• 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!

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

The poor will not be charged for not having the health insurance they can't afford, and will be supplied with health insurance.
Right. The poor will not be punished for breaking the law.

In fact, the poor will be rewarded, as not only will they not be punished for breaking the law, they will have the health insurance the law required them to buy supplied to them for free.

That is, they break the law, and I pay to provide their health care.

Something is very, very wrong when the government forces others to reward you for breaking the law.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to pay the fine/tax/duty/penalty, which is going to half the price of an insurance policy and go to the doc anytime I please.
 
Right. The poor will not be punished for breaking the law.

In fact, the poor will be rewarded, as not only will they not be punished for breaking the law, they will have the health insurance the law required them to buy supplied to them for free.

That is, they break the law, and I pay to provide their health care.

Something is very, very wrong when the government forces others to reward you for breaking the law.

Tell you what.

You go and read the 1900+ bill that I've already skimmed, and you cite the specific sections that proves that the poor will be rewarded for breaking the law.

Otherwise, admit that you are arguing semantics, and that the whole point of the bill is to provide health insurance to those who can't afford it.
 
Paid for, by the rest of us, because that's really what this is all about.

That's actually the point of health insurance -- everybody hops into the pool, some people end up funding a portion of the care of the people in the pool and in return everybody knows they'll be taken care of if the worst happens to them.

In other words, the point of health insurance, or really any insurance, is to distribute risk in a cost-effect manner.
 
That's actually the point of health insurance -- everybody hops into the pool, some people end up funding a portion of the care of the people in the pool and in return everybody knows they'll be taken care of if the worst happens to them.

In other words, the point of health insurance, or really any insurance, is to distribute risk in a cost-effect manner.
Privately purchasing health insurance, durectly or thru an employer is a --voluntary-- association.

This makes all the difference in the world.
 
Tell you what.

You go and read the 1900+ bill that I've already skimmed, and you cite the specific sections that proves that the poor will be rewarded for breaking the law.
I only need read your post.

You said that those that are too poor to buy the insurance, as required by law, will not only not be punished for it, but will have that insurance provided to them by others.

Break the law.
Do not get punished.
Get a reward.
 
That's actually the point of health insurance -- everybody hops into the pool, some people end up funding a portion of the care of the people in the pool and in return everybody knows they'll be taken care of if the worst happens to them.

In other words, the point of health insurance, or really any insurance, is to distribute risk in a cost-effect manner.

Too bad there are going to be too many people gameing the system, much like I'm going to and it won't be able to stay afloat, because of the lack of funds.

This isn't going to make things better. It's going to make things worse, at best. This bill only re-invents the wheel. The only difference, is that there will be more working folks taking more money out of their pockets to support the welfare class. At the end of the day, it's all about creating more dependency on the government. More government enslavement, means more votes for the Democrats.
 
Too bad there are going to be too many people gameing the system, much like I'm going to and it won't be able to stay afloat, because of the lack of funds.
Here's what I think...

Fining a class of people that do not buy health insurance, unless there is a trial and a conviction to that end, violates the constitution as a bill of attainder.
 
Interesting that when -I- post this, I get attacked as a mean-spritited, evil heatless conservative, living in a fantasy world.

Eh, you and I don't agree on much, but this is one thing that we are pretty much 100% in sync with. I'm not sure why you would get that response, though, admittedly, when I make this proposal, it often gets ignored.
 
Eh, you and I don't agree on much, but this is one thing that we are pretty much 100% in sync with. I'm not sure why you would get that response, though, admittedly, when I make this proposal, it often gets ignored.
Watch... I'll post it as a poll, and we'll see what the reaction is.
 
the poor won't be breaking any laws, will they?
 
the poor won't be breaking any laws, will they?
If they are required by law to buy health insurance and do not -- then yes.
 
Privately purchasing health insurance, durectly or thru an employer is a --voluntary-- association.

This makes all the difference in the world.

You're absolutely right, it does make all the difference right now, and the difference is that the system we have right now doesn't work, which is why we're going to try something different.

I'm not in love with plan as proposed, but something needs to give, and since the Republicans started putting forward alternatives only when they knew they were going to get run over in the house, I've ignored them entirely.
 
I only need read your post.

You said that those that are too poor to buy the insurance, as required by law, will not only not be punished for it, but will have that insurance provided to them by others.

That's actually not what I said at all, and I've said several times that that's not what I'm saying, so apparently you didn't read what I've been saying.

That said :)lol:), it would do everyone who is so pissed off by this bill to at least skim it.
 
Too bad there are going to be too many people gameing the system, much like I'm going to and it won't be able to stay afloat, because of the lack of funds.

So in other words, you're convinced it'll break, so . . . you're going to help it break. Brilliant! :lol:

This isn't going to make things better. It's going to make things worse, at best. This bill only re-invents the wheel. The only difference, is that there will be more working folks taking more money out of their pockets to support the welfare class. At the end of the day, it's all about creating more dependency on the government. More government enslavement, means more votes for the Democrats.

Well, this is the first substantive effort to reform the health care system in a long, long time. I'm not fond of it, but at least it is an effort.
 
Here's what I think...

Fining a class of people that do not buy health insurance, unless there is a trial and a conviction to that end, violates the constitution as a bill of attainder.

Here's what I think...

You have absolutely no idea what a bill of attainder is.

The proposed 2.5% tax/fee/fine/whatever you want to call it is no more a bill of attainder than the income tax is.

The income tax, by the way, is also not a bill of attainder.
 
You're absolutely right, it does make all the difference right now, and the difference is that the system we have right now doesn't work, which is why we're going to try something different.
Disagree.
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.
 
Here's what I think...
You have absolutely no idea what a bill of attainder is.
The proposed 2.5% tax/fee/fine/whatever you want to call it is no more a bill of attainder than the income tax is.
On the contrary -- it is a punishment based on a legislative declaration of guilt w/o benefit of a trial.
 
I always thought the penalty for not having insurance was losing your possessions if you got sick and couldn't pay your bills.
 
Disagree.
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.

Is it your belief, then, that anyone who is unable to pay for their health care (not health insurance, health care) should be denied care?
 
On the contrary -- it is a punishment based on a legislative declaration of guilt w/o benefit of a trial.

That's what a bill of attainder is, that isn't what this is.

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.
 
Is it your belief, then, that anyone who is unable to pay for their health care (not health insurance, health care) should be denied care?
I would have thought that was clear from my post.

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's what a bill of attainder is, that isn't what this is.

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.
Show this to be true.
 
I would have thought that was clear from my post.

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.

I guess it's a good thing we don't have to buy the air we breathe. :lol:

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.
 
Show this to be true.

No, no, no. You the one making the accusation that this piece of legislation is a bill of attainder, and it is therefore your job to either prove your accusation to be true or to admit that you can't or won't prove 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom