What I don't get on the whole thing is this.. If the Uninsured are such a burden on the health care industry, then why treat them? So if they cannot afford insurance, there is medicaid and those programs already in place, right? If they are too lazy to get on these programs, they shouldn't get accepted in a hospital or DR unless they can pay up front. That's what those programs were for originally, right? Just because we have let people nurse off the welfare programs for so long those programs are broke, why should we come out with a new program to let them nurse on? It may sound mean that it comes out as "If they are poor, let them die", but if they are poor, let them get on those help programs!
As for comparing it to the requirement for auto insurance.... I see it as an auto accident injures others besides the one without the insurance, so the driver at fault should be able to pay for the innocent person they hurt. In other words, car insurance protects others from your stupidity. If you don't have health insurance, it only affects you. The argument of it causing inflated prices to those that do pay, that is only because they are treating those that will never pay for their services. That is a simple fix - no insurance or prepayment/credit card to cover it, no services. If you say that isn't fair to put a "price on a life" like that, read my above paragraph - Medicare/Medicaid was to help those people...
IF you say "what of those who work but are part time that do not have a chance for benefits like health ins?", read the first paragraph....
Many of the poor don't qualify for Medicaid. Here in Missouri if a family of 3 has an income. after housing allowance, of over $234 a month, the adult doesn't qualify. Try living and paying for med care on $234 a month.
So we should revise that, and correct it to a more realistic number, instead of bringing out a whole new system to corrupt along with the Medicare/Medicaid we have now.
Or will this new thing obsolete and replace the 2 we have now?
It's bad enough to pay tax on a commodity, but a tax on a "non-purchase" is a whole 'nother story.
it is a tax on everyone with rebates on the tax if you purchased health insurance and aren't costing the general public more money by not having health coverage (note: coverage and not insurance)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutlass327
What I don't get on the whole thing is this.. If the Uninsured are such a burden on the health care industry, then why treat them? So if they cannot afford insurance, there is medicaid and those programs already in place, right? If they are too lazy to get on these programs, they shouldn't get accepted in a hospital or DR unless they can pay up front. That's what those programs were for originally, right? Just because we have let people nurse off the welfare programs for so long those programs are broke, why should we come out with a new program to let them nurse on? It may sound mean that it comes out as "If they are poor, let them die", but if they are poor, let them get on those help programs!
well we aren't monsters, we won't allow our society to revert back like that
it is a tax on everyone with rebates on the tax if you purchased health insurance and aren't costing the general public more money by not having health coverage (note: coverage and not insurance)
And who is going to pay for the rebates? Obamacare is a budget buster and those who are addicted to the nanny-state possibly by no fault on their own are going to vote for Obama (and that's just what he wants). According to the experts Obamacare will significantly increase the deficit and debt in the out years. I wonder what we can expect the "non-purchase" tax to rise to in that era? Now that a "non-purchase" tax has been declared legal there is no control on amount, $600 is just for openers.
And who is going to pay for the rebates? Obamacare is a budget buster and those who are addicted to the nanny-state possibly by no fault on their own are going to vote for Obama (and that's just what he wants). According to the experts Obamacare will significantly increase the deficit and debt in the out years. I wonder what we can expect the "non-purchase" tax to rise to in that era? Now that a "non-purchase" tax has been declared legal there is no control on amount, $600 is just for openers.
and who are your "experts", the CBO or a fox news interviewee?
And who is going to pay for the rebates? Obamacare is a budget buster and those who are addicted to the nanny-state possibly by no fault on their own are going to vote for Obama (and that's just what he wants). According to the experts Obamacare will significantly increase the deficit and debt in the out years. I wonder what we can expect the "non-purchase" tax to rise to in that era? Now that a "non-purchase" tax has been declared legal there is no control on amount, $600 is just for openers.
Eddie, here's how it works. The government assesses me a certain tax. Let's say it's an exorbitant $600. Then they give me a rebate of $600. Who pays the rebate?
The answer is that the two cancel out; there is no additional cost to the government for giving this rebate.
The control on the amount of taxation is where it has always been: Congress. They are the ones who decide how and what to tax, and they answer to us.
Basically, your entire reasoning in that post is a non-starter.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
So we should revise that, and correct it to a more realistic number, instead of bringing out a whole new system to corrupt along with the Medicare/Medicaid we have now.
Or will this new thing obsolete and replace the 2 we have now?
That's part of it. It should hit those two programs pretty damn hard.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Eddie, here's how it works. The government assesses me a certain tax. Let's say it's an exorbitant $600. Then they give me a rebate of $600. Who pays the rebate?
The answer is that the two cancel out; there is no additional cost to the government for giving this rebate.
The control on the amount of taxation is where it has always been: Congress. They are the ones who decide how and what to tax, and they answer to us.
Basically, your entire reasoning in that post is a non-starter.
If it cancels out who paid for the insurance? Why bother if it cancels out? Aren't you missing something in your analysis?
Linear Mode
