IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

I did not make the claim that auto insurance is government-run.

But if we are taxed for health insurance, then it will be.

Do you dispute this?

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

I did not make the claim that auto insurance is government-run.

But if we are taxed for health insurance, then it will be.

Do you dispute this?

Who said we are all taxed for health insurance? Under any plan?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

I did not make the claim that auto insurance is government-run.

But if we are taxed for health insurance, then it will be.

Do you dispute this?

Who said we are all taxed for health insurance? Under any plan?

Cycloptichorn

Under Hillary's proposal, purchase of health insurance is MANDATORY.

So, I asked what the penalty would be for those who refuse to purchase.

Will they be taxed to force compliance?

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

It's funny that those against taxation to fund universal health care doesn't seem to have any problems with our country spending 2.7 billion dollars every week in Iraq. The money is being spent while increasing the national debt, and they are not so interested in cutting "that" tax.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's funny that those against taxation to fund universal health care doesn't seem to have any problems with our country spending 2.7 billion dollars every week in Iraq. The money is being spent while increasing the national debt, and they are not so interested in cutting "that" tax.

it's funny how you keep bringing up iraq when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. i do have a problem with it, but since that is a different subject, i'm not talking about it on this thread. i'm sure the others are doing the same. so perhaps you can follow the herd on this one.

cyclo wrote:

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

Everyone will not pay for this. The non working citizens and the illegal immigrants will not pay, but they'll reap the benefits nonetheless.

I've asked several times what your idea is to combat the loss of physicians to private hospitals and clinics that won't accept these types of payment... I've never got an answer.

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

I did not make the claim that auto insurance is government-run.

But if we are taxed for health insurance, then it will be.

Do you dispute this?

Who said we are all taxed for health insurance? Under any plan?

Cycloptichorn

Under Hillary's proposal, purchase of health insurance is MANDATORY.

So, I asked what the penalty would be for those who refuse to purchase.

Will they be taxed to force compliance?

Why would they be taxed to force compliance?

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

I did not make the claim that auto insurance is government-run.

But if we are taxed for health insurance, then it will be.

Do you dispute this?

Who said we are all taxed for health insurance? Under any plan?

Cycloptichorn

Under Hillary's proposal, purchase of health insurance is MANDATORY.

So, I asked what the penalty would be for those who refuse to purchase.

Will they be taxed to force compliance?

Why would they be taxed to force compliance?

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

My question was :

What if I REFUSE to buy?

What if I can afford it, but I just don't want to buy it?

Will compulsory insurance be enforced thru taxation?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cyclo wrote:

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

Everyone will not pay for this. The non working citizens and the illegal immigrants will not pay, but they'll reap the benefits nonetheless.

I've asked several times what your idea is to combat the loss of physicians to private hospitals and clinics that won't accept these types of payment... I've never got an answer.

The market self-corrects. If there's a need for doctors, doctors will step up to fill the void. If there's a large lacking of them, the money they demand will rise and more will go to school to fill the void. I don't understand where this 'crisis' you posit will come from.

Your persistent focus on those who will scam the system - or attempt to do so - is revealing. Instead of seeing the problems, and looking for solutions to those problems, you would scrap the entire plan - and forget about those who it would actually help, because the truth is, you just don't give a damn about other people's health. Right?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cyclo wrote:

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

Everyone will not pay for this. The non working citizens and the illegal immigrants will not pay, but they'll reap the benefits nonetheless.

I've asked several times what your idea is to combat the loss of physicians to private hospitals and clinics that won't accept these types of payment... I've never got an answer.

The market self-corrects. If there's a need for doctors, doctors will step up to fill the void. If there's a large lacking of them, the money they demand will rise and more will go to school to fill the void. I don't understand where this 'crisis' you posit will come from.

Your persistent focus on those who will scam the system - or attempt to do so - is revealing. Instead of seeing the problems, and looking for solutions to those problems, you would scrap the entire plan - and forget about those who it would actually help, because the truth is, you just don't give a damn about other people's health. Right?

Cycloptichorn

I don't think you understand how little medicaid and medicare reimburse physicians. That's why so many are opening private practices - so they don't have to take it. I'm not "focusing" - I'm just trying to point out that there are a lot of things that your little plan doesn't take into consideration.

And honestly, no, I'm not terribly concerned about every other person's health.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hokie: I won't get diabetes. I have no history of it in my family so really the only way I'll become diabetic is so gain an excessive amount of weight. Suppose all of what you posted is true, the vast majority of cases are still due to poor diet.


You claim you won't get diabetes just because there's no family history, but you are thinking only of yourself. How about the many children through no fault of their own have a family history? You're selfish with no heart; people like you make me sick. I hope you live a happy, selfish life, mr scrooge.

Wow. You must be one of the most dense people I've ever spoken to. I was SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT ME - NOT EVERYONE ELSE!

AND I'VE SAID BEFORE THAT I WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO CAUSED THEIR OWN ILLNESS!!!!!!!!


What will it take for you to get that through your head?

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

If so, her claim that this isn't 'government-run' health care is simply false.

If you have to have a car insurance in order to drive a car, does that mean that the car insurance is "government-run"?

Clever and slippery omission by you, old europe. (Are you running for office?)

The sentence you quoted was preceded by :

real life wrote:

Will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck (taxes) be the answer?

The answer to your question is: yes, if one was to be taxed to pay for his car insurance, then it would be , by definition , 'government-run'.

<shrugs>

If you have to have car insurance to drive a car, will government confiscation of part of one's paycheck be the answer?

I did not make the claim that auto insurance is government-run.

But if we are taxed for health insurance, then it will be.

Do you dispute this?

Who said we are all taxed for health insurance? Under any plan?

Cycloptichorn

Under Hillary's proposal, purchase of health insurance is MANDATORY.

So, I asked what the penalty would be for those who refuse to purchase.

Will they be taxed to force compliance?

Why would they be taxed to force compliance?

Those who don't have the funds to purchase health care on their own will probably be slotted into a bare-bones, prevention-oriented health care program; there's little doubt that this will be some sort of expansion of Medicare. Everyone will pay for this, just as medicare works today; there's no 'taxation to force compliance.'

My question was :

What if I REFUSE to buy?

What if I can afford it, but I just don't want to buy it?

Will compulsory insurance be enforced thru taxation?

You can't refuse to buy; that's what the word 'mandate' means.

Sorry, but if you don't have the good sense to be responsible, and purchase some sort of health insurance - if you are willing to doom your family to huge financial and social problems if you get into a car accident, say - then you'll have it done for you. It's the exact same as auto insurance runs here in America - you are forced to be responsible, even if you don't want to be responsible.

Given the fact that health decisions and health care affect other people then purely the individual involved, you don't have the luxury of simply deciding not to be a responsible person.

Cycloptichorn

So then, the penalties for non-compliance:

Will it be fines?

Jail?

Confiscation of assets?

And before CI jumps on it, that is NOT to say that if someone smokes 8 packs a day that he shouldn't be treated for a car accident injury.

Quote:

So then, the penalties for non-compliance:

Will it be fines?

Jail?

Confiscation of assets?

Same as if you don't pay your medicare taxes today. There's no non-compliance; it's deducted from your paycheck.

Like I said earlier - as with auto insurance, you don't have the right to be irresponsible any longer. It isn't just your life which is affected by irresponsibility, but that of your family, the hospitals, the country as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

usaf wrote :

Quote:

And before CI jumps on it, that is NOT to say that if someone smokes 8 packs a day that he shouldn't be treated for a car accident injury.

under usaf's proposed health-care plan , there is a good chance that person should NOT receive (free) treatment . that person may very well have had inpaired mental/lung capacities reducing reaction time . i wonder why usaf would want to have that person INCLUDED as one receiving medical treatment ?
that sounds just too generous to me UNDER USAF'S plan , anyway .
hbg