You raise a very good point. I'm from Massachusetts, and now we're required to purchase medical insurance. If we don't, we get penalized on our state tax return. I have to wonder how much money the insurance industry gave to Romney so he could get elected Governor. For this reason alone, I won't vote for him for President.
(1, cont.) But when that same tax money is used to help treat sick people, all these "libertarian" types jump out and say, "No! It violates my rights for you to use tax money to help sick people!"
(2) Hillary doesn't really want to give Americans health care; she wants to bomb Iran and exterminate all the little brown people living there. So don't worry no one's rights are being infringed upon (from Ayn Rand's point of view, at least).
False. I am not complaining about being taxed in general. I am complaining about the particulars of WHAT is being "taxed": being alive, rather than participation in particular activities.
I have a problem with taxing most activities too, but this is just way over the line.
(1) Everyone gets taxed for living in this country, for "being alive" here. When that tax money is being used for buying bombs to kill people living thousands of miles away, no one raises an eyebrow. I daresay no one has the courage to do so, for critizing US military adventures makes one a pinko commie terrrorist suspect.....
People only get taxed when they participate in activities that are taxable. Generate income? Taxed. Buy or sell? Taxed. Own wealth? Taxed.
But right now, you can sit in the wilderness (if you can find any) and do nothing and no one can take anything from you. Hillary wants to change that. Now you have to pay money no matter who you are or what you do, as long as you are alive and in the country.
We've become the frog in the pot of boiling water, thinking that this is OK. It's not.
Well, to live in this country you have to generate income, because you have to buy goods and services- food, housing, etc. in order to survive. The state taxes these activities, therefore it taxes all people living within it. It's not as though paying taxes or engaging in taxable activity is somehow optional.
You are asking an irrelevant question. It does not matter how many. If you are the only person who likes Beethoven, is it acceptable for me to outlaw it, just because it will only affect you?
You're justifying real policies, by appealing to imaginary minorities. Everyone pays taxes. Can you give any real, concrete examples of a person who does not? Because it seems to me like your argument is entirely ideological and not based upon any empirical evidence.
You compared having health insurance to having car insurance and I wanted to say that no body forces you to have collision insurance, but if you crash your car with out it, the government does not buy you a new car. If somthing goes wrong with your body and you don't have insurance, the governemt does pay to have it fixed. That's the difference.
Romney's original plan was much better, but when people criticize the finalized Massachusetts law, I have to wonder, what's your solution? If Mitt's ideas aren't implemented, I will be tempted to cancel my insurance and leech off the system. I have too much integrity for that, but that's what our current system rewards, and even the watered down Romney plan is a vast improvement.
"Governor Romney did not propose a health insurance mandate. What he proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a bond or establishing an escrow account. The Massachusetts legislature replaced those provisions with a requirement that individuals buy health insurance or be fined—essentially an individual "play or pay" requirement."
I believe the portion of the bill that calls for penalties on those who don't sign up was more or less forced on Mitt by a Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. Mitt did the best he could with what he had to work with.
Perhaps. I'd like to hear his answer. I lived in MA most of my life and voted for him, and I understand he had to work with the Dems on a lot of things.
I don't understand your position. Do you want to deny healthcare to people who go to the emergency room who don't have insurance? Do you want ME to pay for your healthcare? Or, do you want the Government to keep picking up the bill and taxing ME?
What don't you understand? I do not want to be forced to get health insurance. I do not want to be forced to pay money to a health insurance company just because I happen to be alive. How is this hard to understand?
Ok, so, who are you gonna force to take care of you when you do get sick? Me? Another tax payer? The Gov'nt? Let me use your quote "I do not want to be forced to pay for your hospital bills just because I happen to be alive." You want free Health care? Move to Canada.
And I don't know about you, but I can not afford a 300K or more stay at a hospital to save me after an accident. I can afford insurance. I don't think that one should recieve health care they are not willing to pay for and emergency health care is really expensive.
You are not paying to be alive, you are paying for emergency care that would be required after somthing like a car accident to keep you alive. If you don't want the care, then by no means should you pay for it, but if after that accident, while you are lying in that gurny and you want to be loaded into an ambulance and taken to and treated at a hospital, then you should pay for it.
Due to the rising cost of health care and more importantly the extream cost of emergency healh care, it is only responcible to have health insurance. The cost of getting care for an accident involving damage to your eye (example:getting somthing like a pencil stuck in it) can cost upwards of 30k $! If you are uninsured and cannot pay for this out of pockect, the burden of paying for it falls on other tax payers.
I agree with you wholeheartedly my friend.
mindround 1 year ago
You raise a very good point. I'm from Massachusetts, and now we're required to purchase medical insurance. If we don't, we get penalized on our state tax return. I have to wonder how much money the insurance industry gave to Romney so he could get elected Governor. For this reason alone, I won't vote for him for President.
Steve197201 4 years ago
Romney was my #2 guy. But after his poor performance last night ... he's dropped to maybe third.
Right now it is Fred, then McCain.
pudgenet 4 years ago
My guy is Ron Paul. He's the only one who seems for real and who I can trust.
Steve197201 4 years ago
(1, cont.) But when that same tax money is used to help treat sick people, all these "libertarian" types jump out and say, "No! It violates my rights for you to use tax money to help sick people!"
(2) Hillary doesn't really want to give Americans health care; she wants to bomb Iran and exterminate all the little brown people living there. So don't worry no one's rights are being infringed upon (from Ayn Rand's point of view, at least).
vforvoltaire 4 years ago
False. I am not complaining about being taxed in general. I am complaining about the particulars of WHAT is being "taxed": being alive, rather than participation in particular activities.
I have a problem with taxing most activities too, but this is just way over the line.
pudgenet 4 years ago
Two points:
(1) Everyone gets taxed for living in this country, for "being alive" here. When that tax money is being used for buying bombs to kill people living thousands of miles away, no one raises an eyebrow. I daresay no one has the courage to do so, for critizing US military adventures makes one a pinko commie terrrorist suspect.....
vforvoltaire 4 years ago
People only get taxed when they participate in activities that are taxable. Generate income? Taxed. Buy or sell? Taxed. Own wealth? Taxed.
But right now, you can sit in the wilderness (if you can find any) and do nothing and no one can take anything from you. Hillary wants to change that. Now you have to pay money no matter who you are or what you do, as long as you are alive and in the country.
We've become the frog in the pot of boiling water, thinking that this is OK. It's not.
pudgenet 4 years ago
Well, to live in this country you have to generate income, because you have to buy goods and services- food, housing, etc. in order to survive. The state taxes these activities, therefore it taxes all people living within it. It's not as though paying taxes or engaging in taxable activity is somehow optional.
vforvoltaire 4 years ago
False.
pudgenet 4 years ago
I guess you haven't heard the line about death and taxes, eh? Seriously, how many people don't pay taxes, in the US or any other country?
vforvoltaire 4 years ago
You are asking an irrelevant question. It does not matter how many. If you are the only person who likes Beethoven, is it acceptable for me to outlaw it, just because it will only affect you?
Apparently you do not care about minority rights.
pudgenet 4 years ago
You're justifying real policies, by appealing to imaginary minorities. Everyone pays taxes. Can you give any real, concrete examples of a person who does not? Because it seems to me like your argument is entirely ideological and not based upon any empirical evidence.
vforvoltaire 4 years ago
False.
pudgenet 4 years ago
rock on
hillmedia22 4 years ago
Vote for Ron Paul 2008!!!
piercemk 4 years ago
You compared having health insurance to having car insurance and I wanted to say that no body forces you to have collision insurance, but if you crash your car with out it, the government does not buy you a new car. If somthing goes wrong with your body and you don't have insurance, the governemt does pay to have it fixed. That's the difference.
julienunruh 4 years ago
In most states, you are required to have car insurance to drive. It is a crime not to.
pudgenet 4 years ago
like mine you are forced to have auto insurance or pay the state like 500 a month or someting out ragoues, so you go with the insurance
hillmedia22 4 years ago
bjalder..I want to pay on a "per visit basis" as I have.
Don't want a free ride, if some a get free ride, it is the responsibility
of those that supply the free ride to sort it.
My care cost you, 0 !
Forced to pay for insurance is like extortion to ME.
Meekseek 4 years ago
Romney's original plan was much better, but when people criticize the finalized Massachusetts law, I have to wonder, what's your solution? If Mitt's ideas aren't implemented, I will be tempted to cancel my insurance and leech off the system. I have too much integrity for that, but that's what our current system rewards, and even the watered down Romney plan is a vast improvement.
bjalder26 4 years ago
"Governor Romney did not propose a health insurance mandate. What he proposed was that those who still insisted on going without coverage in a reformed system demonstrate proof of their willingness and ability to pay their own bills by posting a bond or establishing an escrow account. The Massachusetts legislature replaced those provisions with a requirement that individuals buy health insurance or be fined—essentially an individual "play or pay" requirement."
bjalder26 4 years ago
I believe the portion of the bill that calls for penalties on those who don't sign up was more or less forced on Mitt by a Democratic legislature in Massachusetts. Mitt did the best he could with what he had to work with.
ogrepete 4 years ago
Perhaps. I'd like to hear his answer. I lived in MA most of my life and voted for him, and I understand he had to work with the Dems on a lot of things.
pudgenet 4 years ago
I don't understand your position. Do you want to deny healthcare to people who go to the emergency room who don't have insurance? Do you want ME to pay for your healthcare? Or, do you want the Government to keep picking up the bill and taxing ME?
bjalder26 4 years ago 2
What don't you understand? I do not want to be forced to get health insurance. I do not want to be forced to pay money to a health insurance company just because I happen to be alive. How is this hard to understand?
pudgenet 4 years ago
Ok, so, who are you gonna force to take care of you when you do get sick? Me? Another tax payer? The Gov'nt? Let me use your quote "I do not want to be forced to pay for your hospital bills just because I happen to be alive." You want free Health care? Move to Canada.
hydroponicrose 4 years ago
You are extremely confused. I never said anything about health CARE. I said I should not be forced to pay for health INSURANCE.
pudgenet 4 years ago
And I don't know about you, but I can not afford a 300K or more stay at a hospital to save me after an accident. I can afford insurance. I don't think that one should recieve health care they are not willing to pay for and emergency health care is really expensive.
julienunruh 4 years ago
You are not paying to be alive, you are paying for emergency care that would be required after somthing like a car accident to keep you alive. If you don't want the care, then by no means should you pay for it, but if after that accident, while you are lying in that gurny and you want to be loaded into an ambulance and taken to and treated at a hospital, then you should pay for it.
julienunruh 4 years ago
If I am alive, under Hillary's plan, or in Massachusetts, I am required to pay.
That is a virtual tax on living, no matter how you look at it.
pudgenet 4 years ago
Due to the rising cost of health care and more importantly the extream cost of emergency healh care, it is only responcible to have health insurance. The cost of getting care for an accident involving damage to your eye (example:getting somthing like a pencil stuck in it) can cost upwards of 30k $! If you are uninsured and cannot pay for this out of pockect, the burden of paying for it falls on other tax payers.
julienunruh 4 years ago
It is not for YOU to say what is repsonsible for ME to do. *I* make that decision for me.
pudgenet 4 years ago