Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why aren't you saying that about Ryan's kill-Medicare plan?
Which forces seniors to buy private insurance...
Actually, your question and the issue itself are moot there is no individual mandate:
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Page 249
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
Because there are no criminal penalties ...
Sorry, but I'm not buying this any more than I believed Obama when he promised us the individual mandate wasn't a tax. This is more shifty bullshit. To wit - it might be legal to simply ignore the fine levied via the mandate, but here's what will happen:
Let's say the feds levy a $1000 fine against you for not coughing up blood money to the insurance corps. Let's say you owe $2000 in income tax. You file your taxes and send in your check for $2000. What do you suppose the IRS will do with that check? I'm betting that they snatch the first $1000 and apply it to your fine, then send you nasty letter demanding the other $1000 you owe in taxes. It might not be illegal to neglect the fine, but it's sure as hell illegal to refuse to pay your taxes.
Think this won't happen? Were you one of the people who believed Obama and the Democrats when they claimed ACA wasn't a tax increase?
Because it doesn't. It provides a voucher for senior to use to purchase their own health insurance, if they so choose.
It doesn't fine them if they opt out.
To satisfy all those who think it is wrong to force people to do anything, I think Medicare and any mandatory health system should be voluntary. Anyone who wants may choose to opt out. However, once they opt out, they must be able to pay their own way or they are denied treatment, even if that means they die a horrible death that might be unnecessary. A 70 year old with cancer and no money is not going to be able to work out a payment plan. So they would be left to go home without even painkillers. I think this ought to satisfy eveyone who doesn't want to be forced into doing anything.
What hospital? The make believe Charity Hospital suggested? It won't exist. We keep hearing how much healthcare costs; who do you think is going to fund a fucking charity hospital? And we'd have to have them throughout the country, every major metropolitan area, smaller towns and rural areas. Who's gonna fund the fucking Charity Hospital I ask again?
I'm not sure what you are getting at. We already have County Hospitals. Who said anything about eliminating those hospitals?
Immie
And what happens when the majority of people are standing in line at the County Hospital because they can't afford their insurance? When so many are at the point of not affording their own insurance, do you have any idea what that will do to the cost of for profit hospitals? They won't have enough customers to justify their existence. There is a good reason that Medicare was put in place, and there is also a very good reason it still exists today as an even bigger program. That reason is so that the people who worked their entire lives will have access to reasonable health care in their retirement. You want to go back to the days when most peopled died a couple years after retiring because they could not afford their own medical care.
I hate to ask, but since I know you are pretty knowledgeable in this area... gotta link to that?
I hate to ask, but since I know you are pretty knowledgeable in this area... gotta link to that?
I would hope that by now it's common knowledge that the GOP budget slashes funding for Medicaid and Medicare. Where does more than half of the money supporting public hospitals come from? See pages 15-16 of the NAPH member survey for the answer.
Ok then what happens to the people who opt out?
What does a emergency dr do when a patient is brought in without any knowledge of wether the person opted out or not?
They have to be treated if it is an emergency, just like they do now. Pass the buck.
Which is why the ONLY way to fix our system is to have EVERYONE covered.
I hate to ask, but since I know you are pretty knowledgeable in this area... gotta link to that?
I would hope that by now it's common knowledge that the GOP budget slashes funding for Medicaid and Medicare. Where does more than half of the money supporting public hospitals come from? See pages 15-16 of the NAPH member survey for the answer.
Requiring them to have insurance to cover routine medical expenditures is like requiring people to have insurance that covers oil changes in cars if they want to drive.
)
Actually, your question and the issue itself are moot there is no individual mandate:Why aren't you saying that about Ryan's kill-Medicare plan?
Which forces seniors to buy private insurance...
Because there are no criminal penalties no investigation, no indictment, no prosecution, no trial, no sentencing, no jail time or fine paid, there is noting compelling an individual to purchase insurance. The only downside to not paying the fee for not purchasing insurance is you may not be eligible for insurance should you need it in the future.(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Page 249
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
It is in essence an economic mandate, as there is no punitive component to the legislation. In order for the plan to work there needs to be a sufficient number of participants in the insurance pool.
Of course any debate of the issue is ridiculous anyone who can afford insurance will purchase it anyway as to not do so would be irresponsible, whether mandated or not. And those who cant afford insurance, of course, will have it provided for them.
Consequently the individual mandate is a non-issue.
But carry on with the RyanCare discussion, by all means.
How do you get healthcare to all it the real question.
Show me someone in the US who does not have access to health care. As far as I can see everyone has it already, so getting the government in it to fix something that is not broken is a sign of a deficient intelligence.
The people in Arizona who were denied liver transplants because the state wouldn't pay for them.
To say everyone has access to healthcare is like saying everyone has access to a mansion and a Rolls Royce.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. We already have County Hospitals. Who said anything about eliminating those hospitals?
I'm not sure there's a movement to purposefully eliminate them. Slashing their funding, on the other hand, has now become part of the GOP health care agenda.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. We already have County Hospitals. Who said anything about eliminating those hospitals?
I'm not sure there's a movement to purposefully eliminate them. Slashing their funding, on the other hand, has now become part of the GOP health care agenda.
Sure it has.
Most county hospitals are funded by local property taxes, so how could the GOP defund them through its non existent agenda to kill off seniors all over the planet?
Show me someone in the US who does not have access to health care. As far as I can see everyone has it already, so getting the government in it to fix something that is not broken is a sign of a deficient intelligence.
The people in Arizona who were denied liver transplants because the state wouldn't pay for them.
To say everyone has access to healthcare is like saying everyone has access to a mansion and a Rolls Royce.
Reading comprehension still a weak point?
They had access to health care, they even had insurance. They were on Medicaid in Arizona. If they wanted a transplant they could have paid for it out of their own pocket, tried to find supplemental insurance that would pay for it, or asked for contributions from the public. They were not denied health care, their insurance refused to pay for a costly procedure that would have delivered negligible returns.
Please note, that does not mean I support the Arizona decision, I just understand the difference between health care and insurance. Come back when you also understand it.
Healthcare is a matter of life and death.
Refusing care to anyone is morally wrong.
Forcing people to pay for the care of others is morally wrong.
They only way to do it the moral way is for EVERY adult to help pay and everyone to get care.
You really must want us to become a full blown socialist state then. Take away every safety net that has been established and just wait to see what happens. People who think like this, that the market can and should handle everything, and we should dispose of all the safety nets, well, you just aren't very bright. You are ideologues that actually believe things would work under such a system.
I'm just curious if you think that we should force people to pay for police protection under such a system. Who would derive the most benefit from police under your Utopian system? I'll give you a hint; it would be the few who benefited the most being protected from the masses. In otherwords, it would be a police state, your Utopia.
While the vast majority here may think like you, Thank God this board does not represent the bulk of America.
Do you know what socialism is?
Socialism is something that we do not currently have despite that belief here in USMB. In fact, Europe, while having a larger safety net, cannot really be considered socialist. I guess the real question is whether you and most everyone else here know what socialism is.
The people in Arizona who were denied liver transplants because the state wouldn't pay for them.
To say everyone has access to healthcare is like saying everyone has access to a mansion and a Rolls Royce.
Reading comprehension still a weak point?
They had access to health care, they even had insurance. They were on Medicaid in Arizona. If they wanted a transplant they could have paid for it out of their own pocket, tried to find supplemental insurance that would pay for it, or asked for contributions from the public. They were not denied health care, their insurance refused to pay for a costly procedure that would have delivered negligible returns.
Please note, that does not mean I support the Arizona decision, I just understand the difference between health care and insurance. Come back when you also understand it.
Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.
Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year
Requiring them to have insurance to cover routine medical expenditures is like requiring people to have insurance that covers oil changes in cars if they want to drive.
And, what do you suppose would happen to the price of oil changes if that policy were implemented? (btw, you just know that it would be accompanied by a law making it illegal to change your own oil
Because it doesn't. It provides a voucher for senior to use to purchase their own health insurance, if they so choose.
It doesn't fine them if they opt out.
Like a few thousand dollars is going to pay for the health insurance of someone 75. Hilarious.
Oh wait. You don't mean you actually believe the few bucks Ryan and the Republicans want to throw their way is enough? Tell me you don't. Besides, I love to see ancient people "shopping", don't you?
Why aren't you saying that about Ryan's kill-Medicare plan?
Which forces seniors to buy private insurance...
Actually, your question and the issue itself are moot – there is no ‘individual mandate’:
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Page 249
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
Because there are no criminal penalties – no investigation, no indictment, no prosecution, no trial, no sentencing, no jail time or fine paid, there is noting compelling an individual to purchase insurance. The only downside to not paying the fee for not purchasing insurance is you may not be eligible for insurance should you need it in the future.
It is in essence an ‘economic mandate,’ as there is no punitive component to the legislation. In order for the plan to work there needs to be a sufficient number of participants in the insurance pool.
Of course any debate of the issue is ridiculous – anyone who can afford insurance will purchase it anyway as to not do so would be irresponsible, whether ‘mandated’ or not. And those who can’t afford insurance, of course, will have it provided for them.
Consequently the ‘individual mandate’ is a non-issue.
But carry on with the RyanCare discussion, by all means.
Of course any debate of the issue is ridiculous – anyone who can afford insurance will purchase it anyway as to not do so would be irresponsible, whether ‘mandated’ or not. And those who can’t afford insurance, of course, will have it provided for them.
