Massachusetts judge approves taxpayer-funded sex change for inmate

[Ban Hammer 13,558]

Under certain requirements, you're not subject to the tax either even if you do not buy health insurance. But don't tell anyone.

i think that's the poor, hence the expression "can't get blood from a stone"

[JohnR! 5,495]

not really, since one can opt out of paying the vehicle insurance and not face a "tax"

The other poster just posted a link where it states you must put $55k in lieu of insurance, similarly to the individual mandate in the health care law, I.e. you can't opt out without putting money in its stead. In the end one can't just walk away from it without financial consequences. Bottom line your state can mandate you to purchase insurance or put money in lieu of it. A tax by any other name...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

not really, since one can opt out of paying the vehicle insurance and not face a "tax"

As long as you abide the law, there will be no tax. It only applies to those breaking the law.

[Ban Hammer 13,558]

The other poster just posted a link where it states you must put $55k in lieu of insurance, similarly to the individual mandate in the health care law, I.e. you can't opt out without putting money in its stead. In the end one can't just walk away from it without financial consequences. Bottom line your state can mandate you to purchase insurance or put money in lieu of it. A tax by any other name...

you're still missing the boat here. that individual's money - it doesn't go away. it's used only if there is an accident. otherwise it just sits there.

if the individual wants it back, they can (1) pick up auto insurance or (2) sell their vehicles and not need auto insurance, and the money is returned to them in full.

how you get a "tax" from the above is a mystery.

[JohnR! 5,495]

you're still missing the boat here. that individual's money - it doesn't go away. it's used only if there is an accident. otherwise it just sits there.

if the individual wants it back, they can (1) pick up auto insurance or (2) sell their vehicles and not need auto insurance, and the money is returned to them in full.

how you get a "tax" from the above is a mystery.

Same goes for Heath insurance. You can opt in, and not pay the penalty. Unfortunately you can't guarantee never to get sick or be in an accident, so 'selling the car' is not an option. Truth is that everyone will need health care sooner or later and most likely without notice. However, if you can prove before a court of law you will never need medial care, I am sure your lawyer could get an exemption for you. Good luck with that.

[Ban Hammer 13,558]

Same goes for Heath insurance. You can opt in, and not pay the penalty. Unfortunately you can't guarantee never to get sick or be in an accident, so 'selling the car' is not an option. Truth is that everyone will need health care sooner or later and most likely without notice. However, if you can prove before a court of law you will never need medial care, I am sure your lawyer could get an exemption for you. Good luck with that.

yet in your scenario, one must pay money for a service, whether they get sick or not. with the auto insurance we were discussing, there's no money out of the individual's pocket unless the individual has an accident.

sorry, but on that topic of auto insurance, you're talking apples and trying to make them into oranges.

[Teddy B 17,252]

To compare the health insurance mandate to having auto insurance is comparing apples and oranges. Auto insurance is voluntary in that one can choose not to drive and they won't pay a fee, or a tax for not having insurance. A person is only obligated to have auto insurance if they choose to drive, if they choose not to drive, they are free and clear. Auto insurance is voluntary.

If a person chooses not to have health insurance under the new mandate, then they are subject to a tax, or fine. The only way one can avoid paying the fine is to purchase health insurance, there is no "opt out" of this program either way without a suffering a penalty, the healthcare mandate and it's "tax" is not voluntary. A person has to choose one or the other.

[JohnR! 5,495]

To compare the health insurance mandate to having auto insurance is comparing apples and oranges. Auto insurance is voluntary in that one can choose not to drive and they won't pay a fee, or a tax for not having insurance. A person is only obligated to have auto insurance if they choose to drive, if they choose not to drive, they are free and clear. Auto insurance is voluntary.

If a person chooses not to have health insurance under the new mandate, then they are subject to a tax, or fine. The only way one can avoid paying the fine is to purchase health insurance, there is no "opt out" of this program either way without a suffering a penalty, the healthcare mandate and it's "tax" is not voluntary. A person has to choose one or the other.

The comparison is germane. It would be fair to say that you only need to purchase health insurance if you are planning to get sick, at some point during your life.

If a person chooses not to have health insurance under the new mandate, they the rest of us, who choose to insure ourselves, will have to bear the burden. As an opt-in and out, personally, I choose to opt-in and have health insurance for myself and I opt-out from having to pay the medical bill of the slackers who choose not to insure themselves.

Speaking of opt-out, hospitals can't opt-out from treating patients who can't pay or aren't insured. It strikes me as odd there are no protests against this obvious intrusion of government in the manner by which a private business should operate.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The comparison is germane. It would be fair to say that you only need to purchase health insurance if you are planning to get sick, at some point during your life.

If a person chooses not to have health insurance under the new mandate, they the rest of us, who choose to insure ourselves, will have to bear the burden. As an opt-in and out, personally, I choose to opt-in and have health insurance for myself and I opt-out from having to pay the medical bill of the slackers who choose not to insure themselves.

Speaking of opt-out, hospitals can't opt-out from treating patients who can't pay or aren't insured. It strikes me as odd there are no protests against this obvious intrusion of government in the manner by which a private business should operate.

No, the comparison is not germane. One is forced, the other is not.

[JohnR! 5,495]

No, the comparison is not germane. One is forced, the other is not.

Correct. Hospitals are forced to provide medical care for the slackers who choose not to insure themselves, and all of us who are insured are forced to pick up the tab.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Correct. Hospitals are forced to provide medical care for the slackers who choose not to insure themselves, and all of us who are insured are forced to pick up the tab.

I agree with you there. As I have stated before, I am in favor of universal healthcare, but let's not lose sight of what this mandate really is in terms of it being voluntary, it simply is not.