All do, some just are more generous than others.  I live in one of the worst states, and you still get $5 exemption.  Not a boat load, but not bad to start over with,

Facts are now a ringer?  No, I did not throw in a ringer, I just laid bare the poster child of this whole debate is a sham.  A self indulgent lazy ignoramus that wants to be coddled cradle to grave.  And that is being unfair?  Sorry Stevendedalus, I would throw out a snide remark at this point, however I know you are not that gullible.

And that is what it all comes down to.  No facts, just emotions and "think" - not understand or know.

Not true. Some don't. Most might and some are decent but not all.

Do you really think the average American is like this? If full health insurance is tough to afford for those at the average income level then you are talking about a lot of people.

Mass. did that when Romney was Gov. It will be interesting to see how that works out. It's probably best done at the state lvl. Personally I think a lot of stuff is best done that way. The biggest problem I see at the Federal lvl is that they all just want to bring the bacon home so nothing gets done right.

Better check with a bankruptcy attorney.  My wife is a paralegal in the field.  Let me give you a hint - they all do.

WHoa!  Nice jump there.  From one anecdote to all americans, and you probably did not even pass go.  What's next?  Able to misquote everyone with a single word?

Yea, and his achilees heel.  So far, Mass has locked up a lot of law abiding citizens, overspent (by a factor of 10) the program, and is crying poor mouth and "more taxes".  But the latter is just Mass, and probably not related to the boondoggle.

And don't forget about those who are considered "uninsurable" because they have a lot of medical conditions aka pre-existing conditions.  For those people if they aren't able to get onto a group insurance plan through an employer they are pretty well screwed.

Not a jump. You try to characterize those going through financial disaster because of medical catastrophe as "A self indulgent lazy ignoramus that wants to be coddled cradle to grave". Simply not true. If the average income American is having trouble paying for full medical coverage than the problem involves a lot more than you suggest.

Untrue. Shows that you don't even know what the penalty is for non-compliance. So go look it up real quick so you can find a way to backpeddle.

I in no way state that the Mass. plan is a good solution, but in fact think it was bad. It does nothing to reduce the high cost of medical care in that state, a state where the costs are well above the national average. It is a perfect example of how our political system is failing. It should be no surprise that Romney got more contributions from insurance companies than Clinton did as the primary season was gearing up.

No that is the jump.  I commented on one case.  Not all cases, and I never said that.  Dont put words into my mouth.  What I have said and still maintain is that even the uninsured are not killed by unexpected medical bills.  There is bankruptcy which allows them to basically eliminate all debts and keep a homestead amount (if they have it).

But the second part of your statement is clearly false.  The "great medical crises" is causing less than 1% of Americans to file for bankruptcy.  That is hardly a crises.

No backpedalling, only hyperbole.  I know the penalty is just a fine.  I was just being sarcastic.  But since the sarcasm tags did not come through, good way to hold me to the truth as well.

Still, when we are talking about Bankruptcy and affordablitiy - it seems that Mass is just making the problem worse by penalizing people that perhaps cannot afford it (do you know all the expenses these people that do not want insurance have?  I dont think so).

Its hard to say. I dont live in Mass. so I dont what the cost of living is. It depends on the level set that determines getting assistance or govt coverage. The fine for non coverage is $1000. Compare that to the lowest lvl of assisted which is around $3600.  If the level is set properly it shouldnt be a problem so the worst case scenerio is paying $1000 to gamble without insurance coverage.

You should expect that of me by now...lol...or atleast a reasonable explanation since the truth can be hard to find within all the propaganda that is being cast upon all of us these days.

Never said it was a crisis just a growing problem. However it certainly isnt helpful when it results in foreclosure. Particularly when a 2% foreclosure rate is causing todays economic problems.

You can lead a horse to water - but you cant make him drink.  Same thing here.  It is a contributing factor, but that is due to the fact that no matter how fool proof you make a systems, teh fools will always break it - they are ingenious when it comes to screwing up.  WHy?  No risk.  Thanks to the nanny state.

SO the real issue is not a medical crises, but just a population that has been taught there is no down side risk so they act like there is no tomorrow.  And when tomorrow comes, they are featured on the news as the poor victims.  When in fact they are the perpetrators, not the victims.

You can always find exceptions, but the majortiy are not like the poster child you see on TV.

This is very true, however the economic crisis is due to the folks on Wall St. The investment banks who created a model to provide a quick return, the ratings agencies who assigned inappropriate ratings on the securities backing up these models. Corporations who used these securities along with shady at best accounting methods to provide a quick return, etc. etc. etc. Some of these folks are the ones who do understand risk. But instead of dealing appropriately with the risk they took advantage of those who do not understand risk and lied to others that do so that they could make a hefty quick buck.

Yes we have a nanny state. Unfortunately the republican party is not the answer since they decided to become the corporations nanny. Nor is the democratic party the answer. They have evolved into a party that wanted to be both the peoples and the corporations nanny.

No, they are just as (well, not quite but almost) nanny as the democrats for citizens.  The Current Wall Street Crises, while it may look like republican due to constituencies, can actually be traced directly back to Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer.  That is not to say that Republicans have not been stupid before, but I dont recall them blaming democrats when it was their interference in the already passed regulations of the industries that caused the problems

This is true....Its hard to pander votes if you dont cradle both groups.

look at my post elsewhere....you posted that fox video there but that is a perfect example of how fox forms a perfectly biased report based on using only specific information. I gotta give it to them on that one...Rupert and gang is very crafty.

I'm fascinated to know why it is that someone with a higher amount of income isn't on average likely to be living in a nicer house than someone on a lower amount of income. That is, if you have 2 identical people, earning the exact same amount, and one has health insurance and one doesn't, then the person who doesn't has more money to spend (initially, before the hypothetical medical emergancy rears it's head). Thus it seems logical to say that on average that person is going to be able to afford to live in a nicer/better/more expensive house. I fail to see how pointing this out is a "cheap trick". The house could still be in a slum, since I'm talking about the relative 'niceness' of the two houses, not the absolute values.

Ultimately it's about risk and reward though, as I mentioned before - if you don't take insurance you get to benefit from the full upside of your risk (i.e. if you don't take insurance and don't get any medical bills, you keep the full 'profit' - the amount of money you would've been paying on the insurance). If you're proposing limiting the downside (capping the payment), then you'd need to restrict the upside (or else it's unfairly penalising those who do take out insurance relative to those who don't, in effect), which basically means you end up with a compulsory health insurance system - either take out private health insurance, or take up the state-provided one.

I have posted no videos.  However, there have been 2 posted that trace it back - to the democrats.  WHy?  2 reasons.  1 - It was well intended.  2 - Cronyism.  YOu lose.

Hard to falsify the congressional record. but you are welcome to argue that one too.  But dont expect me to argue with you since I reject the premise that the congressional record was tampered with by REPUBLICANS (democrats maybe).

It traces back to both democrats and republicans......Unfortunately FOX edits their stories to make the flock think otherwise.

Wrong again.  ONe was fox, one was not.  I know - now everyone is out to get the democrats.

And both?  We were watching different vidoes.

Bankruptcy, however low the percentage nationally--and I question it is as low as you say--50% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

It used to be before the mortgage mess, but so many of the foreclosures now are due to second homes, investments and  job loss so I don't know how that % has changed.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious to Stevendedalus.

But I would also argue with StevenDedalus about pre-housing crises numbers.  if you have some empirical numbers you can offer.  And remember, having medical bills for those filing bankruptcy is not justification.  I have medical bills and I have insurance.  And if I get to the point of filing bankrupcy, the medical bills will be in there, but may or may not be the straw that breaks the camels back.

"And if I get to the point of filing bankruptcy, the medical bills will be in there, but may or may not be the straw that breaks the camels back." But you're not talking about truly catastrophic care that breaks almost anybody's bank.

Not so far. But then how many people are we talking about?  Numbers.  If we are going to deprive 300 million people of their rights because of 100 people, dont you think there would be a better way to do it?

Most Americans have medical insurance.  Those who are poor have Medicaid.  There is a group of Americans who choose not to have health insurance.  These are the facts.

So the argument is basically that those who choose not to have health insurance that have a health crisis should have their bills paid for by the people responsible enough to have health insurance?  Gee, that sounds great..