- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Drunk driving is a CRMINAL act, and your punishment is based on your actions -- thst is, what you ACTUALLY did, not what yu MIGHT have done.
Here, we're discussing CIVIL penalties, which are based on what your action ACTUALLY (not POTENTIALLY) cost the government. As such, your response here does not address the issue put to you.
I therefore ask again:
How can the federal government fine me in order to recoup a cost that I have not incurred?
You know, we've spun this merry-go-round so many times it's sickening.
You should have PMd him, then.First of all, these questions were directed at Harshaw, not you
You refer to them as 'absurd' only because you know you have no legitimate counter -- as evidenced by your following responses the fact that you do not respond to the questions I ask.I already know your absurd utopian answers...
Want to put money on that?but I'm interested in seeing if any OTHER opponents of health insurance mandates are willing to go on the record defending them. As I suspected, Harshaw is not.
Irrelevant to the question you posed and the context in which it was asked.The person is dying in front of them and seconds count. It compromises the quality of ER service for EVERYONE if this is the first thing hospitals do.
You're being obtuse. The exact mechanics of release its irrlevant -- the point is they stop treating him.You ignored the question. How exactly do they "release" someone in critical condition who can't walk?
You didnt answer my questions:They shouldn't HAVE to assume anything, because they should be required to treat people in the ER.
The patient dies. How was that not clear?So if someone in your family is taken to the ER and doesn't have their insurance card on them, you're cool with it if the hospital refuses to treat them and they die? You won't sue the hospital?
Hardly. We ALL act on the information we have at the time.And this is exactly why this solution is completely ridiculous.
Yep. So?Not only does it compromise the QUALITY of care by delaying treatment, it will prevent some people (including insured people) from getting care at all.
I answered the question -- the last word is "yes".Once again, you ignored the question.
There are clearly legitimate reasons to refuse service to patients -- but the discussion hereis the ability to pay, and so that the only relevant answer is the one I already gave.Should hospitals be allowed to reject ER patients for any reason they want, or only because of a perceived inability to pay?
You didnt address my post. Please do, directly.I have asked you in another thread: Are you opposed to pigouvian taxation?
A "technical legal matter"?Just to clarify: Is your problem with this just a technical legal matter
THAT doesnt suprise me -- with you people, the the ends always justify the means.Because honestly I couldn't care less if it's considered a crime or a tort or whatever, as long as there's an disincentive to be uninsured.
Stop pretending that this hasn't been done, and defend YOUR position.Yes, it really is. So perhaps you should answer the ****ing question, explain which alternative to a health care mandate YOU think would work better, and then be prepared to defend that position
Yes, it really is. So perhaps you should answer the ****ing question, explain which alternative to a health care mandate YOU think would work better, and then be prepared to defend that position...instead of offering up alternatives, and then wimpily declaring "But I never said that was MY view" every time I show you why they won't work.
Until then, I am done with you. Good day.
There is evidence that states policy applications have been successful in reducing teen abortion. :twocents:
Maybe they ought to spend more time trying to reduce teen pregnancy in the first place?
Very true, although i believe they do overlap.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?