• 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

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:

It's the difference between immediate threat of harm and your flimsy "possibility that every single person won't pay their debt". It's a retarded comparison.

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.



No, you just choose to ignore the obvious parallel.

I know what parallel you were attempting to draw. I stand by my assessment that it was an asinine attempt to relate two completely unrelatable things.
 
So who wants to explain to this Moron of an elected official that what he is trying is in clear violation of the United States Constitution, maybe he needs to go and re-read this thing called the 1st Adm. you know the right to choice, unless we have become Nazi Germany or Facist Italy or Communist China we still have the right to choice.
 
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.

It removes the burden from the taxpayers. I can see why you don't want that -- it takes away your entire premise.




:roll:

You continue to say I have no alternative to taxpayer-funded mandatory care, yet I've given you several.



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."

OK, then ignore the parts of my post which are inconvenient. The point is removing taxpayer burden. But then, that would negate your entire argument for mandated coverage, so of course, that's not what you want.



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.

Thank you for confirming the point.



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 seem to have a rather broad concept of "emergency care."
 
It removes the burden from the taxpayers. I can see why you don't want that -- it takes away your entire premise.





:roll:

You continue to say I have no alternative to taxpayer-funded mandatory care, yet I've given you several.





OK, then ignore the parts of my post which are inconvenient. The point is removing taxpayer burden. But then, that would negate your entire argument for mandated coverage, so of course, that's not what you want.





Thank you for confirming the point.

The point is NOT just to remove the taxpayer burden. The point is to remove the taxpayer burden AND transfer it to the appropriate party in the most fair way possible.

You have proposed making hospitals pay for the cost of irresponsible, uninsured people. I have proposed making irresponsible, uninsured people pay for the cost of irresponsible, uninsured people. Which seems more fair to you?

Harshaw said:
You seem to have a rather broad concept of "emergency care."

OK, please substantiate this. I don't even remember talking about what I consider to be "emergency care" in this thread or any other. :roll:
 
Oh and one other item I would like to add to this thread if the Good Elected Moron wants to have fine alright then Congress must use this program and drop the very nice Federal Employee Health Bennies that they have. Nothing like being able to choice from over 250 different plans, mean while most of the US barely has two or three to choice from.
 
The point is NOT just to remove the taxpayer burden. The point is to remove the taxpayer burden AND transfer it to the appropriate party in the most fair way possible.

You need to read better.

MY point is to remove taxpayer burden.


You have proposed making hospitals pay for the cost of irresponsible, uninsured people. I have proposed making irresponsible, uninsured people pay for the cost of irresponsible, uninsured people. Which seems more fair to you?

No, you haven't. You put the burden on the taxpayer, explicitly, repeatedly. Then you use that as a wedge to force people to live the way you would choose for them to live.

If you were actually worried about putting the responsibility where it belongs, then you'd have people take the ultimate responsibility for choosing no coverage -- they'd be out of luck. But that's not what it is for you -- it's only a rhetorical device to mandate the behavior you want.




OK, please substantiate this. I don't even remember talking about what I consider to be "emergency care" in this thread or any other. :roll:

Seeing as you've included everything from stitches to $5 million-dollar surgeries, why don't you provide the parameters yourself.
 
You need to read better.

MY point is to remove taxpayer burden.

That's fine, but then you can stop braying from the moral high ground about how my plan is anti-freedom, whereas your plan of forcing hospitals to pick up the tab is pro-freedom. :roll:

Harshaw said:
No, you haven't. You put the burden on the taxpayer, explicitly, repeatedly. Then you use that as a wedge to force people to live the way you would choose for them to live.

I have done no such thing. I put the burden on the irresponsible people who don't have health insurance. If they don't have health insurance, then they are fined. It's as simple as that. I'm even willing to make exceptions for those religiously opposed to insurance or health care, those who can afford to self-insure, and those who are so dirt-poor they can't afford health care even with subsidies (hopefully not many in that category).

Harshaw said:
If you were actually worried about putting the responsibility where it belongs, then you'd have people take the ultimate responsibility for choosing no coverage -- they'd be out of luck. But that's not what it is for you -- it's only a rhetorical device to mandate the behavior you want.

Even you tacitly admitted that this was an unworkable solution, by proposing your silly pawn-the-costs-off-to-the-hospital solution. So unless you are actually prepared to argue that making emergency care optional is truly a workable solution, you can stop returning to this point.

Harshaw said:
Seeing as you've included everything from stitches to $5 million-dollar surgeries, why don't you provide the parameters yourself.

YOU brought up stitches, not me.
 
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: ).

Show us in the bill where it says that.
 
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?

1) I have health insurance. 2) I have health insurance because I choose to, not because I'm forced to. If I ever choose not to have health insurance, I shouldn't have to worry about being fined $3,800.
 
1) I have health insurance. 2) I have health insurance because I choose to, not because I'm forced to. If I ever choose not to have health insurance, I shouldn't have to worry about being fined $3,800.

And if you ever choose not to have health insurance, taxpayers shouldn't have to worry about paying for your ER bill. But they do, because optional ER care is not a practical solution. Therefore the government has every right to make you buy health insurance.

Not carrying health insurance is the height of irresponsibility and shows a complete disregard for the property rights of other people.
 
And if you ever choose not to have health insurance, taxpayers shouldn't have to worry about paying for your ER bill. But they do, because optional ER care is not a practical solution. Therefore the government has every right to make you buy health insurance.

Not carrying health insurance is the height of irresponsibility and shows a complete disregard for the property rights of other people.

No it doesn't there is this thing called the US Constitution and the Bill of Right I suggest you go and read it and then show me were it say's I or you or anyone else HAS TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS MANDATES.

I'll be waiting :2wave:
 
No it doesn't there is this thing called the US Constitution and the Bill of Right I suggest you go and read it and then show me were it say's I or you or anyone else HAS TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS MANDATES.

I'll be waiting :2wave:

So I can murder people? Cool.

Congress mandated that I don't kill people. No takesbacksies.
 
No it doesn't there is this thing called the US Constitution and the Bill of Right I suggest you go and read it and then show me were it say's I or you or anyone else HAS TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT CONGRESS MANDATES.

So you are opposed to all laws regarding anything at all?
 
And if you ever choose not to have health insurance, taxpayers shouldn't have to worry about paying for your ER bill. But they do, because optional ER care is not a practical solution. Therefore the government has every right to make you buy health insurance.
the tax payers have never paid my hospital bills. I broke my shoulder last summer, when I didn't have any insurance and trust me, the tax payers didn't pay the bill.

Not carrying health insurance is the height of irresponsibility and shows a complete disregard for the property rights of other people.

You must be mad as hell at the welfare class for ****ing with your property rights!
 
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.



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.

I agree with both points (except the preventative care part). The government has no business mandating healthcare. Glad you agree.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

As others have already pointed out, the two assumptions above are just that, assumptions. Not having insurance does NOT equate to stiffing the hospital for one's bills.



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.
Then the hospital voluntarily accepts that risk themselves. They need not be mandated by law to do so.

I have no problem with lifesaving care being legally mandated, primarily because there's no viable way to determine if someone is able to pay when they're being wheeled into an emergency room bleeding to death. That ends at the 'lifesaving care'.

However, I have a GREAT problem with mandating that anyone in the ER MUST be cared for no matter why they are there and that's the issue we deal with now. ERs that are over run with people in there for stubbed toes and paranoid mothers.
 
This twenty-something strongly supports a health care mandate, as does most everyone else I know. In fact, young people are the demographic most supportive of health care reform.

everybody wants reform

you would have to be brain dead not to want reform

it is the type of reform that is controversial

and now Obama has blinked on the public option. He has no spine
 
everybody wants reform

you would have to be brain dead not to want reform

it is the type of reform that is controversial

and now Obama has blinked on the public option. He has no spine

No one wants to see their pocketbook invaded by the governement, either.
 
the tax payers have never paid my hospital bills. I broke my shoulder last summer, when I didn't have any insurance and trust me, the tax payers didn't pay the bill.

I was using "you" in the general sense. If someone doesn't have insurance and gets in a bad accident where they're in the hospital for weeks, they could easily run up several hundred thousand dollars in medical bills. For most people, there is absolutely no way they are going to be able to pay that off.

apdst said:
You must be mad as hell at the welfare class for ****ing with your property rights!

I'm completely in favor of assisting the poor with obtaining insurance. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between people who don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, and people who don't have health insurance because they're irresponsible morons.
 
That's fine, but then you can stop braying from the moral high ground about how my plan is anti-freedom, whereas your plan of forcing hospitals to pick up the tab is pro-freedom. :roll:

You want to mandate a certain behavior. I gave a possible scenario where care can still be given but not be on the taxpayer's dime. Why? Because you asked for one. I never said it was my preferred scenario.



I have done no such thing. I put the burden on the irresponsible people who don't have health insurance. If they don't have health insurance, then they are fined. It's as simple as that.

You want them fined (i.e., punished) because they're not conducting their personal lives in a way you think they should. It's as simple as that.



I'm even willing to make exceptions for those religiously opposed to insurance or health care, those who can afford to self-insure, and those who are so dirt-poor they can't afford health care even with subsidies (hopefully not many in that category).

How does this make it better?



Even you tacitly admitted that this was an unworkable solution, by proposing your silly pawn-the-costs-off-to-the-hospital solution. So unless you are actually prepared to argue that making emergency care optional is truly a workable solution, you can stop returning to this point.

I'm perfectly willing to make it optional and let people take actual responsibility for their personal decisions. But you wanted other proposals. I proposed some.

I also asked you to say something more than "it won't work" when rejecting those proposals, but you have yet to do so. You've only said "it's not better" or called it "silly." You've never once said how. So explain. Explain why it wouldn't work, in detail. Failing that, explain why it's "silly" or why it's worse than your preference.

Can you? Or is it that you really do just want to keep the taxpayer on the hook and won't even consider any other possibility? Certainly looks that way to me.


YOU brought up stitches, not me.

This was your chance to clarify your parameters; you going to or not?
 
I think Bobo ought have a "pull your pants up" tax or at least a fine.

Maybe a "fat" tax. Anyone more than 125% of a government assigned weight by height should pay a tax per pound over. The rate to increase every year that person exceeds that limit.

Maybe a "square footage" tax. Bobo could tax, every year a person that rents or owns a home that exceeds a national/State acceptable "standard".

Then there is that "No Abortion" tax. Abortions would be free to all paid for by the government but any live birth would incur a tax.

OH, the list is endless.


Maybe an internet "blog" tax. Anyone that posts on a blog or internet site to include e-mails would have to pay a fee per post, up to a maximum number of characters, then have to pay extra for extra or over the limit of characters.
 
You want to mandate a certain behavior. I gave a possible scenario where care can still be given but not be on the taxpayer's dime. Why? Because you asked for one. I never said it was my preferred scenario.

Stop playing this game. If you aren't going to put your cards on the table, I'm done here. You can't simultaneously say "We don't actually need Policy X, because Policies Y and Z are also available" and then turn around and say "Well, I never said Policies Y and Z were better than Policy X."

So let's get this straight once and for all. What do you think is the best solution for dealing with uninsured patients who end up in the ER and can't afford to pay their bills? And we'll assume that we've already tried to collect from the patient and he declared bankruptcy or died or disappeared or yada yada.

A. Stick the public with the bill, resulting in higher taxes.
B. Stick the hospital ER with the bill, resulting in a reduced quality of service.
C. Make all ER care "optional," resulting in doctors clawing through a patient's pockets for an insurance card instead of treating him.
D. Mandate that all persons must own a minimal amount of health insurance covering their ER expenses, in case they end up in the ER and don't have any money.
E. Something else.

I've already made it clear that I think Option D is the best, and therefore my other policy suggestions are predicated on that assumption. Now, what is YOUR answer?

Harshaw said:
I also asked you to say something more than "it won't work" when rejecting those proposals, but you have yet to do so. You've only said "it's not better" or called it "silly." You've never once said how. So explain. Explain why it wouldn't work, in detail. Failing that, explain why it's "silly" or why it's worse than your preference.

See the other thread.
 
Last edited:
Stop playing this game. If you aren't going to put your cards on the table, I'm done here. You can't simultaneously say "We don't actually need Policy X, because Policies Y and Z are also available" and then turn around and say "Well, I never said Policies Y and Z were better than Policy X."

So let's get this straight once and for all. What do you think is the best solution for dealing with uninsured patients who end up in the ER and can't afford to pay their bills? And we'll assume that we've already tried to collect from the patient and he declared bankruptcy or died or disappeared or yada yada.

A. Stick the public with the bill, resulting in higher taxes.
B. Stick the hospital ER with the bill, resulting in a reduced quality of service.
C. Make all ER care "optional," resulting in doctors clawing through a patient's pockets for an insurance card instead of treating him.
D. Mandate that all persons must own a minimal amount of health insurance covering their ER expenses, in case they end up in the ER and don't have any money.
E. Something else.

I've already made it clear that I think Option D is the best, and therefore my other policies are predicated on that assumption. Now, what is YOUR answer?

See the other thread.

The "game" being played here is that you continually twist what I say. Is it intentional, or do you just not get it?

You asked for proposals to cover uninsured expenses which aren't on the taxpayer dime. I gave you some hypotheticals, and I never said I preferred any of them.

I've PUT my cards on the table -- it's all up above for anyone to see. But if you insist on pounding your high chair and throwing your plate on the floor, then fine. :roll:
 
Being in the industry this may help us sell more health insurance but I am not big on forced coverage. For auto insurance that is a bit diferent because there is always a direct impact ( no pun intended) on other drivers/property bu with heath insurance it is not that easy to make a direct line.
 
The "game" being played here is that you continually twist what I say. Is it intentional, or do you just not get it?

You asked for proposals to cover uninsured expenses which aren't on the taxpayer dime. I gave you some hypotheticals, and I never said I preferred any of them.

Of course not. Why actually put forth an alternative of your own when it's so much more fun to attack *me* for advocating the only sensible policy on the issue? It must be jolly good fun to criticize the most practical policy on the grounds that alternatives exist, and then disavow any claim to those alternative policies lest you look silly trying to defend the logical conclusion of those policies.

If nothing else, you certainly have an original debate style. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom