Mandate UPHELD!

Yurt said:
imo, the government can now force you to purchase anything, and if you don't, force you to pay a tax instead. i use the word force, because there is a penalty if you don't purchase something. granted, you can choose not to purchase and pay the penalty tax, however, that is still coercion.
Click to expand...
It would be more correct to say that the govt. can now force you to pay for something that you are using.

The 'broccoli' argument never made any sense.
 
Althea said:
It would be more correct to say that the govt. can now force you to pay for something that you are using.

The 'broccoli' argument never made any sense.
Click to expand...

Are you 'using' health care if you are young and healthy and therefore don't go to a doctor and don't take prescription medication?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Yes; you are being punished by having to pay the tax
No one is forcing you to smoke
No one is forcing you to own property
No one is forcing you to stay at a hotel.


Major fail on your attempt to prove a point. :palm:
Click to expand...
If you don't use those goods/services, you don't pay the tax. What's so hard to understand?
 
bravo said:
Making as much money as you can is a constitutional right.....and you should not be penilzed for exercising a constitutional right.

So its a major fail on your attempt to prove a pointless point.
Click to expand...
Evidently, having access to healthcare is now a constitutional right too. What's wrong with that?
 
cawacko said:
Are you 'using' health care if you are young and healthy and therefore don't go to a doctor and don't take prescription medication?
Click to expand...
No, but there is nobody that won't ever need care. Even young/healthy people break arms/legs.

Do you suggest we allow a young/healthy person to purchase insurance after he gets diagnosed with an illness?

I've always said that if you are willing to repeal EMTALA, and allow hospitals to demand cash/credit card before they treat you, then you don't have to force people to purchase insurance.
 
annata said:
I'm all for compassion, and I've always supported Universal access.
I guess ( extrapolating) SCOTUS just says "Congress has the power to tax, and decided this is a tax, bill . Yet it isn't. But now it is.

Makes sense to me :whoa:
Click to expand...
Yet, you rail against a new tax, when UHC would require new taxes to fund. You aren't stepping back far enough to see the big picture.

Nothing is free.
 
Althea said:
No, but there is nobody that won't ever need care. Even young/healthy people break arms/legs.

Do you suggest we allow a young/healthy person to purchase insurance after he gets diagnosed with an illness?

I've always said that if you are willing to repeal EMTALA, and allow hospitals to demand cash/credit card before they treat you, then you don't have to force people to purchase insurance.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a person's choice though if they choose to save money and go without it because they are young and healthy and leave themselves at risk if they break an arm or leg?
 
cawacko said:
Isn't that a person's choice though if they choose to save money and go without it because they are young and healthy and leave themselves at risk if they break an arm or leg?
Click to expand...
Typically, young/healthy people would pay very low premiums.

Have you seen the cost of repairing a broken leg?

And at some level, I agree with your premise. However, the vast majority of people adopt that premise, right up to the point where they become ill, or break a limb.
 
Althea said:
Typically, young/healthy people would pay very low premiums.

Have you seen the cost of repairing a broken leg?

And at some level, I agree with your premise. However, the vast majority of people adopt that premise, right up to the point where they become ill, or break a limb.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at injuring myself so I have had the opportunity to see what surgery prices are for various body parts. I am glad I had insurance at the time. I also went several years in my 20's when I didn't have insurance. There is no question I took a risk by not having it but I also didn't get hurt during that and saved money (now is that a smart economic decision? probably not, it just happened to work for me)
 
cawacko said:
I'm pretty good at injuring myself so I have had the opportunity to see what surgery prices are for various body parts. I am glad I had insurance at the time. I also went several years in my 20's when I didn't have insurance. There is no question I took a risk by not having it but I also didn't get hurt during that and saved money (now is that a smart economic decision? probably not, it just happened to work for me)
Click to expand...
And I have vague memories of being in my twenties! I did the same thing.

Then, I blew out a knee, and paid cash.

I was never uninsured again.
 
Althea said:
It would be more correct to say that the govt. can now force you to pay for something that you are using.

The 'broccoli' argument never made any sense.
Click to expand...

Except now it can force someone to pay for something they aren't using also.
<everyone seems to keep ignoring this fact. I guess it scares them>
 
Althea said:
If you don't use those goods/services, you don't pay the tax. What's so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Bullshit.
The IRS has been granted the "right" to force those who don't have Health Insurance, to pay for their failure to acquire Health Insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top