• 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

jallman said:
True. God forbid you join a conversation rather than expect to just bloviate unopposed. :lol:
Click to expand...

You havent opposed my point with anything other than personal attacks and trolling.

If you'd like to actually add something to the conversation, by, as you say, opposing my point rather than allowing me to bloviate unopposed, please do.
 
Goobieman said:
Failed at what, exactly?
To make my point?
The one that you AGREED with?

:rofl
Click to expand...

To have an actual discussion. I find it nothing short of sad that you refuse to take an extra step in synthesizing the discussion to a higher intellectual bounds.

Of course you cannot criminalize the act (or lack of) not purchasing insurance. But you can tax it. Why are you so afraid to discuss it?

This is why you fail.
 
Goobieman said:
You havent opposed my point with anything other than personal attacks and trolling.
Click to expand...

I have opposed your point quite eloquently. Under pigouvian taxation, Fine = Tax.

It is you who has yet to make the next step in either defending your position, or admitting defeat....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
To have an actual discussion.
Click to expand...
You agreed with me, in that my position was sound.
Thus, the discussion ends.

I find it nothing short of sad that you refuse to take an extra step in synthesizing the discussion to a higher intellectual bounds.

This is why you fail.
Click to expand...
So, I don't fail in any relevant or meaningful way -- like failing to support my position -- but just because I 'disappointed' you by not following your red herring into a conversation that had nothing to do with my point?

Oh, the sleep I will lose.

:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
You havent opposed my point with anything other than personal attacks and trolling.

If you'd like to actually add something to the conversation, by, as you say, opposing my point rather than allowing me to bloviate unopposed, please do.
Click to expand...

If you think I am trolling, please feel free to use the report button. You will find it at the lower left hand side of the screen.

I am still waiting for an answer to the question that was asked and you ran away from...
 
jallman said:
If you think I am trolling, please feel free to use the report button. You will find it at the lower left hand side of the screen.
Click to expand...
Well, since you offered....
 
Goobieman said:
You AGREED with my point.
Click to expand...

Yes, you cannot criminalize "not getting insurance".

You have YET to respond to my response. You can tax it. Why?
 
Goobieman said:
Well, since you offered....
Click to expand...

By all means. Whenever you can't answer a question, it's right there for you to help you dodge out of it. Don't break a finger getting at it to quick now. :lol:
 
Goobieman said:
And thus, no need to continue.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Tax = Fine.... Remember that? I did answer your question, and yet you refuse to respond in any credible fashion to mine.

And what is even more embarrassing on your behalf, you continue to respond to me and say you will not respond. Why bother? I bet you will answer that question, but not one that is centered on this health care debate.

If you would like, i can mathematically prove why tax = fine.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Of course there is.
Click to expand...
You REALLY dont like it when people won't play your game, eh?

Too bad.

You agreed with my position, and in doing so, you think that I am right.

That's all that needs to be said.

Now, you can keep trolling if you want, but it wont change anything.
 
Goobieman said:
You REALLY dont like it when people won't play your game, eh?

Too bad.

You agreed with my position, and in doing so, you think that I am right.

That's all that needs to be said.

Now, you can keep trolling if you want, but it wont change anything.
Click to expand...

Who is playing a game? You asked a question, i answered, and yet you mistake my response as agreeing with you.

Similar reconstruction: Goobie points to a direction, that happens to not be west, and states,"that is not west". I reply, "you are right that is not west but which direction is it". Goobie's response, "its not important and i am done with this conversation!"

Kinda sad....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
If you would like, i can mathematically prove why tax = fine.
Click to expand...

Mmkay I have a question. In Texas if one drives w/o car insurance they are fined in criminal court with possible jail ans confiscation of property then a surcharge is added to ones DL. In the scheme of things how could this be a tax and not a fine?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Who is playing a game? You asked a question, i answered, and yet you mistake my response as agreeing with you.
Click to expand...
There was no mistake.

You SAID that you AGREE that you cannot criminalize not having insurance.

That's all that needs to be said.

Now, you can keep trolling if you want, but it wont change anything.
 
winston53660 said:
Mmkay I have a question. In Texas if one drives w/o car insurance they are fined in criminal court with possible jail ans confiscation of property then a surcharge is added to ones DL. In the scheme of things how could this be a tax and not a fine?
Click to expand...

Under this premise, it is illegal not to drive without car insurance. Therefore they are breaking a law. Fines or jail time are then handed out when someone breaks the law. This does not hold the tax = fine due to criminality, which would be one of my axioms in the mathematical proof.

While agreeing with Goobie that you cannot criminalize the act of not obtaining health care, you can fine people under the disguise of taxation. The criminality aspect is then shifted, which i will get to in a second.

Could we tax people who do not purchase car insurance? I suppose it is very possible, in the same fashion as when you go to purchase your plates. The trouble is this, if they are unwilling to pay for insurance, they will most likely be unwilling to pay the tax on driving without insurance.

I am also assuming that the social cost < private benefit, so much to the point where it is actually more efficient to keep it illegal.

Health care is an entirely different animal. By taxing the behavior, we then shift the "breaking the law" to reflect actually breaking the law via not paying your taxes.
 
Goobieman said:
There was no mistake.
Click to expand...

I agreed that you should not criminalize the act, but you can tax it.

You have yet to discuss the taxation aspect. Yes goobie that direction is not west. But what direction is it?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I agreed that you should not criminalize the act
Click to expand...
Yes, that's my POSITION.

What I presnted here, since you've been more interesting in childish trolling than paying attention, is NOT that you CANNOT criminalize the act, but if you do, then you MUST then arrest, arraign and try the people in question in order to levy the fine -- somethign I have not seen ANY of the supporters of this idea agree to.

OR, if you want to fine them as a civil penaly, you must do so to recoup the cost that the government has incurred on their behlaf, meaning that you CANNOT fine someone that has NOT caused the government to incurr those costs.

But you can tax it.
Click to expand...
So what?
How does that negate anything I said?
 
Goobieman said:
So what?
How does that negate anything I said?
Click to expand...

Taxing it will disguise it, although it will act like a fine without the vast transactional costs associated with the criminality aspect.

Although the point would essentially be moot if there was a public option. Hence, there would be no need for a tax :)
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Taxing it will disguise it, although it will act like a fine without the vast transactional costs associated with the criminality aspect.
Click to expand...
So, you asnwer is... it -doesn't- negate anything I said.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
So, you asnwer is... it -doesn't- negate anything I said.
Click to expand...

I was never trying to negate anything. With that said, what is your opinion of pigouvian taxation?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I was never trying to negate anything.
Click to expand...
Odd then that you claimed that you had.

With that said, what is your opinion of pigouvian taxation?
Click to expand...
My opinon - which also just happens to be fact - is that it is irrelevant to my point.
 
Goobieman said:
Odd then that you claimed that you had.
Click to expand...

No, i claimed that i had responded quite eloquently.

My opinon - which also just happens to be fact - is that it is irrelevant to my point.
Click to expand...

That is not an honest answer, more of a shuffle. It is more relevant than you wish to believe, but in order for me to help you understand the topic a bit better, we are going to need some participation on your part....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
No, i claimed that i had responded quite eloquently.
Click to expand...
If comepletely off point.

That is not an honest answer...
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- it is a completely and brutally honest answer -- you just don't like it, which, of couse, is not my problem.

I'm discussing X and, instead, you want to discuss your red herring, Y. I have no intention of being distracted in my discussion of X by your red herring, Y, and so I shant engage in a discussion of said red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom