This just seems so wrong.
If there is a way to make it cheaper or have tax breaks for some, okay...even though I wonder where all this money is going to come from.
But how in the hell can you fine someone for not having it.
Should we fine people who do not want to vaccinate babies?
Or have a prostate exam?
or whatever.
We are still a free country, right?
I know that becomes less and less true by the week, but shouldn't we fight for freedom?
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Up to $3,800 fine for failure get health insurance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
The reasoning is similar to the reasoning behind requiring everyone to purchase auto insurance. I don't see you complaining about that.
Hey Game,
Can I drive my car without putting on seat belts? I don't want to put my baby on the baby seat either...We a re a free country.
Well, you get my point.
I'm confused. Please tell me, specifically, what "freedoms" I will be losing if reform passes? Because right now, my freedom is severely limited under the current insurer run system.
I am forced to use whatever insurance provider my employer decides to provide. I am forced to use doctors that are "in the network". I am forced to wait several weeks or months to see a specialist. I am forced to stay at my employer in order to keep my family insured. I am forced to pay premiums that are growing faster than inflation and my salary.
It doesn't seem like I have a lot of freedom right now. So, please explain how the health care reforms being debated right now will make me less free. With specifics.
The car insurance example is a straw man if ever there was one
I don't want the gov telling me to wear a seatbelt american, my kid is a different story. protecting kids is one thing, but if you are lazy, stupid or just don't want to wear, then you or i should have that right.
You didn't read the post, what freedom will you be losing? are you blind? maybe you are a referee and you need a pair of glasses? I am making a guess, but are you the kind of person who insures everything? do you buy soda insurance in case it is flat? Maybe you should look into monitor insurance, your is clearly not working, or you didn't pay your eye insurance.
I see you weren't able to provide specifics. That's too bad. Since you had to get personal - yes I read the post, no I'm not blind, I'm not a referee, I don't need glasses. I have health, life, homeowners and auto insurance. I don't buy soda insurance because I don't care if it's flat. That is stupid. My monitors are fine and, once again, my eyes are fine.
I can only guess at your point. Perhaps it's this:
But how in the hell can you fine someone for not having it.
The same way that the government fines people who do other things that have a detrimental effect on society. I have it, so I wouldn't be getting a fine. So, therefore, it does not affect my freedom.
Should we fine people who do not want to vaccinate babies?
Maybe, maybe not. Nobody is considering doing that. If we did, we would probably debate it and decide not to. If we did, however, it wouldn't affect my freedom, because, as a good parent, I make sure my kids are vaccinated. Just like the vast majority of parents.
Or have a prostate exam?
Once again, that is not something that we as a society would probably agree to, because enough people would have the good sense to do that (especially if more people had health insurance, instead of relying on the emergency room).
or whatever.
Whatever, indeed.
America stands for freedom, but if you think you're free try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese. Anarchy burger - hold the government.
"I don't want the gov telling me to wear a seatbelt" - HH.
So, my dear friend, what happens in today's world if you try to drive around without wearing seat belt? Can our system make u pay a penalty? Are you going to protest it the same way you are protesting Obama's plans? Just curious.
I recall one of the Democrat presidential debates. Obama was making a big deal about Hillary mandating health care coverage for everyone and fining those who chose not to be covered.
Obama: “Now, under any mandate, you're going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage…I know that those who have looked at it understand. You can mandate it, but there are still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?
Those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.”
President ObeyMe didn’t come right out and say he was against mandated insurance, but it was implied! Typical slimy politician.
No, he did come out and say on several occasions that he was against an individual mandate.
After getting elected, he knew that they only way that insurance companies would play along would be to include it in any reform.
And he has addressed the question of what to do for people who can't afford it. It will be subsidized, and there will be waivers for the extremely poor.
Thanks for playing!
Realism claims: ”After getting elected, he knew that they only way that insurance companies would play along would be to include it in any reform.”
You mean he had no clue before he was elected? You actually believe that? If you answer “yes”, the only conclusion can be Obama and yourself are either idiots or lying.
As to subsidizing those who can’t afford insurance, who decides what “afford” means? The individual citizen or big brother?
What if a young, healthy, single person wants to carry only catastrophic insurance and save the excess money for a home, or retirement, or to go back to school?
That is actually a good point. A person should have the freedom to forego health insurance.
Of course, true freedom requires respect for the freedom of others. If people are going to opt out of health insurance, they should be required to pay for any medical treatment in advance. Right now, people who don't have insurance are still treated and the cost is spread out among all of us who are responsible enough to pay.
correct realism, you should have the right to not have coverage. However, I also agree there has to be a way to make you pay for treatment.
I totally believe that in many cases people should be allowed to make a choice and take a risk. As long as they are healthy they save lots of money. Usually a young person who needs it...however, thats the risk, and when the treatment is needed you need to pay it.
So you also agree that illegals and poor people should have to pay ahead of time as well?
Game, apparently you don't fully understand the concept of insurance.
Those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them....
That's why he has subsidies for the poor and exemptions for the very poor, Chris.
And I think you forgot a few "uh"s in your quote.
Post a Comment