Medicaid was created to provide medical assistance to those who were below the poverty line. If you believe it was created to provide a "choice" for those who could not afford it, then why do we have anyone who desires health care uninsured?
The difference is explained in the question.
If it is deemed criminal, what is the procedure for fining you?
If is it deemed civil, how does it meet the justifications for levying civil penalties?
Well, it is the poverty stricken who cant afford health insurance...lol.
"Choice" through government is a joke.
People dont get insurance for lots of reasons. Simply getting people inusred doesnt solve anything. That is the wool that is covering your eyes.
Insurance does not equal care. Insurance, the way it is set up right now, raises prices. As long as the individual is spending their employers money and unable to deal directly with the insurance company, it will never be different price wise. Middlemen always raise the price.
:rofl
Um, what is our President and federal government currently talking about doing again?
Is it not the exact thing that Medicaid was created for?
TheHat said:On a sidenote, does insurance guarantee treatment? Why does everyone need insurance, if what we are all seeking is treatment? I dont know anybody who goes without treatment. Do you know anybody?
This does not address my post.Do you believe pigouvian taxes are unjust?
That's what I'm asking -- is there some criminal procedure for the levy of these fines?It doesnt matter either way. They will just create procedures and justifications for it out of thin air.
Of this, there is no doubt.Either way, everyone will be forced into a new cost on their income. We are going to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens for the sake of making sure government has a little more control over you.
This does not address my post.
I know. His question was in response to mione, and as such, I need not answer it. Fact remains, his question does not address my post.That doesn't answer the question.
I know. His question was in response to mione, and as such, I need not answer it. Fact remains, his question does not address my post.
Yes, and I have explained why your observation, while correct, doesn't mean anything.That still doesn't answer the question.
Yes, and I have explained why your observation, while correct, doesn't mean anything.
Care to address the issue at hand?
Hold your breath.I'm still waiting for a question to be answered.
Hold your breath.
Good to see you still have that active fantasy life.You've still failed to address the question.
It's ok though...I understand that you saw yourself being worked into a trap by your own admission and you did the prudent thing which was to shut your pie hole as quickly as possible. :lol:
Just answer me this. Why is is currently cheaper for a large business to offer someone insurance than it is for a small business?
Good to see you still have that active fantasy life.
When you can add something useful to the coversation, please let us know.
This does not address my post.
If is it deemed civil, how does it meet the justifications for levying civil penalties?
I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question.
hardly -- see below.The answer to your post is the answer to the question i have asked.
The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.The very nature of the pigouvian tax...
I notice that, rather than add to the conversation, you're focusing on me.I notice your're still running fast as you can from answering the question.
hardly -- see below.
The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.
Therefore, none of this applies.
It should be -obvious- that taxes and fines are not the same thingI beg to differ. What is the difference between a pigouvian tax and a fine?
It should be -obvious- that taxes and fines are not the same thing
Fines are penalties imposed for a 'wrongful act'
-Criminal fines are punishment for criminal acts;
-Civil fines are restitution for costs borne by the government due to your actions
The point in all of this is NOT the 'deterrece' value of the fines, but the fact that if you want to impose a fine, you have to have the structure to do so - you either have to arrest and try someone, or that someone has to have commited an act that created a cost to the government.
Does the proposal create a criminal fine or a civil fine?
If the former, does the FBI arrent you and are you tried in federal court?
If the latter, on what basis can you recoup a cost that hasnt been borne?
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?