• 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:
Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with financial aid to those who can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Hey, ya want to know what kind of financial aid is out there for those who cant afford it? The Democrats passed something back in the 1960s called Medicaid. :thumbs: How about just fixing that and stop with all this overhaul of the medial industry which isnt needed?

This plan is no exception. No one is going to be fined because they can't afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that thing standing in front of you is a Mack truck, but listen to the magician standing off to the side telling you its a Tonka toy.:roll:
 
Devil505 said:
Not the GOP or Big Insurance
Click to expand...

Really care to provide defense for that?


Agreed ....but see my above response.:)


ANY "type" of reform will always be unacceptable to the insurance companies & their GOP mouthpieces.
Click to expand...

Here is the kicker to all you liberals. Your party, the Democrat Party, passed Medicaid back in the 1960s to cover the very thing we are still talking about covering today.

Yet you guys want a total revamp of the medical industry, instead of simply tweeking your own party's legislation to cover those it was suppose to cover 50 years ago.

Face it, your own progressive liberal kingdom, is falling all around you and you dont even see it. If we have to create a whole new program, then that means the previous programs set in place by the very same group of people has failed to live up to its original intent.

But we wont talk about that, no, instead we are gonna talk about handing the government a power which it was never meant to have and should never have.
 
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...
Disagree.
Bear in mind that I consider insurance to be an "evil", however necessary.

We have two groups of men; one elects not to have insurance to ease their health costs; the other chooses the insurance..
Guess who pays more when the first group cannot pay their hospital or doctor bill??
And tragedy can fall on anyone.
The solution is to increase the taxes and have affordable health care for all true citizens ..
 
I only really have one comment about this. If the government does try to fine me for not having medical insurance I will not pay the fine. Then they can decide if they want to spend alot more on me by providing my room and board in a nice federal institution. Im just that stubborn.
 
Devil505 said:
Not the GOP or Big Insurance


Agreed ....but see my above response.:)


ANY "type" of reform will always be unacceptable to the insurance companies & their GOP mouthpieces.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see an investigative reporter ask the insurance company about their practices and to look at their books...Also to ask, and demand absolutely truthful answers about the campaign money for politicians.
This is why I favor another tax increase and government financed campaigns and election reform.
The goal is to prevent men from buying elections and to eliminate the huge waste - which is what advertising is..
 
earthworm said:
I'd love to see an investigative reporter ask the insurance company about their practices and to look at their books...Also to ask, and demand absolutely truthful answers about the campaign money for politicians.
This is why I favor another tax increase and government financed campaigns and election reform.
The goal is to prevent men from buying elections and to eliminate the huge waste - which is what advertising is..
Click to expand...

I heard yesterday a report saying that the insurance industry has spent almost 400 million dollars ...In the lat 8 months alone...trying to kill HC reform. (How many cancer operations would that money have been better spent on?)
 
Devil505 said:
I heard yesterday a report saying that the insurance industry has spent almost 400 million dollars ...In the lat 8 months alone...trying to kill HC reform. (How many cancer operations would that money have been better spent on?)
Click to expand...

Do you expect an entire industry which is about to be run out of business to simply go out of business b/c the government wants their entire market?

Seriously? They have to spend money in order to fight back against government encroachment on their businesses.

How do you leftista always manage to miss the root causes of problems and only deal with symptoms? The insurance industry is spending money b/c they are having to fight to stay alive b/c YOUR government wants to take over their industry.

Can you leftists please provide me with something that you are against the government intruding into? Or are all ideas proposed by Big Brother just to darn sweet to pass up?
 
TheHat said:
Really care to provide defense for that?




Here is the kicker to all you liberals. Your party, the Democrat Party, passed Medicaid back in the 1960s to cover the very thing we are still talking about covering today.

Yet you guys want a total revamp of the medical industry, instead of simply tweeking your own party's legislation to cover those it was suppose to cover 50 years ago.

Face it, your own progressive liberal kingdom, is falling all around you and you dont even see it. If we have to create a whole new program, then that means the previous programs set in place by the very same group of people has failed to live up to its original intent.

But we wont talk about that, no, instead we are gonna talk about handing the government a power which it was never meant to have and should never have.The powers of government should be flexible, never set in concrete.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree
Our government would not have to be doing this if the people, all of the people would be fully responsible for their health care.

Medicare, for what it does , is, IMO, a joke, and not a funny one....Its a result of political compromise. .and, as dirty as politics are, should be flushed down the toilet.
 
earthworm said:
Totally disagree
Our government would not have to be doing this if the people, all of the people would be fully responsible for their health care.

Medicare, for what it does , is, IMO, a joke, and not a funny one....Its a result of political compromise. .and, as dirty as politics are, should be flushed down the toilet.
Click to expand...

The powers of government should be flexible? and not set in concrete? Huh?:doh

We have a Constitution specifically outlining the powers of government, b/c the founders knew that the federal government would eventually try and accumulate all power unto itself. Flexibility comes at the state level, not the federal, unless Congress by 2/3 majority votes in a new amendment. That is the built in flexibility.

People are not responsible for their healthcare b/c they know government is out there with an open hand. There will always be a certain segment of any society that simply doesnt want to do what they should for themselves. You dont cater to that segment by enslaving the larger portion to the same mindset.

Medicaid, was set up to take care of the very problem we are talking about today. That was created 50 years ago. Safe to say that failed too. Which begs the question, why are people clamoring for the same entity to create another program, when it cant run the 2 or 3 it already legislated into law?
 
Does the proposal actually make it illegal, or just levy fines?

If it does make it illegal, does it create a federal misdemeanor? Felony?

If you do not have health insurance, are you arrested by the FBI, taken to court, arraigned and then tried?

If not, then it is a bill of attainder in that it declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and then punishes them without benefit of a trial.

Or...is it a civil penalty?

A civil penalty is when a government agency fines an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. The civil fine is not a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct.

For this to then apply, not having health insurance must be 'wrongful conduct' and be harmful to the federal government in terms of a cost to same.

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the federal government.

One must wonder what the costs of all those arrests, araignments and trials would be -- and how, exactly, the government would know that you committed the crime in the first place.
 
apdst said:
The bill would place a 4% tax on companies that out $200,000 in payroll, who elected not to provide insurance for their employees. The tax rate goes up to 8% at $400,000 and above.
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
I won't disagree with you on the later part of your post above, but you're not quite right on your take on small businesses being taxed.

There's atlelast three sections in H.R. 3200 and atleast one in the Policy Option that caters directly to taxation on small business (2-50 employees, if I remember the number correctly). Small business would fall in a completely different "tax bracket", so to speak, and would NOT be looked at in the same way as major corporations/state-government would. I'm sure the numbers you've quoted are for major corporations. For small business, H.R. 3200 provides tons of credits to help them offset the cost for providing health care coverage to their employees. In fact, there's very little in it that outlines imposing a tax on them, but I'm sure they'd be penalized just the same for not providing health care coverage for their employees just as big businesses would. Point is, businesses large and small would get help to defray the cost of health care.
Click to expand...

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...

Objective Voice said:
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: ).
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Show us in the bill where it says that.
Click to expand...

See the chart(s) on page 150 and 184 of H.R. 3200 pertaining to the payroll limits as they would apply to the amount of excise taxes small business would pay as a penalty for not providing their employees health care coverage. I should also add that the Policy Option specifically states on page 7:

"The tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance allowed under current law would continue to apply in a case where the small business opts to purchase through the Exchange."
Click to expand...

(Note: This is the first and last time I'll do your homework for you. Again, don't rely on what you hear about health care reform; read the bill and/or proposals for yourself.)
 
TheHat said:
Do you expect an entire industry which is about to be run out of business to simply go out of business b/c the government wants their entire market?
Click to expand...

Total insurance co/GOP BS!
 
TheHat said:
Really care to provide defense for that?




Here is the kicker to all you liberals. Your party, the Democrat Party, passed Medicaid back in the 1960s to cover the very thing we are still talking about covering today.

Yet you guys want a total revamp of the medical industry, instead of simply tweeking your own party's legislation to cover those it was suppose to cover 50 years ago.

Face it, your own progressive liberal kingdom, is falling all around you and you dont even see it. If we have to create a whole new program, then that means the previous programs set in place by the very same group of people has failed to live up to its original intent.

But we wont talk about that, no, instead we are gonna talk about handing the government a power which it was never meant to have and should never have.
Click to expand...
Liberal government programs NEVER EVER FAIL, but definition. It will never be admitted, but only spun by saying it was under funded, managed by the wrong people, and/or loopholed by greedy CEOs.
 
Objective Voice said:
See the chart(s) on page 150 and 184 of H.R. 3200 pertaining to the payroll limits as they would apply to the amount of excise taxes small business would pay as a penalty for not providing their employees health care coverage. I should also add that the Policy Option specifically states on page 7:



(Note: This is the first and last time I'll do your homework for you. Again, don't rely on what you hear about health care reform; read the bill and/or proposals for yourself.)
Click to expand...

I've already seen the information. The non-elected employers, who pay out a minimum of $200,000 a year in payroll, have to pay a 4%, 6%, or 8% healthcare tax. It doesn'ttake a very large company to pa out $200,000 in annual payroll.

Employers, of any size, will be required to either purchase insurance, at about $3,000+ a year per employee, or pay the tax. There's no distinction between my business and a company like Exxon, or Kellogs. If there is a special consideration given to sall businesses, I would love to see it. You haven't done your own homework, so you srely haven't done mine.
 
Devil505 said:
Total insurance co/GOP BS!
Click to expand...

Oh really? Tell me, have you been paying attention to the words of Barack Obama now and in the past?

I assume not, otherwise you wouldnt be responding to my comments.

There is no BS in what I said. It is all true. Their plan is to get rid of private insurance altogether. You should seriously pay attention before commenting on stuff.

He has been pretty blunt about it in the past. Funny that you defend a guy you know absolutely nothing about.
 
TheHat said:
Oh really? Tell me, have you been paying attention to the words of Barack Obama now and in the past?

I assume not, otherwise you wouldnt be responding to my comments.

There is no BS in what I said. It is all true. Their plan is to get rid of private insurance altogether. You should seriously pay attention before commenting on stuff.

He has been pretty blunt about it in the past. Funny that you defend a guy you know absolutely nothing about.
Click to expand...
It'll eventually "wither on the vine."

Obama's 'Wither on the vine' moment | Washington Examiner
 
TheHat said:
Hey, ya want to know what kind of financial aid is out there for those who cant afford it? The Democrats passed something back in the 1960s called Medicaid. :thumbs: How about just fixing that and stop with all this overhaul of the medial industry which isnt needed?
Click to expand...

Do you understand how Medicaid works? Not everyone is covered. Not all conditions are covered. Even being poor doesn't automatically make you eligible. How exactly do you suggest we "fix it"?
 
Goobieman said:
Does the proposal actually make it illegal, or just levy fines?

If it does make it illegal, does it create a federal misdemeanor? Felony?

If you do not have health insurance, are you arrested by the FBI, taken to court, arraigned and then tried?

If not, then it is a bill of attainder in that it declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and then punishes them without benefit of a trial.

Or...is it a civil penalty?

A civil penalty is when a government agency fines an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. The civil fine is not a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct.

For this to then apply, not having health insurance must be 'wrongful conduct' and be harmful to the federal government in terms of a cost to same.

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the federal government.

One must wonder what the costs of all those arrests, araignments and trials would be -- and how, exactly, the government would know that you committed the crime in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wondering why those that support the idea of fines for those that do not have health insurance have not addressed this...
 
Kandahar said:
Do you understand how Medicaid works? Not everyone is covered. Not all conditions are covered. Even being poor doesn't automatically make you eligible. How exactly do you suggest we "fix it"?
Click to expand...

:rofl

Um, what is our President and federal government currently talking about doing again?

Is it not the exact thing that Medicaid was created for?

On a sidenote, does insurance guarantee treatment? Why does everyone need insurance, if what we are all seeking is treatment? I dont know anybody who goes without treatment. Do you know anybody?
 
TheHat said:
:rofl

Um, what is our President and federal government currently talking about doing again?

Is it not the exact thing that Medicaid was created for?

On a sidenote, does insurance guarantee treatment? Why does everyone need insurance, if what we are all seeking is treatment? I dont know anybody who goes without treatment. Do you know anybody?
Click to expand...

Medicaid was created to provide medical assistance to those who were below the poverty line. If you believe it was created to provide a "choice" for those who could not afford it, then why do we have anyone who desires health care uninsured?
 
Goobieman said:
Does the proposal actually make it illegal, or just levy fines?
If it does make it illegal, does it create a federal misdemeanor? Felony?

If you do not have health insurance, are you arrested by the FBI, taken to court, arraigned and then tried?

If not, then it is a bill of attainder in that it declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and then punishes them without benefit of a trial.

Or...is it a civil penalty?

A civil penalty is when a government agency fines an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. The civil fine is not a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct.

For this to then apply, not having health insurance must be 'wrongful conduct' and be harmful to the federal government in terms of a cost to same.

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the federal government.

One must wonder what the costs of all those arrests, araignments and trials would be -- and how, exactly, the government would know that you committed the crime in the first place.
Click to expand...

What is the difference? Pretty much splitting hairs arent we?

Your forced to get it either way.
 
TheHat said:
What is the difference? Pretty much splitting hairs arent we?
Your forced to get it either way.
Click to expand...
The difference is explained in the question.
If it is deemed criminal, what is the procedure for fining you?
If is it deemed civil, how does it meet the justifications for levying civil penalties?
 
Goobieman said:
The difference is explained in the question.
If it is deemed criminal, what is the procedure for fining you?
If is it deemed civil, how does it meet the justifications for levying civil penalties?
Click to expand...

Do you believe pigouvian taxes are unjust?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom