• 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

Goldenboy219 said:
So you are letting yourself get caught up in subjective lingo? Why?
Click to expand...
Because that's the issue at hand...?

Fines proposed for going without health insurance
Click to expand...

Did you want to dicsuss the issue at hand or do you want to start a new topic?
 
Goobieman said:
Did you want to dicsuss the issue at hand or do you want to start a new topic?
Click to expand...

Again, you are getting caught up in the lingo, and there really is no need. Under the guise of a pigouvian tax, the act of the tax = a fine.

Although it is quite obvious as to why you do not want to answer the question:2wave:
 
​
Goldenboy219 said:
Again, you are getting caught up in the lingo, and there really is no need
Click to expand...
The issue here is the idea of FINES as a penalty for not having health care.

If you want to dicuss something else, like taxes, go somewhere else and discuss it.

Although it is quite obvious as to why you do not want to answer the question
Click to expand...
Its even MORE obvious as to why -you- don't want to discuss the issue at hand.
:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
​
The issue here is the idea of FINES as a penalty for not having health care.

If you want to dicuss something else, like taxes, go somewhere else and discuss it.


Its even MORE obvious as to why -you- don't want to discuss the issue at hand.
:2wave:
Click to expand...

I will repeat it once again. A fine is the same thing as a tax under the idea of pigouvian taxation.

You have replied on a constant basis to my question, yet refuse to answer it? Maybe in an attempt to save face in front of other right wingers? If so, you have failed miserably....

Answer the question: If under the idea of pigouvian taxation, a fine = a tax. Do you have a problem of taxes being proposed for going without health insurance?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I will repeat it once again. A fine is the same thing as a tax under the idea of pigouvian taxation.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as you agreeing with my supposition that you having no intention of discussing the issue at hand.
Thanks for your clairity on that.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I'll take that as you agreeing with my supposition that you having no intention of discussing the issue at hand.
Thanks for your clairity on that.
Click to expand...

I am willing to discuss the issue at hand. But your attempt to pigeon hole the debate will not work. I have already informed you how under this situation tax = fine. You do not accept it, and yet provide no explanation why.

Therefore, we are forced to assume you are afraid to have this discussion with me because your previous comments will brand you a hypocrite. Now shuffle off once again:mrgreen:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I am willing to discuss the issue at hand...
Click to expand...
Good!
Presuming for the moment you support the proposed fines, you can start by addressing the questions I raised regarding same.
 
Goobieman said:
Good!
Presuming for the moment you support the proposed fines, you can start by addressing the questions I raised regarding same.
Click to expand...

I have already agreed that you cannot simply fine them, because you would have to say that not having insurance is "illegal". To harsh if you ask me.

But, what they can do is say, there is a "non insurance". This then allows the government to take action, because not paying your taxes is illegal.

So do i have your permission to take the debate to a higher intellectual level?:roll:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I have already agreed that you cannot simply fine them because you would have to say that not having insurance is "illegal". To harsh if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Really? I must have missed that. My apologies!
Given that, we have nothing to dicuss!
See how easy that was?
 
Goobieman said:
Really? I must have missed that. My apologies!
Given that, we have nothing to dicuss!
See how easy that was?
Click to expand...

Are you afraid to answer my question? You can admit it.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Are you afraid to answer my question?
Click to expand...
Your question isn't in any way relevant to my position on this issue, and so there's no need whatsoever to for me to address it.

But, if you're -so- desprate for self-gratification that you need to mal-characterize my statement, above, as some sort "fear" I might have, of you or otherwise, then you be my guest!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Although it is quite obvious as to why you do not want to answer the question:2wave:
Click to expand...

I caught that quickly, too. I love when Goobie clams up because he knows he just worked himself into a corner and he starts mindlessly demanding that you stick to his talking points. :lol:
 
jallman said:
I caught that quickly, too. I love when Goobie clams up because he knows he just worked himself into a corner and he starts mindlessly demanding that you stick to his talking points. :lol:
Click to expand...
Again - glad to see that you still hve that active fantasy life.

And, again when you decide you're done trolling and want to add something to the conversation, let us know.
 
Goobieman said:
Again - glad to see that you still hve that active fantasy life.

And, again when you decide you're done trolling and want to add something to the conversation, let us know.
Click to expand...

Again...you're still dodging the question. I think we all know why.
 
jallman said:
Again...you're still dodging the question. I think we all know why.
Click to expand...

The question isn't in any way relevant to my position on this issue, and so there's no need whatsoever to for me to address it.

But, if you're -so- desprate for self-gratification that you need to mal-characterize my statement, above, as some sort "fear" I might have, of you or otherwise, then you be my guest!
 
Goobieman said:
The question isn't in any way relevant to my position on this issue, and so there's no need whatsoever to for me to address it.
Click to expand...

It is, and i have explained to great lengths as to why, and yet you have not, in one single way, countered my premise in a legitimate way.

Tax = Fine: When you consider pigouvian taxation. If you cannot prove this incorrect, or at least inconsistent, than you have to accept it. Being that in the context of our debate, tax = fine, are you opposed to taxing those who go without health care insurance?

But, if you're -so- desprate for self-gratification that you need to mal-characterize my statement, above, as some sort "fear" I might have, of you or otherwise, then you be my guest!
Click to expand...

You do all the work for me/us.
 
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...

You hurt those who pay for your health care. You hurt your children if you cannot provide insurance for them. You hurt our economy and tax base if you are taken out of work because of an otherwise preventable medical condition.

I understand it is hard for someone with insurance to imagine what it would be like for someone who doesn't. Compassion isn't really a right wing word anymore. You took it out of the political lexicon and replaced it with rhetoric like "terror" and "axis of evil."
 
JakeFromWI said:
You hurt those who pay for your health care....
Click to expand...
Yes, yes you do.
So, why do you support the idea that I should pay for someone else's health care? Why should -I- be hurt because YOU can't pay?
 
Goobieman said:
The question isn't in any way relevant to my position on this issue, and so there's no need whatsoever to for me to address it.

But, if you're -so- desprate for self-gratification that you need to mal-characterize my statement, above, as some sort "fear" I might have, of you or otherwise, then you be my guest!
Click to expand...

Oh yes...because your dodging a question is sooooo everyone else's fault and all of us big, bad meanies just trying to make you look bad. :lol:
 
Goobieman said:
...not.
You AGREED with my position on the issue.
Click to expand...

In your context. But in doing so, we are dumbing down the debate, in which i have no desire to do so. You see, if you are afraid to move past the "2=2" all while dismissing "(-4+6)=2", then you are not here to have any type of intellectual discussion.

Being that you have proven it to be the case, just admit it. Nobody will think of you any less for it.

If tax does not equal fine in the pigouvian context, can you explain how?
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hear your concerns, but again I have to say you're wrong. While the tax percentails you've quoted would normally apply to all businesses no matter how large or small under normal circumstances, Section 313(b)(1) on page 150 (and again on page 184) provides an exception to "small business" and would reduce their tax burden if they elect to make contributions to the HIE in lieu of participating in the HIE directly via employee enrollment:

<$250K = 0% tax
$250-300K = 2%
$300-350K = 4%
$350-400K = 6%

$400,000 is the ceiling for being considered a "small business" under H.R. 3200. So, any business with a payroll greater than that amount would be subject to the 8% tax rate. So, in that regard you are correct...sorta. However, H.R. 3200 also defines a "small business" as any business with 2-50 employees. Therefore, even if you're small business has a payroll greater than $400K, they could get out of IF they employee <50 people. It's a catch-22, I know, but it's a way around having to pay the higher tax by NOT being classified as a "large business".

Nonetheless, it bares restating that these taxes towhich we're debating would only apply to any business if and only if said business did not provide health insurance to their employees. If they do, they're absolved of paying this tax.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
In your context.
Click to expand...
And thus, the conversations ends, as my aergment, by necessity, is in my context.

Now, you can have another discussion in another context of your choosing, but as it isn't the same context as mine, I have no obligation to participate; any pre-pubescent belittement of me by you on that point is nothing more than you whining because I wont play your petty little game.

So, you can keep crying about it, but it wontchange anything.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
And thus, the conversations ends, as my aergment, by necessity, is in my context.

Now, you can have another discussion in another context of your choosing, but as it isn't the same context as mine, I have no obligation to participate.
Click to expand...

True. God forbid you join a conversation rather than expect to just bloviate unopposed. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom