Smokers already are taxed, pay higher premiums.

Funny how 50yrs ago when we had triple the smokers the medical system wasn't collapsing...:rolleyes:

One of these days someone may actually come to the realization that we're getting overcharged (especially the Ins. co's) by the care providers and drug mfgs. (which, by the way are making record profits, not the Ins. co's)

If you want something valid, how about the illegal drug trade? (non-taxed by the way) Yet the big, bad, Ins. co.s have to provide rehab and care expenses...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :-)

I guess no one noticed the irony in my post. I work for a non profit health insurer. :eek:

As regards the police & fire protection, I pay for them through taxes on my wholly owned real estate. If I don't pay them they'll still put out the fire or respond to take the report but they'll also take my house. At that point I frankly wouldn't care if they let it burn down.

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.


http://www.politico.com/livepulse/09..._.html?showall

Well that pretty well confirms it's a "tax" all right. Just like if you don't pay your other taxes, you can be fined and go to jail, same thing. I guess the next step would be to put a lien on your personal property, or whatever rules apply to not paying taxes.

Of course, if you don't make any money then you don't owe any taxes. Bear in mind that is one possible scenario of a PROPOSED health bill, still being disussed, analyzed and tweaked to gain acceptance.

It would be nice to know WHICH bill this particular issue is in, as there seems to be at least a few versions floating around.

Why would you think it would be any different than SS and Medicare?

Doesn't matter if you have your own retirement/pension/401k/insurance...

PAY UP!!!

Just another step to issued housing, transportation, care w/ $20 weekend "mad money". No more paychecks for you idiots to spend as you please.

Just look at the Military and prisons, this is the "great society" these guys have in mind for you - Right after the state governments are dissolved.

Then of course comes the "world government" after religion / racism is abolished.

Granted this will take 2~3 hundred years (you have to raise the walls slowly around the feeding troff so the cattle doesn't get spooked).

By the way, THIS particular version of the health bill being discussed here does NOT include a Government Health Care plan at all. It simply says you will buy insurance from "some body". They are provisions for those without sufficient funds to be accomodated.

Exactly, the people that currently don't have insurance...

Like any business the care providers turn you over to collections / sue you if you have the money and don't pay them.

So again I ask, This changes what???:rolleyes:

Well potentially it's a significant change! The basic game plan of ALL these various Health Bills being discussed is two fold, in my opinion.
1. Get control of spiraling health costs in general, we have to do SOMETHING to get a handle on it.
2. Allow the minority population (as in numbers, not race) a shot at buying affordable health care. Like those with existing conditions that would preclude them from getting ANY health care currently. As well as those who are below the poverty level and cannot afford health care, at all.

HOW are we going to do this? Well that is the $64K question but ALL the variations of the bill seem to have this in common: EVERYONE participates in some manner. We all hang together or surely some of us will hang separately kind of thing.

HOW the

I have two examples that show what a change to "mandated" will result in.

For those that aren't business owners: Car insurance, most states mandated liability coverage during the 70's ~ 80's the rates did not decrease.

Business owners can que in here: Workmans comp insurance, so bad that if you can find a insurance co that will actually write it they'll typically only do it if you transfer ALL of your insurance over to them. (experianced that one personally) BTW God help you if you actually have a claim at some point.

We can discuss the government run unemployment insurance as well but it's pretty much like Workers except you don't have to beg a private carrier for coverage.

Every damn one of them is brimming with fraud like Medicare and SS. I see no indication that this will be the one program that works in a long line of failures.

The ambulance chaisers must be salivating at the thought of everyone having an insurance co. they can sue...:rolleyes:

You guys that live in Massachusetts correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that Mass. has universal health care. I understand they have the most complete coverage of any state. I also understand that the premiums for coverage are the highest in the nation.

Reading the Boston Globe [don't know if it is a left or right slanted paper] but they say that the plan was supposed to achieve 5 things. Cover all, it doesn't. Reduce costs, it didn't. Achieve portability, it didn't. Don't recall the last 2 but the paper says it didn't work for any of its goals.
TRUE?, FALSE?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
"Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured."

Cooooool!!!!! :LOL:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

Thoughts about the "Health Care bill." Whichever one of the many, we mean.

All are intended to be phased in in 2013, NOT ANY SOONER!!! So WHY did the Democrats vote down an amendment calling for the FINAL bill to be available for the public and Congress to read for 72 hours before a vote is taken on it? That seems illogical if all is on the "up and up."
ALSO

Democrats say that 'death committees, rationing, benefit cuts, and many others things are not in any of the bills. I agree that none of those things are specifically IN any of the bills, but NEITHER are they specifically NOT in any of the bills. All the bills are loaded with VAGUE language, NOT a plus in a LAW. In many cases, future decisions are left to "An Administrator" to decide yes or no on a specific question. Again, inserting a Bureaucrat, as the final authority, is NOT a plus in a LAW. Aren't LAWS supposed to be hyper-specific?

Do Liberals have an underlying agenda in this health care fiasco? None of us can say, yes or no to that. But the vagueness in the proposed laws and the resistance to bi-partisan compromise is highly suspicious. Also suspicious is the way the liberals have presented the problem this time.
Over the last 5 months they have said:
Our health care system is awful and lags FAR behind many other developed AND UNDEVELOPED Nations.
Nobody believed that!
Then they changed to "Doctors and Hospitals are overcharging all of us!
Nobody believed that!
Then they changed to an imaginary 45 million people without coverage.
Some may have believed that, but few cared!
Now they have changed to the Insurance Companies are the villains. In fact, now they call the bills Health INSURANCE reform bills. No longer health CARE bills.
The Insurance Industry does make a good villain, except that it is heavily and TOTALLY regulated by POLITICIANS, and has been for many many decades. The Insurance industry ONLY does what the politicians ALLOW them to do.

The constantly changing "villain," is very suspicious of some other agenda.
Logic and lies have a hard time co-existing!

And why must the best WORKING health care system on the planet be scrapped en masse rather than identifying its worst problem, fix that single problem and THEN move on to the next most serious problem. Health care is an area of American life that has been actively debated for more than 20 years and discussed for 2 or 3 times that long. It is NOT a crisis now, it has NEVER been a crisis. It is NOT an emergency now, it has never been an emergency. Why NOT take the time and do it RIGHT?
We could FIX ONE major problem a YEAR for the next FOUR years and have the 4 worst problems corrected BEFORE any of the present bills would be implemented. In other words, NOT A SINGLE SECOND WOULD BE LOST. And 4 problems would be fixed. NOT political problems, ACTUAL problems!

Do Conservatives have an underlying agenda in this health care fiasco?

Of course they do...

Your question all but admits that liberals DO have an agenda. So they both do. And both sides are WRONG!

This Independent HAS AN AGENDA TOO: My agenda is take our time and do it right!

It is a crisis now, it has been a crisis for years. It is an emergency now and growing ever larger by the month with people getting laid off, denied coverage, dieing because they can't get coverage. We need to take action now.

A CRISIS, an EMERGENCY of 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS standing? Can you not see how utterly nonsensical that idea is?

NO ONE says it is NOT a problem. It IS a problem, not a crisis. People are dying, yes, of course they are. People die every day with AND without coverage. And when a good law OR a bad law is passed, they will still die every day, with or without coverage. Your use of the word 'coverage' tells all that you have been brainwashed by the Insurance villain PLOY. And the imaginary millions without coverage. TREATMENT is important, coverage is not. And treatment IS available for all, has been available, and will be available. What happens to their finances IS NOT my responsibility. If someone must file for bankruptcy due to treatment of an illness. HOW is that my responsibility to share in their misfortune?

Whatever happened to the famous cry of the Left, "The Politics of Fear!" that we so often heard during the Bush years? Bush supposedly tried to trick us into giving up all our civil rights so that the terrorists wouldn't come here and kill us.
Now during the Obama years we hear that unless we give up rights (and income) 'people will die' because the new terrorists (insurance companies and Republicans) will let us die because they want to either get rich (insurance companies) or stay rich (Republicans).

They are indeed, and it is incumbent on us to do what we can to address that problem. No man is an island, we all share in this responsibility.

In many cases there is no treatment because there is no coverage. THAT is the root of the problem.

Bull, and Bull.

You send whatever money you want to whomever you feel is needy. DO NOT ask me for a penny. Each of us IS responsible for ourselves first. Those who cannot, did not, or will not take care of themselves, TOUGH. Life is not fair, has NEVER been fair, and never will be fair.
You are compassionate, Good for you. Spend ALL your money on the unfortunate, leave mine alone. I do not believe in Communism.