
Click to expand...

Maybe he won't. But I doubt he expects it to be your problem or concern.
 
apdst said:
Businesses, small and large, fall under the same tax laws. Small businesses don't get any breaks that large businesses don't get. There is no destinction between small and large businesses.
Click to expand...

But this would change under both H.R. 3200 and the Policy Option once it becomes an actually bill out of the Senate.

Again, don't rely on talking points. Read both bills for yourself. As you're obviously a Conservative, I suggest (once again) that you (at least) read the Policy Option, if you haven't already done so. (And if you have, it should be a good refresher for this debate :mrgreen: ).
 
other said:
Right, so how is this analogous to the debate in healthcare? Mandatory liability insurance is to protect others because driving is inherrently dangerous with the potential of causing lots of damage; Health insurance is to protect yourself, and like extended (non-mandatory) vehical coverage is optional.
Click to expand...

The only mandatory health care I support is emergency room care, and preventative care that may prevent you from ending up in the emergency room. I support assistance for other types of health care as well, but I don't think they should be mandatory.

This would be analogous to protecting others (i.e. the taxpayers) from your inherently dangerous actions with the potential to cause lots of damage.

other said:
If you want to argue that those without health covrage still may use health service and incur costs on others, well, that's a problem with the laws already in place (either not being enforced or allowing for too many loopholes), not a person's choice not to be covered. If you are worried about this issue, you should advocate that ER patients be hit with the bill after they recover, and if you believe it's wrong that they can just file for bankruptcy at skip out on the bill then your problem is with bankruptcy procedure, not actual healthcare.
Click to expand...

That is not practical for a couple reasons. 1) The patient could die or be incapacitated, 2) Saddling someone for their entire life with medical bills without the option of bankruptcy creates a strong incentive for them to pursue sleazy activities instead of legitimate employment.
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe he won't. But I doubt he expects it to be your problem or concern.
Click to expand...

This is the problem we all face...paying our premiums and part of that going towards paying the health care cost of others who do not have coverage. So, from that perspective, it is my concern...and yours...and the next guy's as well.
 
jallman said:
Yes, to protect you from an enormous debt should you ever be at fault for an accident.
Click to expand...

And fining people without health insurance protects the taxpayers from an enormous debt should they ever default on their obligations.

jallman said:
And that still does not address the fact that driving and having a need for auto insurance are totally optional.
Click to expand...

If you ever drive a car, you could potentially cause an accident. Therefore, auto insurance is mandatory so that you don't make someone else pay for your accident.

If you ever seek medical care or could potentially seek medical care (i.e. everyone except for a few religious communities), you could potentially have unaffordable health expenses. Therefore, health insurance is mandatory so that you don't make someone else pay for your health expenses.

It's exactly the same logic. The fact that driving is optional doesn't change the fact that you could stiff an innocent party in either case.

jallman said:
The whole idea of fining people preemptively before they don't pay a bill is retarded no matter how you attempt to justify it.
Click to expand...

The idea of fining all taxpayers (or hospitals) for the irresponsible actions of an identifiable few is retarded no matter how you attempt to justify it, as is the whole idea of denying people emergency care with imperfect information.
 
apdst said:
How much are your annual premiums and does your coverage meet the government's standard?
Click to expand...

I pay a little over $100 per month, so I would say about $1300ish annually. My coverage would probably meet any likely standard ($1500 deductible/out-of-pocket maximum, 100-0 for all expenses beyond that). Of course, I don't trust my health insurer to actually pay up and not try to screw me over if I ever file a claim...but that's another story.
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe he won't. But I doubt he expects it to be your problem or concern.
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't. No one ever EXPECTS to have a bankrupting accident, which is exactly why some people don't buy health insurance. It is my concern, because when uninsured people end up in the emergency room and can't or won't pay their bill, the taxpayers often end up with the bill.
 
Objective Voice said:
This is the problem we all face...paying our premiums and part of that going towards paying the health care cost of others who do not have coverage. So, from that perspective, it is my concern...and yours...and the next guy's as well.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be. And whether or not this is true in actuality doesn't mean he (apdst) favors it being that way.

Kandahar favors mandatory treatment. Because mandatory treatment requires that taxpayers foot any unpaid bills, it creates a burden on taxpayers. So, because there's a burden on taxpayers, it becomes the taxpayer's business whether or not someone has insurance. That's the theory, right? It's everyone's problem, right?

Except that it's a problem created by what Kandahar favors. Take the first sentence out of the above paragraph, and the rest of it disappears. There would be no taxpayer burden, therefore, it would not be "everyone's problem."

Basically, Kandahar thinks people should be forced to live the way he thinks they should live, rather than how they would actually choose to live.
 
Kandahar said:
Of course he doesn't. No one ever EXPECTS to have a bankrupting accident, which is exactly why some people don't buy health insurance. It is my concern, because when uninsured people end up in the emergency room and can't or won't pay their bill, the taxpayers often end up with the bill.
Click to expand...

Only because you force it to happen. See above.
 
Harshaw said:
Kandahar favors mandatory treatment. Because mandatory treatment requires that taxpayers foot any unpaid bills, it creates a burden on taxpayers. So, because there's a burden on taxpayers, it becomes the taxpayer's business whether or not someone has insurance. That's the theory, right? It's everyone's problem, right?

Except that it's a problem created by what Kandahar favors. Take the first sentence out of the above paragraph, and the rest of it disappears. There would be no taxpayer burden, therefore, it would not be "everyone's problem."

Basically, Kandahar thinks people should be forced to live the way he thinks they should live, rather than how they would actually choose to live.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I'm really tired of having to explain in every single health care thread all of the impracticalities of allowing hospitals to pick and choose who they want to treat in the emergency room. But here we go again:

1. If someone is brought into the emergency room bleeding and unconscious, what should doctors do first:
A) Treat him as best they can
B) Rummage through his pockets looking for an insurance card

2. If the doctors pick Option B in Question 1 and the patient dies while they're looking, can his family sue the hospital for malpractice for wasting time?
A) Yes
B) No

3. If the doctors pick Option B in Question 1, and don't find an emergency card or ID, what should they then do?
A) Treat him as best they can
B) Hold him in the hospital and do nothing
C) Throw him out on the street

4. If they pick Option B or C in Question 3, and it turns out he did have health insurance, can his family sue the hospital for denying him treatment?
A) Yes
B) No

5. Do you think ALL emergency room treatment should be at the hospital's discretion, including decisions for reasons other than insurance? For example, if someone wearing a Yankees cap is brought into the ER, and the doctor is a Red Sox fan and refuses to treat him / allows him to die, should the patient's family be able to sue the hospital for malpractice?
A) Yes
B) No
 
Kandahar said:
The idea of fining all taxpayers (or hospitals) for the irresponsible actions of an identifiable few is retarded no matter how you attempt to justify it, as is the whole idea of denying people emergency care with imperfect information.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So identify those few and seek compensation from them. But to demand another expense be laid upon a citizen who has no guilt or association with YOUR problem is asinine and, frankly, the most patently absurd tom foolery I have ever heard.

I hope it gets shot down with overkill because it's just nuts. Another attempt by the "can't do for themselves" crowd to force nanny government on those who are doing well without that influence.
 
jallman said:
Exactly. So identify those few and seek compensation from them.
Click to expand...

Almost by definition, you'll be unable to get compensation from them or they would've paid their medical bills. I doubt there are very many Scrooges who can afford to pay their medical bills and just choose to stiff the hospital because they're assholes.

jallman said:
But to demand another expense be laid upon a citizen who has no guilt or association with YOUR problem is asinine and, frankly, the most patently absurd tom foolery I have ever heard.
Click to expand...

Driving 90 miles per hour down the highway while texting, while drunk off your ass and high on PCP, doesn't harm anyone either. Why not just punish those who commit vehicular homicide, instead of punishing these completely innocent people who have no guilt or association with their problems?
 
There are three basic reasons why people/families fall into bankruptcy over medical expenses:

1. they didn't have health insurance.

2. they had inadequate health insurance.

3. they lost their job OR had to take time off from their job in order to care for a loved one as a result of an accident and can no longer afford to pay their health care premium (while on FMLA).

I suspect the scenario Harshaw outlined in responding to Kandahar (see post #109) falls more along the lines of item #1 herein. As such, Harshaw is correct. The liability is self-imposed and forced upon everyone else. But this is why the mandatory penalty would be so important - to force everyone to get insurance either:

through their employeer;
through Medicaid/Medicare; or,
through the HIE

And by the health care laws "standardizing" minimum health benefits that would apply to ALL health care policies, this "shared emergency room expense" would go away...poof! Gone (...or be significantly reduced which is still a plus for those who do have coverage). This would eliminate item 2 and possibly item 3 as well since everyone would have the same basic coverage and hopitals would spend less time trying to determine what level plan a person has or what coverage is under this BC/BS basic plan as opposed to thier premium plan.

I can see the broader issues here even with the "flawed" H.R. 3200 bill (as some like to think of it, or "ObamaCare" as some like to call it). I would ask everyone to take off your partician glasses and try to see the bigger picture. It's difficult to do, but I ask you to try.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Sigh. I'm really tired of having to explain in every single health care thread all of the impracticalities of allowing hospitals to pick and choose who they want to treat in the emergency room. But here we go again:

1. If someone is brought into the emergency room bleeding and unconscious, what should doctors do first:
A) Treat him as best they can
B) Rummage through his pockets looking for an emergency card

2. If the doctors pick Option B in Question 1 and the patient dies while they're looking, can his family sue the hospital for malpractice for wasting time?
A) Yes
B) No

3. If the doctors pick Option B in Question 1, and don't find an emergency card or ID, what should they then do?
A) Treat him as best they can
B) Hold him in the hospital and do nothing
C) Throw him out on the street

4. If they pick Option B or C in Question 3, and it turns out he did have health insurance, can his family sue the hospital for denying him treatment?
A) Yes
B) No

5. Do you think ALL emergency room treatment should be at the hospital's discretion, including decisions for reasons other than insurance? For example, if someone wearing a Yankees cap is brought into the ER, and the doctor is a Red Sox fan and refuses to treat him / allows him to die, should the patient's family be able to sue the hospital for malpractice?
A) Yes
B) No
Click to expand...

This is all a strawman. You came up with an intentionally absurd scenario which is hardly the only possible one in the absence of mandated, taxpayer-backed care.

The point is, you're decrying a problem created by policies YOU favor, and you want to restrict freedom in order to deal with it.
 
Objective Voice said:
As such, Harshaw is correct. The liability is self-imposed and forced upon everyone else. But this is why the mandatory penalty would be so important - to force everyone to get insurance either:
Click to expand...

No, you're just forcing a second burden because of the problem created by forcing the first.
 
Harshaw said:
This is all a strawman. You came up with an intentionally absurd scenario which is hardly the only possible one in the absence of mandated, taxpayer-backed care.

The point is, you're decrying a problem created by policies YOU favor, and you want to restrict freedom in order to deal with it.
Click to expand...

If the policy I favor (re: mandatory ER care) is the only practical policy, which it is, then we can accept that as a given. If you can present some sort of practical answer to all of those questions where optional ER care would be a workable solution, then be my guest. We can then discuss that issue more in depth. But until I see some sort of alternative to mandatory ER care that isn't ridiculous, I'm going to base my health care views on the premise that the taxpayers are going to pick up the bill for uninsured people who end up at the ER.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Almost by definition, you'll be unable to get compensation from them or they would've paid their medical bills.
Click to expand...

And here you are making an assumption of guilt and fining preemptively. That's retarded.

I doubt there are very many Scrooges who can afford to pay their medical bills and just choose to stiff the hospital because they're assholes.
Click to expand...

But yet, you want to fine the scrooges who can pay their medical bills preemptively for not carrying the coverage YOU choose for them to have? **** that.


Driving 90 miles per hour down the highway while texting, while drunk off your ass and high on PCP, doesn't harm anyone either.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?

Why not just punish those who commit vehicular homicide, instead of punishing these completely innocent people who have no guilt or association with their problems?
Click to expand...

We do punish those who commit vehicular homocide with criminal penalties. And everything you just listed goes beyond insurance issues and crosses into criminal behavior.

In essence, you just went way off into the irrelevant because your argument isn't holding water as it stands.
 
Harshaw said:
No, you're just forcing a second burden because of the problem created by forcing the first.
Click to expand...

Burden it may be, but the outcome as a result of not having health insurance remains the same: the tax paying citizens pick-up the tab for those who either choose not to get insurance if they can afford it, or they can't afford it and we all pay a small price on their behalf anyway.

The only viable solution that really makes sense to remove this unwanted burden is to mandate that everyone has health insurance by some means - private or government sponsored (Medicaid, Medicare or the HIE). Then and only then will this burden go away.

Now, I see Kandahar's point and it's a very valid one based on the emergency room scenarion he outlined. To do nothing means the hospital and/or the attending physician runs the risk of being sued when he could have done something to safe a life. To do something under current health care laws means WE bear the burden. I understand you'd rather have that burden rest with the individual, but unless stricter penalties are imposed on the leatch who walked out on their emergency room bill, he/she would likely just go into default and never pay anyway leaving US with the bill regardless. Hence, the no-insurance penalty. Like it or not, but problem resolved.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If the policies I favor (re: mandatory ER care) are the only practical policy
Click to expand...

Let's be clear -- I'm referring to the policy of mandatory care backed by the taxpayer. There are many other scenarios which don't involve the taxpayer and don't automatically toss someone out on the street. Hospitals can have contingency plans. They can have funds. They can have "uninsured" insurance. There are many ways to deal with things without burdening the taxpayer.

Siiiiigh.

For the life of me, I can't understand people who think that not favoring a government plan, or a particular plan, equates to favoring "nothing." It's vapid, it's narcissistic, and it's dishonest.

Let's also be clear -- my point is that to the extent there is a problem, it's one created by your policy.


But until I see some sort of alternative to mandatory ER care that isn't ridiculous
Click to expand...

Yeah. As if any other proposal (such as the ones I referenced above) won't be declared "ridiculous" by you.


I'm going to base my health care views on the premise that the taxpayers are going to pick up the bill for uninsured people who end up at the ER.
Click to expand...

Much easier to then impose your preferred way of life on people.
 
Harshaw said:
Let's be clear -- I'm referring to the policy of mandatory care backed by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

No. What Kandarhar is saying is "mandatory emergency room care" not backed by taxpayer dollars.

He's trying to explain why you can't get around it under present day laws. Unless you mandate that people who DON'T get health insurance pay a penalty for not having it, some will continue to use the emergency rooms as primary care facilities, and WE will continue to have to pay for their "unwillingness" to be covered.

You, Harshaw, I believe are mixing the argument of "mandatory" emergency room care with general doctor's visit and/or non-emergency surgical treatment which are on two opposite sides of the health care issue, but part of the same problem.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
And here you are making an assumption of guilt and fining preemptively. That's retarded.
Click to expand...

And how is driving at 90 mph while drunk-texting not doing the same thing? It's a completely victimless crime as long as you don't have an accident. So why is it illegal? :confused:

jallman said:
But yet, you want to fine the scrooges who can pay their medical bills preemptively for not carrying the coverage YOU choose for them to have? **** that.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, in the Massachusetts health system, they make exceptions for wealthy people who are able to "self-insure." I'm not opposed to a similar exemption nationwide.

jallman said:
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?

We do punish those who commit vehicular homocide with criminal penalties. And everything you just listed goes beyond insurance issues and crosses into criminal behavior.

In essence, you just went way off into the irrelevant because your argument isn't holding water as it stands.
Click to expand...

No, you just choose to ignore the obvious parallel.
 
Objective Voice said:
No. What Kandarhar is saying is "mandatory emergency room care" not backed by taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

Considering he just said precisely the opposite, I don't think this holds.

I'm going to base my health care views on the premise that the taxpayers are going to pick up the bill for uninsured people who end up at the ER.
Click to expand...


He's trying to explain why you can't get around it under present day laws.
Click to expand...

I'm saying he favors the present day laws which created the "problem" (which, at about 1.6% of total medical expenditure, isn't actually MUCH of a problem).


You, Harshaw, I believe are mixing the argument of "mandatory care" emergency room care with general doctor's visit.
Click to expand...

I absolutely, and resolutely, am not.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

They do not like doing it there either. They just cannot afford to treat everybody for free and most people cannot afford health insurance. So what should their government do fine everybody that cannot afford to pay? Quality of life in the states is dropping. Middle Class is disappearing. to many households have both spouses working just trying to make ends meet. And now the added burden of mandatory health insurance they cannot afford? 50 million with out health care. Why? Because they do not want it? No because they cannot afford it. And what is the government is going to do help those who qualify? How? By giving them more tax dollars so regardless if the person is an ER walk in or not somebody else is still footing the bill. And how long before the Government decides it can no longer afford to help those that can not pay? Not to mention those who do not qualify for any assistance programs? Ohhhhh sorry you make 20 bucks a month over the redline. Can't help you. You know we used to have a public health system in this country. Reagan the working mans friend killed it. Massive mismanagement had caused great damage to the system this is true. But rather than overhaul the system Reagan abolished it.

The GOP is still the GOP. It is protecting the medical/drug company interests and they will be well rewarded next election cycle via campaign donations.

Moe
 
Harshaw said:
Let's be clear -- I'm referring to the policy of mandatory care backed by the taxpayer. There are many other scenarios which don't involve the taxpayer and don't automatically toss someone out on the street. Hospitals can have contingency plans. They can have funds. They can have "uninsured" insurance. There are many ways to deal with things without burdening the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

All of those solutions just involve passing the costs from the taxpayer to the hospital (which didn't ask for the person to be brought to the ER in the first place). That's hardly better.

Harshaw said:
For the life of me, I can't understand people who think that not favoring a government plan, or a particular plan, equates to favoring "nothing." It's vapid, it's narcissistic, and it's dishonest.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Harshaw said:
Let's also be clear -- my point is that to the extent there is a problem, it's one created by your policy.
Click to expand...

I still haven't heard a workable alternative to mandatory ER care. And until I do, I'm still treating this as a given part of the health care system rather than "my policy."

Harshaw said:
Yeah. As if any other proposal (such as the ones I referenced above) won't be declared "ridiculous" by you.
Click to expand...

Which proposal? Forcing innocent hospitals instead of innocent taxpayers to pick up the tab for irresponsible people, instead of making irresponsible people behave more responsibly? Yes, that isn't any better.

Harshaw said:
Much easier to then impose your preferred way of life on people.
Click to expand...

As I said, the only health care I think should be mandatory is emergency care, and preventative care that could prevent the emergency care in the first place. I'm fine with everything beyond that being optional (but available to everyone), as it isn't my concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom