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.
I don't see anything unreasonable with those taxes. Most of them fall on the upper brackets that have been getting a deal on taxes for ten years.
Also, what's the problem with the penalty tax for those who don't buy health insurance? Those people choose to have no health insurance but when they have an illness show up to ER and expect the rest of us to pay for their care. Why should they get a free ride and shirk personal responsibility? Isn't that what conservatives preach, personal responsibility?
We live in a free country. Why did we jump straight to: you will be taxed unless you buy health insurance, instead of: if you can't pay for your care, you're out of luck.
You do know some people choose to have catastrophic care, and pay the rest out of their pocket? They are hardly shirking personal responsibility. But they can't do that any longer.
Who's been getting a deal for years? How about the folks that have gotten healthcare with my tax dollars? Most of them have been getting a deal on taxes their whole lives.
Is that question serious? You're not usually sarcastic, but I have to call this one as such.
How about the freedom to choose whether or not I want to engage in business with a private entity, without having a hefty tax lobbed on me if I don't?
How about the freedom to choose what coverage I want, should I decide to engage in that business?
Thanks to Obamacare, one will no longer be able to purchase a plan that covers only catastrophic situations. Every policy sold MUST include preventative care, prescriptions and other things that I prefer to pay for out of pocket. I have lost the freedom to make my own decision regarding what coverage I want to buy, and will now have to purchase a very expensive policy that I'll rarely use, instead of a cheap policy that I'll probably never use.
I can't believe you even wrote that, mta. What a stupid question.
How about the freedom to choose my own healthcare, instead of having a government panel decide it for me. Yes, I know, health insurers do that too. But the number of folks that will be turned down will skyrocket under this panel.
We live in a free country. Why did we jump straight to: you will be taxed unless you buy health insurance, instead of: if you can't pay for your care, you're out of luck.
You do know some people choose to have catastrophic care, and pay the rest out of their pocket? They are hardly shirking personal responsibility. But they can't do that any longer.
Who's been getting a deal for years? How about the folks that have gotten healthcare with my tax dollars? Most of them have been getting a deal on taxes their whole lives.
Careful, your class envy is showing.
You are taxed for not having children.
You are taxed for not owning a house.
How is that any different than being taxed for not having insurance?
The number of people who choose to have catastrophic care and pay the rest out of their pocket are relatively few. Most Americans get their HC from their employers; then those who are covered by Medicare. The third bunch is Medicaid recipients. The rest don't count for a hill of beans and are vastly outnumbered by the uninsured.
There is no "refusing dubious preventative medicine." As for freedom, what freedom is being infringed -- the right to get sick and add your costs to that of hospital overhead?
I don't see anything unreasonable with those taxes. Most of them fall on the upper brackets that have been getting a deal on taxes for ten years.
Also, what's the problem with the penalty tax for those who don't buy health insurance? Those people choose to have no health insurance but when they have an illness show up to ER and expect the rest of us to pay for their care. Why should they get a free ride and shirk personal responsibility? Isn't that what conservatives preach, personal responsibility?
Over 1/2 of the folks showing up with no health insurance to the ER - they qualify for Medicaid -
so goes the personal responsibility argument. The other half are drug dealers and prostitutes who
have the cash - but because they make their money illegally, also qualify for medicaid.
Only a very small percentage are folks who technically qualify as
"not wanting to pay for their medical care".
And, just because one might make less than the next person, doesn't mean they shouldn't contribute
to their own premiums/costs. That means Medicaid qualified folks...
Expanding Medicaid means not taking personal responsibility...IMO
Yeah, we should all just ramble on and on, displaying our ignorance over not understanding that driving insurance, isnt at all similar to health insurance.
Actually isn't, beyond mandate versus mandate. Car ownership is not a necessity... one can get away without it in a reasonably developed/progressed city/town. But NOBODY escapes healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Here we are with the auto insurance thing again. That is a state law but then I guess when following your rules for engagement one can play that way, if he is you.
Yes, a state law that mandates something, to have people purchase a product. If a government mandate is the underlying premise leading to "tax", then regardless of level of government, the idea applies. Your avoidance won't save you from the realities.
Quote:
How many federal laws are there about home insurance? I now know why people like you don't like defense spending. You consider it insurance, huh?
No, defense spending is spending, to allow government to buy products from the suppliers, regardless of whether I want it, or not.
How is that any different than being taxed for not having insurance?
Since your argument is false, this question holds no value
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The number of people who choose to have catastrophic care and pay the rest out of their pocket are relatively few. Most Americans get their HC from their employers; then those who are covered by Medicare. The third bunch is Medicaid recipients. The rest don't count for a hill of beans and are vastly outnumbered by the uninsured.
And thanks to Obamacare, no one will have catastrophic care.. Thats dumb
Last edited by CaseyB; 07-02-2012 at 07:39 PM..
Reason: TOS violation
Actually isn't, beyond mandate versus mandate. Car ownership is not a necessity... one can get away without it in a reasonably developed/progressed city/town. But NOBODY escapes healthcare.
But we arent discussing the benefits of healthcare, we're discussing the benefits of health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Yes, a state law that mandates something, to have people purchase a product. If a government mandate is the underlying premise leading to "tax", then regardless of level of government, the idea applies. Your avoidance won't save you from the realities.
Arent you one of the very posters who tried telling me that this wasnt a tax? Now all of a sudden you are arguing the virtues of taxing..
But we arent discussing the benefits of healthcare, we're discussing the benefits of health insurance.
I am discussing both, as they are tied to each other. If you don't see it, then that is your problem.
Quote:
Arent you one of the very posters who tried telling me that this wasnt a tax? Now all of a sudden you are arguing the virtues of taxing..
No, it is as much a tax, or not, as tobacco tax is on me. Went above your head? You bet!
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.