Because that would be illegal seeing as how not all congressmen are eligible for Medicare. But those in congress who are eligible for Medicare do enroll.What is bs is that congress gets its own private plan. Why don't they have medicare like the rest of the people with government provided insurance?
sonicare
Health Care Reform is Not Unconstitutional
This topic is locked from further discussion.
What happens if you don't want to buy insurance?
You get fined.What happens if you don't want to buy insurance?
greeneye59
What happens if you don't want to buy insurance?
You get fined. out of a cannon into the sun, no one read the bill but that clause was in the p. 840's
I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.
ChaelaMcchubble
[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]
People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.
I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind? healthy people who see it as a waste of money, kinda like people who dont buy replacement plans and extended warranties for the products they buy[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]You get fined. out of a cannon into the sun, no one read the bill but that clause was in the p. 840'sWhat happens if you don't want to buy insurance?
surrealnumber5
That's definitely one way to go to make sure everyone is covered. :)
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind? healthy people who see it as a waste of money, kinda like people who dont buy replacement plans and extended warranties for the products they buy Any sane person who walks outside their door, into public should realize they could be in a medical emergency without warning at any moment. Don't you watch the news? Paranoia aside, insurance has just as much to do with being covered from accidental injuries to a healthy person as it does to an unhealthy person.[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]
People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.
surrealnumber5
Insurance is one of the few things you buy that you hope you never have to use :)
We're one of the few countries left other than North Korea and a few starving African nations that doesn't have universal healthcare. That's absolutely pathetic.
I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]
People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.
Darthmatt
You could start fining people for not having protected sex, too. Or RISKY sex. After all, who would want to contract a disease, right? How much do you suppose the treatment costs the medical and insurance communities for PREVENTABLE communicable diseases spread by people being dumbasses? Last I heard, HIV meds cost quite a bit, but unlike cancer, it's a completely preventabledisease for the most part. Who should flip THAT bill? I mean, who'd WANT to get sick and have their junk rot off, right? And further, shouldn't the people who engage in high-risk behaviors be mandated to not only hold insurance, but pay a higher premium? That's what the libs have done to cigarettes, why not sex?
And let's not forget the fat people, who knowingly eat bad food that makes them fat and sets a poor example for kids who in turn get fat themselves. Should they be mandated to eat healthy? After all, why wait until you're ill to worry about your health, right? Who wouldn't want to be healthy, right?
Where does the slippery slope end?
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?
healthy people who see it as a waste of money, kinda like people who dont buy replacement plans and extended warranties for the products they buy Any sane person who walks outside their door, into public should realize they could be in a medical emergency without warning at any moment. Don't you watch the news? Paranoia aside, insurance has just as much to do with being covered from accidental injuries to a healthy person as it does to an unhealthy person. its for people to decide what is best for them, if they dont think the cost is worth the risk mitigation then they should not be forced to pay. what makes this daily decision so much more or less grave that it should be taken out of the hands of the people living the risk no matter how big or little it is? lets not forget what happens at the extremes of supply and demand curves, if you make all care "free" its cost is not going to go down its demand is going to get inflated causing shorts leading to either restrained supply or extremely inflated costs driven by opportunistic malinvestment to cover an artificially inflated market[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]
[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]
People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.
I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?You could start fining people for not having protected sex, too. Or RISKY sex. After all, who would want to contract a disease, right? How much do you suppose the treatment costs the medical and insurance communities for PREVENTABLE communicable diseases spread by people being dumbasses? Last I heard, HIV meds cost quite a bit, but unlike cancer, it's a completely preventabledisease for the most part. Who should flip THAT bill? I mean, who'd WANT to get sick and have their junk rot off, right? And further, shouldn't the people who engage in high-risk behaviors be mandated to not only hold insurance, but pay a higher premium? That's what the libs have done to cigarettes, why not sex?
And let's not forget the fat people, who knowingly eat bad food that makes them fat and sets a poor example for kids who in turn get fat themselves. Should they be mandated to eat healthy? After all, why wait until you're ill to worry about your health, right? Who wouldn't want to be healthy, right?
Where does the slippery slope end?
Here in NYC you already have Mayor Bloomberg taking away our Salt.I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]
[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]
People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.
Shame-usBlackley
You could start fining people for not having protected sex, too. Or RISKY sex. After all, who would want to contract a disease, right? How much do you suppose the treatment costs the medical and insurance communities for PREVENTABLE communicable diseases spread by people being dumbasses? Last I heard, HIV meds cost quite a bit, but unlike cancer, it's a completely preventabledisease for the most part. Who should flip THAT bill? I mean, who'd WANT to get sick and have their junk rot off, right? And further, shouldn't the people who engage in high-risk behaviors be mandated to not only hold insurance, but pay a higher premium? That's what the libs have done to cigarettes, why not sex?
And let's not forget the fat people, who knowingly eat bad food that makes them fat and sets a poor example for kids who in turn get fat themselves. Should they be mandated to eat healthy? After all, why wait until you're ill to worry about your health, right? Who wouldn't want to be healthy, right?
Where does the slippery slope end?
Would you defind "risky sex" as two furries doing it on a bed of nails inside a ring of flames?its for people to decide what is best for them, if they dont think the cost is worth the risk mitigation then they should not be forced to pay. surrealnumber5
Them not paying forces the rest of us to pay.
Hospitals are legally obligated to provide emergency care. If the patient can't pay then taxpayers do. In this sense we already have universal healthcare, but only for incredibly expensive emergencies.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?
YellowOneKinobi
You could start fining people for not having protected sex, too. Or RISKY sex. After all, who would want to contract a disease, right? How much do you suppose the treatment costs the medical and insurance communities for PREVENTABLE communicable diseases spread by people being dumbasses? Last I heard, HIV meds cost quite a bit, but unlike cancer, it's a completely preventabledisease for the most part. Who should flip THAT bill? I mean, who'd WANT to get sick and have their junk rot off, right? And further, shouldn't the people who engage in high-risk behaviors be mandated to not only hold insurance, but pay a higher premium? That's what the libs have done to cigarettes, why not sex?
And let's not forget the fat people, who knowingly eat bad food that makes them fat and sets a poor example for kids who in turn get fat themselves. Should they be mandated to eat healthy? After all, why wait until you're ill to worry about your health, right? Who wouldn't want to be healthy, right?
Where does the slippery slope end?
Here in NYC you already have Mayor Bloomberg taking away our Salt.Yeah, there's an endless stream of do-gooders who are far too concerned with everybody else. I used to smoke (been clean for three years this August), and this one time I'm out smoking a butt in the smoking area outside a restaurant, and this idiot walks by and actually does a u-turn to come back and tell me that smoking is hazardous to my health. "Oh, really," I say. "So is being a f****** nosy do-gooder. Now go save someone else's life you dumb f***, before I sock you in the beak." He just shook his head and walked away.
I f****** HATE do-gooders.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] its for people to decide what is best for them, if they dont think the cost is worth the risk mitigation then they should not be forced to pay. superfluidity
Them not paying forces the rest of us to pay.
Hospitals are legally obligated to provide emergency care. If the patient can't pay then taxpayers do. In this sense we already have universal healthcare, but only for incredibly expensive emergencies.
they still get the bill first, till they default its on their shoulders, the risk of bankruptcy is on their shoulders. forcing everyone to do something because someone somewhere might do something will always be unjustifiable to me i draw no lines between this and making people brush, because if they dont brush then they system will have to pay for their emergency care. same could be said with showering, eating, working out, being stressed, ect...[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?
Darthmatt
You could start fining people for not having protected sex, too. Or RISKY sex. After all, who would want to contract a disease, right? How much do you suppose the treatment costs the medical and insurance communities for PREVENTABLE communicable diseases spread by people being dumbasses? Last I heard, HIV meds cost quite a bit, but unlike cancer, it's a completely preventabledisease for the most part. Who should flip THAT bill? I mean, who'd WANT to get sick and have their junk rot off, right? And further, shouldn't the people who engage in high-risk behaviors be mandated to not only hold insurance, but pay a higher premium? That's what the libs have done to cigarettes, why not sex?
And let's not forget the fat people, who knowingly eat bad food that makes them fat and sets a poor example for kids who in turn get fat themselves. Should they be mandated to eat healthy? After all, why wait until you're ill to worry about your health, right? Who wouldn't want to be healthy, right?
Where does the slippery slope end?
Would you defind "risky sex" as two furries doing it on a bed of nails inside a ring of flames?You'd have to ask a liberal. I'm too busy keeping my own life in order to worry about everyone else.
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
You could start fining people for not having protected sex, too. Or RISKY sex. After all, who would want to contract a disease, right? How much do you suppose the treatment costs the medical and insurance communities for PREVENTABLE communicable diseases spread by people being dumbasses? Last I heard, HIV meds cost quite a bit, but unlike cancer, it's a completely preventabledisease for the most part. Who should flip THAT bill? I mean, who'd WANT to get sick and have their junk rot off, right? And further, shouldn't the people who engage in high-risk behaviors be mandated to not only hold insurance, but pay a higher premium? That's what the libs have done to cigarettes, why not sex?
And let's not forget the fat people, who knowingly eat bad food that makes them fat and sets a poor example for kids who in turn get fat themselves. Should they be mandated to eat healthy? After all, why wait until you're ill to worry about your health, right? Who wouldn't want to be healthy, right?
Where does the slippery slope end?
Would you defind "risky sex" as two furries doing it on a bed of nails inside a ring of flames?You'd have to ask a liberal. I'm too busy keeping my own life in order to worry about everyone else.
dont you ever want to force your life on other as only you know how it should be done?[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Would you defind "risky sex" as two furries doing it on a bed of nails inside a ring of flames?
surrealnumber5
You'd have to ask a liberal. I'm too busy keeping my own life in order to worry about everyone else.
dont you ever want to force your life on other as only you know how it should be done?Not really, no. :)
they still get the bill first, till they default its on their shoulders, the risk of bankruptcy is on their shoulders. forcing everyone to do something because someone somewhere might do something will always be unjustifiable to me i draw no lines between this and making people brush, because if they dont brush then they system will have to pay for their emergency care. same could be said with showering, eating, working out, being stressed, ect...surrealnumber5
None of the other things you mentioned costs anywhere near what healthcare costs or has anywhere near the impact on society that healcare does.
@Shame-usBlackley
Crap like that would never happen in Detroit. Here its more like, give me your smokes (your wallet, phone and keys) or die.
Darthmatt
:lol:
Smoking is actually healthier than breathing the air in Detroit. :P
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] they still get the bill first, till they default its on their shoulders, the risk of bankruptcy is on their shoulders. forcing everyone to do something because someone somewhere might do something will always be unjustifiable to me i draw no lines between this and making people brush, because if they dont brush then they system will have to pay for their emergency care. same could be said with showering, eating, working out, being stressed, ect...superfluidity
None of the other things you mentioned costs anywhere near what healthcare costs or has anywhere near the impact on society that healcare does.
all of those cause health problems and are directly linked to healthcare.
What is bs is that congress gets its own private plan. Why don't they have medicare like the rest of the people with government provided insurance?
Because that would be illegal seeing as how not all congressmen are eligible for Medicare. But those in congress who are eligible for Medicare do enroll. Congress has its own healthcare plan which is far better than medicare or any government run plan. What should be illegal is congress voting themselves healthcare benefits and study income raises while the rest of the nation has seen a halt or detoriation of their wage.
[QUOTE="greeneye59"]You get fined.What happens if you don't want to buy insurance?
YellowOneKinobi
Here is the gist of what happens:
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
`(a) Requirement To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage- An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.
`(b) Shared Responsibility Payment-
`(1) IN GENERAL- If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).
`(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN- Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
`(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY- If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month--
`(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayer's taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or
`(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
`(c) Amount of Penalty-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1/12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.
`(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION- The amount of the penalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year with respect to all individuals for whom the taxpayer is liable under subsection (b)(3) shall not exceed an amount equal to 300 percent the applicable dollar amount (determined without regard to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends.
`(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT- For purposes of paragraph (1)--
`(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $750.
`(B) PHASE IN- The applicable dollar amount is $95 for 2014 and $350 for 2015.
`(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18- If an applicable individual has not attained the age of 18 as of the beginning of a month, the applicable dollar amount with respect to such individual for the month shall be equal to one-half of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year in which the month occurs.
`(D) INDEXING OF AMOUNT- In the case of any calendar year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount shall be equal to $750, increased by an amount equal to--
`(i) $750, multiplied by
`(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2015' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.Health Care Reform Bill
Source
This clause stipulates that you have to buy insurance or pay a tax (this fine is nothing more than a tax honestly). The government cannot force someone to buy some something. That is what this health care reform act has done. Now, some argue that you are forced to buy car insurance, but that is something entirely different. You can buy a car, you can own a car, but you cannot drive it on public streets without at least liability insurance. It is even better that you pay for uninsured motorist insurance at the same time so if someone without insurance (that idiot running from the cops in a stolen car who hits you for instance) hits you, you are covered.
all of those cause health problems and are directly linked to healthcare.surrealnumber5
The brushing thing threw me off, I thought you were referring to dental insurance in some way.
Anyway, in that case, how does that support the argument that it makes sense to force everyone else to pay for extremely costly emergency care for the uninsured rather than having a system in place that can get people insurance?
You made the comment that the risk of bankruptcy is on the uninsured person's shoulders, when in fact it is on all of our shoulders. The reality is that most people without insurance either cannot pay or are medically uninsurable. It's almost never a matter of choice.
If someone could afford to pay for insurance but didn't, why on earth is it OK that the rest of us have to pay for them when rediculously expensive medical care bankrupts them anyway?
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]
@Shame-usBlackley
Crap like that would never happen in Detroit. Here its more like, give me your smokes (your wallet, phone and keys) or die.
Shame-usBlackley
:lol:
Smoking is actually healthier than breathing the air in Detroit. :P
Forget the air, just going there is risky enough.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] all of those cause health problems and are directly linked to healthcare.superfluidity
The brushing thing threw me off, I thought you were referring to dental insurance in some way.
Anyway, in that case, how does that support the argument that it makes sense to force everyone else to pay for extremely costly emergency care for the uninsured rather than having a system in place that can get people insurance?
You made the comment that the risk of bankruptcy is on the uninsured person's shoulders, when in fact it is on all of our shoulders. The reality is that most people without insurance either cannot pay or are medically uninsurable. It's almost never a matter of choice.
If someone could afford to pay for insurance but didn't, why on earth is it OK that the rest of us have to pay for them when rediculously expensive medical care bankrupts them anyway?
if youre going to force everyone to pay you might as well force everyone to live how you deem fit, if not to keep costs down, then because you already did it once why not do it again . why is it ok to do anything others disagree with? because it is none of their business and because you have free will. till you infringe on another's rights that person has no right to make adjustments to the way you are living. and no bankruptcy does not fall on us it falls on whomever the creditor was, if you find this a big deal why not mandate everyone pay for mortgage default insurance? that has cost several orders of magnitude more than medical defaults in past years. you cant take risk out of life and even if you did you would only end up taking out reward, if one wants to take the risk of getting struck by lightning and saving 100k over his life by not getting lighting insurance that is a reasonable stance, and if he gets struck and it puts him in the poor house for the rest of his life thats the risk he took. society should not demand he buy that insurance and society should not be forced to give him money when he is poor.if he gets struck and it puts him in the poor house for the rest of his life thats the risk he took. surrealnumber5
You're not getting the point that either way, society pays, only we pay for more expensive emergeny care if people are uninsured.
There is absolutely no choice whether or not to get medical care. Everyone needs it at some point in their lives. The choice is to etiher pay for it with insurance or through free-riding on the backs of everyone else. When hospitals have to eat the cost of providing care for someone, that increases everyone else's medical bills and we are ultimately paying for them through our own higher insurance premiums.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] if he gets struck and it puts him in the poor house for the rest of his life thats the risk he took. superfluidity
You're not getting the point that either way, society pays, only we pay for more expensive emergeny care if people are uninsured.
There is absolutely no choice whether or not to get medical care. Everyone needs it at some point in their lives. The choice is to etiher pay for it with insurance or through free-riding on the backs of everyone else. When hospitals have to eat the cost of providing care for someone, that increases everyone else's medical bills and we are ultimately paying for them through our own higher insurance premiums.
and you are wrong about that if you make a good required it never ends up costing less. having a few exceptions sucking on the societal tit is far less expensive then making everyone. draw a supply and demand chart and look at what happens when demand is at 100%, supply is always constrained so with cost being artificially low and supply being constrained either forced rations or cost must go up. what you are saying holds no worldly grounds, and why did you not respond to the mortgage insurance? if the whole thing is about social costs then that should be your top priority
I hope your are right but I think you are wrong. They won't get insurance. They will pay the small fine (which will probably come directly out of their tax return to lessen the blow) and get insurance AFTER the fall ill. Again, sincerely hope I'm wrong about this.[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
What are you talking about? They are mandated by law to get it.. You have to have it now... If you can't afford it the government can help you with it.. IN the end what this means is this.. The people who can't afford it will still pay something into it.. They will hopefully go to check ups which will be far more effective and cheaper than ER visits when things get the absolute worse.. The morons are now forced to get it and pay it.. The fact of the matter is this.. The cheapest way to lower costs is to try to open up monthly check ups to every one.. Preventive care, thus reducing costs of ER visits and catching things before they become serious..
sSubZerOo
You seriously think the bill was designed to make the fine cost less than the actual health insurance? It will cost MORE than the actual health insurance.. It wouldn't be much incentive to do anything otherwise.
Actually the fee for not having the insurance is less than buying insurance....so it won't change anything as far as having insurance. And it's still beyond the scope of Congress to tell people they must purchase from private companies.
actually last night I heard the idea of changing it from a mandate to an incentive program which seemed to me to be an excellent idea.
Them not paying forces the rest of us to pay.
Hospitals are legally obligated to provide emergency care. If the patient can't pay then taxpayers do. In this sense we already have universal healthcare, but only for incredibly expensive emergencies.
superfluidity
This assumes that the ininsured person is incapable of paying for his medical expenses out of pocket.
The last time that I got sick and went to the doctor, I paid in cash without using any insurance. In this example, how, exactly, did I cost you any money at all?
There is absolutely no choice whether or not to get medical care.
superfluidity
Do you have absolute and undeniable proof of this? Are you asserting that no human, in the history of mankind, has ever lived a lifetime without recieving medical care?
The bronze age called, it would like to let you know that humans have existed for thousands upon thousands of years without "medical care".
But we can't raise taxes in the middle of a recession! Especially not a minimal tax raise of 3% on people who are really rich. Serraph105
Or the bottom half of the country that pays NO federal tax.
[QUOTE="Serraph105"] But we can't raise taxes in the middle of a recession! Especially not a minimal tax raise of 3% on people who are really rich. Shame-usBlackley
Or the bottom half of the country that pays NO federal tax.
we sure as hell cant cut spending and lower taxes on everyone.[QUOTE="superfluidity"]
Them not paying forces the rest of us to pay.
Hospitals are legally obligated to provide emergency care. If the patient can't pay then taxpayers do. In this sense we already have universal healthcare, but only for incredibly expensive emergencies.
dkrustyklown
This assumes that the ininsured person is incapable of paying for his medical expenses out of pocket.
The last time that I got sick and went to the doctor, I paid in cash without using any insurance. In this example, how, exactly, did I cost you any money at all?
Exactly. I went to the doctor in November fearing a broken foot. I paid for the doctor's visit, x-rays, radiographer and the NSAID with cash. I also caught up an old bill at the hospital (where I had the x-rays taken) that was years old out of my pocket. No one else had to pay a thing for my health care but myself.
and you are wrong about that if you make a good required it never ends up costing less. having a few exceptions sucking on the societal tit is far less expensive then making everyone. draw a supply and demand chart and look at what happens when demand is at 100%, supply is always constrained so with cost being artificially low and supply being constrained either forced rations or cost must go up. what you are saying holds no worldly grounds, and why did you not respond to the mortgage insurance? if the whole thing is about social costs then that should be your top prioritysurrealnumber5
The core problem is and always has been comically high medical costs. This includes everything ranging from how much medical school costs to how absurdly profitable the pharmaceutical industry is because of regulations in their favor.
What you've said about supply and demand (while true under different scenarios) is disproven on a daily basis by other countries that have universal healthcare systems.
This assumes that the ininsured person is incapable of paying for his medical expenses out of pocket.
The last time that I got sick and went to the doctor, I paid in cash without using any insurance. In this example, how, exactly, did I cost you any money at all?
dkrustyklown
Where did I ever say that wasn't possible?
Are you aware that, for example, postnatal care for a single baby can often run into the millions?
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] and you are wrong about that if you make a good required it never ends up costing less. having a few exceptions sucking on the societal tit is far less expensive then making everyone. draw a supply and demand chart and look at what happens when demand is at 100%, supply is always constrained so with cost being artificially low and supply being constrained either forced rations or cost must go up. what you are saying holds no worldly grounds, and why did you not respond to the mortgage insurance? if the whole thing is about social costs then that should be your top prioritysuperfluidity
The core problem is and always has been comically high medical costs. This includes everything ranging from how much medical school costs to how absurdly profitable the pharmaceutical industry is because of regulations in their favor.
What you've said about supply and demand (while true under different scenarios) is disproven on a daily basis by other countries that have universal healthcare systems.
That is because we have a corporatist system where the barriers for entry are set so high from the governing body, competition is not allowed, this is not a free market system but a state regulated monopoly that will not stop with this bill and the monopolistic pricing will only get worse[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="Serraph105"] But we can't raise taxes in the middle of a recession! Especially not a minimal tax raise of 3% on people who are really rich. surrealnumber5
Or the bottom half of the country that pays NO federal tax.
we sure as hell cant cut spending and lower taxes on everyone.You can't lower taxes on those who pay nothing.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] and you are wrong about that if you make a good required it never ends up costing less. having a few exceptions sucking on the societal tit is far less expensive then making everyone. draw a supply and demand chart and look at what happens when demand is at 100%, supply is always constrained so with cost being artificially low and supply being constrained either forced rations or cost must go up. what you are saying holds no worldly grounds, and why did you not respond to the mortgage insurance? if the whole thing is about social costs then that should be your top prioritysuperfluidity
The core problem is and always has been comically high medical costs. This includes everything ranging from how much medical school costs to how absurdly profitable the pharmaceutical industry is because of regulations in their favor.
What you've said about supply and demand (while true under different scenarios) is disproven on a daily basis by other countries that have universal healthcare systems.
In my above post, I related on how I paid for some x-rays out of my own pocket. They would normally cost $400+ for the 3 of them. I received a 40% discount for paying for them instead of using insurance. What a concept, paying cash makes it cheaper.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]I guess its always those people who never want it until they get deathly ill or in an accident right? Honestly, who (other than super rich) would want the choice of not having health insurance of some kind?
healthy people who see it as a waste of money, kinda like people who dont buy replacement plans and extended warranties for the products they buy Any sane person who walks outside their door, into public should realize they could be in a medical emergency without warning at any moment. Don't you watch the news? Paranoia aside, insurance has just as much to do with being covered from accidental injuries to a healthy person as it does to an unhealthy person. The problem is that by completely eliminating pre-existing conditions limitations, people can quite literally wait until they get hit by that bus before they purchase insurance.we sure as hell cant cut spending and lower taxes on everyone.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Or the bottom half of the country that pays NO federal tax.
Shame-usBlackley
You can't lower taxes on those who pay nothing.
sure you can, just give them less "free" stuff[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] we sure as hell cant cut spending and lower taxes on everyone. surrealnumber5
You can't lower taxes on those who pay nothing.
sure you can, just give them less "free" stuff I think you're on to something, but I don't think you know what it is yet. The "free" thing that I would take from them is their right to vote. There's a distinct difference between a tax and a handout that is paid for with tax money. Many of those who are considered tax exempt federally have more than enough money to pay something -anything- more than they've been paying, which is zero. Instead all the libs want to make people who already pay taxes pay more. This is like giving the guy who was caught speeding the death sentence, and Jeffrey Dahmer the speeding ticket. There needs to come a point where those who don't pay into our system should not be allowed to participate. The right to vote was often based around productivity or the ownership of land, and that was to make it so those voting actually had a stake in the game and a goal other than voting people in who would make it okay for mediocrity and unproductitvity to be rewarded, not just tolerated. I'm not faulting those who genuinely have a hard life, but I don't want them having a say in how the country is run, and who runs it. Too many of them vote under the mindset of continuing to suck at the teat, and this country already has enough of those.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]sure you can, just give them less "free" stuff I think you're on to something, but I don't think you know what it is yet. the "free" thing that I would take from them is their right to vote. There's a distinct difference between a tax and a handout that is paid for with tax money. many of those who are considered tax exempt federally have more than enough money to pay something -anything- more than we've been paying, which is zero. Instead all the lobs want to make people who already pay taxes pay more. this is like giving the guy who was caught speeding the death sentence, and Jeffrey Dahmer the speeding ticket. There needs to come a point where those who don't pay into our system should not be allowed to participate. The right to vote was often based around productivity or the ownership of land, and that was to make it so those voting actually had a stake n the game other than voting people in who would make it okay for mediocrity and unproductitvity to be rewarded, not just tolerated. I'm not faulting those who genuinely have a hard life, but I don't want them having a say in how the country is run, and who runs it. Too many of them vote under the mindset of continuing to suck at the teat, and this country already has enough of those. i would much rather just cut out all special treatment one way or the other.You can't lower taxes on those who pay nothing.
Shame-usBlackley
I think you're on to something, but I don't think you know what it is yet. the "free" thing that I would take from them is their right to vote. There's a distinct difference between a tax and a handout that is paid for with tax money. many of those who are considered tax exempt federally have more than enough money to pay something -anything- more than we've been paying, which is zero. Instead all the lobs want to make people who already pay taxes pay more. this is like giving the guy who was caught speeding the death sentence, and Jeffrey Dahmer the speeding ticket. There needs to come a point where those who don't pay into our system should not be allowed to participate. The right to vote was often based around productivity or the ownership of land, and that was to make it so those voting actually had a stake n the game other than voting people in who would make it okay for mediocrity and unproductitvity to be rewarded, not just tolerated. I'm not faulting those who genuinely have a hard life, but I don't want them having a say in how the country is run, and who runs it. Too many of them vote under the mindset of continuing to suck at the teat, and this country already has enough of those. i would much rather just cut out all special treatment one way or the other. That would work just fine too. :)[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] sure you can, just give them less "free" stuffsurrealnumber5
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment