Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-12-2012, 01:15 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,740,782 times
Reputation: 4172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Do people get their freedom to choose even if it means that we pay for them since they refuse to purchase health care insurance?
We don't pay for them because they refuse to purchase health care insurance.

We pay for them because they refuse to purchase health care insurance AND THE LAW FORCES HOSPITALS TO TREAT THEM ANYWAY.

Everyone's rising costs are, in fact, a direct result of the law, not a result of the guy's refusal.

That doesn't mean there's an easy solution. If a guy get sick or injured, and doesn't have insurance, does that mean the hospital kicks him out on the street and locks the doors?

On the other hand, who made the hospital responsible for paying the costs of a stranger's lack of personal responsibility?

Humanity dictates that we must help someone in need.

But does that mean that LAW must also dictate it?

If the law did NOT require it, don't you suppose that there would be a major increase in charities (and charity drives and charitable giving) to take up the slack, supported by people who are humane?

But as long as law mandates the hospitals pay for it, you can be sure you will hear a lot more of, "I don't have to donate, government is already taking care of it."

Laws forcing people to "be moral", in fact result in a DECREASE in morality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2012, 01:17 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,783,714 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
It is my understanding that the new law addresses these abuses.
Your understanding is wrong because it doesn't, the fine is collected from the refund in your tax return. No tax return and there is nothing to collect from. The insurance company cannot deny you insurance therefore you can go withut insurance and get it only when you need it. Realistacally we now have situation where people that are now buying insurance could drop it.

Quote:
Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.

“These are not the kinds of things we send agents out about,” Shulman said. “These are things where you get a letter from us. Congress was very careful to make sure there was nothing too punitive in this bill.”

Read more: IRS chief: Buy health insurance or lose your tax refund | The Daily Caller
There is no teeth to the mandate and it's very much open to abuse. The only way a mandate will work is if there actual fines, jail time, take peoples cars etc. There isn't a politician on either side of the aisle that is going to support that.

Last edited by thecoalman; 03-12-2012 at 01:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 01:29 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,629,829 times
Reputation: 20027
nice try but you fail. that mandate was due to the sailors, even the privateers, were in the service of the country, and thus were subject to the demands of the federal government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Do people get their freedom to choose even if it means that we pay for them since they refuse to purchase health care insurance?
are you suggesting the a persons freedom should be abridged so they can be forced to buy health insurance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I understand your point, and I agree, the problem lies with the unfunded 1986 law that Reagan signed into law.

But this law, IMO, is not the way to fix it. I won't decide, 9 people will if its constitutional for the government to force you to buy insurance simply because you will be part of the health care market sooner or later.

I think we needed a single payer system. It would have been constitutional under current standards, and it didn't put the government in the business of telling people what they have to buy. This is a reckless expansion of the federal government, and it goes a step to far. I understand the good intentions, and there is a definite need to rectify the rapid expansion of healthcare costs, but this is not the way to do it, IMO.

It may be deemed constitutional, but if so, its a dangerous precedent.
i agree with most of what you said here. i disagree with a single payer system though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
The large obese people whose habits predispose them to life threatening illness receive the same care as anyone would in those circumstances.

We get to decide when we are paying for it and yes if they jump out of a PGA and get smashed up and then expect us to foot the bill YES we get to say you can't do that anymore.

We train children don't we?
so then you are suggesting that ALL freedoms can be taken away from the people? if so then we may as well change the president to a dictator, and eliminate congress and become a totalitarian country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 01:30 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,783,714 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Is the entire bill going before SCOTUS, or just the mandate part?
Just the mandate but if that is removed the whole thing collapses. There is two main things in this law, the mandate you buy insurance and the provision an insurance company cannot deny you insurance. The insurance provision cannot survive without the mandate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 02:19 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,496,294 times
Reputation: 18301
Plus the mandate that one size fuits all which will drive up cost as it has with private inruance that has adopted the mandates as of cotober last years to be grandfahther under provisons in the bill.Whe you kill the mandate to buy the mandated coverage you make insurance chocie avialble as the law will allow you to pick what covers you best. That si what private insurance has done for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,904,461 times
Reputation: 3414
Go ahead and put me in jail for not buying health care... Then I get it for free, plus free food, shelter, tv and a free weight room...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:20 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,740,782 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Only if you see liberty as the ability to make decisions which are reckless and dangerous. If you saw the 400 pound ballerinas I see rolling in doing WHATEVER they wish and then getting you and I to pay for them when their body fails perhaps you would view it differently.
Liberty is the ability to make whatever decision you want... plus the responsibility to live with the consequences.

Liberals construct their trap by removing the second part first. They pass laws mandating that hospitals treat people whether the people can pay for it or not (i.e. whether they have insurance or not).

Then responsible people complain that THEIR insurance premiums... and hospital costs... are going up even though they did nothing to increase those costs. And so the liberals say, "Well, we'll fix that problem."

And they then remove the first part of "liberty" second... by passing more laws, requiring everybody to have insurance.

See how it works?

Welcome to "the new normal" of Obama's America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:54 PM
 
8,581 posts, read 9,052,968 times
Reputation: 5882
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Yes... The treating facility is free to file suit to obtain their financial restitution. If they are illegal, then why are we treating them in the first place? Perhaps this needs addressed. If they are impovrished then they recieve government assistance as it stands now.
Doesn't work because many do go bankrupt super quickly and lose everything, home etc. They then qualify for welfare. See what's wrong with that picture?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,289,843 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post



i agree with most of what you said here. i disagree with a single payer system though.

Care to elaborate on what you'd do to fix the healthcare system?

Americans won't see people die in the streets from lack of care, thats why Reagans law has stayed in place.

So if we are going to make sure that everyone gets healthcare, how do we pay for that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,904,461 times
Reputation: 3414
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
Doesn't work because many do go bankrupt super quickly and lose everything, home etc. They then qualify for welfare. See what's wrong with that picture?
Well gee.. I guess they should have had health insurance... Where does personal responsibility begin here???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top