jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (17 posts)

What are your thoughts on this picture?

  1. breathe2travel profile image80
    breathe2travelposted 5 years ago

    What are your thoughts on this picture?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/6836280_f260.jpg

  2. davenmidtown profile image87
    davenmidtownposted 5 years ago

    the sumnation of healthcare forced on the people... I believe that is the message...

  3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image97
    TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 years ago

    I consider it a piece of propaganda put out by people who do not understand or agree with the AHCA.  It's meant to frighten people, and it will...and I personally think that is wrong.  People are frightened enough about the economy, they don't need ads like this forced on them.

    1. Mitch Alan profile image81
      Mitch Alanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How is it wrong? The program is manditory and if you don't purchase the product you must pay a fine that is being caled a tax...explain how the picture doesn't represent that fact clearly.

    2. davenmidtown profile image87
      davenmidtownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Then people should research and learn for themselves and not be limited to visual ads when forming their opinions. You can only be a sucker if you allow yourself to be a sucker...

  4. stanwshura profile image75
    stanwshuraposted 5 years ago

    Pretty lame.  That $2.35 gets pooled so that, what?  Everybody gets to chew gum?  Apples and oranges.  Gum is a luxury.  Healthcare is not.  You won't die or become sick or permanently disabled because you couldn't afford gum.   Methinks the "author" should stick to puns, knock-knocks, and...no...limericks might be beyond his/her talent.

    1. Mitch Alan profile image81
      Mitch Alanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It isn't discussing the amount of the payment, but rather the fact that citizens will HAVE to pay a fine (tax) for not purchasing a specific product.  If you or I do not purchase insurance, whether we want to or not, we will be fined.

    2. stanwshura profile image75
      stanwshuraposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      As wracked as I am wrt the means (requiring all who can, to help fund, proportional to their material wealth, a well-managed, open-record healthcare pool, federally acquired and overseen) - the ends, a healthy citizenry, is well worth it - and right.

  5. Ms Dee profile image86
    Ms Deeposted 5 years ago

    I'm used to paying tax on things I purchase, so this seems very strange. What?! Pay tax on something I did not get?

  6. Mitch Alan profile image81
    Mitch Alanposted 5 years ago

    For the first time U.S. citizens will be taxed for an inactivity...for NOT doing something...sounds like a fine to me.

    1. davenmidtown profile image87
      davenmidtownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder if the Governement thinks that we as people are incapable of taking care of our own health/business. Are they going to start fining us for buying soda and not water?  hmmm....

    2. Mitch Alan profile image81
      Mitch Alanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I have no doubt...

  7. Sue St. Clair profile image72
    Sue St. Clairposted 5 years ago

    I liked the picture. It sums up in simple graphic terms what the whole individual mandate amounts to. Being forced to purchase something against your will, if you want it or not.

  8. Volitans profile image82
    Volitansposted 5 years ago

    Here's the problem with ads like this, which compare health insurance to other products:

    If you don't have health insurance and you get taken to the emergency room or hospitalized, you still will receive treatment. By law, hospitals cannot refuse to treat someone in an emergency situation, whether that person can pay for the $50,000 surgery or not.

    If the person cannot pay, no matter what, eventually the hospital has to push the cost of the treatment onto everyone who can pay.

    To go back to your gum analogy: it would be like someone coming into the store, and the merchant being forced to give him a stick of gum before determining if the customer can pay for the gum. When the customer cannot pay for the gum, the merchant is simply forced to eat the loss. To make up for it, he must charge more per stick of gum. However, making the gum more expensive results in more people not being able to afford the gum, making the merchant lose even more every time someone can't pay for the gum. Finally, the merchant goes to the government and asks them to pass a law to make everyone carry a gum-buying plan.

    The moral of the story? Gum is not health care, so don't try to compare them.

    1. Mitch Alan profile image81
      Mitch Alanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The comparison isn't being made between the products themselves...it is about the fact that U.S. citizens are being fined (they call it a tax) for NOT purchasing something.

    2. Volitans profile image82
      Volitansposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So long as we force hospitals to treat people regradless of their ability to pay, every American already has 'bought' health care. Those without insurance simply can't pay for it. Essentially, they're shoplifting health care.

    3. Mitch Alan profile image81
      Mitch Alanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The socialism angle never works...

 
working