Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Can the government really force you to directly pay a penalty for not paying a private company some money? Is that even constitutional? They want to fine you for not giving a private company your money. This isn't like car insurance where insurance is required for the privilege of using the roads. This is just for existing.
You know that you're REQUIRED to have car insurance in order to drive a car, right? The idea of requiring insurance is nothing new. I've been in an accident with an uninsured driver before, I know what a hassle it causes. What about when someone without health insurance (who can't afford the care) gets shot? Do you think the ER turns them away?
However, unlike car insurance, if you can't afford health insurance due to a low income level, there are typically state programs that will give you free or reduced cost insurance for your kids. If you aren't eligible for those programs because you make too much money, and you still won't get your kids insurance, well, you're a deadbeat who IMO should have their kids taken away.....but I guess a fine does the job, too.
Without a lien, you're only required to carry liability in most states. That's coverage against hitting others. So, if your kid gets hurt in your car because you hit someone, your liability insurance will not cover it.
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
That may be, but it's ridiculous to penalize someone over it.
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Unless they have to make the choice between other necessities like food and such I agree. At the end of the day, Obama just wants to make health care much more affordable and accessible for everyone. As it stands, an estimated 40% of all businesses out there do not offer their employees a health care program of any kind let alone a plan which is both affordable and of decent quality for both the business and the employees. Health care has been shot down to a lower priority for too long now. To me, some things are simply worth more than money and quality health care is one of them. I agree with Obama. It should be a right.
Also keep in mind that McCain voted against support for the kinds of programs such as Florida Kid Care which provides many children in many families health care that is affordable.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?
Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
I would think it to be to put money in his pockets. Obama voted to kill a child even if it survives an abortion, what makes you think he cares about them when they are older?
Keep trying to make that crap stick :roll:
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Can the government really force you to directly pay a penalty for not paying a private company some money? Is that even constitutional? They want to fine you for not giving a private company your money. This isn't like car insurance where insurance is required for the privilege of using the roads. This is just for existing.
You know that you're REQUIRED to have car insurance in order to drive a car, right? The idea of requiring insurance is nothing new. I've been in an accident with an uninsured driver before, I know what a hassle it causes. What about when someone without health insurance (who can't afford the care) gets shot? Do you think the ER turns them away?
However, unlike car insurance, if you can't afford health insurance due to a low income level, there are typically state programs that will give you free or reduced cost insurance for your kids. If you aren't eligible for those programs because you make too much money, and you still won't get your kids insurance, well, you're a deadbeat who IMO should have their kids taken away.....but I guess a fine does the job, too.
Without a lien, you're only required to carry liability in most states. That's coverage against hitting others. So, if your kid gets hurt in your car because you hit someone, your liability insurance will not cover it.
Thanks for the lesson there sport, I never said it would cover your kid getting hurt in the car, nor did I imply it. Again - I made the analogy to car insurance because COW asked if requiring insurance would even be constitutional.
As I've also already pointed out - the case for requiring insurance for children is actually quite simple. Kids can't help themselves. Kids can't follow the conservative/libertarian "personal responsibility" mantra. Some parents are cheap and/or just plain stupid/unfit parents. That's who this is targeting.
If you really want to bring up liability coverage, that actually makes a case for ALL people being covered (which I personally am against), as it refers to the gunshot analogy I already made. If someone comes in with an emergency and can't pay for it, who does? Everyone having insurance would help defer that. However, I only even bring that up because you talk about required car insurance as acceptable.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Genx87
What does the CHIPS program do then?
The current number of uninsured and under-insured working people, including and especially their children, suggests the answer to your question is, not enough.
The extent of the underinsured problem has not been assessed since a 1995 study, partly due to the lack of a working definition. Using a 2003 Commonwealth Fund survey of 3,293 adults, ages 19 to 64, Schoen and colleagues estimated the number of underinsured adults. They define an underinsured person as one who has insurance all year but has inadequate financial protection, as indicated by one of three conditions: 1) annual out-of-pocket medical expenses amount to 10 percent or more of income; 2) among low-income adults (incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level), out-of-pocket medical expenses amount to 5 percent or more of income; or 3) health plan deductibles equal or exceed 5 percent of income.
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Underinsured... I really have never understood that term. Underinsured for what? Definte underinsured for me.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?
Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
You can get healthcare without having healthcare insurance. People seem to forget this fact.
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
I keep hearing mention of this, but it's not really stated anywhere what McCain (or other critics) is talking about. I keep hearing mention about a "penalty" that's possible under Obama's health care plan. Is it for those who don't insure their children???
I am neither for Obama/McCain on this subject, just wanted to check the "facts". Anyone know?
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?
Point being, it is not the government's responsibility nor concern how I raise my kids or how I provide for them. That is why we have this silly little thing called freedom. Freedom to be stupid... maybe... but freedom none-the-less.
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?
Point being, it is not the government's responsibility nor concern how I raise my kids or how I provide for them. That is why we have this silly little thing called freedom. Freedom to be stupid... maybe... but freedom none-the-less.
Ok - so you choose not to get insurance for your kid. Your kid needs surgery and you can't afford it. Your kid dies. That's your choice, huh? I'm glad you have that freedom to let your child DIE. I bet you're pro life too. Fucking hypocrites.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?
Yet another pathetic, meaningless reply. :thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: Deeko
hahahaha wow, you dish out so much manufactured bullshit, it's great. You are truly clueless, kid. It's really cute how you take my desire to see kids have healthcare and turn it into my being lucky to survive this far. So tell me - my education comparison above - is that damn dirty gub'ment destroying your freedom and liberty by making your kids go to school, too?
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Underinsured... I really have never understood that term. Underinsured for what? Definte underinsured for me.
An example of being underinsured is having a policy that covers up to $10,000 for a given condition when the rising cost of health care makes the actual cost of treating the covered condition closer to $50,000. Another example would be having a policy you were told would cover a range of conditions only to find that the insurer is scouring your records looking any excuse to avoid paying for the treatment you've already received.
Originally posted by: Deeko
351Cleveland, answer the question about the comparison to education.
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?
Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
You can get healthcare without having healthcare insurance. People seem to forget this fact.
No, no, no! It's immoral and illegal to get medical treatment and *not* have an insurance company make obscene amounts of money!
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?
Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
You can get healthcare without having healthcare insurance. People seem to forget this fact.
No, no, no! It's immoral and illegal to get medical treatment and *not* have an insurance company make obscene amounts of money!
Our "break your leg and you're bankrupt" system of healthcare is absolutely broken to the point where everyone needs insurance if they're not rich. I dont think theres any disputing that with any reasonable retort.
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Deeko
351Cleveland, answer the question about the comparison to education.
Its called home schooling. But these days the k-12 education is more like babysitting that most parents are OK with because it is after all just "babysitting".