Is it a tax or is it a penalty?

[M14 Shooter]

Until, of course, you get sick. Which is kind of the point.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone - even when that person gets sick.

You should really read up on this topic.

You should accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

Not having insurance ONLY harms others when someone without insurance:
1: gets sick
2: gets treatment
3: that treatment is involutarily paid for by someone else.

Thus, not having insurance in no way -necessarily- harms anyone.
Given that, explain the necessity to tax those that choose to not have insurance.

Note that elimninating the possibility of 3 also eliminates the possibility of someone w/o insurance harming someone else.

 

[boedicca]

Until, of course, you get sick. Which is kind of the point.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone - even when that person gets sick.

You should really read up on this topic.

You first, hun.

Here's a clue:

Health insurance is not the same as health care.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone - even when that person gets sick.

You should really read up on this topic.

You should accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

Not having insurance ONLY harms others when someone without insurance:
1: gets sick
2: gets treatment
3: that treatment is involutarily paid for by someone else.

Thus, not having insurance in no way -necessarily- harms anyone.
Given that, explain the necessity to tax those that choose to not have insurance.

Note that elimninating the possibility of 3 also eliminates the possibility of someone w/o insurance harming someone else.

1. Saying someone only harms someone else when they get sick is like saying they only harm someone when they fall asleep. EVERYONE gets sick. It will happen. That's the most ridiculous qualifier I have ever seen.
2. Depending on the level of sickness, not getting treatment means you die. Or are incapacitated. Or any other host of issues. Again, it's ridiculous to assume a sick person will not get treatment.
3. Which leaves who will pay for it. And if you think EVERY person without insurance can afford to pay out of pocket ANY ailment, you're deluding yourself. $10,000 minimum for a broken leg. Do you have that kind of disposable cash? I doubt it.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief, shut up.

Not only have we arrived at a place where the norm is to expect others to take care of you, we have reached the point where idiots think they need a doctor to hold their hand continually. I'll bet you run to the ER the minute your nose starts running, or if you step on a stick and get a really bad scratch.

Good lord.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Good grief, shut up.

Not only have we arrived at a place where the norm is to expect others to take care of you, we have reached the point where idiots think they need a doctor to hold their hand continually. I'll bet you run to the ER the minute your nose starts running, or if you step on a stick and get a really bad scratch.

Good lord.

I mention a broken leg and you counter with nose bleed.

Priceless.

 

[koshergrl]

Just shut up. It's making my eyes bleed and my gall bladder twitch reading your ignorant, whining, "gimme gimme" posts.

 

[koshergrl]

Loser.

 

[koshergrl]

Go to the fucking nearest church-run hospital, they'll write off your unnecessary visits to the ER, you baby. They take care of pathetic wussies like you, despite the fact that everybody would be better off if they didn't. But they have always cared for the dregs of humanity. It's what they do.

And I'll bet you despise them. Hence your slavish devotion to mandated government insurance. Then you don't have to crawl to the church when you run out of viagra.

 

[Charles_Main]

Our Opinons on the matter are Meaningless.

The Court has ruled, and legally it is a Tax, for that is the only way it can remain legal.

Period

 

[Charles_Main]

Go to the fucking nearest church-run hospital, they'll write off your unnecessary visits to the ER, you baby. They take care of pathetic wussies like you, despite the fact that everybody would be better off if they didn't. But they have always cared for the dregs of humanity. It's what they do.

And I'll bet you despise them. Hence your slavish devotion to mandated government insurance. Then you don't have to crawl to the church when you run out of viagra.

While I share your disdain for Mandated Health care.

I would point out that Hospitals have to by LAW treat you in the ER regardless of Insurance or Ability to Pay.

Even Church run ones, Not saying the would not do it anyways, but they do not have a choice currently.

It is actually why so many Smaller Town Hospitals no longer have an ER. Because they then do not get stuck Treating people with out Insurance.

 

[oreo]

Under Obamacare, if you do not carry health insirance by a certain date, you will have to pay a % of your income to the Federal government.

The Suprme Court and the Solicitor General call this a tax:
Health reform: New taxes, fees and penalties - Jun. 28, 2012
Solicitor General Called Mandate a Tax - By Noah Glyn - The Corner - National Review Online

The Obama's administration calls this a penalty:
Obama camp: Mandate a penalty, not a tax - Washington Times

With whom do you agree, and why?
How is the other party wrong?
Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?

Really it's both--it's a penalty tax. IOW--if you cannot show the IRS that you have a qualified Federal Government approved medical insurance policy by 2014--your gross income will be taxed at an additional 8%--which is more than your social security and medicare withholding combined.

Now who is this going to affect? EVERYONE that does not have health insurance. But Obama has continually stated this is not a TAX--but obviously it is because that's how it passed the muster of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

Go to the fucking nearest church-run hospital, they'll write off your unnecessary visits to the ER, you baby. They take care of pathetic wussies like you, despite the fact that everybody would be better off if they didn't. But they have always cared for the dregs of humanity. It's what they do.

And I'll bet you despise them. Hence your slavish devotion to mandated government insurance. Then you don't have to crawl to the church when you run out of viagra.

While I share your disdain for Mandated Health care.

I would point out that Hospitals have to by LAW treat you in the ER regardless of Insurance or Ability to Pay.

Even Church run ones, Not saying the would not do it anyways, but they do not have a choice currently.

It is actually why so many Smaller Town Hospitals no longer have an ER. Because they then do not get stuck Treating people with out Insurance.

Oh I know they have to treat people...but the complaint of people who push for mandated, government run health insurance is that people won't get medical care if they can't pay for it, because they'll just feel SOOOOO bad about not being able to afford it.

Obviously it causes them to lose sleep at night. That's why they want the government to pay for it. Because being unemployed deadbeats themselves, they don't have to worry about a tax that won't affect them.

 

[oreo]

Go to the fucking nearest church-run hospital, they'll write off your unnecessary visits to the ER, you baby. They take care of pathetic wussies like you, despite the fact that everybody would be better off if they didn't. But they have always cared for the dregs of humanity. It's what they do.

And I'll bet you despise them. Hence your slavish devotion to mandated government insurance. Then you don't have to crawl to the church when you run out of viagra.

While I share your disdain for Mandated Health care.

I would point out that Hospitals have to by LAW treat you in the ER regardless of Insurance or Ability to Pay.

Even Church run ones, Not saying the would not do it anyways, but they do not have a choice currently.

It is actually why so many Smaller Town Hospitals no longer have an ER. Because they then do not get stuck Treating people with out Insurance.

Oh I know they have to treat people...but the complaint of people who push for mandated, government run health insurance is that people won't get medical care if they can't pay for it, because they'll just feel SOOOOO bad about not being able to afford it.

Obviously it causes them to lose sleep at night. That's why they want the government to pay for it. Because being unemployed deadbeats themselves, they don't have to worry about a tax that won't affect them.

So then who pays for these deadbeats? WE DO. Obamacare is going to slam dunk the middle class--even those with medical insurance in higher taxes and fees to pay for the deadbeats.

 

[Charles_Main]

Go to the fucking nearest church-run hospital, they'll write off your unnecessary visits to the ER, you baby. They take care of pathetic wussies like you, despite the fact that everybody would be better off if they didn't. But they have always cared for the dregs of humanity. It's what they do.

And I'll bet you despise them. Hence your slavish devotion to mandated government insurance. Then you don't have to crawl to the church when you run out of viagra.

While I share your disdain for Mandated Health care.

I would point out that Hospitals have to by LAW treat you in the ER regardless of Insurance or Ability to Pay.

Even Church run ones, Not saying the would not do it anyways, but they do not have a choice currently.

It is actually why so many Smaller Town Hospitals no longer have an ER. Because they then do not get stuck Treating people with out Insurance.

Oh I know they have to treat people...but the complaint of people who push for mandated, government run health insurance is that people won't get medical care if they can't pay for it, because they'll just feel SOOOOO bad about not being able to afford it.

Obviously it causes them to lose sleep at night. That's why they want the government to pay for it. Because being unemployed deadbeats themselves, they don't have to worry about a tax that won't affect them.

It should cause them to lose sleep at night, and it is a big Problem we have so many Free Riders, but their idea for a Solution is a Disaster in the Making. Fuck I am no fan of Single Payer, but even that would have been a Vast Improvement on this Cluster fuck of a bill.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should really read up on this topic.

You should accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

Not having insurance ONLY harms others when someone without insurance:
1: gets sick
2: gets treatment
3: that treatment is involutarily paid for by someone else.

Thus, not having insurance in no way -necessarily- harms anyone.
Given that, explain the necessity to tax those that choose to not have insurance.

Note that elimninating the possibility of 3 also eliminates the possibility of someone w/o insurance harming someone else.

1. Saying someone only harms someone else when they get sick is like saying they only harm someone when they fall asleep. EVERYONE gets sick.

It is a condition necessary for there to be any possibility of harm. Show how I am wrong.

2. Depending on the level of sickness, not getting treatment means you die. Or are incapacitated. Or any other host of issues. Again, it's ridiculous to assume a sick person will not get treatment.

It is a condition necessary for there to be any possibility of harm. Show how I am wrong.

3. Which leaves who will pay for it. And if you think EVERY person without insurance can afford to pay out of pocket ANY ailment, you're deluding yourself. $10,000 minimum for a broken leg. Do you have that kind of disposable cash? I doubt it.

Someone else involuntarily paying for the treatment is a condition necessary for there to be any possibility of harm. Show how I am wrong.

As I said: accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong - not having insurance does not -necessarly- harm anyone, it only does when certain conditions are true.
Given that, explain the necessity to tax those that choose to not have insurance.

 

[Jackson]

Under Obamacare, if you do not carry health insirance by a certain date, you will have to pay a % of your income to the Federal government.

The Suprme Court and the Solicitor General call this a tax:
Health reform: New taxes, fees and penalties - Jun. 28, 2012
Solicitor General Called Mandate a Tax - By Noah Glyn - The Corner - National Review Online

The Obama's administration calls this a penalty:
Obama camp: Mandate a penalty, not a tax - Washington Times

With whom do you agree, and why?
How is the other party wrong?
Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?

Really it's both--it's a penalty tax. IOW--if you cannot show the IRS that you have a qualified Federal Government approved medical insurance policy by 2014--your gross income will be taxed at an additional 8%--which is more than your social security and medicare withholding combined.

Now who is this going to affect? EVERYONE that does not have health insurance. But Obama has continually stated this is not a TAX--but obviously it is because that's how it passed the muster of the U.S. Constitution.

It will affect everyone. Those who do have insurancve will have their premiums go up. Those who have insurance with employers may lose it. Everyone will pay for more government workers to verify if citizens have insurance. We will all pay. Medical care will be rationed.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You should really read up on this topic.

You should accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

Not having insurance ONLY harms others when someone without insurance:
1: gets sick
2: gets treatment
3: that treatment is involutarily paid for by someone else.

Thus, not having insurance in no way -necessarily- harms anyone.
Given that, explain the necessity to tax those that choose to not have insurance.

Note that elimninating the possibility of 3 also eliminates the possibility of someone w/o insurance harming someone else.

1. Saying someone only harms someone else when they get sick is like saying they only harm someone when they fall asleep. EVERYONE gets sick. It will happen. That's the most ridiculous qualifier I have ever seen.
2. Depending on the level of sickness, not getting treatment means you die. Or are incapacitated. Or any other host of issues. Again, it's ridiculous to assume a sick person will not get treatment.
3. Which leaves who will pay for it. And if you think EVERY person without insurance can afford to pay out of pocket ANY ailment, you're deluding yourself. $10,000 minimum for a broken leg. Do you have that kind of disposable cash? I doubt it.

1.) I'm 27, have gone to the doctor once in the last 10 years and it was a basic routine check up I could've paid out of pocket to get. If I didn't have insurance or earlier my parents didn't, it would've saved thousands of dollars. Certainly a viable option for young, healthy people. An option gov't has done away with in order to please their owners, the big insurance industry.

2.) No it isn't, just because someone SHOULD get treatment doesn't mean they will. They should have the choice without bureacrats fining them.

3.) Some people can, no one is saying everyone can. But the people who can should have the liberty to choose, that liberty has been flushed down the toilet.