• 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

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?

Well, it is the poverty stricken who cant afford health insurance...lol.

"Choice" through government is a joke.

People dont get insurance for lots of reasons. Simply getting people inusred doesnt solve anything. That is the wool that is covering your eyes.

Insurance does not equal care. Insurance, the way it is set up right now, raises prices. As long as the individual is spending their employers money and unable to deal directly with the insurance company, it will never be different price wise. Middlemen always raise the price.
 
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?

It doesnt matter either way. They will just create procedures and justifications for it out of thin air.

Either way, everyone will be forced into a new cost on their income. We are going to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens for the sake of making sure government has a little more control over you.
 
Well, it is the poverty stricken who cant afford health insurance...lol.

Hmmm.... Even if you have a prexisting condition? Besides, your take on "afford" is subjective.

"Choice" through government is a joke.

People dont get insurance for lots of reasons. Simply getting people inusred doesnt solve anything. That is the wool that is covering your eyes.

Have you considered dead weight loss, as well as the cost inflationary reactions to opportunity cost? Of course not, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Insurance does not equal care. Insurance, the way it is set up right now, raises prices. As long as the individual is spending their employers money and unable to deal directly with the insurance company, it will never be different price wise. Middlemen always raise the price.

Just answer me this. Why is is currently cheaper for a large business to offer someone insurance than it is for a small business?
 
: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?

So you're saying you want to incorporate the reforms Obama talked about within the framework of Medicaid instead of creating a new program? I would completely agree, except for the fact that it would get absolutely no support from Republicans or moderate Democrats. It's just not politically possible to do something like this.

TheHat said:
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?

Not personally, but a lot of people do go without treatment because they cannot afford it.
 
Last edited:
It doesnt matter either way. They will just create procedures and justifications for it out of thin air.
That's what I'm asking -- is there some criminal procedure for the levy of these fines?

If not, then on what grounds are the fines laid?

These questions arent trivial - they address the nature of the fines themselves.

Either way, everyone will be forced into a new cost on their income. We are going to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens for the sake of making sure government has a little more control over you.
Of this, there is no doubt.
 
That doesn't answer the question.
I know. His question was in response to mione, and as such, I need not answer it. Fact remains, his question does not address my post.
 
That still doesn't answer the question.
Yes, and I have explained why your observation, while correct, doesn't mean anything.

Care to address the issue at hand?
 
Hold your breath.

You've still failed to address the question.

It's ok though...I understand that you saw yourself being worked into a trap by your own admission and you did the prudent thing which was to shut your pie hole as quickly as possible. :lol:
 
You've still failed to address the question.

It's ok though...I understand that you saw yourself being worked into a trap by your own admission and you did the prudent thing which was to shut your pie hole as quickly as possible. :lol:
Good to see you still have that active fantasy life.

When you can add something useful to the coversation, please let us know.
 
Just answer me this. Why is is currently cheaper for a large business to offer someone insurance than it is for a small business?

Resources sir.

Why do we insure basic services, which do nothing then jack up prices for insurance?

Insurance is there for catastrophic events, not routine checkups. How many people just today billed their insurance company b/c they had a headache? A fever? A runny nose? A bruise on their leg?

Hell I remember doing rounds with my brother-in-law, and out of a weeks worth of patients, there might have been 10 all week who actually needed to see him. One guy came in b/c his son hit a baseball and hit him in the calf and his calf was bruised....lol. What? Did the guy want my brother-in-law to tell him he popped some blood vessels? We are a nation of OCD idiots, who at a moments whim run off to the doctor for every ailment under the sun, and for what? Each and everyone of those people billed their insurance for their visits. The woman with her 2 kids who had runny noses wanted antibiotics b/c she couldnt take them sniffing all the time. How much did that cost?

We are billing insurance companies for basic stuff, that need not be insured at all. Insurance companies like dealing with businesses b/c they can jack up premiums more easily b/c big business has the cash flow to pay it. Could they jack up prices if they had to deal strictly with us? Hell no. They would be forced to be competitive with one another, like car or homeowners insurance. Biggest joke is the "preventative medicine" stuff....lol. Preventing disease, requires a vaccine, a cure, otherwise you cant prevent it from occuring. Not to mention, preventative medicine, in the form they are talking is the same basic stuff as they cover now, so costs wont move down at all, up is the way it will go.

But I am long here. I could go on and on but it would take to long.
 
Good to see you still have that active fantasy life.

When you can add something useful to the coversation, please let us know.

I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question. ;)
 
This does not address my post.

The answer to your post is the answer to the question i have asked.

If is it deemed civil, how does it meet the justifications for levying civil penalties?

The very nature of the pigouvian tax... Forcing people to pay more for alcohol than they do for say apples is in essence, a civil penalty on purchasing alcohol. This applies for off road diesel fuel vs on road diesel fuel, but more or less as a means of funding the highway system. And yet.......... You are being levied/taxed/fined whatever you choose to call it, for driving a truck on the road.

The reason for a fine of any type is to discourage and/or internalize the externality the behavior associated with the act of being fined.

They put people in jail for punching other people in the mouth. Why? To deter them from punching people in the mouth.

They fine you for running a red light if you happen to get caught. Why? To keep you from running red lights.

They charge you extra for purchasing alcohol. Why? To discourage you from purchasing more.

They charge you more for "on road" diesel than off road diesel. Why? (This is where it gets tricky so please pay attention) To keep businesses from free riding. You see, when a truck drives on the road, its not a big problem. But when 30 million trucks are driving annually on the road, it tends to eat up the asphalt. There is nobody here that would deny the benefits from having trucks transporting goods, but there are those who could clearly identify a problem; the owners of those trucks are gaining much more than the consumer of which they provide the service to. This is commonly identified when social benefit < social cost, which translates into something called deadweight loss. Due to the fact that there are trucks driving on the road, there are some externalities (negative consequences associated with the partaking of an action).

These policy makers really do not know what to do about this, because repairing roads becomes expensive. So they ask economists, "what can we do."

The economist replies, "internalize the externality by taxing the act." What happens is rather interesting. Of course, because the demand for trucking is rather inelastic (no other alternatives really), the quantity effect<price effect, and therefore the activity is not discouraged in a negative way. But.... And this is the meat of my response; the tax does in fact create a stream of revenue of which road repair is not burdened on everyone, but on those whose benefits of the road are exceeding the social benefits trucking.

We can synthesize this quite eloquently into the current heath care debate. Maybe you are not causing hospitals and other consumers to "pick up the tab" thereby increasing costs for everyone. But, there are those who do. Are we to expect the government not to tax a guy who only uses the road infrequently with his diesel truck? Of course not, the transactional costs associated with identifying that specific demographic and targeting them outweighs the both the social and private benefit gained. And the demand for medical care is probably the only good/service that can be called perfectly inelastic (the slope of the demand curve (given a specific first and second derivative) is undefined)

So if you want to engage in activity that infringes on the rights of others, you are going to have to pay a tax. Why? To discourage this type of activity and "internalize the externality".

Understand now?:2wave:
 
I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question. ;)

Its not running....its Goobie dancing the Stinger Shuffle...


Tap a tap a tap a
 
Last edited:
I've read this thread with great interest and its an issue I wasn't firmly committed to one side or another, so I want thank the folks that have engaged in a civil, insightful discussion.

The way I see it a vast percentage of folks who willingly decide not to have insurance are unable to cover the costs of treatment for any catostrophic medical conditions or accidents. They are essentially rolling the dice (usually because they are young and healthy) that they won't be hit by some medical disaster. We can argue if this is a good choice or bad choice, but I don't have a problem with folks making a personal choice. The problem is when the consequences of those choices affect the rest of us. With freedom of choice comes the responsibility of living with the consequences of those choices. What we have here is where the profits of the choice are privatized, but the losses of that choice are at least occassionally subsidized.

As Khandar has pointed out, its simply not feasible to deny immediate, emergency, life saving care on the basis of having or not having insurance. It creates far more problems than it solves. So someone else is going to end up paying for the emergency care of folks who choose not to have medical insurance and cannot pay for it (and I have no doubt a VAST majority of those who choose to not have insurance cannot pay the bill for emergency life saving treatment). Should hospitals or taxpayers be required to pay for the consequenes of another person's personal decision? So why not make those who cause the problem in the first place (folks who purposely choose not to have health insurance to save a few bucks each month)?

That said, I think this is a realtively minor issue in terms of overall healthcare costs.
 
The answer to your post is the answer to the question i have asked.
hardly -- see below.

The very nature of the pigouvian tax...
The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.
Therefore, none of this applies.
 
I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question. ;)
I notice that, rather than add to the conversation, you're focusing on me.

Must be the lack of relevant content on your part.

Now, do you care to discuss the issue, or are you going to continue to troll?
 
hardly -- see below.


The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.
Therefore, none of this applies.

I beg to differ. What is the difference between a pigouvian tax and a fine?
 
capt.jpg
 
I beg to differ. What is the difference between a pigouvian tax and a fine?
It should be -obvious- that taxes and fines are not the same thing

Fines are penalties imposed for a 'wrongful act'
-Criminal fines are punishment for criminal acts;
-Civil fines are restitution for costs borne by the government due to your actions

The point in all of this is NOT the 'deterrece' value of the fines, but the fact that if you want to impose a fine, you have to have the structure to do so - you either have to arrest and try someone, or that someone has to have commited an act that created a cost to the government.

Does the proposal create a criminal fine or a civil fine?
If the former, does the FBI arrent you and are you tried in federal court?
If the latter, on what basis can you recoup a cost that hasnt been borne?
 
It should be -obvious- that taxes and fines are not the same thing

Fines are penalties imposed for a 'wrongful act'
-Criminal fines are punishment for criminal acts;
-Civil fines are restitution for costs borne by the government due to your actions

The point in all of this is NOT the 'deterrece' value of the fines, but the fact that if you want to impose a fine, you have to have the structure to do so - you either have to arrest and try someone, or that someone has to have commited an act that created a cost to the government.

Does the proposal create a criminal fine or a civil fine?
If the former, does the FBI arrent you and are you tried in federal court?
If the latter, on what basis can you recoup a cost that hasnt been borne?

So you are letting yourself get caught up in subjective lingo? Why? Lets rephrase the OP.

Taxes proposed for going without health insurance. If someone does not carry health insurance, they will have to pay a tax equivalent to the fine.

So tell me, do you have a problem with this?
 
Back
Top Bottom