Fines Proposed For Those NOT Carrying Health Insurance!

[blindsage]

Actually, it costs exactly the same. It's just that someone else gets the honor of paying for you.

They already do.

 

[CoryKS]

They already do.

Then why are we discussing this? Problem solved. Move on to the next handout.

 

[Ceicei]

Then why are we discussing this? Problem solved. Move on to the next handout.

So what exactly is being solved?

- Ceicei

 

[CoryKS]

So what exactly is being solved?

- Ceicei

That's what I'm trying to figure out. We have one person going "yay, free stuff" like the cost of treatment magically disappeared, I point out that someone's going to pay for it, and then blindsage saying we already do. So what's the point of changing the system?

 

[CanuckMA]

Then why are we discussing this? Problem solved. Move on to the next handout.

Because the ER as primary care is really expensive. And letting health issues get worse until the ER is needed costs more in the long run.

 

[CoryKS]

Because the ER as primary care is really expensive. And letting health issues get worse until the ER is needed costs more in the long run.

True, but not every health issue develops into a problem requiring ER involvement. You're looking at the cost of prevention of 1 illness vs. the cost of addressing the same problem in the ER. The actual cost would be the prevention of every illness vs. the treatment of a subset of those illnesses in the ER.

 

[Andrew Green]

And the #*@&$ liberals think that's just peachy. Sometimes I want to find a tree-hugging liberal and just punch him directly in his nasty "I know what's good for you" mouth.

Democrats, not liberals.

The whole idea is very much against liberalism, and to be honest seems quite conservative to me.

 

[CoryKS]

Democrats, not liberals.

The whole idea is very much against liberalism, and to be honest seems quite conservative to me.

Don't know how you attribute it to conservatism, but I'll definitely agree that this has nothing to do with liberalism.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

If one has no job, and unemployment is just enough to pay the rent and buy food, how does one REFUSE to buy health insurance?

That's the part that gets me. That "Let 'em eat cake" attitude by people (not you KP 5-0) who think that even if you're unemployed, you still have plenty of money, you just don't WANT to spend it on health insurance.

Ok, I'll dive in. Did you not hear the part of Obama's speech last night that included a financial difficulty waiver? That was in there for the express purpose of excusing those who cant afford to get insurance while holding accountable those that simply wont.

I can't help but think there's some double-speak involved here. On the one hand, critics of health care reform blame so much of the problem on the uninsured and how "the rest of us" end up shouldering the burden. But when the reform includes a policy designed to address that, Obama's criticized for "taxing self-reliance". Um, pick one?

 

[zDom]

The government doesn't care. They think that everyone is like them, can make $$ out of thin air.

Owe child support? Lost your job? Electric getting turned off, and haven't eaten in 3 days? Too bad. Better have that support check lest they put you in debtors prison for "willful violation of a court order". See you choose to not give that non-existant money up.

Exactly.

Based on their "formulas" I now pay nearly 1/3 of my gross earnings in child support (the Congresslords who are working on healthcare reform probably pay this much monthly on greens fees and highballs. When I appealed to the judge who knew full well what I earned and what my expenses were, he said "Earn more money." Great ****ing idea! Why didn't I think of that?).

Child support is the first thing that gets paid because if I don't I go to jail.

THEN I pay for a place to live, food and gas so I can get to my job to earn the money that keeps me out of jail.

And now these Congresslords are in the process of deciding that I will also pay for health insurance — not only on me, but on my children — or face a fine.

I reckon I'll end up making payments on the fine since I won't be able to afford the insurance and making payments on this federal fine should keep me out of jail.

But then, that's what we peasants are for: being indentured servants to the ruling class.

 

[blindsage]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. We have one person going "yay, free stuff" like the cost of treatment magically disappeared, I point out that someone's going to pay for it, and then blindsage saying we already do. So what's the point of changing the system?

Yeah, that's what I said. Let's go back prior to that comment and see if you can continue contributing to the rational discussion without resorting to this garbage.

 

[blindsage]

True, but not every health issue develops into a problem requiring ER involvement. You're looking at the cost of prevention of 1 illness vs. the cost of addressing the same problem in the ER. The actual cost would be the prevention of every illness vs. the treatment of a subset of those illnesses in the ER.

No, your talking about the prevention of the same subset of illnesses that are currently treated in the ER but with much less cost.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ok, I'll dive in. Did you not hear the part of Obama's speech last night that included a financial difficulty waiver? That was in there for the express purpose of excusing those who cant afford to get insurance while holding accountable those that simply wont.

Again? That trick NEVER works. Obama needs a new hat.

I can't help but think there's some double-speak involved here. On the one hand, critics of health care reform blame so much of the problem on the uninsured and how "the rest of us" end up shouldering the burden. But when the reform includes a policy designed to address that, Obama's criticized for "taxing self-reliance". Um, pick one?

None of the policy addresses ANYTHING that helps me in any way - it can only cost me money, and a lot of it, and for other people. I am not interested, not even slightly. But in the end, I'll get the shaft, and liberals will run around slapping each other on the back for solving *my* problem, while I pay more for what I do get and more for what I have to buy for other people.

I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. I do not want it. My insurance is fine, leave me the *#)@89 alone. But no, nobody will do that.

 

[Archangel M]

"People are going to require health insurance like they require auto insurance."

Uhhh..how is that a fair comparison? I dont HAVE to drive a car if I dont want to pay auto ins.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"People are going to require health insurance like they require auto insurance."

Uhhh..how is that a fair comparison? I dont HAVE to drive a car if I dont want to pay auto ins.

Correct, and that's my complaint as well. Yes, most of us have cars, and most of us have insurance, and I fully understand the concept of mandatory insurance - and I support it, and I comply.

However, if I choose to sell my car, I don't have to have car insurance. If I just park it and don't drive, I don't have to have car insurance.

But under this new wonderful plan that is going to make me so much happier, healthier, and take less money out of my wallet all at the same time, if I lose my employer-provided insurance - for whatever reason - I have to buy health insurance or I am a criminal. Just walking, breathing, not doing much of anything, I'm a criminal like I just robbed a bank.

Nice.

 

[CanuckMA]

True, but not every health issue develops into a problem requiring ER involvement. You're looking at the cost of prevention of 1 illness vs. the cost of addressing the same problem in the ER. The actual cost would be the prevention of every illness vs. the treatment of a subset of those illnesses in the ER.

A great many either truly do, or the ER gets used as primary care. Example, my lower back flared up last month. Over a period of about 3 weeks it got progressively better. I went to see my GP who prescribed an anti-inflamatory. I had not had access to a GP I would have gone to the ER for that problem, at a greater cost to the system.