Insurance mandate: Should healthy people pay for irresponsible sick people?

[Mr. Shaman]

I suppose you would. Crooked, corrupt democrats are in the business of taking from me to give to you.

All one has to do is look at the national debt their programs have given us; the transfer of wealth to the rich; the dependency of the people on those same programs; the waste, and fraud, inbred in those programs; the unConstitutional growth, and power, of the fed; etc.

MORE self-flagellation?????????????

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I suppose you would. Crooked, corrupt democrats are in the business of taking from me to give to you.

All one has to do is look at the national debt their programs have given us; the transfer of wealth to the rich; the dependency of the people on those same programs; the waste, and fraud, inbred in those programs; the unConstitutional growth, and power, of the fed; etc.

MORE self-flagellation?????????????

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why do the libs and dems really belive the govt will be able to control this monster once it is created.

Healthcare Bill To Cut Deficit: CBO!!!!

*

 

[Hobo1]

The problem is that for some people, even "very inexpensive health insurance" is too much for some people. For instance, if you're a single mother working minimum wage, or unemployed, even $5000 for a HSA would likely be extremely hard to come by, and could be put to better use elsewhere, like paying for the mortgage, or buying food. Especially if the subject in question is pretty healthy, it could easily be in their best interest not to get health insurance, given a budget constraint.

It's not that I don't think everyone should ideally have insurance; it's that some people simply cannot afford it. Were this to be remedied (for instance, were insurance costs to be fully subsidized, or sufficiently subsidized), then a mandate would make a little more sense, because it wouldn't be detracting from the other parts of someone's budget. But without subsidies, it has the potential to be a much greater drain than a benefit on the very poor who happen to be healthy.

I was addressing my remarks primarily at those who do have money to buy low cost health insurance, but prefer to live recklessly and buy the latest gadget rather than buy health insurance. BTW, if health care insurance were mandatory, it should be quite possible lower the cost of health insurance for they young and healthy below the $700 penalty proposed by Obama-care for those who do not buy insurance.

Anyway you look at it, poor people ARE going to get health care - even if they must go the emergency room where the law says no one can be turned away. Obviously, that is not a good situation.

We do have programs like Medicaid which pay for insurance for some classes of poor people, but not all.

There must be an incentive for people to pull themselves out of poverty. The last thing we need in this country is to provide incentives for people to stay poor because, "the benefits are too good to pass up". Having lived in areas where poverty is rampant, I know there are two kinds of poor people... those that are down on their luck, and those people who are just lazy. I can sympathize with the people down on their luck. I have nothing but contempt for those who are fit to work but too lazy to do so.

Even so, I believe we, as a society, have a moral obligation to establish a minimum safety net for all citizens. That safety net should include a basic level of health care - even for people can't afford it. That would mean some form of subsidy would be necessary so that the very poor person can get a health insurance policy. The existing practice of going to the emergency room to get medical care is a big waste of money.

 

[Webrockk]

MORE self-flagellation?????????????

*

Where's the rest of the chart...the one that represents 2009 and 10? Hmmm?

Leaving that little nugget off, speaks to your complete intellectual dishonesty...in other words, and as evidenced by every one of your ridiculous assertions on this forum, you are a pathological lair for the sole purpose of forwarding delusional progressive agenda.

The gigs up, my friend... your tactics are obvious to all but the most severly afflicted dull eyed progressive sheep, and are doing far more harm to your "movement" than good.

But please continue, I find it annoying, but strangely amusing, and in the end, only exposes you for what you are.

 

[RationalAltruism]

...

Nice dectuple post....... are you serious?

Even so, I believe we, as a society, have a moral obligation to establish a minimum safety net for all citizens. That safety net should include a basic level of health care - even for people can't afford it.

Definitely. Key word there being "health care", not "health insurance," which some people seem to have trouble differentiating. Everyone needs health care; health insurance (full coverage) is only a means to an end, not the end itself.

Where's the rest of the chart...the one that represents 2009 and 10? Hmmm?

The budgets in 2009 and 2010 were much higher, obviously, but the spending that resulted in them was necessary because of the recession Bush left us right when he left office. Had we not done some kind of bailout, we'd be in an even worse situation than we are now.

Contrast that with why the other Republicans increased the national debt: tax cuts? Military spending increases (Iraq, Afghanistan)? Which do you think is more justified, that or saving the economy?

Just for reference:

Also, keep in mind that every dollar we cut from taxes now means $1.30 or $1.40 taxpayers have to pay later, due to the national debt plus interest.

Leaving that little nugget off, speaks to your complete intellectual dishonesty...in other words, and as evidenced by every one of your ridiculous assertions on this forum, you are a pathological lair for the sole purpose of forwarding delusional progressive agenda.

So when you can't dispute the obvious trend that Republicans increase the national debt more than Democrats, you resort to personal attacks when you don't have anything else to back you up? Sad.

 

[Webrockk]

Do you know what I consider "personal attacks"? Insults to logic and intelligence, blatant lies, half truths, tired hyper-partisan talking points that have no basis in reality, and purposefully incomplete, fantastically misleading "charts" sourced from intellectually dishonest progressive websites that have only one agenda in mind...."means to an end" tactics to forward "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.

 

[RationalAltruism]

Do you know what I consider "personal attacks"? Insults to logic and intelligence, blatant lies, half truths, tired hyper-partisan talking points that have no basis in reality, and purposefully incomplete, fantastically misleading "charts" sourced from intellectually dishonest progressive websites that have only one agenda in mind...."means to an end" tactics to forward "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.

So talking points are personal attacks?
And well-documented charts with sources are personal attacks?

You might want to check out a dictionary sometime.

The fact remains that you aren't refuting anything; you're simply asserting that you're right, without providing anything to back it up (except an ideology that presupposes that it's right).

Show us how we're wrong; don't simply tell us that we're wrong. That'll help your argument a lot more.

 

[Webrockk]

Your insidious, liberty usurping agenda:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...t-and-the-Transformation-of-American-Politics

An agenda that will be stopped eventually, and rivers of blood in the streets will be its most logical end.

The average tenure of any given society is around 200 years...we are well overdue, and the evidence of total and violent collapse is staring us in the face.

 

[RationalAltruism]

Your insidious, liberty usurping agenda:

An agenda that will be stopped eventually, and rivers of blood in the streets will be its most logical end.

So, in other words, no, you can't come up with a refutation, and instead threaten revolution and eliminationism.

Huh.

 

[Webrockk]

So, in other words, no, you can't come up with a refutation, and instead threaten revolution and eliminationism.

Huh.

You asked me to show you where you are wrong. I did. ideologically, you are dead wrong, and the price to pay for this intellectual dishonesty or naive ignorance will be extremely high.

 

[Gipper]

Is there a bigger dunce in the entire world than this crazy bi*ch?

This baby killing fool is praying to St. Joseph...that should piss off the anti-Christian Libs and God.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Where's the rest of the chart...the one that represents 2009 and 10? Hmmm?

You're gonna have to wait for that, 'til after Obama's two-terms.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Do you know what I consider "personal attacks"? Insults to logic and intelligence, blatant lies, half truths, tired hyper-partisan talking points that have no basis in reality......

....i.e. the RNC/FAUX Noise Consortium.

​

 

[Phoenix68]

How 'bout WHACKING Medicare D....THE biggest drain ON Medicare??!!!​

.
Medicare Releases Prices For First 10 Drugs Subject To NEGOTIATIONS!!!!
August 15, 2024
.​

"The Biden administration on Thursday released prices for the first 10 prescription drugs that were subject to landmark negotiations between drugmakers and Medicare, a milestone in a controversial process that aims to make costly medications more affordable for older Americans.

The government estimates that the new negotiated prices for the medications will lead to around $6 Billion in net savings for the Medicare program in 2026 alone when they officially go into effect, or 22% net savings overall. That is based on the estimated savings the prices would have produced if they were in effect in 2023, senior administration officials told reporters on Wednesday.

The Biden administration also expects the new prices to save Medicare enrollees $1.5 Billion in out-of-pocket costs in 2026 alone."

.

.

.​