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.
The discussion was taxes are theft. Are you saying they aren't?
Read my ENTIRE post, including the quote:
James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution because he wrote most of it) said,
Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
If somebody does not pay for their healthcare they are "injuring" others financially.
If someone dodges their hospital bill then those costs are absorbed by the hospital and may be passed on in higher prices.
If I choose not to have coverage and pay my medical bills it does not affect anyone.
Quote:
Medicare kicks in at certain age. And it is payed by taxes so I'm not sure what exactly is the point here.
Because you said
Quote:
healthy people will get sick eventually. Having them pay earlier just distributes expenses over lifetime.
we already had that its called medicare
Quote:
Which things would be included in the catastrophic coverage?
Check out a catastrophic policy and find out.
Quote:
What I'm saying is (extreme example) if somebody is 70, there is no way that pregnancy coverage will be ever used, so whatever premium they are paying should be the same with and without it. Again tailoring could make sense in some cases but things would quickly get extremely complicated.
Thats not the way it works. If your policy covers maternity, you are paying a % for maternity coverage. If your policy does not cover maternity (which use to be added as a rider) you are not paying that % for maternity coverage.
Things would not get complicated. You choose a deductible, %ages, you choose a catastrophic policy, full coverage policy, one not including maternity, etc.
Charity, otherwise known as benevolence, is only charity when it is freely given. A tax, using the force of government to compel one to pay or throw them is prison, is not and cannot be charity or benevolence. If that tax is used for supposed charity or benevolence, it is THEFT.
That was the INTENT of the founding fathers of this great nation. That intent was clarified and made crystal clear with the words introduced into the Congressional record... again,
James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution because he wrote most of it) said,
Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Don't forget their "Christian" attitude toward immigration of the scary brown people. Or poor women's access to contraception. Their religion now forbids them to be giving and kind to others
This was a thread, originally, about getting rid of the Obamacare mandate to buy health insurance, ie, no mandate to report and pay fines to the IRS for not having "credible coverage". So why the twisting into a thread bashing Christians?
No, I said what I said. If you don't pay AND you have no assets, job, or die THEN we're in a situation where the hospital has to raise costs on everyone else to recover.
Not every uninsured is incapable of paying.
Not every, but plenty are. And since the costs are only going up, faster than wages, it is not going to get better. Medical bills are leading cause of bankruptcy, that's a fact. And when hospitals do "collect", there is still cost associated with the collection, which eventually will be passed to the consumer/ tax payer.
No. I have no desire to discuss hypocritical positions.
How is my position, or the position of James Madison hypocritical?
Why do people like you demand we have ACA, Obamacare, single payer or any other form of taking from one to pay for the medical care of another? Is it NOT out of supposed benevolence that you make these demands? If not, then PLEASE explain why you make the demand that "I" or someone else must pay for a product or service that "I" and others must pay for ourselves if we intend to use that product or service?
By what right do you look at me or anyone else and demand we pay for a product or service of another that we must first pay for ourselves if we intend to use that product or service? Who granted you this right? Surely if you had this supposed right, then you could pound upon my door, demanding I pay or you could place me in a cage and imprison me, by yourself without using government.
The fact is you do NOT have that right. Any attempt by you to do so would be considered robbery, otherwise known as THEFT.
This concept isn't rocket surgery.
AGAIN...
James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution because he wrote most of it) said,
Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Charity, otherwise known as benevolence, is only charity when it is freely given. A tax, using the force of government to compel one to pay or throw them is prison, is not and cannot be charity or benevolence. If that tax is used for supposed charity or benevolence, it is THEFT.
People's health is every bit as important as bridges.
If someone dodges their hospital bill then those costs are absorbed by the hospital and may be passed on in higher prices. If I choose not to have coverage and pay my medical bills it does not affect anyone.
Because you said we already had that its called medicare
Check out a catastrophic policy and find out.
Thats not the way it works. If your policy covers maternity, you are paying a % for maternity coverage. If your policy does not cover maternity (which use to be added as a rider) you are not paying that % for maternity coverage.
Things would not get complicated. You choose a deductible, %ages, you choose a catastrophic policy, full coverage policy, one not including maternity, etc.
You cannot guarantee that. Might depend on the size of the bill.
40-50% of all will get cancer in their lifetime, for some it will happen well before medicare.
BTW, isn't catastrophic coverage option available under ACA ?
People's health is every bit as important as bridges.
You'll hear no argument from me that contradicts this. The thing you WILL hear (and have heard) me argue is that if I must pay for my own in order to use a product or service, such as medical insurance, then YOU demand I pay for that same product or service for someone else is THEFT.
I won't argue the importance of the product or service. I AM willing to wager you've NEVER paid, out of your own pocket like I have, for the medical care or prescriptions of someone who isn't a family member or somehow a friend, just out of the goodness of your heart. But you sure are more than willing to demand to STEAL from me, preventing me from helping more than I already do, in order to rid yourself of the guilt associated with not helping others from your own money and resources.
When you demand a right to reach into the pockets of others to provide benevolence (charity), you are nothing more than a thief. I don't care how noble you think yourself, how much good you proclaim you are doing... To demand a right to steal from another via taxes to pay for your idea of benevolence is THEFT.
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.
