• 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 for abortion?

Do you feel the government should be allowed to do this?


  • Total voters
    21
Drunk driving is a CRMINAL act, and your punishment is based on your actions -- thst is, what you ACTUALLY did, not what yu MIGHT have done.

Here, we're discussing CIVIL penalties, which are based on what your action ACTUALLY (not POTENTIALLY) cost the government. As such, your response here does not address the issue put to you.

I therefore ask again:
How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?

Just to clarify: Is your problem with this just a technical legal matter, or do you actually have some practical/economic objection? Because honestly I couldn't care less if it's considered a crime or a tort or whatever, as long as there's an disincentive to be uninsured.
 
You know, we've spun this merry-go-round so many times it's sickening.

Yes, it really is. So perhaps you should answer the ****ing question, explain which alternative to a health care mandate YOU think would work better, and then be prepared to defend that position...instead of offering up alternatives, and then wimpily declaring "But I never said that was MY view" every time I show you why they won't work.

Until then, I am done with you. Good day.
 
First of all, these questions were directed at Harshaw, not you
You should have PMd him, then.

I already know your absurd utopian answers...
You refer to them as 'absurd' only because you know you have no legitimate counter -- as evidenced by your following responses the fact that you do not respond to the questions I ask.

but I'm interested in seeing if any OTHER opponents of health insurance mandates are willing to go on the record defending them. As I suspected, Harshaw is not.
Want to put money on that?
I thought not.

The person is dying in front of them and seconds count. It compromises the quality of ER service for EVERYONE if this is the first thing hospitals do.
Irrelevant to the question you posed and the context in which it was asked.

You ignored the question. How exactly do they "release" someone in critical condition who can't walk?
You're being obtuse. The exact mechanics of release its irrlevant -- the point is they stop treating him.
Now, answer my question:
Why should the hospitals run the risk of not getting paid for the goods/services they provide?

They shouldn't HAVE to assume anything, because they should be required to treat people in the ER.
You didnt answer my questions:
Why would they not? Should they assume that he does have insurance?

So if someone in your family is taken to the ER and doesn't have their insurance card on them, you're cool with it if the hospital refuses to treat them and they die? You won't sue the hospital?
The patient dies. How was that not clear?
Should they assume that he does have insurance?

And this is exactly why this solution is completely ridiculous.
Hardly. We ALL act on the information we have at the time.
"If I would have known that, I would have..." is meaningless.

Not only does it compromise the QUALITY of care by delaying treatment, it will prevent some people (including insured people) from getting care at all.
Yep. So?
Why do you expect those that provide goods and services do so withouth any guarantee they will be compensated?

Once again, you ignored the question.
I answered the question -- the last word is "yes".

Should hospitals be allowed to reject ER patients for any reason they want, or only because of a perceived inability to pay?
There are clearly legitimate reasons to refuse service to patients -- but the discussion hereis the ability to pay, and so that the only relevant answer is the one I already gave.

There. You now have an alternative to your argument, as you requested.
You no longer have an excuse to not defend your argument.
 
Just to clarify: Is your problem with this just a technical legal matter
A "technical legal matter"?

:shock:

The fact that you cannot levy a civil fine unless the individual you are fining has created a cost for the government to recoup with said fine isnt a 'technical issue", it directly addresses the nature of the fine itself.

Much as you obviously do not realize, you cannot fine people for just any reason -- there has to be a criminal act to punish or a civil cost to recompse. If you cannot show how the individual in question is related to either, then you cannot levy a fine on that individual.

Because honestly I couldn't care less if it's considered a crime or a tort or whatever, as long as there's an disincentive to be uninsured.
THAT doesnt suprise me -- with you people, the the ends always justify the means.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it really is. So perhaps you should answer the ****ing question, explain which alternative to a health care mandate YOU think would work better, and then be prepared to defend that position
Stop pretending that this hasn't been done, and defend YOUR position.
 
Yes, it really is. So perhaps you should answer the ****ing question, explain which alternative to a health care mandate YOU think would work better, and then be prepared to defend that position...instead of offering up alternatives, and then wimpily declaring "But I never said that was MY view" every time I show you why they won't work.

Until then, I am done with you. Good day.

My God. The dishonesty spewage from you just gets ranker.

Your entire "argument" rests on the premise that I agree there's a problem needing addressing. I've already said that I don't think there is. We got on this whole thing because I said the problem you think needs to be solved is one created by your own favored policies.

So, THAT'S what I think.
 
There is evidence that states policy applications have been successful in reducing teen abortion. :twocents:

Maybe they ought to spend more time trying to reduce teen pregnancy in the first place?
 
Maybe they ought to spend more time trying to reduce teen pregnancy in the first place?

Very true, although i believe they do overlap.
 
I was thinking of federal authority when I posted my vote. I separate state and federal authority in my mind.
 
Very true, although i believe they do overlap.

To some degree, yes, but limiting teen pregnancy means a comprehensive sex education program along with safe sex techniques, not the abstinence-only fallacy that the religious-right try to push, but which has failed across the board.

They don't want kids to know anything about sex or how to prevent pregnancy, but then they get surprised when so many teens end up pregnant. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom