On the other hand living is pretty much mandatory to, um, stay alive. So you don't really have any options about using or not using health care.
Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?
- Thread starter TheLonelySquire
- Start date
On the other hand living is pretty much mandatory to, um, stay alive. So you don't really have any options about using or not using health care.
That depends on your state, no?
Of course, but almost 100% of the "obligations" put on us by the Government on contingent on some kind of action.
You don't have to have auto insurance "just because", you have to have a car first, and drive it on public roads.
You don't have to pay a dime in taxes either, if you are homeless, or if you have no income.
You don't have to own a home, or have a job, or anything.
This health care business is the only thing that would place a financial obligation on every single citizen in the country just for existing.
If you have no income, don't pay taxes, and don't go to the doctor, the government will never know you don't have insurance. In that sense, it is unenforceable.
Besides that, they aren't going to lock you up for not having insurance. You'll pay a tax penalty. No taxes, no penalty.
So yeah, you can still live "off the grid" and not pay for insurance, just don't ever show up at an ER.
Besides that, they aren't going to lock you up for not having insurance. You'll pay a tax penalty. No taxes, no penalty.
So yeah, you can still live "off the grid" and not pay for insurance, just don't ever show up at an ER.
1) All states that that allow homeschooling require that the parents/guardians to get govt. recognition and approval to homeschool. You just can't keep your kids out and claim "homeschool" you have to go to your local or state board of education and be approved, else you're required by law to enroll you kids in a govt. approved school. Failure to comply and register with the local school district either in public school or as a homeschool, and this is the average- YMMV, can lead to fines, jail time, and possibly removal of the child from the home; the 1st two being in effect in every state homeschool or not. In TN, some DHS services will actually get you denied the right to homeschool and require that the child be placed in a public school or accredited "church" school.
So no, again, you don't have the freedom not to educate
your child in the USA.
2) Actually healthcare isn't the only "financial obligation" on every citizen simply for existing: Sales tax, income tax, various state and local taxes. Unless you're jobless and unemployed, even then and even then you're subject to sales tax, you have a obligation to pay these taxes for simply "existing". When you're a child your parent pays your burden, when you're an adult you pay your burden. And even then your state and local taxes are already paying for things used by other people: Police, fire, schools, roads, public works.
Which, outside the island of Manhattan, means you have to have auto insurance if you want a job.
In my first reply I showed how you picked bad examples that your latest reply doesn't overcome. Find another example.
Is every other city's public transportation messed up? There's walking, biking, public transportation. But if one wants to make use of the privilege of driving then auto insurance is required.So if this health care plan is so needed and so great, how come Congress and other government officials don't have to be on it? How come it wont be implemented right away so people aren't dying on the streets as Reid described?
Do you have health insurance, Gertch?
Well for starters, you are free to not have children. And in any case, in Arizona you don't need permission or approval to homeschool, you just have to "notify" the local school board of your intent to homeschool.
But I digress. I concede the point that you must educate your children. However, you do NOT have to educate them via the "government option".
You don't pay sales tax for "existing", you pay it for buying taxable items. If all I ever purchased was rice and fruit, I'd never pay a dime of sales tax. Besides, not all states have sales tax. No one pays income tax for "existing" either. You pay income tax on income, and even then only if you make more than a certain amount of money. As far as "various state and local taxes", I do not know of one single tax that every single person has to pay no matter what they do.
The jobless and unemployed owe no tax of any kind to anyone, but they'll have to have health insurance if this thing passes.
Last edited:
Except in rural areas where there is no public transit, and walking to the nearest job would be 5 to 6 miles (or as in our case 15) one way. So the "privilege" becomes a necessity of life to get a job to keep food on the table.
So if this health care plan is so needed and so great, how come Congress and other government officials don't have to be on it? How come it wont be implemented right away so people aren't dying on the streets as Reid described?
And not every city and/or town has public transit. Which is a separate issue related to the failure of infrastructure and the continued persistence on keep the status quo by simply repairing but not really upating existing infrastructure, and not funding large scale mass transit projects in American cities of all sizes.
And I have no problem with sticking Congress on the same health plan as everyone else. If you want to now why they won't go on it, ask them not us.
Yes, they would. But if they're already off the grid no one is going to know. Or do you think we're going to have cops asking for our proof of health insurance the same way they ask for proof of auto insurance?
It's a bad law, it's an unenforceable law because it doesn't address the simple fact that all a person has to do to not get caught is not go to the doctor. Which is going to trade "I'm not going cause I can't pay" for "I'm not going cause I don't want fined/jailed for not having insurance."
Which is were UHC comes in: Everyone has healthcare when they need it, everyone doesn't have to be forced to decided whether they can afford or rick going to the doc.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
15% is the number currently at or below the poverty line. The 89k folks will get subsidies. I don't consider that "paying their part".
Actually, it's directly Christian. Christ Himself said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, i.e to pay taxes cuz ya gotta do what ya gotta do, and Caesar wasn't exactly the nicest guy with the taxes either, since he was the invader and occupier of Jesus' homeland.
I.E. in His day they ripped money forcibly out of people's purses to pay for killing their relatives and friends, and yet He didn't advocate bucking the system. So there's absolutely zero reason that He would be against someone using tax money to help those who can't afford health care.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Or any other big city. Or any small town where you can live close to work. Or, just about anywhere.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Indeed. I consider this helping those less fortunate than myself - also known as 'being part of society'.
How many people do you know who don't own a car?
I don't even know that many who don't have (at least regular access to) a car, and I live in a big city with great public transport and a country that has a much lower ratio of cars per capita than the USA.
^^^ 7
EDIT: I mean 8.
EDIT: I mean 8.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I know several. And it doesn't matter, our work, our transportation, our choice of a place to live, our healthcare, are all decisions best left up to the individual. Not the government.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
So you are okay with indirectly paying for the health care of those who, at the moment, are unable to get access to affordable health insurance and those who's insurance refuses to cover the costs?
I don't understand why the personal question, but yes. I made sure my latest place of employment offered health insurance.
In Mass driving is a "privilege". That way the government can charge you all kinds of fees and taxes. So that is not a term I picked.
Again, this example of auto insurance does not hold up.
Yup. Lower taxes so businesses can hire those poor people or perhaps allow them to start small businesses of their own. Then we all win!
