Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US health care vote

ObamaCare 2010

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#61 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:08 PM

You know what I really resent in all this? On the one hand you have some people thinking that if you don''t have health insurance, you're some freeloading, lazy ass. On the other side of it, you have the government ordering me to buy something I can't afford...or else. If I could afford to buy insurance, I'd already have it without government making me do it.

So for the record...for almost my entire life I had insurance, in fact my husband and I BOTH had insurance. We've busted our asses our entire adult lives to pay our bills, raise our kids, pay our taxes etc...Now here we are in the midst of the worst economy in our lifetime, in one of (if not THE worst economic environments) Michigan and I get to listen to people bitch like I'm gonna get something on their dime. There are MANY people just like us who've worked their asses off their entire lives and watched their jobs, insurance and savings go down the toilet and now we get to hear how we're lazy loser??? I call major b*llsh*t on that. We won't be costing anyone a damned dime because while we both are back working again (the hubby for a fraction of what he used to make as a machine builder) we will still make too much money for any help. So what we get is crippling insurance premiums as we struggle to pay our mortgage, food, utilities etc...

To me this healthcare reform bill doesn't do squat for many Americans who are working but who work for companies too small to have to pay any penalty for not offering insurance. For Americans with modest incomes but still make too much for any help. We're managing to keep our bills paid but that goes right out the window with having to buy insurance. Insurance from the same damned greedy, for-profit industry that has been screwing us for how many years now? That's not reform, it's a sloppy kiss to their corporate sponsors IMO...Rant over
Posted Image
Posted Image

#62 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:17 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

^ For me with insurance, that $60 drug would have been $15.


I know right?

Interesting stuff.
Posted Image

#63 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:24 PM

View PostLin731, on Mar 22 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

You know what I really resent in all this? On the one hand you have some people thinking that if you don''t have health insurance, you're some freeloading, lazy ass. On the other side of it, you have the government ordering me to buy something I can't afford...or else. If I could afford to buy insurance, I'd already have it without government making me do it.


I can't speak for others, but I personally have made no moral judgments about people who don't have health insurance, either because they're unable to afford it or because they think it's a bad deal.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#64 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 11:39 PM

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

But couldn't someone use the exact same reasoning to argue exactly the opposite? Nobody said that life was fair, and if you happen to make more money and the government needs some of it to help the less fortunate, those are the breaks.

Very easily one could make that argument...and I'm sure some have already. And to be perfectly honest here...we can discuss and debate this issue til we are blue in the face and our fingers hurt from typing, and nothing will change the fact the Government is nothing more then a legalized mafia and they will steal from whomever they like. Today it happens to be people making over 250K they are stealing from...tomorrow it may be you and me they are stealing from...whose to say.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#65 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 11:44 PM

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

You would give up tens of thousands to avoid paying a couple of thousand?  Really?


Yes i would, because it is the principle of the matter. Lets face facts here. First, those making over the 250k mark are already paying more in taxes then those in the lower brackets...So they are already paying more then their fair share. And your response to this is to further increase a tax on them?

Second, someone making say 240K a year could still live a very very comfortable lifestyle, and not be subjected to more taxes...So why shouldn't those making over the 250K mark lower themselves down to a lower bracket, if it means avoiding an unfair tax?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#66 FnlPrblm

FnlPrblm
  • Administrator
  • 12,510 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 05:45 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 22 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

So today I had some experiences as an uninsured American.  I've been putting off a certain appointment.   But today I went.  They cut me a break because I don't have insurance.  Turns out I need antibiotics.  Fine.  I go to a place (hint it's a big place) and I give them the prescription.  Normally it would be about $60.  For me, without insurance, it's about 10.

Now, some people will say "gee what a nice thing" and there is certainly some of that in there.

But NO one other than a completely pro bono type of outfit is going to sell ANYTHING at a price that does not get them a nice PROFIT.  So...while there was some kindness there, the other thing is that these people have HUGE enough profit margins that can be given large haircuts while still leaving a healthy profit.

But, I'm glad I got my meds.

Lil


View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:05 PM, said:

^ For me with insurance, that $60 drug would have been $15.


That drug still is valued at $60 no matter what you pay.  It's just who pays the portions.  If you're uninsured, the discounted $50 is marginally paid by the producer of the drug.  Not because they are nice, but because they want that drug valued at $60.  This way, when those who are insured come along and buy the same thing, they get the $15 (or whatever) from the buyer and then the $45 from the insurance company (which of course, the buyer has paid into to some extent).  Those who buy out the drug straight out are far vastly outnumbered to those who are insured.  So therefore, it's in the interests of the producer to lose a little on those deals to keep the value of their drug at a premium in order to charge the insurance companies their portion (and make a ton of profit...again, which vastly outweighs the losses they incur on the insured).
"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Beryl Coronet

The Boscombe Valley Mystery: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." --- Ralph Waldo Emerson 'Art,' 1841

"Such welcome and unwelcome things at once, 'Tis hard to reconcile." --- Macbeth IV.III.138-9


LauraBertram.net

"Once in one's life, for one mortal moment, one must make a grab for immortality; if not, one has not lived." -- Sylvester Stallone

Time to eat all your words, swallow your pride, open your eyes...Sowing the Seeds of Love - Tears4Fears

#67 FnlPrblm

FnlPrblm
  • Administrator
  • 12,510 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 06:15 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 03:07 PM, said:

Well since Congress has now established the precedent of being able to Order the American People to do something:

Namely Get Health care or else pay a fine.

I'm wondering what is the next thing they ORDER Americans to do? maybe vote a certain way? Or maybe ORDER certain Americans to work at certain jobs, and ORDER other Americans to work at other jobs? Maybe ORDER the number of children a couple can have?

(Which in the case of the Octomom wouldn't have been such a bad thing, but that's besides the point)


Come next election I seriously hope that all those who voted Yes are voted out and replaced by the opposite party. Granted that would make the House an almost completely republican one...but the message will be loud and clear. Plus the look on Obama's face as all of his supporters, not to mention the look on those who voted yes faces, will be priceless.

First, they all won't be voted out over this one issue, no matter how large.  They said the same thing about abortion declarations and gay/lesbian issues.  It didn't really happen.  By November, people will have largely either forgotten or moved on to the more immediate issue facing the country.  People have short attention spans in this country and politicians bank on that.


View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

^ You don't have to buy auto insurance. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want the privilege of driving.

"You don't have to buy auto insurance if you choose not to drive" sounds reasonable until you take into consideration just how many people wouldn't be able to make a living without driving.  You could say, "then let those people move to a place with excellent mass transit" but then again, you could also say to people who don't want to buy health insurance, "move to a place where you don't have to do that."  People are mandated to pay into social security, as well, of course.  It comes right out of our paychecks.  That's insurance, of a sort.  And there are other examples.

So, to me, this is a distinction without a difference.

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

I haven't commented on it because I've been trying to pretend this didn't happen...And so far, it's not helping really.

I don't agree with taxing one group of people more, to pay for those who don't have health care. It smacks of punishing those who succeeded, just because they succeeded.

But you avail yourself of a lower tax bracket, don't you?  By this logic, you should eschew your lower taxes because by paying less, you're throwing in with those who champion the idea of progressive taxes.  

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 03:55 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

So in order to avoid paying maybe a few thousand dollars more in taxes, you'd give up probably tens of thousands of dollars in income?

If I could live a comfortable lifestyle below that threshold...then YES I WOULD.

You would give up tens of thousands to avoid paying a couple of thousand?  Really?  

Quote

Why should those who have made it be taxed more, punished essentially for being successful?

It's the cost of doing business in a civilized society.  There are places in the word where this is not the case, of course.  It goes without saying that none of us would want to live in them.  

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 04:07 PM, said:

Well since Congress has now established the precedent of being able to Order the American People to do something:

Congress is the law-making body in this country, right?  Since when have they NOT been able to "order the American people to do something?"  

Quote

Namely Get Health care or else pay a fine.

One of thousands of things the law mandates us to do or else get fined.  Don't piss in the street -- or get fined.  Don't evade your taxes -- or get fined, and possibly go to prison.  Etc etc.

ETA: it's worth noting (since there has been much discussion in OT of PhRMA and the role of drug-makers) that Sen. Grassley's Physician Payment Sunshine Act (which I support wholeheartedly) was contained in this bill and will therefore be signed into law tomorrow.  Which will make my life rather interesting ...

Scott really said it best and most eloquently, "it's the price of doing business in a civilized society".  We could live in a country which says to kill off any and all "defective" children/people because we don't want to waste any resources on them.  Or it's the sole responsibility of the family, but since you can't take care of it, we'll look the other way if you want to "rid" yourselves of the "problem".  Thankfully, we are somewhat civilized and 99.9999% of people wouldn't and/or couldn't do that.

As far as the super rich paying for everything, well, considering that the top 8% of the wealthiest people in the U.S. own 86% of the total wealth (or whatever the exact figures are, those are close enough), the balancement HAS to expect them to pay more into things.  Otherwise the math won't add up.  In a way, what the super rich pay into, is a security payment.  Because they know that if society breaks down, they're the first to be gone after by those who have nothing.

Also, you know as well as I do that the balancement of who gets paid what is radically messed up.  Corporate execs who might put in long hours on some days, taking golf and/or holidays on others and do very little labourous-physical work, will make 100 times what a waitress working 70 hours a week makes.  Just one of many many many examples.  Even? I think not.  And that's why the execs pay more in taxes.
"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Beryl Coronet

The Boscombe Valley Mystery: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." --- Ralph Waldo Emerson 'Art,' 1841

"Such welcome and unwelcome things at once, 'Tis hard to reconcile." --- Macbeth IV.III.138-9


LauraBertram.net

"Once in one's life, for one mortal moment, one must make a grab for immortality; if not, one has not lived." -- Sylvester Stallone

Time to eat all your words, swallow your pride, open your eyes...Sowing the Seeds of Love - Tears4Fears

#68 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 08:47 AM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

^ You don't have to buy auto insurance. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want the privilege of driving.

"You don't have to buy auto insurance if you choose not to drive" sounds reasonable until you take into consideration just how many people wouldn't be able to make a living without driving.  You could say, "then let those people move to a place with excellent mass transit" but then again, you could also say to people who don't want to buy health insurance, "move to a place where you don't have to do that."  People are mandated to pay into social security, as well, of course.  It comes right out of our paychecks.  That's insurance, of a sort.  And there are other examples.

So, to me, this is a distinction without a difference.

You're not mandated to pay into Social Security either. Just like the income tax, you only pay if you have a job.

It's that easy, eh?  Just... don't have a job.  Well, yeah, if you're a street person, then you don't have to pay into social security.  But how reasonable is it to say to someone who doesn't want to pay into social security, "just quit your job, lose your home, be unable to feed and clothe yourself, etc, and you won't have to pay into the SS fund."

So it is mandated... if you want to function in this society, it's not optional.  

Quote

Regarding car insurance, you can set things up so you live near a co-worker and pay them gas money to take you to work. Convenient? Hardly, but still doable.

Yes, doable in the same way that the health insurance workaround is doable -- If you feel that strongly baout it, just move to a place where that's not the law.  But don't keep feeding off the vast majority who are forced to pay for your emergency room visits because you refuse to get health insurance.

lots said:

Quote

QUOTE (BklnScott @ Mar 22 2010, 07:06 PM)
You would give up tens of thousands to avoid paying a couple of thousand? Really?

Yes i would, because it is the principle of the matter.

That's fine, but let's not pretend that this position is rational.  It's spite.  

Quote

Lets face facts here. First, those making over the 250k mark are already paying more in taxes then those in the lower brackets...So they are already paying more then their fair share. And your response to this is to further increase a tax on them?

Second, someone making say 240K a year could still live a very very comfortable lifestyle, and not be subjected to more taxes...So why shouldn't those making over the 250K mark lower themselves down to a lower bracket, if it means avoiding an unfair tax?

Um... because they're giving up *more* money by doing that than they would be by just paying the extra couple K in taxes, that's why.  It's simple math.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#69 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 09:11 AM

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 23 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

^ You don't have to buy auto insurance. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want the privilege of driving.

"You don't have to buy auto insurance if you choose not to drive" sounds reasonable until you take into consideration just how many people wouldn't be able to make a living without driving.  You could say, "then let those people move to a place with excellent mass transit" but then again, you could also say to people who don't want to buy health insurance, "move to a place where you don't have to do that."  People are mandated to pay into social security, as well, of course.  It comes right out of our paychecks.  That's insurance, of a sort.  And there are other examples.

So, to me, this is a distinction without a difference.

You're not mandated to pay into Social Security either. Just like the income tax, you only pay if you have a job.

It's that easy, eh?  Just... don't have a job.  Well, yeah, if you're a street person, then you don't have to pay into social security.  But how reasonable is it to say to someone who doesn't want to pay into social security, "just quit your job, lose your home, be unable to feed and clothe yourself, etc, and you won't have to pay into the SS fund."

So it is mandated... if you want to function in this society, it's not optional.

You don't pay Social Security tax if you earn your money off investments or if you work for a railroad. You also don't pay it if you're retired and living off your savings.


Quote

Quote

Regarding car insurance, you can set things up so you live near a co-worker and pay them gas money to take you to work. Convenient? Hardly, but still doable.

Yes, doable in the same way that the health insurance workaround is doable -- If you feel that strongly baout it, just move to a place where that's not the law.  But don't keep feeding off the vast majority who are forced to pay for your emergency room visits because you refuse to get health insurance.

Carpooling or finding an apartment near a minimum-wage job can be done anywhere in the U.S. Or you can live in a college town. Those usually have decent bus systems. The fact is, if you want to, you get get by in the U.S. without a car. You can even prosper. Depending on where you live, it may not be convenient, but it can be done. And if you choose to do that, you're not in any way required to buy car insurance.

Meanwhile, if Congress has its way, there's nowhere in the U.S. you can go to escape their health bill. Of course, something like 34 states are objecting to the mandate, and maybe they'll win.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#70 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,035 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 09:35 AM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 23 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

Carpooling or finding an apartment near a minimum-wage job can be done anywhere in the U.S.

I think you mean any city in the US.  Half the country doesn't live in cities.

#71 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 09:43 AM

^ Actually, 80% of the U.S. population is urban, living in cities and their suburbs.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#72 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,035 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 09:53 AM

Ahha, I was thinking of the world, not the US.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Apologies, and thanks for the correction.  You'd think some day I'd learn never to quote ANY statistic without checking it...

#73 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:07 AM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 23 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

Quote

Quote

Regarding car insurance, you can set things up so you live near a co-worker and pay them gas money to take you to work. Convenient? Hardly, but still doable.

Yes, doable in the same way that the health insurance workaround is doable -- If you feel that strongly baout it, just move to a place where that's not the law.  But don't keep feeding off the vast majority who are forced to pay for your emergency room visits because you refuse to get health insurance.

Carpooling or finding an apartment near a minimum-wage job can be done anywhere in the U.S. Or you can live in a college town. Those usually have decent bus systems. The fact is, if you want to, you get get by in the U.S. without a car. You can even prosper. Depending on where you live, it may not be convenient, but it can be done. And if you choose to do that, you're not in any way required to buy car insurance.

Meanwhile, if Congress has its way, there's nowhere in the U.S. you can go to escape their health bill. Of course, something like 34 states are objecting to the mandate, and maybe they'll win.

So you're saying that forcing a person to move in order to avoid having to purchase car insurance is rasonable but forcing a person to move in order to avoid having to purchase health insurance is not?  In both cases, you're forcing the person to move.  

And yes, there should be nowhere in the US you can go to escape having to purchase health insurance, because people who refuse to do so are currently forcing the rest of us to pay for their medical care!  That doesn't bother you?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#74 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:23 AM

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 23 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

So you're saying that forcing a person to move in order to avoid having to purchase car insurance is rasonable but forcing a person to move in order to avoid having to purchase health insurance is not?  In both cases, you're forcing the person to move.
Unless you're going to live with your parents all your life, you're going to move before you set out on your own. Transportation arrangements should be considered at that time. And, again, you're forgetting about carpooling. Plus, if they decide they want to move, they usually would only have move to a different location near where they were before. Certainly, they could stay in their country of birth! You don't see the difference between possibly having to move across town and having to move to a different country entirely?


Quote

And yes, there should be nowhere in the US you can go to escape having to purchase health insurance, because people who refuse to do so are currently forcing the rest of us to pay for their medical care!  That doesn't bother you?
Whether it bothers me is irrelevant to the point at hand: the difference between the mandate to purchase health insurance if you live in the U.S. and the mandate to purchase car insurance if you want the privilege of driving.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#75 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:39 AM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 23 2010, 07:11 AM, said:

You're not mandated to pay into Social Security either. Just like the income tax, you only pay if you have a job.

I have to tell you, the precision you use in your arguments has always impressed me.  You're absolutely right, one can avoid these things if one has the ingenuity and the resources to avoid them.  It's not a full on mandate.

But, the fact that there's nothing exactly like it yet in our lives, doesn't mean that we haven't seen echoes of it all around our lives for quite some time.  Social Security, car Insurance, etc are all earlier versions of this kind of mandate.  They are enough "like" what we're seeing in the Health Bill to be a kissing cousin.  And if I wanted to I could find the exception to this too.  

Anyone can avoid this fine by staying well.  It's inconvenient to have to pay so much attention to your health, and a lot of safety measures would have to be taken into consideration to avoid illness, but if someone wanted to avoid paying any of this, it could be done.  Just never seek out the care of a doctor.  I mean millions of people already do it this way, and stay away from any emergency hospital to avoid detection and paying a fine or enrolling in a Plan.

Or, one can find a doctor on the black market that I"m sure will spring into action over this Bill.  See a doctor that will take cash under the table.  Buy your Drugs in another country, or find them on the Black Market.  It can be done.  How is the government going to find out you don't have Health Insurance if you never see a doctor?  Because no one is going to come around to our homes to see our card, they'll count on facilities to check that for us.  No card--no services.  Or you're enrolled on the spot.

So anything can be avoided with a little determination.  

But, I think arguing whether there is or isn't something exactly like this is sort of missing the point, isn't it?  I'm wondering if you think that because there is nothing exactly like this, that there will be a successful challenge in the Courts?  I'm honestly wondering the same thing.  The Courts are decidedly conservative, and if this can make it to the Supremes, there might be a case.



Quote

You don't pay Social Security tax if you earn your money off investments or if you work for a railroad. You also don't pay it if you're retired and living off your savings.

That's correct.  But if you want to work for someone, [as most people do] you have to pay SS taxes.  Again, arguing that it can be avoided under certain circumstances takes us to what really is a moot point, doesn't it?  Anything can be avoided if you want to.  Every tax can be avoided--even income tax--Just work for cash and for yourself.  Every so-called mandate can be avoided.  All any of us has to do is avoid the activity involved or in the case of health services, find an alternative.  But is this a rational course of action for most people?  

Quote

Carpooling or finding an apartment near a minimum-wage job can be done anywhere in the U.S. Or you can live in a college town. Those usually have decent bus systems. The fact is, if you want to, you get get by in the U.S. without a car. You can even prosper. Depending on where you live, it may not be convenient, but it can be done. And if you choose to do that, you're not in any way required to buy car insurance.

Correct.  Car Insurance can be avoided in this way.

Quote

Meanwhile, if Congress has its way, there's nowhere in the U.S. you can go to escape their health bill. Of course, something like 34 states are objecting to the mandate, and maybe they'll win.

Health Insurance can be avoided too.  It can be avoided much the same way it is avoided now.  Simply don't go to the doctor.  And, yes, eventually one is going to need to see a doctor [or die], but  for the vast majority of people that's a long way off.  Millions of people will be able to successfully avoid this mandate buy simply never using the services.  Or do you think someone is going to come around to our homes or jobs and make sure we have a Health Provider?  I'm pretty sure they'll use the other end--at the point of service to enroll or get info to fine.

Not using the services isn't something new either.  So, like car Insurance, this can be avoided.  Simply never use the service.  Never drive.  Never become employed.  It's inconvenient, but doable.  Truth is, we're all going to die in the end.  One could avoid a doctor and a hospital for life if they just accept death as a consequence at some point.  But that same consequence exists for people with Insurance too.  We're all going to die.

It will be very interesting to watch the unintended consequences of this Bill.  I wonder what kind of underground prescriptions will be available.  There are already hundreds of script doctors for drugs, all any of them have to do is begin writing for other drugs too.  And believe me it is very easy to find prescription drugs on the street or find a doctor that ":will write".  I'll wager that won't change.  

And, does anyone know, does this Bill say anything about cash?  I mean will paying cash [or self-insuring] be an exception?  Because I'm thinking self-insuring is also a way to avoid the fine and enrolling.  In California, [not sure if it is still this way though] people have been able to self-insure to avoid the car Insurance mandate.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#76 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:03 AM

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 23 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

But, the fact that there's nothing exactly like it yet in our lives, doesn't mean that we haven't seen echoes of it all around our lives for quite some time.  Social Security, car Insurance, etc are all earlier versions of this kind of mandate.  They are enough "like" what we're seeing in the Health Bill to be a kissing cousin.  And if I wanted to I could find the exception to this too.
I don't think they're that close at all. Social Security doesn't require you to enter into a contract with a private party. Neither does the income tax. They're simply taxes on income, not an effort aimed at coercing behavior.

The closer parallel is states' requirement that if you want to use their road system, you must prove you have the ability to cover any damages to others you might inflict. The most common way to provide such proof is with car insurance, but AFAIK some states let you prove ability to pay out of your personal wealth.


Quote

Anyone can avoid this fine by staying well.  It's inconvenient to have to pay so much attention to your health, and a lot of safety measures would have to be taken into consideration to avoid illness, but if someone wanted to avoid paying any of this, it could be done.  Just never seek out the care of a doctor.  I mean millions of people already do it this way, and stay away from any emergency hospital to avoid detection and paying a fine or enrolling in a Plan.
No, that wouldn't get you out of paying the fine for not having health insurance. The bill's requirement is not that you have health insurance if you see a doctor but that you have health insurance period.


Quote

So anything can be avoided with a little determination.
Your examples involve black markets and hiding income from the IRS!


Quote

And, does anyone know, does this Bill say anything about cash?  I mean will paying cash [or self-insuring] be an exception?  Because I'm thinking self-insuring is also a way to avoid the fine and enrolling.  In California, [not sure if it is still this way though] people have been able to self-insure to avoid the car Insurance mandate.
I'm not aware of any such provision in the health bill. Such a provision may be in the bill, but that's not how the mandate has been presented.

Edited by Palisade, 23 March 2010 - 11:09 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#77 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:18 AM

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold. So you could theoretically avoid the penalty the same way you could theoretically avoid paying Social Security -- by not making any money.

Edited by Dev F, 23 March 2010 - 11:19 AM.


#78 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:34 AM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 23 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 23 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

But, the fact that there's nothing exactly like it yet in our lives, doesn't mean that we haven't seen echoes of it all around our lives for quite some time.  Social Security, car Insurance, etc are all earlier versions of this kind of mandate.  They are enough "like" what we're seeing in the Health Bill to be a kissing cousin.  And if I wanted to I could find the exception to this too.


I don't think they're that close at all. Social Security doesn't require you to enter into a contract with a private party. Neither does the income tax. They're simply taxes on income, not an effort aimed at coercing behavior.

The closer parallel is states' requirement that if you want to use their road system, you must prove you have the ability to cover any damages to others you might inflict. The most common way to provide such proof is with car insurance, but AFAIK some states let you prove ability to pay out of your personal wealth.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.  I think that my State forcing me to purchase car Insurance is similar enough to my country forcing me to have health Insurance to be a "kissing cousin", but I just don't see where this line of argument is taking us Palisade.  What point are you making, besides the point that these things aren't identical.  I think I'm missing the larger point you're trying to make with all this.

How do you think the government will enforce this mandate?  Do you really think they will hunt us all down and force us to opt into some Insurance plan? Or will they do it at the other end of service?  I think the logistics alone require that it be done at the point of service.  Which means it can be avoided, by avoiding services.  Or at least waiting to opt into a plan until you need it.

Although, I'll admit, if someone does come to my door and force me to sign up [or else], I'll be surprised and as worried as some on the Right.  Not just because someone from the government is at my door [which is bad enough], but also because of the waste of money to do it that way, when point of service is a much better way to make sure people have Insurance.  I'm just sayin'

Since it might be confusing otherwise, let me state for the record, I don't like this plan.  I think it is the best thing to happen to Insurance companies, but not for the population.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#79 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,035 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 11:43 AM

I imagine enforcement will be via the IRS, since they've already got the income information, and they're the ones slapping you with the fines.

A closer analogy to this might be education tax credits.  The fact that my wife is in college reduces my tax bill significantly.  If I didn't have a contract with a private entity, I'd be paying much higher taxes.  It's the government trying to manipulate your behavior by tax incentives, it's just that in this case it happens to be higher taxes if you don't do what they want, instead of lower taxes if you do.

#80 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:15 PM

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold.

How nice for me. :rolleyes:

How can I be penalized for not having insurance when I get DENIED.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ObamaCare, 2010

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users