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.
This is a bit of a hypothetical query right now, but let’s assume Pelosi Inc railroads the health care bill through. Right now, there is a provision for the incarceration of those who cannot afford (or choose not to buy) health insurance and cannot afford the fine for not having it. House Committee on Ways & Means .gov. Let’s face it, $15,000 is nearly as much as some working folks make in a year. There are going to be many new ‘criminals’ should this proposal become law. Personally, I think it is unconstitutional, but let’s get beyond that. Here is the question:
Do you think this measure (should it become reality) will usher in the return of the “debtors’ prison”? I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would throw someone who can’t afford insurance into prison with murderers, rapists, thieves, violent criminals, etc. So where will they go?
I researched the history a bit and it seems back when debtors' prisons were in use (before our forefathers basically abolished them), states tended not to place debtors in prison with hardened criminals. I looked a bit at the (19th century) Virginia debtor’s prison system on Wikipedia (I know not the best source, but I’m lazy), and this is the way they handled it at the time:
And although it didn’t end up turning out this way, the original province of Georgia was intended as a “debtors’ colony.”
So, do you think these debtors should be placed in our ‘regular’ prison system with hardened criminals? Where would you warehouse them if you were in charge of incarcerating the debtors?
And even more importantly, what will happen to the family of the parent who does not buy insurance? The children will still not have health care, and in addition, will not have the support of a working parent.
Sometimes I think the whole agenda of the conservative movement is to create an "us-them" society, in which "they" are simply shunted off to some marginal existence, out of sight somewhere. What is genuinely amazing is now many of "them" keep voting for conservative candidates.
And even more importantly, what will happen to the family of the parent who does not buy insurance? The children will still not have health care, and in addition, will not have the support of a working parent.
Exactly.
The irony is that the way this proposal is worded and set up, it almost goes full circle right back to rabid competitive capitalism. On the far right, you have private monopolies forcing you to buy insurance (or whatever) at their set price. Now, on the other end of the spectrum, you have the government forcing you to buy what the insurance companies offer (again, at whatever price is set). Before, if you couldn't afford insurance (or the doctor)... you lay down and die when you're sick. Now, if you can't afford insurance... you go to prison (possibly). Personally, I'd prefer the former. And, for the life of me, I don’t see how this proposal improves upon the way it has been (which hasn't been good).
If we are going to have a national health care plan, why don't we get one that makes a little bit of sense? I see a lot of people just supporting anything as long as the title page says 'Health Care.' There are some real tigers hiding in those 2000 pages. Why can't we see that, back up, start over and do this thing right?
Yep change is all i got left no dollars .Don't think the Gov has any business in banks,cars or H C .Could wind up with a lot of folks in the pen only for a very different reason .
I read at a lot of forums there is some ideas floating around out there for sure .
I plan to fight them in court, if in fact I get fined. I have no money left over after the Bills I have now. A Friend told me, "They plan to bleed us dry, then bankrupt the Country, so they can declare an Emergency, and take the whole thing over under "Presidential Orders" that are already in place". I have no personal knowedge of this, but sounds interesting.
Anything and everything the government does is only done to further secure the need of a government.
Why do you think the government wants to run every aspect of our lives? IF we rely on the government just to live our lives, then we'll never take any power away from them.
"Any country great enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take everything away from you."
I couldn't see people getting locked up for not purchasing insurance because once your in prison it's the government's obligation to provide medical care for you.
I couldn't see people getting locked up for not purchasing insurance because once your in prison it's the government's obligation to provide medical care for you.
Yes, seems kind of stupid, doesn't it? Yet it is written into the proposal and Pelosi clearly defends it in a statement she made. The logic is beyond me.
If you went to prison then health care would be provided for free. Even I think this method costs the individual too much.
I believe we need a way of paying for the health care of the entire population. I do not see that private insurance companies are needed to acomplish this goal. The required money can be aquired by using a truly progressive income tax with the first 100 grand exempt from taxation and the highes rates set the same as in 1950.
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.
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.
