Right. The poor will not be punished for breaking the law.The poor will not be charged for not having the health insurance they can't afford, and will be supplied with health insurance.
Right. The poor will not be punished for breaking the law.
In fact, the poor will be rewarded, as not only will they not be punished for breaking the law, they will have the health insurance the law required them to buy supplied to them for free.
That is, they break the law, and I pay to provide their health care.
Something is very, very wrong when the government forces others to reward you for breaking the law.
Paid for, by the rest of us, because that's really what this is all about.
Privately purchasing health insurance, durectly or thru an employer is a --voluntary-- association.That's actually the point of health insurance -- everybody hops into the pool, some people end up funding a portion of the care of the people in the pool and in return everybody knows they'll be taken care of if the worst happens to them.
In other words, the point of health insurance, or really any insurance, is to distribute risk in a cost-effect manner.
I only need read your post.Tell you what.
You go and read the 1900+ bill that I've already skimmed, and you cite the specific sections that proves that the poor will be rewarded for breaking the law.
That's actually the point of health insurance -- everybody hops into the pool, some people end up funding a portion of the care of the people in the pool and in return everybody knows they'll be taken care of if the worst happens to them.
In other words, the point of health insurance, or really any insurance, is to distribute risk in a cost-effect manner.
Here's what I think...Too bad there are going to be too many people gameing the system, much like I'm going to and it won't be able to stay afloat, because of the lack of funds.
Interesting that when -I- post this, I get attacked as a mean-spritited, evil heatless conservative, living in a fantasy world.
Watch... I'll post it as a poll, and we'll see what the reaction is.Eh, you and I don't agree on much, but this is one thing that we are pretty much 100% in sync with. I'm not sure why you would get that response, though, admittedly, when I make this proposal, it often gets ignored.
If they are required by law to buy health insurance and do not -- then yes.the poor won't be breaking any laws, will they?
Privately purchasing health insurance, durectly or thru an employer is a --voluntary-- association.
This makes all the difference in the world.
I only need read your post.
You said that those that are too poor to buy the insurance, as required by law, will not only not be punished for it, but will have that insurance provided to them by others.
Too bad there are going to be too many people gameing the system, much like I'm going to and it won't be able to stay afloat, because of the lack of funds.
This isn't going to make things better. It's going to make things worse, at best. This bill only re-invents the wheel. The only difference, is that there will be more working folks taking more money out of their pockets to support the welfare class. At the end of the day, it's all about creating more dependency on the government. More government enslavement, means more votes for the Democrats.
Here's what I think...
Fining a class of people that do not buy health insurance, unless there is a trial and a conviction to that end, violates the constitution as a bill of attainder.
Disagree.You're absolutely right, it does make all the difference right now, and the difference is that the system we have right now doesn't work, which is why we're going to try something different.
On the contrary -- it is a punishment based on a legislative declaration of guilt w/o benefit of a trial.Here's what I think...
You have absolutely no idea what a bill of attainder is.
The proposed 2.5% tax/fee/fine/whatever you want to call it is no more a bill of attainder than the income tax is.
Disagree.
Like any other system dealing with goods and services, the availability of said goods and services is based on your ability to pay for same -- if you cannot pay, you should not receive.
If the system doent work, it doesnt work because certain people think they and/or others should receive goods and sercvices that they cannot pay for.
On the contrary -- it is a punishment based on a legislative declaration of guilt w/o benefit of a trial.
I would have thought that was clear from my post.Is it your belief, then, that anyone who is unable to pay for their health care (not health insurance, health care) should be denied care?
Show this to be true.That's what a bill of attainder is, that isn't what this is.
Like any matter dealing with taxes on your income, you're not automatically guilty just because the government says you are. Nothing in the bill says you're automatically guilty of anything. You are entitled to due process. Nothing in this bill denies you due process.
I would have thought that was clear from my post.
Yes. Health care consists of goods and services provided by someone else.
Those that provide these goods and services have a right to be compensated.
Like any other goods and services you might care to name, if you cannot pay for those goods and services, you should not receive them.
Show this to be true.
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?