• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

TacticalEvilDan said:
That's okay, I already debunked it, you can relax.
Click to expand...

Not really. It still amounts to the government forcing me to buy a health insurance policy.
 
MrVicchio said:
Businesses aren't job providing entities that must do so for your convenience. They are there to make a profit for their owners/shareholders.


Did you get laid off?



So business exist to provide "the working class with high paying jobs that never leave".

Did you go off to college and get stuck in some Marx class on business? Cause you sound like a commie now.
Click to expand...

Yet another puppet of the right!

So sad!
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

RightOfCenter said:
Not really. It still amounts to the government forcing me to buy a health insurance policy.
Click to expand...

Well they can't let you voluntarily be a statistic that shows thousands of people without insurance now can they? They have to force you to get it for your own good.
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

RightOfCenter said:
Not really. It still amounts to the government forcing me to buy a health insurance policy.
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes you're absolutely right.

I just meant that it's not what the OP wants you to think it was.

Also, this is less draconian than the auto insurance laws that we've had in New York for YEARS. Just saying.
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

TacticalEvilDan said:
For all intents and purposes you're absolutely right.

I just meant that it's not what the OP wants you to think it was.

Also, this is less draconian than the auto insurance laws that we've had in New York for YEARS. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Actually you don't know that - all you know is how it's presented on paper. How more or less draconian it will actually be is yet to be determined.
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

Ockham said:
Actually you don't know that - all you know is how it's presented on paper. How more or less draconian it will actually be is yet to be determined.
Click to expand...

Since the subject of the thread was the bill as it stands and not what the future holds, my statement is in reference to how it is presented on paper. :mrgreen:
 
Someone please explain to me how any of this is Constitutional. No doubt Saturday night had our Founders spinning in their graves.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It could probably be justified under the interstate commerce clause, same as the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

How could it possibly be justified under the interstate commerce clause when people from one state can't buy insurance from an adjacent state?

Just asking, it's clearly well beyond any enumerated power of the federal government.
 
Buy health insurance or you'll be fined or jailed...is Constitutional?

I'm just asking here, I may have been asleep through history class or sick that day with the H1N1, no one ever taught me that the Federal Government would require you to purchase medical insurance, choose who gets to opt out, and fine and jail those who don't cooperate.

I mean, I studied Soviet Russia, communism, and a number of socialisms so I've heard of cooperate or you'll be fined but.....I'm asking about the nation called the United States of America.

And to what was once a Republic, for which it fell on Jan 20, 2009...One nation, under not a sign of God anywhere, divisible as an even fraction rather than indivisible, with lessening number of liberties and justice for all.

And don't blame me, I voted for the American.
 
Crunch said:
How could it possibly be justified under the interstate commerce clause when people from one state can't buy insurance from an adjacent state?

Just asking, it's clearly well beyond any enumerated power of the federal government.
Click to expand...

Health insurance is a service which really doesn't know any state.

Your health insurance could be billed by a hospital for all sorts of products which are made in various different states.

You could be on vacation somewhere else, get hurt, go to the hospital, and then your home-state insurance is being billed by an out-of-state hospital.

At any rate, I never said it's a good justification. It's just a justification similar to an equally bad justification they already get away with.
 
Vader said:
Business has raped the public for too long. It is now time for business to be held completely responsible for their illicit activities.
Click to expand...

I have a very different view....Politicians have raped the public for too long. It is now time for politicians to be held completely responsible for their illicit activites.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I already debunked the premise of this thread. You do not go to jail for failing to buy health insurance.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

And if you aren't jailed, what does failure to buy result in?
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

TacticalEvilDan said:
For all intents and purposes you're absolutely right.

I just meant that it's not what the OP wants you to think it was.

Also, this is less draconian than the auto insurance laws that we've had in New York for YEARS. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Auto insurance is for people that drive cars....People without cars are not required to buy into it.
 
Im against a mandatory public option. But without it Ill be for the public option.

The government forcing us to pay another tax and being able to fine you if you can't pay on time is just ridiculous. That is no choice for me Ill fend for myself. They cant say the public will have choice because there really wont be any nor anytime for you to think it over.

Lose the mandatory part if you arent going to go all the way to single payer.
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

Strucky said:
Auto insurance is for people that drive cars....People without cars are not required to buy into it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you mean to say it's for people that drive road-legal cars.

At least in NY, if you own a car and it has no plates and is not registered it doesn't need to be insured since you can't legally drive it on the highway.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Read further up in the thread, I explain it explicitly.
Click to expand...

The bill specifies that if you do not have "acceptable health coverage," your income will be subject to a 2.5% tax which shall not exceed the national average health care premium.

IF YOU DO NOT PAY THE TAX then you will be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
Click to expand...

I see. So, if you don't have "acceptable health coverage"(I'll assume that's acceptable to some government definition), you'll have your income taken and if you refuse to give this government by the people and for the people your money....you'll get fined or imprisoned?

Uhh....ok. Are they gonna make us march in a Red Square showing off all our health care muscle as well......Obama can stand there on a podium with flags flying and nod his approval of the marching masses?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
In your model, if someone is uninsured because they can't afford private insurance and refuse to opt into the public option, do they get any health care, even emergency care?
Click to expand...

first off,this public option is projected to cost more than regular insurance...Second,uninsured are treated in emergency care now as we type.
 
Re: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153

TacticalEvilDan said:
For all intents and purposes you're absolutely right.

I just meant that it's not what the OP wants you to think it was.

Also, this is less draconian than the auto insurance laws that we've had in New York for YEARS. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It is basically the same thing as auto insurance laws anywhere. My questions is how they would enforce this. Some sort of national registry that every person must be on, much like all males must be signed up for selective service?
 
Charles Martel said:
Someone please explain to me how any of this is Constitutional. No doubt Saturday night had our Founders spinning in their graves.
Click to expand...

Because of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. From the perspective of the left health care is a major drain on interstate trade, hence they have the ability to legislate the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom