Dems, please stop this stupid and dishonest talking point now.

[Dr.House]

OR those who know they are sick, but don't seek care as without insurance they cannot afford it. Then infect others around them?

Yeah. That's been a major problem in health care. Not.

Are you always this stupid?

Awsome debate skillz....

 

[rdean]

Bob Beckel, trying to defend the "personal mandate" part of the health scare bill -- comparing the requirement to either get "approved" health insurance from a private firm, get on the government's insurance or be fined up to 15% of your income -- to the requirement by law to get auto insurance?

You have to have auto insurance, by law it's required, this is no different.

First off, auto insurance isn't required if you don't own a car or don't fucking drive. So, there's no comparison. But let's take this stupid shit anyway and run with it, I'll fix this little dishonest talking point for you.

What would you all think if the government got into the auto insurance business, offering "competition" for us against those evil insurance companies. BUT, in order to make it fair, EVERYONE has to have an auto insurance policy whether you actually own a car, or drive, or not. Otherwise you get a fine every year that is 15% of your income.

NOW the comparison is valid. And I'm sorry to inform you, that "fine" is a fucking TAX no matter how you try to mealy-mouth your way around it. The plan is to have the IRS collect this fine, every year on your TAXES if you don't comply with the government mandated health insurance program. It's a TAX. A Health Care TAX.

You'll have to show "proof of health insurance" to avoid the fine.

Another reason the comparison isn't valid, we actually have little to no choice if we get sick or get seriously injured. It's fate. So now, in order to guard against fate, we will be required to carry health insurance whether we ever need it or use it or not.

How about a rebate then, for those who never have to use their health care insurance? The idea is, the uninsured are a burden on the system. Okay then, for ones who are not, they are penalized for good health and well-being, and for avoiding injury? Penalized, for that? For not being a burden?

This is yet another reason this idiotic health scare shit is bad, too intrusive, and wasteful. Young adults, are you really ready to be required by law to buy something most of you don't need and will never use, or be penalized? Or, if you have or get health insurance, will you be out there unnecessarily using it in order to get your money's worth?

Because there will be NO rebate if you don't ever use the shit, so you might as well just frivolously use it, correct? FLOODING the health care system with extra check-ups, meds you don't need, and such?

C'mon now.... This is just more half-baked, ill-conceived shit out of Washington.

I think if you have no health insurance, you shouldn't be allowed to go to the emergency room. That would make Republicans happy. Put a cap on cost.
Sorry, if little Johnny gets hit by a car, he will just have to die. Oops.

 

[Big Black Dog]

There are quite a few people in the country that because of their station in life are "self-insured". Wonder if the government is going to require these people to buy into the mandatory insurance? Been wondering about that.

 

[VaYank5150]

How does that compare? No one is "turned away" from the roads because they don't have auto insurance.

Of course they are...if the vehicle they are riding in isn't insured they are turned away from the roads.

IF they are stopped. The IRS doesn't verify their auto insurance, then TAX them if they don't have it.

And how is this any different than the people who will pay this penalty IF they are caught?

 

[VaYank5150]

There are quite a few people in the country that because of their station in life are "self-insured". Wonder if the government is going to require these people to buy into the mandatory insurance? Been wondering about that.

If they are self insured, why would they be forced to buy into anything?

EDIT: Started thinking about this again. By self insured, do you mean they have so much money that they simply do not worry about buying health insurance as they do not need it to pay for healthcare?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Of course they are...if the vehicle they are riding in isn't insured they are turned away from the roads.

IF they are stopped. The IRS doesn't verify their auto insurance, then TAX them if they don't have it.

And how is this any different than the people who will pay this penalty IF they are caught?

That is a FINE stupid. Issued by a judge, in court where you have a RIGHT to defend against it, you might even beat it. They have to prove their case there, and there are several options, plea bargains, to avoid the fine.

See the difference now? I doubt it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There are quite a few people in the country that because of their station in life are "self-insured". Wonder if the government is going to require these people to buy into the mandatory insurance? Been wondering about that.

If they are self insured, why would they be forced to buy into anything?

EDIT: Started thinking about this again. By self insured, do you mean they have so much money that they simply do not worry about buying health insurance as they do not need it to pay for healthcare?

THOSE people will not have "approved" health care plans, and WILL be taxed 15% of their income.

 

[Ravi]

IF they are stopped. The IRS doesn't verify their auto insurance, then TAX them if they don't have it.

And how is this any different than the people who will pay this penalty IF they are caught?

That is a FINE stupid. Issued by a judge, in court where you have a RIGHT to defend against it, you might even beat it. They have to prove their case there, and there are several options, plea bargains, to avoid the fine.

See the difference now? I doubt it.

You have a right to appeal anything the IRS slaps you for.

Fail.

 

[VaYank5150]

There are quite a few people in the country that because of their station in life are "self-insured". Wonder if the government is going to require these people to buy into the mandatory insurance? Been wondering about that.

If they are self insured, why would they be forced to buy into anything?

EDIT: Started thinking about this again. By self insured, do you mean they have so much money that they simply do not worry about buying health insurance as they do not need it to pay for healthcare?

THOSE people will not have "approved" health care plans, and WILL be taxed 15% of their income.

Let's stop with the partisan bickering for a second. This is a good question and I do not know if it is addressed in any of the bills currently being debated. Does anyone know?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I think if you have no health insurance, you shouldn't be allowed to go to the emergency room. That would make Republicans happy. Put a cap on cost.
Sorry, if little Johnny gets hit by a car, he will just have to die. Oops.

You're just a liar. No one is against indigent or emergency care. Any idea how it's mostly paid for? Local property taxes and government grants, which are already our tax dollars at work.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If they are self insured, why would they be forced to buy into anything?

EDIT: Started thinking about this again. By self insured, do you mean they have so much money that they simply do not worry about buying health insurance as they do not need it to pay for healthcare?

THOSE people will not have "approved" health care plans, and WILL be taxed 15% of their income.

Let's stop with the partisan bickering for a second. This is a good question and I do not know if it is addressed in any of the bills currently being debated. Does anyone know?

This is all in every version of the health care reform shown so far. Including the latest from that latest moron in the Senate.

And I'm not a partisan. I voted FOR Obama and have voted for Dems, repugs, Indys, greens, libertarians, all my life. Just FYFI.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And how is this any different than the people who will pay this penalty IF they are caught?

That is a FINE stupid. Issued by a judge, in court where you have a RIGHT to defend against it, you might even beat it. They have to prove their case there, and there are several options, plea bargains, to avoid the fine.

See the difference now? I doubt it.

You have a right to appeal anything the IRS slaps you for.

Fail.

Not this.

YOU fail. And you know it.

A Fine is NOT a tax. A Fine is court ordered, a TAX is simply taken out of your PAY, on a percentage.

 

[Ravi]

That is a FINE stupid. Issued by a judge, in court where you have a RIGHT to defend against it, you might even beat it. They have to prove their case there, and there are several options, plea bargains, to avoid the fine.

See the difference now? I doubt it.

You have a right to appeal anything the IRS slaps you for.

Fail.

Not this.

YOU fail. And you know it.

A Fine is NOT a tax. A Fine is court ordered, a TAX is simply taken out of your PAY, on a percentage.

A fine is a tax for doing wrong...a tax is a fine for doing well.

EPIC FAIL!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You have a right to appeal anything the IRS slaps you for.

Fail.

Not this.

YOU fail. And you know it.

A Fine is NOT a tax. A Fine is court ordered, a TAX is simply taken out of your PAY, on a percentage.

A fine is a tax for doing wrong...a tax is a fine for doing well.

EPIC FAIL!

A fine is NOT a tax, ever.

fine

1. a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction: a parking fine. 2. Law. a fee paid by a feudal tenant to the landlord, as on the renewal of tenure. 3. English Law. (formerly) a conveyance of land through decree of a court, based upon a simulated lawsuit. 4. Archaic. a penalty of any kind.
–verb (used with object) 5. to subject to a fine or pecuniary penalty; punish by a fine: The judge fined him and released him on parole.

Are you ready to show your proof of health insurance to the IRS? Because that is what you will have to do to avoid the tax.

 

[xotoxi]

Bob Beckel, trying to defend the "personal mandate" part of the health scare bill -- comparing the requirement to either get "approved" health insurance from a private firm, get on the government's insurance or be fined up to 15% of your income -- to the requirement by law to get auto insurance?



First off, auto insurance isn't required if you don't own a car or don't fucking drive. So, there's no comparison. But let's take this stupid shit anyway and run with it, I'll fix this little dishonest talking point for you.

What would you all think if the government got into the auto insurance business, offering "competition" for us against those evil insurance companies. BUT, in order to make it fair, EVERYONE has to have an auto insurance policy whether you actually own a car, or drive, or not. Otherwise you get a fine every year that is 15% of your income.

NOW the comparison is valid. And I'm sorry to inform you, that "fine" is a fucking TAX no matter how you try to mealy-mouth your way around it. The plan is to have the IRS collect this fine, every year on your TAXES if you don't comply with the government mandated health insurance program. It's a TAX. A Health Care TAX.

You'll have to show "proof of health insurance" to avoid the fine.

Another reason the comparison isn't valid, we actually have little to no choice if we get sick or get seriously injured. It's fate. So now, in order to guard against fate, we will be required to carry health insurance whether we ever need it or use it or not.

How about a rebate then, for those who never have to use their health care insurance? The idea is, the uninsured are a burden on the system. Okay then, for ones who are not, they are penalized for good health and well-being, and for avoiding injury? Penalized, for that? For not being a burden?

This is yet another reason this idiotic health scare shit is bad, too intrusive, and wasteful. Young adults, are you really ready to be required by law to buy something most of you don't need and will never use, or be penalized? Or, if you have or get health insurance, will you be out there unnecessarily using it in order to get your money's worth?

Because there will be NO rebate if you don't ever use the shit, so you might as well just frivolously use it, correct? FLOODING the health care system with extra check-ups, meds you don't need, and such?

C'mon now.... This is just more half-baked, ill-conceived shit out of Washington.

This is NOT a valid comparison. While some people do not drive, everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, and if they CHOOSE not to have insurance, then I pay for them.

I see you failed to read the entire post, or failed to comprehend it. Try again.

BECKEL'S comparison is NOT valid. The only way to MAKE it valid is if auto insurance was required for ALL whether they actually own a car, drive or not. Those are CHOICES.

Paying a TAX because you don't want something you might never use is stupid. Making people get health insurance, without a REBATE for not using it annually, is simply theft.

Here is something to think about...

You are arguing that the health insurance mandate would be forced on every individual whether they like it or not...but that this is different than the auto insurance mandate as it is not required by people who have no automobile.

However, a more appropriate and accurate comparison is that the health insurance mandate would be forced on healthy individuals who are fit and do not get injured that have no need for healthcare...just like the auto insurance is forced on drivers that do not get into accidents or speed.

If you don't plan to get sick or injured and you keep yourself healthy, you have no need for health insurance. If you don't plan to speed, drive recklessly, or get into accidents, then you have no need for auto insurance.

To make your comparison valid, you would have to exclude all individuals that do not drive or have a car...and you would have to exclude all individuals that do not have a health status (which would be no one).

 

[pal_of_poor]

Bob Beckel, trying to defend the "personal mandate" part of the health scare bill -- comparing the requirement to either get "approved" health insurance from a private firm, get on the government's insurance or be fined up to 15% of your income -- to the requirement by law to get auto insurance?

You have to have auto insurance, by law it's required, this is no different.

First off, auto insurance isn't required if you don't own a car or don't fucking drive. So, there's no comparison. But let's take this stupid shit anyway and run with it, I'll fix this little dishonest talking point for you.

What would you all think if the government got into the auto insurance business, offering "competition" for us against those evil insurance companies. BUT, in order to make it fair, EVERYONE has to have an auto insurance policy whether you actually own a car, or drive, or not. Otherwise you get a fine every year that is 15% of your income.

NOW the comparison is valid. And I'm sorry to inform you, that "fine" is a fucking TAX no matter how you try to mealy-mouth your way around it. The plan is to have the IRS collect this fine, every year on your TAXES if you don't comply with the government mandated health insurance program. It's a TAX. A Health Care TAX.

You'll have to show "proof of health insurance" to avoid the fine.

Another reason the comparison isn't valid, we actually have little to no choice if we get sick or get seriously injured. It's fate. So now, in order to guard against fate, we will be required to carry health insurance whether we ever need it or use it or not.

How about a rebate then, for those who never have to use their health care insurance? The idea is, the uninsured are a burden on the system. Okay then, for ones who are not, they are penalized for good health and well-being, and for avoiding injury? Penalized, for that? For not being a burden?

This is yet another reason this idiotic health scare shit is bad, too intrusive, and wasteful. Young adults, are you really ready to be required by law to buy something most of you don't need and will never use, or be penalized? Or, if you have or get health insurance, will you be out there unnecessarily using it in order to get your money's worth?

Because there will be NO rebate if you don't ever use the shit, so you might as well just frivolously use it, correct? FLOODING the health care system with extra check-ups, meds you don't need, and such?

C'mon now.... This is just more half-baked, ill-conceived shit out of Washington.

I agree, the fine is a tax, but it is like forcing people to buy auto insurance. I don't really like that idea either.

Insurance is the worst of ways to spread the effects of catastrophe. Like banks, financial institutions, insurance companies are used to further bleed money from the poor and middle class up to the top.

Single-payer is the best way, and we all just need to face the fact, that the 3800 for a family of four, fine, is wrong, and in fact, it is the very tax some on the right feared in the first place, with no benefit. So, why not just pass single-payer, we'll stop buying health insurance, our employers will be relieved of the responsibility, and likely a lot of folks will get an equivalet raise, we'll be covered, and we'll be using some of that saved money, to pay taxes needed, with a small administration fee, to pay taxes for the plan.

So, for less money, we'll all be covered. For ten percent of the economy, instead of 17 percent, and the insurance companies can sell their private jets, gold leaf plates, and goldend forks and spoons to the banking industry executives. I think more than anything, all of this harrangue we've suffered through, has pointed out how we just need a simple, single-payer system.

Like it or not, if we do nothing, more are going to end up uninsured, more will have the problem, and eventually when we do reach a solution, it is very likely to be even more government involved. The problem isn't going away, but is going to follow the trend it is already doing, and is going to get more prohibitavely expensive, ever increasing the ranks of the uninsured.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Here is something to think about...

You are arguing that the health insurance mandate would be forced on every individual whether they like it or not...but that this is different than the auto insurance mandate as it is not required by people who have no automobile.

However, a more appropriate and accurate comparison is that the health insurance mandate would be forced on healthy individuals who are fit and do not get injured that have no need for healthcare...just like the auto insurance is forced on drivers that do not get into accidents or speed.

If you don't plan to get sick or injured and you keep yourself healthy, you have no need for health insurance. If you don't plan to speed, drive recklessly, or get into accidents, then you have no need for auto insurance.

To make your comparison valid, you would have to exclude all individuals that do not drive or have a car...and you would have to exclude all individuals that do not have a health status (which would be no one).

Beckel's comparison isn't valid, In fact it's insulting and stupid. Because auto insurance is a choice, one you have to make if you drive. (And it's state mandated, not federal and isn't administered by the IRS.) Lots of people don't ever drive, should they be federally mandated to buy auto insurance anyway?

And the point I made about rebates for those who don't use their health insurance for that year? Verified by you. C'mon -- these people aren't burdening the system, why should they be punished for having good health and good luck in not getting hurt?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Bob Beckel, trying to defend the "personal mandate" part of the health scare bill -- comparing the requirement to either get "approved" health insurance from a private firm, get on the government's insurance or be fined up to 15% of your income -- to the requirement by law to get auto insurance?

You have to have auto insurance, by law it's required, this is no different.

First off, auto insurance isn't required if you don't own a car or don't fucking drive. So, there's no comparison. But let's take this stupid shit anyway and run with it, I'll fix this little dishonest talking point for you.

What would you all think if the government got into the auto insurance business, offering "competition" for us against those evil insurance companies. BUT, in order to make it fair, EVERYONE has to have an auto insurance policy whether you actually own a car, or drive, or not. Otherwise you get a fine every year that is 15% of your income.

NOW the comparison is valid. And I'm sorry to inform you, that "fine" is a fucking TAX no matter how you try to mealy-mouth your way around it. The plan is to have the IRS collect this fine, every year on your TAXES if you don't comply with the government mandated health insurance program. It's a TAX. A Health Care TAX.

You'll have to show "proof of health insurance" to avoid the fine.

Another reason the comparison isn't valid, we actually have little to no choice if we get sick or get seriously injured. It's fate. So now, in order to guard against fate, we will be required to carry health insurance whether we ever need it or use it or not.

How about a rebate then, for those who never have to use their health care insurance? The idea is, the uninsured are a burden on the system. Okay then, for ones who are not, they are penalized for good health and well-being, and for avoiding injury? Penalized, for that? For not being a burden?

This is yet another reason this idiotic health scare shit is bad, too intrusive, and wasteful. Young adults, are you really ready to be required by law to buy something most of you don't need and will never use, or be penalized? Or, if you have or get health insurance, will you be out there unnecessarily using it in order to get your money's worth?

Because there will be NO rebate if you don't ever use the shit, so you might as well just frivolously use it, correct? FLOODING the health care system with extra check-ups, meds you don't need, and such?

C'mon now.... This is just more half-baked, ill-conceived shit out of Washington.

I agree, the fine is a tax, but it is like forcing people to buy auto insurance. I don't really like that idea either.

Insurance is the worst of ways to spread the effects of catastrophe. Like banks, financial institutions, insurance companies are used to further bleed money from the poor and middle class up to the top.

Single-payer is the best way, and we all just need to face the fact, that the 3800 for a family of four, fine, is wrong, and in fact, it is the very tax some on the right feared in the first place, with no benefit. So, why not just pass single-payer, we'll stop buying health insurance, our employers will be relieved of the responsibility, and likely a lot of folks will get an equivalet raise, we'll be covered, and we'll be using some of that saved money, to pay taxes needed, with a small administration fee, to pay taxes for the plan.

So, for less money, we'll all be covered. For ten percent of the economy, instead of 17 percent, and the insurance companies can sell their private jets, gold leaf plates, and goldend forks and spoons to the banking industry executives. I think more than anything, all of this harrangue we've suffered through, has pointed out how we just need a simple, single-payer system.

Like it or not, if we do nothing, more are going to end up uninsured, more will have the problem, and eventually when we do reach a solution, it is very likely to be even more government involved. The problem isn't going away, but is going to follow the trend it is already doing, and is going to get more prohibitavely expensive, ever increasing the ranks of the uninsured.

All you gotta do is get the Dems in Congress to agree on what to do. They need no GOP votes or support at all to do whatever they want to do.

 

[Ravi]

Not this.

YOU fail. And you know it.

A Fine is NOT a tax. A Fine is court ordered, a TAX is simply taken out of your PAY, on a percentage.

A fine is a tax for doing wrong...a tax is a fine for doing well.

EPIC FAIL!

A fine is NOT a tax, ever.

fine

1. a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction: a parking fine. 2. Law. a fee paid by a feudal tenant to the landlord, as on the renewal of tenure. 3. English Law. (formerly) a conveyance of land through decree of a court, based upon a simulated lawsuit. 4. Archaic. a penalty of any kind.
–verb (used with object) 5. to subject to a fine or pecuniary penalty; punish by a fine: The judge fined him and released him on parole.

Are you ready to show your proof of health insurance to the IRS? Because that is what you will have to do to avoid the tax.

It's the same thing...if I do something wrong in paying my taxes, I am charged a penalty by the IRS. In other words a fine. If this is true, that people will be charged a penalty by the IRS...then it is no different than a fine levied against you for not having auto insurance. Just a different agency collecting the money.

And no, I already have to prove all kinds of things to the IRS so this wouldn't be an undue burden, proving that I have health insurance.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I agree, the fine is a tax, but it is like forcing people to buy auto insurance.

No, it would be like forcing EVERYONE to buy auto insurance whether they drove or not, owned a car or not. And it would be federal, administered by the IRS not the states. Beckel's comparison is stupid and insulting.

But I am glad you see the tax for what it is, a tax.