• 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
Odd.
I thought the right to choose also meant you had the right to choose poorly, understanding that with every choice you made, you were responsible for the outcome.

People aren't being responsible if their plan is to stick the taxpayers with the bill if their medical expenses are too high.

Goobieman said:
Remember that the government doesnt HAVE to pay for those that have no insureance, and so there is no basis for the argument that those that choose poorly place a burden on society.

Only in your fantasy where doctors literally rummage through a dying patient's pockets for an insurance card before treating them (and can throw them out on the street if they don't find one, even if the patient DOES have insurance). But for anyone interested in a workable health care system, rather than a dogmatic utopia, the idea of not providing ER treatment for the uninsured is hopelessly impractical.

Goobieman said:
Under the law, you only need auto insurance when operating the vehicle on public roads.

That's interesting. What state is that?
 
Last edited:
Besides, fines are punishment, and according to the 5th and 14th Amendments, punishments still require due process.
And, I believe there is still a prohibition agianst bills of attainder.
 
People aren't being responsible if their plan is to stick the taxpayers with the bill if their medical expenses are too high.
I addressed this in my very next paragraph:

Remember that the government doesnt HAVE to pay for those that have no insureance, and so there is no basis for the argument that those that choose poorly place a burden on society.

Only in your fantasy...
Labelling it as such doesnt negate the truth of my statement.

Interesting. What state is that?
All of them, as far as I know, and if not, then certainly Ohio.
You dont need insurance (or plates or even a driver's license) if you dont operate your car, on public roads.
 
You ignored the actual content of my post that explains WHY it makes sense, and just repeated your talking point.

That's because none of it made the first bit of sense.
 
Making something illegal is not a bill of attainder. :roll:
Does the proposal actually make it illegal, or just levy fines?

If it does make it illegal, does it create a federal misdemeanor? Felony?

If you do not have health insurance, are you arrested by the FBI, taken to court, arraigned and then tried?

If not, then it is a bill of attainder in that it declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and then punishes them without benefit of a trial.
 
Abortions are inherently disastrous to most women in one way or another. Why tax it?
 
Does the proposal actually make it illegal, or just levy fines?

If it does make it illegal, does it create a federal misdemeanor? Felony?

If you do not have health insurance, are you arrested by the FBI, taken to court, arraigned and then tried?

If not, then it is a bill of attainder in that it declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and then punishes them without benefit of a trial.

It wouldn't be illegal in the criminal sense, it would be illegal in the civil sense. My understanding is that a person would be required to buy health insurance, unless they had some religious objection to either insurance or health care. If they did not comply, they would be fined. With full access to civil courts at every step. But I haven't read the bill, so I'm not sure.
 
It wouldn't be illegal in the criminal sense, it would be illegal in the civil sense.
So, it is a civil penalty?

A civil penalty is when a government agency fines an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. The civil fine is not a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct.

For this to then apply, not having health insurance must be 'wrongful conduct' and be harmful to the state in terms of a cost to the state.

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the state.


This then leaves criminal penalties, which require a tiral.

If you do not have health insurance, are you arrested by the FBI, taken to court, arraigned, tried and -then- fined? If not, then my bill of attainder statement stands.

One must wonder what the costs of all those arrests, araignments and trials would be -- and how, exactly, the government would know that you committed the crime in the first place.
 
Last edited:
So, it is a civil penalty?

A civil penalty is when a government agency fines an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual. The civil fine is not a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct.

For this to then apply, not having health insurance must be 'wrongful conduct' and be harmful to the state in terms of a cost to the state.

Fining people without health insurance is compensating the state for the costs associated with emergency room deadbeats.
 
That could all be true, although it is arbitrary at best. What we do know though, is that the only way to stimulate economic growth during stagnate periods is with population expansion.

Does that hold true today? Population expansion of primarily undereducated, malnourished and welfare bound doesn't suggest expansion of the economy in today's world.

But, your response would be typical to the opinion of many American citizens when the massive waves of immigrants were coming ashore in the late 19th early 20th century. You know, the tired, poor, and sick;)

True but back then the economy was radically different.
 
Fining people without health insurance is compensating the state for the costs associated with emergency room deadbeats.

What a bunch of crap. $3800 is entirely arbitrary. You think that's "recompense" for someone who decides to go to an ER and get a few stitches? Or wouldn't be slightly more, oh, I don't know, just to see what the bill is and if, maybe, the person can compensate the hospital willingly?

No -- slap 'em hard, the deadbeats. Give 'em what fer.
 
What a bunch of crap. $3800 is entirely arbitrary.

Of course it is. So what? All fines for anything are entirely arbitrary.

Harshaw said:
You think that's "recompense" for someone who decides to go to an ER and get a few stitches?

I wouldn't be surprised if even a few stitches in the ER cost that much. But that's irrelevant, because you don't know if you're going to end up in the ER for a few stitches or for a five-million-dollar accident that leaves you in a coma for two months.

Harshaw said:
Or wouldn't be slightly more, oh, I don't know, just to see what the bill is and if, maybe, the person can compensate the hospital willingly?

No. Enough people will default that it's a problem. Just like uninsured drivers raise MY auto premium (so the law requires people to carry auto insurance)...just like criminals raise MY taxes (so the law can confiscate their property and/or force them to work). The government has every right to regulate people behaving irresponsibly, if their irresponsibility has a significant potential of imposing costs on other innocent people.
 
Of course it is. So what? All fines for anything are entirely arbitrary.

Recompense is not. Besides, many fines have some relationship to the degree of the offense.



I wouldn't be surprised if even a few stitches in the ER cost that much. But that's irrelevant, because you don't know if you're going to end up in the ER for a few stitches or for a five-million-dollar accident that leaves you in a coma for two months.

Then this isn't recompense -- it's a blanket punishment.



No. Enough people will default that it's a problem. Just like uninsured drivers raise MY auto premium (so the law requires people to carry auto insurance)...just like criminals raise MY taxes (so the law can confiscate their property and/or force them to work). The government has every right to regulate people behaving irresponsibly, if their irresponsibility has a significant potential of imposing costs on other innocent people.

Which, again, only happens because YOU force it to happen. It doesn't happen by itself.

Me? I think people who force the burden on taxpayers who don't want it should be the ones who pony up. That, at least, has an actual proximate cause involved.
 
Which, again, only happens because YOU force it to happen. It doesn't happen by itself.

To which, again, you have not presented any workable alternative. And until you do, I'm assuming that you do not have one, so blaming *me* for mandatory ER care is ridiculous if it's the only practical policy.

Harshaw said:
Me? I think people who force the burden on taxpayers who don't want it should be the ones who pony up. That, at least, has an actual proximate cause involved.

Then present a workable alternative. And no, pawning the costs off on the hospitals is not a workable alternative, it's just a cheap cop-out victimizing an easy target.
 
Last edited:
To which, again, you have not presented any workable alternative. And until you do, I'm assuming that you do not have one, so blaming *me* for mandatory ER care is ridiculous if it's the only practical policy.

Present a workable alternative or kvicherbitchin.

Right. You've demonstrated that when you assume for yourself the role of sole and supreme arbiter of what's "workable," that's simply not possible.

Tell you what -- when you do more than simply say "that won't work," we'll talk.
 
Right. You've demonstrated that when you assume for yourself the role of sole and supreme arbiter of what's "workable," that's simply not possible.

Tell you what -- when you do more than simply say "that won't work," we'll talk.

When your only solution is to transfer the costs of irresponsible people from innocent taxpayers to innocent hospitals, you A) cede any moral high ground you may think you have as a result of your *cough* pro-freedom view, and B) have to explain why your solution is more PRACTICAL then transferring the costs of irresponsible people to irresponsible people.
 
Jesus ****ing christ. Get fined for doing something legal? WTF? In what universe does that make sense?

So, um, no. The government should most certainly not fine people for seeking medical treatment.

They also should not fine people for simply living. (as it seems the thread has evolved into a different discussion)
 
So here's the question. Do you feel the government has the power, or should, fine a woman for either having an abortion or choosing not to carry a child to term? Essentially, that women are completely free to do with their body as they wish, and their privacy is definitely respected.........but if you chose to not carry to term / to abort then the government fines you X amount of dollars, say to cover the costs of people who may be getting free abortions due to lack of financial means or to cover the loss of revenue the government will feel by not having an extra citizen come into this world.

Would this be a breach of the right to privacy? Should the government be fining you for choosing not to do something that you believe effects your health?
I think that before about 16-20 weeks it should not and after, unless you life is in danger, the penalties should be higher than a fine. So I guess no is the answer.
 
Late to the party.

Yes, I think the government ought to be able to do this. If they have concerns that the practice of abortion is harmful to our nation, and that a reasonable fine will reduce the harm being done, then such a policy would be justified. On moral grounds, I have no objections whatsoever to women being required to pay tax on abortion-- even on a sliding income scale-- as long as such taxes are not so steep as to either prevent already-pregnant women from having abortions or to impose undue hardship on the living children of a pregnant woman.

I don't support such a policy, as I don't think it's necessary and I am concerned that it might actually be harmful. If birth rate is a concern, it's better policy to encourage stable families to conceive deliberately than to discourage abortion.

On the other hand, if sliding scale abortion fees for coked-up celebutantes could provide the funding to ensure that noone was ever denied an abortion on financial grounds, I'd support it in a heartbeat. Worst case scenario, one spoiled rich kid gives her parents a second chance to raise a productive member of society, for every hundred women who wouldn't have a chance not being forced to take one. That's a good trade.
 
When your only solution is to transfer the costs of irresponsible people from innocent taxpayers to innocent hospitals, you A) cede any moral high ground you may think you have as a result of your *cough* pro-freedom view, and B) have to explain why your solution is more PRACTICAL then transferring the costs of irresponsible people to irresponsible people.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you to explain why it's not "workable," especially when I mentioned several sources of possible funding for it.

That you keep balking on that question -- here and in the other thread -- tells me you simply can't explain it.

If you can, do so, in detail. Here or in the other thread.
 
That's not what I asked you. I asked you to explain why it's not "workable," especially when I mentioned several sources of possible funding for it.

No, the only source of funding you mentioned was hospitals. You may have used a lot of words and put commas between them, but your sources were essentially hospitals, hospitals, and hospitals.

Why isn't it workable? Well, we'll skip right over the fact that the hospitals aren't to blame for their ER bills, since you obviously don't care (despite the fact that your heart bleeds for the irresponsible people who aren't to blame for the ER bills of other irresponsible people).

How about the fact that if hospitals get stuck with the ER bills, they'll increase the cost of procedures, lay off their staff, not buy the high-tech new gizmo they need to treat cancer, and not pay their employees as much (thus reducing the quality of medical care).
 
Last edited:
No, the only source of funding you mentioned was hospitals. You may have used a lot of words and put commas between them, but your sources were essentially hospitals, hospitals, and hospitals.

Contingency plans, uninsured funds, "uninsured" insurance. Endowments, trusts, who knows? You make it sound like it'll all be crushing, unexpected expenses to come out of the general operating fund. Either you know that's a particularly vapid strawman, or you don't have much imagination.


Why isn't it workable? Well, we'll skip right over the fact that the hospitals aren't to blame for their ER bills

Neither are the taxpayers. Hospitals, at least, are in the business of providing care and accept certain risks as a matter of course.


since you obviously don't care (despite the fact that your heart bleeds for the irresponsible people who aren't to blame for the ER bills of other irresponsible people).

Oh, you're making me cry here. Really. :roll:


How about the fact that if hospitals get stuck with the ER bills, they'll increase the cost of procedures, lay off their staff, not buy the high-tech new gizmo they need to treat cancer, and not pay their employees as much (thus reducing the quality of medical care).

Not if they plan properly for it.
 
Contingency plans, uninsured funds, "uninsured" insurance.

Let me translate all of these options for you:
Hospitals, hospitals, and hospitals.

They all result in increased expenses for the hospitals.

Harshaw said:
Endowments, trusts, who knows?

Those simply aren't enough to cover the tab.

Harshaw said:
You make it sound like it'll all be crushing, unexpected expenses to come out of the general operating fund. Either you know that's a particularly vapid strawman, or you don't have much imagination.

Any of your incredibly diverse solutions boil down to the hospital paying more money.

Harshaw said:
Neither are the taxpayers. Hospitals, at least, are in the business of providing care and accept certain risks as a matter of course.

So the hospitals aren't responsible for it. The taxpayers aren't responsible for it. I agree. Hmm. Remind me again why you're opposed to making everyone cover their OWN expenses by mandating health insurance?

Harshaw said:
Not if they plan properly for it.

Translation:
Not if the hospitals just pony up the cash for it.
 
Fining people without health insurance is compensating the state for the costs associated with emergency room deadbeats.
As I said and as you conveniently left out:

Neither of these positions are supportable, ESPECIALLY if the person in question has not had any health care costs paid not by the state.

How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?
 
Back
Top Bottom