Mandate Health Insurance?

Good. So you admit that under the right circumstances, you'd be ok with forcing people to buy something.



Not the point. The point is that under the right circumstances, you've admitted that you'd be ok with forcing people to buy something.

I'm sure that 230 years ago, the founding fathers never envisioned anything even remotely like the current situation with regards to health care. Nor did they, i'm sure, have any idea that some day we'd all be driving around in 2000lb deadly vehicles at 70mph. So the extent to which my premise has no chance of occurring is wholly irrelevant. We're talking about the concept of it, not the details.



There is now, now that you've admitted that it essentially depends on the situation.



Sure, but the question is no longer "can the government force you to buy something?". It's now "is this a situation that justifies the government forcing you to buy something". Totally different argument than the one you've been making.



As a logistical matter, you can say that. But as a practical matter, it's pretty dumb, don't you think? Just as dumb as if i were to say "it's your choice to not have a job that pays for your health insurance, so if you're in a situation where you need to buy it yourself, that's a decision you've made".

See how that works? Originally Posted by Doove

I guess my retort would be Doove that I would be opposed to everyone having to own a car to begin with. That would be a more accurate description of my position rather than my previous statement regarding your silly hypothetical. Im not an absolutist I dont believe in anything is absolute. Taken to any extreme something you would not normally do is completely acceptable. If there was no oxygen and the government mandated that everyone had to buy an oxygen tank. I wouldnt stand there and hold my breath in defiance. However what we are talking about is not that.

It is your choice to not have a job that doesnt have health insurance, I started, own and run a small business. I got a loan from a bank, assumed a shitload of risk and worked my ass off to make it work. I dont pity anyone who hasnt done the same but laments their lot in life. Assume the risk, take a shot and fail and I will respect you a damn sight more than someone who complains things arent going their way while not doing anything to improve their situation but hold someone else makes people treat them more to their liking.

hypotheticals, pros/cons aside, it all boils down to one man who may, or may not let his political affiliation weigh in on his decision. We will never know.

One Man.

I dislike that more than I do any mandate

hypotheticals, pros/cons aside, it all boils down to one man who may, or may not let his political affiliation weigh in on his decision. We will never know.

One Man.

I dislike that more than I do any mandate Originally Posted by CJ7

I agree she's ugly but Sotamyer claims to be female.

I agree she's ugly but Sotamyer claims to be female. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

youre right, Kennedy is too old to decide anything other than what kind of gravy he wants on his mashed potato's.

I guess my retort would be Doove that I would be opposed to everyone having to own a car to begin with. Originally Posted by Grifter

And i'm opposed to people getting sick, so i'm not sure what your point is.

Im not an absolutist I dont believe in anything is absolute.

Then you should have no problem with my point, which was to not allow you to argue in absolutes.

Taken to any extreme something you would not normally do is completely acceptable. If there was no oxygen and the government mandated that everyone had to buy an oxygen tank. I wouldnt stand there and hold my breath in defiance. However what we are talking about is not that.

And what we are also not talking about is forcing people to buy broccoli. It's somewhere in the middle and, frankly, it's probably closer to forcing people to buy oxygen than it is forcing them to buy broccoli.

So what the argument should be about is whether this falls on the acceptable side of the line, or the unacceptable side of the line. What the argument should not be about is whether or not a line even exists.

It is your choice to not have a job that doesnt have health insurance, I started, own and run a small business. I got a loan from a bank, assumed a shitload of risk and worked my ass off to make it work. I dont pity anyone who hasnt done the same but laments their lot in life. Assume the risk, take a shot and fail and I will respect you a damn sight more than someone who complains things arent going their way while not doing anything to improve their situation but hold someone else makes people treat them more to their liking.

No idea what this little rant has to do with the healthcare mandate so i won't bother to comment.

IMO, the tax application has stronger legs. In 2015 when the first penalties are charged to individual/s SS accounts for not having insurance, could be the key to the door. Originally Posted by CJ7

Are you 100% sure on this? I cannot find this anywhere. The more I dig into this bill, the more it looks as if it will change nothing. From what I have read, they do not take away from SS, yet levy a tax via the IRS if you do not purchase insurance. BUT, the law also exempts all citizens from criminal responsibility and tax levies for those who do not pay the IRS tax. Seems toothless to me?

Are you 100% sure on this? I cannot find this anywhere. The more I dig into this bill, the more it looks as if it will change nothing. From what I have read, they do not take away from SS, yet levy a tax via the IRS if you do not purchase insurance. BUT, the law also exempts all citizens from criminal responsibility and tax levies for those who do not pay the IRS tax. Seems toothless to me? Originally Posted by nwarounder

Hell no Im not sure ... I read so much for whatever reason, I have no idea what sure is anymore.. this was what I more or less muddled into words


http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=336389

Hell no Im not sure ... I read so much for whatever reason, I have no idea what sure is anymore.. this was what I more or less muddled into words


http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=336389 Originally Posted by CJ7

LOL, me either. The more I read the more I can't understand the purpose of the law in the first place. It seems really only symbolic in nature if there is no penalty for not buying insurance. And I don't think there is a penalty.

LOL, me either. The more I read the more I can't understand the purpose of the law in the first place. It seems really only symbolic in nature if there is no penalty for not buying insurance. And I don't think there is a penalty. Originally Posted by nwarounder

I do think the law will reduce the cost of healthcare longterm, and benefit small business. Both are good for everyone concerned. If it really takes 32 million people off social medicine that makes it even better IMO

Jackie said after he and his cpa crunched the #s, his small company will deff save $ allowing him to take home more of his bottom line. Hard to argue when the proof is in the pudding.

well, maybe not.

I do think the law will reduce the cost of healthcare longterm, and benefit small business. Both are good for everyone concerned. If it really takes 32 million people off social medicine that makes it even better IMO

Jackie said after he and his cpa crunched the #s, his small company will deff save $ allowing him to take home more of his bottom line. Hard to argue when the proof is in the pudding.

well, maybe not. Originally Posted by CJ7

I'm inclined to believe "maybe not". But hey, I don't have a lot of faith in mankind either. I think as soon as everyone realizes there is no real penalty for not buying insurance and they still get free healthcare, the masses won't buy it, and that defeats the mandate even if SCOTUS declares it's constitutional.

I'm inclined to believe "maybe not". But hey, I don't have a lot of faith in mankind either. I think as soon as everyone realizes there is no real penalty for not buying insurance and they still get free healthcare, the masses won't buy it, and that defeats the mandate even if SCOTUS declares it's constitutional. Originally Posted by nwarounder

Kennedy isnt on the fence. IMO he will dissect the bill to a point that makes it counter productive. If that happens, the parts of the HC law that are in effect will go bye bye, and the back tracking begins. I posted a link yesterday containing emperical data the proves beyond a doubt, after legislation is introduced and gets derailed for whatever reason, the cost of insurance rises dramatically.

with obamacare no penalty?

without it, penalty for the insured.


crazy stuff.

And i'm opposed to people getting sick, so i'm not sure what your point is.



Then you should have no problem with my point, which was to not allow you to argue in absolutes.



And what we are also not talking about is forcing people to buy broccoli. It's somewhere in the middle and, frankly, it's probably closer to forcing people to buy oxygen than it is forcing them to buy broccoli.

So what the argument should be about is whether this falls on the acceptable side of the line, or the unacceptable side of the line. What the argument should not be about is whether or not a line even exists.



No idea what this little rant has to do with the healthcare mandate so i won't bother to comment. Originally Posted by Doove

Last first, I was responding to your comment about jobs and insurance.

As a logistical matter, you can say that. But as a practical matter, it's pretty dumb, don't you think? Just as dumb as if i were to say "it's your choice to not have a job that pays for your health insurance, so if you're in a situation where you need to buy it yourself, that's a decision you've made".

I dont want the government making people buy things from other people. Find a workaround and get back to me. Thats the jist of my opinion.