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

[Midnight Marauder]

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 those penalties show up on your tax bill, and can be taken out of your check in increments. Just like this new tax.

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.

You don't know what the burden will be, because it's not spelled out clearly what "approved" private health insurance will even be!

 

[xotoxi]

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?

I'm not sure if you saw my point (I'm trying to be devils advocate...for the most part I agree with you on this).

My point is that if you drive, you are required to purchase auto insurance whether you need it or not, or whether you use it or not.

Therefore, if you have a health status, then you would be required to purchase health insurance.

I'm not sure I agree with that...but there is a point when perfectly healthy individuals have something happen to them unexpectedly that results in great expense for them and places a burden on the health system...such as cancer or a major accident.

I would like to see that the most minimum coverage of health insurance is made affordable for anyone to buy and would be too good to pass up. Or some sort of incentives to stay healthy, where your premiums would continue to drop yearly if you remained healthy.

 

[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?

I'm not sure if you saw my point (I'm trying to be devils advocate...for the most part I agree with you on this).

My point is that if you drive, you are required to purchase auto insurance whether you need it or not, or whether you use it or not.

Therefore, if you have a health status, then you would be required to purchase health insurance.

I'm not sure I agree with that...but there is a point when perfectly healthy individuals have something happen to them unexpectedly that results in great expense for them and places a burden on the health system...such as cancer or a major accident.

I would like to see that the most minimum coverage of health insurance is made affordable for anyone to buy and would be too good to pass up. Or some sort of incentives to stay healthy, where your premiums would continue to drop yearly if you remained healthy.

The devil is always in the details, and the only detail we have is the poor won't have this tax, and won't have coverage either since they won't even be able to afford the government plan.

So, where are we now?

Do you agree that Beckel's comparison is stupid and dishonest?

 

[Ame®icano]

Talk about "Stupid Talking Points"

"People who don't have cars don't have to have auto insurance"

How about we make the law so that only people who have health have to have health insurance?

Especially those who say, "I've never been sick a day in my life" and then soak the system once they eventually do get sick

I am paying insurance for me and my family for some 20 years now. Even my wife and kids used it, I hardly ever did, but I always paid my premiums. That is called responsibility.

There are plenty of people who are actually capable of buying health insurance but not doing so. I am not responsible for them, and none of you is. They should take a little responsibility for themselves and buy it on their own. If they don't, well... screw them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fine is "socialization" of the risk of getting ill. It does not matter if someone is healthy now, because that is not guaranted in the future. Debate it all you want, but it is not unconstitutional or illegal. However, I believe it will be too unpopular to be included in the final bill.

 

[Ravi]

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 those penalties show up on your tax bill, and can be taken out of your check in increments. Just like this new tax.

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.

You don't know what the burden will be, because it's not spelled out clearly what "approved" private health insurance will even be!

Any fine imposed by a government body can be taken out of your paycheck.

You asked if I'd mind proving to the IRS that I have health insurance. The answer is no.

 

[Polk]

The only way to make this a fair comparison is if language in included in the healthcare bill allowing healthcare providers to turn away people with out insurance.

Exactly, but you'll never get them to realize that.

 

[Polk]

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.

Actually, a big chunk of it is paid for by hospital's charging increased rates to people with the ability to pay.

 

[bill777]

I was originally going to say that comparing auto insurance to health insurance was as ignorant as it gets, but the more I think about it, it's a valid comparison. Mandatory auto insurance has been a disaster for this country, and mandatory health insurance will be the same. When you make something mandatory, people have to buy it, they have no choioce, and there are no market mechanisms to regulate the price. I was going to say bad post, but now I have to say good post. I guess I'm the ignorant one.

 

[Polk]

The fine is "socialization" of the risk of getting ill. It does not matter if someone is healthy now, because that is not guaranted in the future. Debate it all you want, but it is not unconstitutional or illegal. However, I believe it will be too unpopular to be included in the final bill.

This hits on why health insurance isn't like any other form of insurance, and why it's ultimately such a failure. Car insurance provides protection if you get into an accident. You're paying a fee to a firm to balance your risk (most people would be better off without the insurance, but they're willing to pay a fixed amount to guarantee they don't get hit with a big loss all at once). Homeowners insurance works the same way. Most people will never have their house burn down, but people are willing to pay an amount to avoid a huge loss that may never come. Both of these work on the same principle: insurance protects against risk. The same idea applies to term life insurance (it doesn't apply to whole life insurance, which strictly speaking isn't really a form of insurance, but that's another matter for another day).

Health insurance isn't like these things. You may never get in car accident. Your house may never burn down. However, you will eventually get sick. It will not be the same illness for everyone, but it will happen. It's impossible to create an insurance model for a known outcome that is both profitable for insurance companies and valuable to consumers.

 

[Polk]

I was originally going to say that comparing auto insurance to health insurance was as ignorant as it gets, but the more I think about it, it's a valid comparison. Mandatory auto insurance has been a disaster for this country, and mandatory health insurance will be the same. When you make something mandatory, people have to buy it, they have no choioce, and there are no market mechanisms to regulate the price. I was going to say bad post, but now I have to say good post. I guess I'm the ignorant one.

Market mechanisms still exist to regulate prices for auto insurance, just as they will for health insurance. You can just buy an auto insurance policy that meets state minimums, but most people also buy coverage to protect themselves and their assets. In the case of health insurance, some people will want cheaper policies and will accept that it will limit their choice of doctors (before someone starts screaming "see, government choosing your doctor", that's already how the current system works) and some people will be willing to pay extra to be able to choose any doctor they want. The ultimate goal of health care reform though would be limits on the amount a person pays out of pocket. The result of that would be that insurers would be forced to compete on quality.

 

[Maple]

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.

This is the one point that I totally agree with Obama on, you are going to have to carry a health care policy. It is estimated that 15 million Americans who can afford health care simply don't purchase it, they would rather buy the tv or the new car. They end up in our emergency rooms and that cost, because their treatment is not free, is passed back onto us, the consumer in higher fees for services. When you do higher fees for services, the insurance company picks up on that higher costs and drives up the cost of health insurance premiums which are skyrocketing.

I noticed that you stated somethnig about weather you ever use it or not. I can guarantee you that sometime in your life you will use your health care and your health care insurance, that is guaranteed, but to simply cop out and think that you are bullet proof is irresponsible to not only yourself, but to your family, friends and other American citizens as well. People are arguing that this forced mandate would be against the constitution, well it should be against the constitution for me to pay for you.

With this issue I am in total agreement with the President. It has to be done.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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 don't get a rebate if I never have a car accident, but I am not crazy enough to take a chance on going without. I don't get a rebate from AAA if I never call them, but I am not crazy enough to go without.

Oh, and I pay into a system that covers all those uninsureds that go without, in case, just in case they should have had it, but didn't. "Cause I ain't crazy enough to go without!"

 

[Maple]

I was originally going to say that comparing auto insurance to health insurance was as ignorant as it gets, but the more I think about it, it's a valid comparison. Mandatory auto insurance has been a disaster for this country, and mandatory health insurance will be the same. When you make something mandatory, people have to buy it, they have no choioce, and there are no market mechanisms to regulate the price. I was going to say bad post, but now I have to say good post. I guess I'm the ignorant one.

Mandatory auto insurance has been a disaster, How is that??? That's a down right ridiculous statement. You get in a wreck, it's your fault and you don't think that you should have to pay for damages. You get sick with cancer, you go and get treatment and you don't think that you should have to pay?? Who the hell do you think is going to be responsible for paying for your irresponsibility??? The tooth fairy?? Get real here, the gravy train is over.

 

[bill777]

Market mechanisms still exist to regulate prices for auto insurance

I don't what state or nation you live in, but in mine they don't exist. Name one. There are no market mechanisms, there is just a state control board dictating terms, and every year the insurance companies go crawling to them to negotiate higher rates. If you think that that means capitalism, then I pity you.

 

[Ravi]

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.

This is the one point that I totally agree with Obama on, you are going to have to carry a health care policy. It is estimated that 15 million Americans who can afford health care simply don't purchase it, they would rather buy the tv or the new car. They end up in our emergency rooms and that cost, because their treatment is not free, is passed back onto us, the consumer in higher fees for services. When you do higher fees for services, the insurance company picks up on that higher costs and drives up the cost of health insurance premiums which are skyrocketing.

I noticed that you stated somethnig about weather you ever use it or not. I can guarantee you that sometime in your life you will use your health care and your health care insurance, that is guaranteed, but to simply cop out and think that you are bullet proof is irresponsible to not only yourself, but to your family, friends and other American citizens as well. People are arguing that this forced mandate would be against the constitution, well it should be against the constitution for me to pay for you.

With this issue I am in total agreement with the President. It has to be done.

Damn it! You forced me to rep you. Excellent post.

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

This is the one point that I totally agree with Obama on, you are going to have to carry a health care policy. It is estimated that 15 million Americans who can afford health care simply don't purchase it, they would rather buy the tv or the new car. They end up in our emergency rooms and that cost, because their treatment is not free, is passed back onto us, the consumer in higher fees for services. When you do higher fees for services, the insurance company picks up on that higher costs and drives up the cost of health insurance premiums which are skyrocketing.

I noticed that you stated somethnig about weather you ever use it or not. I can guarantee you that sometime in your life you will use your health care and your health care insurance, that is guaranteed, but to simply cop out and think that you are bullet proof is irresponsible to not only yourself, but to your family, friends and other American citizens as well. People are arguing that this forced mandate would be against the constitution, well it should be against the constitution for me to pay for you.

With this issue I am in total agreement with the President. It has to be done.

Who are you and what did you do with Maple?