IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@roger,

Your head is all screwed up! We're talking about insurance.

As for "benefits" from paying our taxes, too much goes into the wrong things, and the federal deficit continues to increase. What's your point?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Okay, then, try this. If taxes are paid without receiving benefits, if there are no benefits to paying a fine for not having insurance, how is it not a tax. That fine is part of the proposal, you know.

If I were required to pay for "uninsured motorists" I would very well consider it a tax.

1 Reply

@roger,

The benefits we receive are many, and they include defense, highways and bridges, other infrastructures, the national parks, and health insurance for all our children.

It's not a tax; it's called a fine. The fine will essentially pay for "their" portion of the expense when they visit the hospital, when the CDC provides our country with immunization for diseases such as the swine flu, and for all those who visit the emergency rooms of all the hospitals in the country.

We pay for uninsured motorists; that also protects us when the accident is their fault and they have no insurance.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well, for sure, if we call this tax anything other than a tax, that would make our president into a liar if it applied to anyone with an income under $250.000. Since we can't have that, we'll call the tax something else.

So, other taxes have benefits, like defense, highways and bridges, other infrastructures, the national parks, and health insurance for all our children.
This tax pays for hospital visits, immunizations, and emergency room visits. Pardon me for not understanding why one set of benefits makes the payments into taxes, and the other benefits are paid for something that is not going to be called a tax.

1 Reply

@roger,

A tax is when it's applied evenly across all segments of society. A fee is based on usage of something.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You are seriously quibbling, and you know it. Still, if you want to call it something other than a tax, go ahead. It is a fee levied against everyone who can't afford health insurance. Since it is primarily levied against the poor, you may call it a fee.

A fee for buying something they don't think is worth the cost. What a marketing plan.

It's a tax

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The benefits we receive are many, and they include defense, highways and bridges, other infrastructures, the national parks, and health insurance for all our children.

It's not a tax; it's called a fine. The fine will essentially pay for "their" portion of the expense when they visit the hospital, when the CDC provides our country with immunization for diseases such as the swine flu, and for all those who visit the emergency rooms of all the hospitals in the country.

We pay for uninsured motorists; that also protects us when the accident is their fault and they have no insurance.

Whatever the Administration chooses - deceptively - to call it, the thing, if enacted, will very likely be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. Selective "taxes" such as this one violate fairly well-established constitutional provisions and recent court precedents.

If the government can tax or impose fees or penalties based on such elements of personal choice, then there is no limit on its ability to selectively take people's property.

It is amusing to watch the administration's squirming to avoid offending its protected constituents while taxing its foes. Labor unions are indignant that their no limit, no deductable, no copay health insurance schemes for workers and retirees will be "taxed" along with the "cadillac" plans of evil business executives. The Administration is now scrambling to find a way to exempt their friends from their own policies.

3 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

You are seriously quibbling, and you know it. Still, if you want to call it something other than a tax, go ahead. It is a fee levied against everyone who can't afford health insurance. Since it is primarily levied against the poor, you may call it a fee.

A fee for buying something they don't think is worth the cost. What a marketing plan.

It's a tax

No, it isn't a tax, any more than anything you are required to do is a 'tax.' And, since we are planning on subsidizing the amount for those who can't afford it, it's hard to see how this is a 'tax' on those who can't afford health care.

You can't just change the meanings of words to whatever you want, yaknow.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

If that is so, why are we required to purchase car insurance? It's a fee based on usage of our public roads. Those who choose not to own a car don't pay the "fee." It's not a tax.

Everybody will "essentially" use our hospitals; why shouldn't they pay a fee for the likelihood they will use it in the future? Why should they get a "free ride?"

It's not fair for everybody else that uses our health care system to pay their insurance premium while those who opt out gets to use our health care system free. Where's the fairness in that? When everybody participates by paying into the insurance pool, it makes it cheaper and more efficient. That's how insurance pools work. If only the sick bought insurance, it ends up costing everybody more.

We buy car insurance not because we will need to use it; it spreads the risk by pooling all drivers - good and bad. Good drivers usually get better rates, but we must still participate in the pool. We pay more for more coverage including uninsured insurance, but that's by personal choice. That's how health insurance should work; those who can afford it can buy a cadillac plan.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If that is so, why are we required to purchase car insurance? It's a fee based on usage of our public roads. Those who choose not to own a car don't pay the "fee." It's not a tax.

Not this again. Didn't we already do this? We are required to purchase liability insurance to protect others from damages that we may cause. We are not required to purchase full coverage to protect our own personal losses.

It's a tax.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The requirements to posess liability insurance are imposed by (some) states - not the federal government - as a condition for operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

There is no such analogous condition with respect to health care. Moreover, this interference by the Federal government cannot be rationalized by the interstate commerce clause - the only conceivable basis for such action by the Federal government in the constitution.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck, How does private insurance companies get tax monies?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

How is auto insurance a tax? Some states already have universal health care. How does their tax compare to all other states without universal health insurance?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

There is also such a thing as "federal highways."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

FreeDuck, How does private insurance companies get tax monies?

Same way as the banks, I'd guess. But that's probably not what you meant.

Personally I'd prefer a tax to a mandate to purchase a product at an undetermined price.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

How is auto insurance a tax? Some states already have universal health care. How does their tax compare to all other states without universal health insurance?

I didn't suggest that auto insurance is a tax.

States have powers in our constitution that are denied to the Federal government.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

States have powers in our constitution that are denied to the Federal government.

So, just out of curiosity, what would you think about single payer systems implemented at the state level?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

States have powers in our constitution that are denied to the Federal government.

So, just out of curiosity, what would you think about single payer systems implemented at the state level?

In general I don't favor such systems. However, I believe that implementing such a system at the state level might involve fewer difficulties than at the Federal level, if only because of the more local nature of the government involved. There are exceptions of course. I wouldn't particularly favor such a system in Illinois, New York, Louisiana, Hawaii, or California where I know the state governments to be either very corrupt; thoroughly politicized; or merely incompetent; or combinations of these factors.

I am also moved by the consideration that I can change the state in which I reside with less difficulty than the country.

0 Replies

If the proposed health care reform are unconstitutional, then what about medicare which is entirely a federal program?

1 Reply

@revel,

It isn't the Federal nature of the Senate bill that may be unconstitutional -- it is instead the specific requirement that individuals buy insurance and the provision of special fees/fines/taxes on those who fgail to comply. Arguably these requirements exceed the powers of the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce clause.

4 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know