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.
Failure? No. Most people are going to buy health insurance anyway.....even those who like to cry about their "freedoms being taken away". So like I said, you are making a big deal out of nothing.And what part of refusing to pay said tax confused you? According to your citation nothing will happen to me if I refuse to pay this tax.
Good, then nothing will happen then. What's the problem? I figured worst case scenario would be an audit, not immediately having your home taken away or being thrown in jail like was originally posted. Again, lots of lies and crying about non-issues.
I guess the biggest lie of all is that people will actually be required to buy health insurance under the new law seeing as there aren't any consequences, legally or financially. Wouldn't you have to consider that another yet another failure of the bill. I seem to recall you agreeing with the mandate and actually contending it was necessary to keep costs from that don't pay from being passed on to others, and now we find out it has not teeth whatsoever. Basically whether one purchases health insurance or not is going to be just as optional as it was before this 'requirement'.
Yeah I couldn't find any materials indicating that HSA's are going away. They have made some changes to them but I don't see why he can't continue to use his HSA...unless there is something else going on that we don't know about.You should take note of this skull. Unless the law is going to make your HSA go away, it doesn't seem like there'e any reason you couldn't keep using it.
You have no idea what my policy is. I have yet to even use all my deductible in one year. So in effect I have paid for all my medical treatment for several years now and my insurance has paid none.
No, you're right. I don't know the specifics of your policy. But I am telling you why it would be phased out if it is indeed going away like you claim.
And you just got done telling me we're not losing any freedoms. Not only are we losing the choice/freedom to choose IF we want to purchase some type of health care coverage. We're losing choices/freedom in the options for coverage.
But in reality, nothing is being taken away that you wouldn't have already done anyway. Why don't you complain about that you have to pay taxes to support fire and police, or the freedom to fire your gun anywhere you want, or drive without insurance, or be naked in public, etc, etc, etc...? Why? Because these are all things that your choice can affect others and while it would be nice to say you have the freedom to choose to not support fire and police departments, who really would make that choice? Not many. You have no choice in these matters yet I don't hear you complaining about them? Why...because complaining about this would be dumb, just like it is complaining about having to purchase health insurance.
You seem to gloss over the fact that these so-called freedoms you think you're losing are actually impacting everyone else. So your "freedom" to not have health insurance affects everyone else, and your freedom to choose a shitty health plan also affects the rest of us. You may think these are your freedoms, but your poor choices affect everyone else. You guys love to cry about taking personal responsibility, well this is the perfect example of stepping up and doing just that.
So if you had to pay taxes towards a government run system, that would make you happier? It's because we have to purchase it from private companies that bothers you?But in reality, nothing is being taken away that you wouldn't have already done anyway. Why don't you complain about that you have to pay taxes to support fire and police, or the freedom to fire your gun anywhere you want, or drive without insurance, or be naked in public, etc, etc, etc...? Why? Because these are all things that your choice can affect others and while it would be nice to say you have the freedom to choose to not support fire and police departments, who really would make that choice? Not many. You have no choice in these matters yet I don't hear you complaining about them? Why...because complaining about this would be dumb, just like it is complaining about having to purchase health insurance.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Paying taxes for some public provided protectins (police, fire, etc.) isn't even close to analgous to being forced to purchase something from someone else.
You seem to gloss over the fact that these so-called freedoms you think you're losing are actually impacting everyone else. So your "freedom" to not have health insurance affects everyone else, and your freedom to choose a shitty health plan also affects the rest of us. You may think these are your freedoms, but your poor choices affect everyone else. You guys love to cry about taking personal responsibility, well this is the perfect example of stepping up and doing just that.
And that is the part we previously agreed on. I don't want to see costs go up as a result of poeple that didn't take responsibility either. But you don't remove the freedom of the very people who are being responsible as a means of fixing that. It's just amazingly stupid and narrow minded of you to think that the ONLY way we can possibly prevent costs from being passed on to others by those that can't pay is to make everyone buy health insurance.
Failure? No. Most people are going to buy health insurance anyway.....even those who like to cry about their "freedoms being taken away". So like I said, you are making a big deal out of nothing.
Actually the point of the mandate was that the insurance companies asked for it to be there because they would be required to cover people with preexisting conditions. Don't like it, complain to the insurance companies.Failure? No. Most people are going to buy health insurance anyway.....even those who like to cry about their "freedoms being taken away". So like I said, you are making a big deal out of nothing.
So what's the point of a mandate then? If thought you said the point of the mandate was to keep costs from those that don't pay from being passed on in the form of higher prices to those that do. But you claim pretty much everyone already is purchasing health insurance. You really believe the few more that will purchase it as a result of the requirment is going to make a measurably difference in costs that you and I will see? You're being naive RDD.
The second problem is only view the mandate in the myopic view of the health care debate. I can't believe you can't see the bigger picture and the problem with the government setting the precedent that it can tell people what they must spend their money on. That isn't some trivial freedom lost. That means you have no protection from tyrannical government. That means you are only as free as they allow you to be.
So if you had to pay taxes towards a government run system, that would make you happier? It's because we have to purchase it from private companies that bothers you?
Well, we can just agree to disagree. You can continue to oppose this bill because it takes away imaginary choice you want to pretend you have. And I'll support this bill, imperfect as it may be, because it is far better then the way things were before. Maybe you don't understand how insurance works but the basic concept is the more people who buy in, the cheaper it is for everyone. So yes, costs directly will be impacted in everyones favor with more people buying insurance. You can deny that all you want, but thats just how insurance works. And that's not the only way this bill addresses costs, but I never said that it was. Again, believe what you want though.
LOL, link me to the post where you got upset that the government said you needed to purchase auto insurance from a private company in order to drive a car. Show me the post when you thought it was ridiculous that you have to wear clothes in public, clothes you have to purchase from private companies. The government is not out to get you, contrary to what you want to believe.
Preventing coverage denial based on preexisting conditions isn't making healthcare more accessible? Distributing the cost among a greater amount of people and shifting the care for many from the ER to a primary physician isn't going to lower costs?So if you had to pay taxes towards a government run system, that would make you happier? It's because we have to purchase it from private companies that bothers you?
Stop being so obtuse. No, if I had my way the costs of services would be affordable enough such that I would only need insurance for catastrophic issues. THAT is what needs to be fixed and not only does this bill you support not address that, it is going to make it worse. The service of police and fire protectin is vastly different than the complexity of the health care system and the people it services. it is that complexity that makes it more prudent for the consumer of the services to make their own decisions on how they want to pay for their health care.
Well, we can just agree to disagree. You can continue to oppose this bill because it takes away imaginary choice you want to pretend you have. And I'll support this bill, imperfect as it may be, because it is far better then the way things were before. Maybe you don't understand how insurance works but the basic concept is the more people who buy in, the cheaper it is for everyone. So yes, costs directly will be impacted in everyones favor with more people buying insurance. You can deny that all you want, but thats just how insurance works. And that's not the only way this bill addresses costs, but I never said that it was. Again, believe what you want though.
And you're even wrong about that. It isn't going to make things better. It won't improve access for you and me and it won't make health care cost less for you and me. WHERE THE FUCK IS THE BETTER PART RDD?
It is not imagninary freedom being lost as a result. We'll see how imaginary it is to you when government makes you buy something YOU would rather not have to buy.
LOL, link me to the post where you got upset that the government said you needed to purchase auto insurance from a private company in order to drive a car. Show me the post when you thought it was ridiculous that you have to wear clothes in public, clothes you have to purchase from private companies. The government is not out to get you, contrary to what you want to believe.
You're dodging because you know I'm right. The FEDERAL government does not require me to purchase auto insurance. The FEDERAL government up to now hasn't required me to purchase anything. Secondly I accept having to purchase buying auto insurance as a CONDITION of me CHOOSING to drive a car. That is far different than having to purchase health insurance as a condition of basically just existing. And I think laws requiring wearing clothes in public are stupid, believe it or not. Would I choose to walk around naked? Not in Minnesota. But unlike you, my principles don't change as the circumstances effect me. A person walking around naked doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom. There doesn't need to be a law for that just because we're a horribly sexually repressed culture.
Now.......address the point. Think of the last thing on earth you would want to purchase. Now pretend governmetn says you have to purchase it. You're telling me you would just accept that?
Preventing coverage denial based on preexisting conditions isn't making healthcare more accessible? Distributing the cost among a greater amount of people and shifting the care for many from the ER to a primary physician isn't going to lower costs?
But you would rather buy health insurance, even if there was no mandate, just like you stated. So there goes that argument , AGAIN. When government mandates that we buy something that people wouldn't want anyway, then we'll talk. This mandate is for the greater good, just like we all pay in to support fire, police, military, etc...
Give it up, I've debunked your points on multiple occasions now and all you do is harp about the constitutionality of the mandate. It's sad at this point really.
When did I ever say everyone will pay the same rate? You LOVE to put words in my mouth. Of course rates will vary, but now people will at least be able to purchase insurance even with preexisting conditions and someone wont be dropped once they get sick. Millions of people want insurance but can't afford it or be allowed to purchase it because of their so-called preexisting conditions. Now, those 30 million plus people can do just that. That's a lot more people to help share the pooled risk. Still going to deny that this bill doesn't improve access to health care?Preventing coverage denial based on preexisting conditions isn't making healthcare more accessible? Distributing the cost among a greater amount of people and shifting the care for many from the ER to a primary physician isn't going to lower costs?
Is it better that someone who is ill should get to purchase health insurance for the same price as you a healthy person? Ummmm no. The cost won't get distribited among more people. Not enough more to make a difference anyway. You already told pretty much everyone already is purchasing health insurance.
But you would rather buy health insurance, even if there was no mandate, just like you stated. So there goes that argument , AGAIN. When government mandates that we buy something that people wouldn't want anyway, then we'll talk. This mandate is for the greater good, just like we all pay in to support fire, police, military, etc...
Give it up, I've debunked your points on multiple occasions now and all you do is harp about the constitutionality of the mandate. It's sad at this point really.
Then you're refusing to see the argument. For the, well I've lost count I guess. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CHOICE I WOULD MAKE. IT IS ABOUT THE CHOICES AVAILABLE TO ME. The greater good? Now you really are a fucking joke. The government making people do things for the greater good. That is where tyranny starts you moron. Taking away people's freedom is ALWAYS for the greater good.
You can say you've debunked me all you want. Saying so, doesn't make it so.
Of course I wouldn't. If it was something ridiculous that didn't make sense. But everyone having health insurance DOES make sense, a lot of sense. Tell me what doesn't make sense about someone having health insurance in our country today.
Of course I wouldn't. If it was something ridiculous that didn't make sense. But everyone having health insurance DOES make sense, a lot of sense. Tell me what doesn't make sense about someone having health insurance in our country today.
Someone who has enough money to pay for it. Somone who has planned financally for it some other way. Whether it makes sense or not is not the point. The point is you argued in favor of a new precedent. A precedent that says the federal government has the authority to make you purchase whatever it feels like making you purchase and really they only need to pay lip service to the concept of what's best for society.
Of course I wouldn't. If it was something ridiculous that didn't make sense. But everyone having health insurance DOES make sense, a lot of sense. Tell me what doesn't make sense about someone having health insurance in our country today.
Someone who has enough money to pay for it. Somone who has planned financally for it some other way. Whether it makes sense or not is not the point. The point is you argued in favor of a new precedent. A precedent that says the federal government has the authority to make you purchase whatever it feels like making you purchase and really they only need to pay lip service to the concept of what's best for society.
LOL, making sense is the ENTIRE POINT. I'm sorry, you don't want to have to make sense but it's a fault of mine...I try to make sense of a situation before getting hysterical. Something I see you're still figuring out. So tell me, how much money does someone need to have to be able to go without health insurance? This should be good.
Someone who has enough money to pay for it. Somone who has planned financally for it some other way. Whether it makes sense or not is not the point. The point is you argued in favor of a new precedent. A precedent that says the federal government has the authority to make you purchase whatever it feels like making you purchase and really they only need to pay lip service to the concept of what's best for society.
LOL, making sense is the ENTIRE POINT. I'm sorry, you don't want to have to make sense but it's a fault of mine...I try to make sense of a situation before getting hysterical. Something I see you're still figuring out. So tell me, how much money does someone need to have to be able to go without health insurance? This should be good.
I'm sorry I don't live in your world where it makes sense to deprive people of freedom unnescsessarily. How much does a person need if they don't want insurance? Anywhere from not a single dime if you don't get sick to more than even insurance could hope to possibly pay for.
For the upteenth time RDD, we both fucking agree that costs should not rise because of people not taking financial responsibility for their health care. Just find a way to do it that isn't that doesn't set an incredible new precedent for government power, will help control costs very little if at all, and is at least questionably unconstitutional.
LOL, making sense is the ENTIRE POINT. I'm sorry, you don't want to have to make sense but it's a fault of mine...I try to make sense of a situation before getting hysterical. Something I see you're still figuring out. So tell me, how much money does someone need to have to be able to go without health insurance? This should be good.
I'm sorry I don't live in your world where it makes sense to deprive people of freedom unnescsessarily. How much does a person need if they don't want insurance? Anywhere from not a single dime if you don't get sick to more than even insurance could hope to possibly pay for.
For the upteenth time RDD, we both fucking agree that costs should not rise because of people not taking financial responsibility for their health care. Just find a way to do it that isn't that doesn't set an incredible new precedent for government power, will help control costs very little if at all, and is at least questionably unconstitutional.
When you come up with a better idea, let's hear it. Until then, stop your whining, it's beyond old at this point.
