Of course, honest people who already pay for HC will pay extra to give premium HC to non-payers. Anyone that gets sick will only owe the 1 time payment, as the rest is all free for them now, unless there are co-pays, which the poor or uninsurables will be subsidized by, guess who, the rest of us. So we get to pay for premo HC, AIDS & cancer meds, etc all while waiting in line behind the non-payers. Eventually, drug rehab, food, shelter. Can you say economic death spiral?
The laws defined by this government on a whole are great and it is simply the fault of human nature, greed, ignorance etc, that we get issues. It would be great if everybody was compliant alas; I know that to be a dream. However the constitution and the amendments & laws derived from it are quite fair & forward thinking, we just need more compliance in these laws, again a 'Pipe dream' if you will but government functions best when it's people believe and participate in it.
What question is he dodging, I got a clear answer from his analogy, if you litter who makes you pay the $50.00 fine, No one, we simply trust in people which is so noted by him saying we have over 80% compliance on the tax laws, the enforcer there is the possibility of a visit from the IRS. So if you want him to say yes the IRS enforces that fine, thats silly that body of the government doesn't act until it's worth it like the Wesley Snipes incident mentioned here.
@adamhawk71 Bingo. You don't. They don't know. Not until you go to a doctor and they come to find out you don't have it. Once that happens, THEN the fine is levied.
Effing nimrods being fed by a fucking television station! Jesus...
@golfarch1: You think he was ignoring Bill because he didn't know the answer? Not too good with subtlety are we? Not too good with the blatantly obvious either.
IF you get caught without insurance at a hospital and you are seeking care (that we are all paying for now), that's when the fine gets levied. Yes, it's by the IRS, but it's not like the IRS is out there investigating you.
Okay guys, this is difficult for you to understand. If you don't understand it after you finished reading, try reading it a few more times:
The point he was trying (and somewhat failing) to make was that there isn't anyone who tracks you down and audits you (like o'reilly's example of wesley snipes). Not the IRS, not secret obama brownshirts, no one.
At some point in their lives, everyone will need medical care.. unless in cases of sudden death, or unless they only use some sort of holistic medicine treatments.
@DerikMansfield yes,and the proper way to get care is to find a good doctor,let him do his stuff,and then reach into your pocket and pay for it,like you do with everything else...all this is,is a bunch of parasites trying to make a living on a simple transaction between a sick person and a doctor...take the government drones,the insurers,and the lawyers out of the equation,and you have something real and affordable
While I was stationed in Japan, my wife got a dislocated shoulder. After a 30min wait, she saw a doctor, he did his thing. She payed the equivalent of $90 and she was on her way. Two years later, I'm stationed in Virginia, she dislocates her shoulder again. A month later we get a bill from the doctor, the radiology department, the hospital, and the corporation that owned the hospital. Total cost around $1400. Having the military insurance helped.
@DerikMansfield so what you are saying is that every time you want something you cannot afford,the government should buy it for you...even when that means stealing the money from productive citizens who don't go around dislocating their shoulders...in a free market with sound money, ,prices go down,not up...and people wouldn't have to think about doing something immoral like stealing from someone else...get the govt out of it and you will have competitive pricing...think pre-1913
@elminerodeoro I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you got that from what I just said. I just said their is a place for insurance in all of this, and government needs to have some regulation to control sky rocketing premiums. I didn't say anything about stealing. Economics of H.C. are not so simple. You're dealing with people's lives, they will pay as much as they can to save themselves. If a hospital can make 100k treating 2 people, or 90K treating 5 people, makes sense for them go for option one.
So in my opinion, something needed to be done to in regards to health care reform. A simple transaction system would still be costly, especially if you have a terminal illness that forced you to leave your job. That's why there is insurance, to protect you in situations like that. It's the skyrocketing premiums hurt the average person, as well as businesses trying to provide health care to their employees.
@DerikMansfield You are right there is no one that will enforce this (yet). What they are hoping for with this individual mandate is for 32 mil people to eventually buy insurance. If most do not buy and say "hell no", I am not paying $700 per yr in fines (unless of course as you stated you wind up in the hospital), the gov't will not sit on the sidelines ignoring this if they need this revenue. They will eventually have to set up an enforcement body or figure another way to collect.
@rexman82 I guess that's a point of contention where you and I disagree. In the grand scheme of things, $700 isn't very much. And setting up an enforcement body to collect amounts of that size from many different people just wouldn't be cost effective. Turning honest people into criminals isn't something that is on their agenda, it would be something the right would tear them to shreds over. Disagree with their policy fine, I just don't think it's as big a deal as some people make it out to be.
So, basically, what you're saying is that Weiner won a debate in which he really didn't participate.
I thought all the Dems were deeply involved in this bill and knew it inside and out...that's why they voted for it. So why can't he answer the VERY simple question of: If I decide I don't want participate in the mandate to buy insurance, who's going to come enforce it?
His comparison to littering means he's got no clue....because it won't be the police (who enforce littering).
What is the question? WHO will come to collect it?
WHO collects your taxes now? See, if you decide to NOT buy healthcare and saddle EVERYONE ELSE with a massive debt should something go wrong, YOU DON'T GET A TAX CREDIT.
If you want to NOT GET THE TAX BREAK then don't get healthcare. Pay the 1% or less extra taxes. And what happens if you don't pay your taxes. You have a debt.
What do you think happens? Brown shirts? Is that the storyline? Do they come now when you don't pay your taxes?
If you at all watch O'Reilly, you know that he can't stand people who come on and waste people's time. Weiner had no interest in answering any questions, he just wanted to blab on about nothing for the full 5 or 6 minutes.
O'Reilly doesn't need all the blabbing....he wants answers, he wants them quick, and he wants the ON POINT....if you're not going to be ON POINT, he's going to stop you and redirect you back to the question.
O'Reilly is the hood ornament on Fox's '77 Cutlass. Almost not a bad thing. Almost. Thanks for posting this so fast! Owned by a Weiner. Not to exceed 1%? Can that be?
Holy shit, wait. You're a teabagger? Feel like I just walked out the house nude. :X
Typical liberal....he doesn't have the answer (or know it)...so he bloviates about nothing. When O'Reilly tries to redirect him back to the question, he acts like a 2 year old and plays silent.
WEINER for President!
TheBillionairman 11 months ago
I am not allowed to watch Fox news in the house since I bought the bullhorn.
mabutoo 1 year ago
First to like, not because i like the video but i figured i'd be different lol
TheMethadoneParty 1 year ago
The person who uploaded this video is obviously and oreilly viewer! Are you an old crank? Did you take your medication yet?
Slayerfan84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The person who posted this video is a blatant moron. Anthony Weiner is NOT dodging ANY questions. He is merely correcting a misinformed cook.
amandaparmer1011 1 year ago
Comment removed
amandaparmer1011 1 year ago
Of course, honest people who already pay for HC will pay extra to give premium HC to non-payers. Anyone that gets sick will only owe the 1 time payment, as the rest is all free for them now, unless there are co-pays, which the poor or uninsurables will be subsidized by, guess who, the rest of us. So we get to pay for premo HC, AIDS & cancer meds, etc all while waiting in line behind the non-payers. Eventually, drug rehab, food, shelter. Can you say economic death spiral?
BurnOutXL 1 year ago
The laws defined by this government on a whole are great and it is simply the fault of human nature, greed, ignorance etc, that we get issues. It would be great if everybody was compliant alas; I know that to be a dream. However the constitution and the amendments & laws derived from it are quite fair & forward thinking, we just need more compliance in these laws, again a 'Pipe dream' if you will but government functions best when it's people believe and participate in it.
iMergeAndSee 1 year ago
What question is he dodging, I got a clear answer from his analogy, if you litter who makes you pay the $50.00 fine, No one, we simply trust in people which is so noted by him saying we have over 80% compliance on the tax laws, the enforcer there is the possibility of a visit from the IRS. So if you want him to say yes the IRS enforces that fine, thats silly that body of the government doesn't act until it's worth it like the Wesley Snipes incident mentioned here.
iMergeAndSee 1 year ago
@adamhawk71 Bingo. You don't. They don't know. Not until you go to a doctor and they come to find out you don't have it. Once that happens, THEN the fine is levied.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
Effing nimrods being fed by a fucking television station! Jesus...
@golfarch1: You think he was ignoring Bill because he didn't know the answer? Not too good with subtlety are we? Not too good with the blatantly obvious either.
CoreyWebsterPS3 1 year ago
continued:
IF you get caught without insurance at a hospital and you are seeking care (that we are all paying for now), that's when the fine gets levied. Yes, it's by the IRS, but it's not like the IRS is out there investigating you.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
Okay guys, this is difficult for you to understand. If you don't understand it after you finished reading, try reading it a few more times:
The point he was trying (and somewhat failing) to make was that there isn't anyone who tracks you down and audits you (like o'reilly's example of wesley snipes). Not the IRS, not secret obama brownshirts, no one.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
if no one tracks you down,why would anyone pay?
elminerodeoro 1 year ago
@elminerodeoro
At some point in their lives, everyone will need medical care.. unless in cases of sudden death, or unless they only use some sort of holistic medicine treatments.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
@DerikMansfield yes,and the proper way to get care is to find a good doctor,let him do his stuff,and then reach into your pocket and pay for it,like you do with everything else...all this is,is a bunch of parasites trying to make a living on a simple transaction between a sick person and a doctor...take the government drones,the insurers,and the lawyers out of the equation,and you have something real and affordable
elminerodeoro 1 year ago
@elminerodeoro If only it were that simple.
While I was stationed in Japan, my wife got a dislocated shoulder. After a 30min wait, she saw a doctor, he did his thing. She payed the equivalent of $90 and she was on her way. Two years later, I'm stationed in Virginia, she dislocates her shoulder again. A month later we get a bill from the doctor, the radiology department, the hospital, and the corporation that owned the hospital. Total cost around $1400. Having the military insurance helped.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
@DerikMansfield so what you are saying is that every time you want something you cannot afford,the government should buy it for you...even when that means stealing the money from productive citizens who don't go around dislocating their shoulders...in a free market with sound money, ,prices go down,not up...and people wouldn't have to think about doing something immoral like stealing from someone else...get the govt out of it and you will have competitive pricing...think pre-1913
elminerodeoro 1 year ago
@elminerodeoro I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you got that from what I just said. I just said their is a place for insurance in all of this, and government needs to have some regulation to control sky rocketing premiums. I didn't say anything about stealing. Economics of H.C. are not so simple. You're dealing with people's lives, they will pay as much as they can to save themselves. If a hospital can make 100k treating 2 people, or 90K treating 5 people, makes sense for them go for option one.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
@elminerodeoro continued:
So in my opinion, something needed to be done to in regards to health care reform. A simple transaction system would still be costly, especially if you have a terminal illness that forced you to leave your job. That's why there is insurance, to protect you in situations like that. It's the skyrocketing premiums hurt the average person, as well as businesses trying to provide health care to their employees.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
@DerikMansfield You are right there is no one that will enforce this (yet). What they are hoping for with this individual mandate is for 32 mil people to eventually buy insurance. If most do not buy and say "hell no", I am not paying $700 per yr in fines (unless of course as you stated you wind up in the hospital), the gov't will not sit on the sidelines ignoring this if they need this revenue. They will eventually have to set up an enforcement body or figure another way to collect.
rexman82 1 year ago
@rexman82 I guess that's a point of contention where you and I disagree. In the grand scheme of things, $700 isn't very much. And setting up an enforcement body to collect amounts of that size from many different people just wouldn't be cost effective. Turning honest people into criminals isn't something that is on their agenda, it would be something the right would tear them to shreds over. Disagree with their policy fine, I just don't think it's as big a deal as some people make it out to be.
DerikMansfield 1 year ago
So, basically, what you're saying is that Weiner won a debate in which he really didn't participate.
I thought all the Dems were deeply involved in this bill and knew it inside and out...that's why they voted for it. So why can't he answer the VERY simple question of: If I decide I don't want participate in the mandate to buy insurance, who's going to come enforce it?
His comparison to littering means he's got no clue....because it won't be the police (who enforce littering).
golfarch1 1 year ago
What is the question? WHO will come to collect it?
WHO collects your taxes now? See, if you decide to NOT buy healthcare and saddle EVERYONE ELSE with a massive debt should something go wrong, YOU DON'T GET A TAX CREDIT.
If you want to NOT GET THE TAX BREAK then don't get healthcare. Pay the 1% or less extra taxes. And what happens if you don't pay your taxes. You have a debt.
What do you think happens? Brown shirts? Is that the storyline? Do they come now when you don't pay your taxes?
jojojohanson 1 year ago
Did you even watch the clip??? O'Reilly specifically asks if the IRS would be levying the fine...and Weiner said "NO"...emphatically 3 or 4 times.
When O'Reilly asks who will levy the fine...Weiner responds by saying that they are not "criminalizing" non-compliance.
When O'Reilly asks "there's a fine, who enforces the fine?" Weiner didn't have an answer other than the littering comment.
golfarch1 1 year ago
If you at all watch O'Reilly, you know that he can't stand people who come on and waste people's time. Weiner had no interest in answering any questions, he just wanted to blab on about nothing for the full 5 or 6 minutes.
O'Reilly doesn't need all the blabbing....he wants answers, he wants them quick, and he wants the ON POINT....if you're not going to be ON POINT, he's going to stop you and redirect you back to the question.
Weiner couldn't answer the very simple question.
golfarch1 1 year ago
in a word,yes!
elminerodeoro 1 year ago
O'Reilly is the hood ornament on Fox's '77 Cutlass. Almost not a bad thing. Almost. Thanks for posting this so fast! Owned by a Weiner. Not to exceed 1%? Can that be?
Holy shit, wait. You're a teabagger? Feel like I just walked out the house nude. :X
CoreyWebsterPS3 1 year ago
Typical liberal....he doesn't have the answer (or know it)...so he bloviates about nothing. When O'Reilly tries to redirect him back to the question, he acts like a 2 year old and plays silent.
Who elects these idiots???
golfarch1 1 year ago
all I have to say is you need should see this clip
" No You Can't (Featuring John Boehner)"
repubtodem 1 year ago