Like any other system dealing with goods and services, the availability of said goods and services is based on your ability to pay for same -- if you cannot pay, you should not receive.
If the system doent work, it doesnt work because certain people think they and/or others should receive goods and sercvices that they cannot pay for.
I always thought the penalty for not having insurance was losing your possessions if you got sick and couldn't pay your bills.
Like any matter dealing with taxes on your income, you're not automatically guilty just because the government says you are. Nothing in the bill says you're automatically guilty of anything. You are entitled to due process. Nothing in this bill denies you due process.
Ergo, it is not a bill of attainder.
Yes. Health care consists of goods and services provided by someone else.
Those that provide these goods and services have a right to be compensated.
Like any other goods and services you might care to name, if you cannot pay for those goods and services, you should not receive them.
That said, as not-thrilled as I am with this bill, I am infinitely glad that currently you can get emergency care even if you're flat broke and worth less than $0. Furthermore, I think any kind of serious health care reform has to have provisions for caring for the flat broke.
The value of an individual person has nothing to do with their net worth, and I can't see a good argument for letting someone die for lack of care because they have no money with which they can pay for it.
When you read / skimmed the bill, did you see anything in the language that suggested any sort of bypass of the judicial process?
A legislative bypass of the judicial process is the very definition of a bill of attainder as the term is defined Constitutionally. If there is no such bypass in this bill, then it is by definition not a bill of attainder.
I eagerly await your findings.