Obamas Universal Health Care: Refuse it and you will be punished
So much for having "choices". I guess the plan is use the government funded plan, or be forced to pay a 1,000 fine. So much for having the ability to choose which plan I want. This United States is a pathetic country.
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.
In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.
Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation.
In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.
The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines.
The new proposals were released as Congress neared the end of a weeklong July 4 break, with lawmakers expected to quickly take up health care legislation when they return to Washington. With deepening divisions along partisan and ideological lines, the complex legislation faces an uncertain future.
Obama wants a bill this year that would provide coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and reduce medical costs.
In a statement, Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick."
The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a letter to colleagues that their revised plan would cost dramatically less than an earlier, incomplete proposal, and help show the way toward coverage for 97 percent of all Americans.
In a conference call with reporters, Dodd said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care" closer. He said the bill's public option will bring coverage and benefit decisions driven "not by what generates the biggest profits, but by what works best for American families."
The two senators said the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the proposal at $611.4 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago.
However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.
The Health Committee could complete its portion of the bill as soon as next week, and the presence of a government health insurance option virtually assures a party-line vote.
In the Senate, the Finance Committee version of the bill is unlikely to include a government-run insurance option. Bipartisan negotiations are centered on a proposal for a nonprofit insurance cooperative as a competitor to private companies.
Three committees are collaborating in the House on legislation expected to come to a vote by the end of July. That measure is certain to include a government-run insurance option.
At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.
The problem is I might want to keep my health insurance, the one that wont say, "sorry, the government deems you too old and too unimportant to be given that treatment" and has provided well for me over the years.
But if I want to do this I will be forced to pay a FINE, on top of the taxes I will be paying to provide healthcare for other people.
So? Mine hasn't done it to me, and I would like to stick with them. I have heard plenty of instance when this HAS happened with government run healthcare too.
There is 0 point to this fine other then to force people to use the inferior government run healthcare and keep everyone on the same level and to be controlled by the government.
there's no "certified" equivalent healthcare plans?
With medicare, the private insurance companies offer plans that are officially designated after review, as "medicare replacement plans"
I don't see anything or any reason why they wouldn't do the same, sparring those people who want to keep their private insurance with "same as or better than" insurance.
Do you have a source that states that it wouldn't be the case? Is it really all inclusive? Meaning, I have to pay the penalty, regardless of having insurance already?
I don't know what you're asking exactly or if this will answer it but the way I see it is:
The government will offer its health insurance plan for people. You can take this offer or you can "choose" to stay with your own private insurance provider (barring the government doesn't run them out of business) but you will be FORCED to pay an additional 1,000+ a year in penalties + the higher taxes.
It would be better to just socialize it. Healthcare is part of the commons and shouldn't be for profit. I've stated many times how retarded and unfair the current system is.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
In other words, you don't know anything about history, political theory, or the definition of the word socialism
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
Please define what socialism is, how america can become less socialized, what the commons is, and why our current, more or less completely unregulated health insurance industry is ideal.
Oh, and please, no quoting bible versus, there are already separate forums for religion, comic books, and literary fiction.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
Last edited by Darth Jello on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 05:12 AM
Life, Liberty, the pursuit of hapiness. It's the first one.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
I want healthcare for everybody and would even pay a small, reasonable share of taxes for it as long as it didn't sacrifice the quality of healthcare and that people who didn't pay into the system were not abusing it. I think these 2 things would most definitely happen though with a government run system.
Oh come ON, Kidrock, now you are just being hysterical.
The policy CLEARLY is that you get fined only if you have no insurance of any kind, not that you get fined because you don't want the Government option.
And in any case, if you erad the rest of the article, you would see that the preferred Government option now is to subsidise exisiting insurance arrangements, not completely replace. So your complaint would make absolutely no sense.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Seems incorrect. The first sentence specifies that it is just for people who refuse to buy affordable health care. Meaning if you already have a health care provider you will not have to pay.
I agree that it seems like a silly law, though, if I understood right it is not a fine as such, but a minimum payment for treatment that you would receive in case of emergency. Although this just seems hinted at in the article. It all seems like an unreasonably complicated plan anyways, easiest, and perhaps best, would be to install a system similarly to the German, where you have to be minimum covered by a government issued insurance but can opt out and not pay it but rather pay privately, with certain benefits, of course. That system, like all government health care systems of course has flaws, but it's certainly better than what the US has now.
Though I think that is kinda where that plan is going anyways, though with some oddities.
If that is true it's my mistake and I misunderstood it.
I just figure that really doesn't make sense though.
Why force someone to have health insurance? Either people don't want it, in which case let them be, or they cannot afford it, in which case why give them a fine which they cannot afford?
KMC Community Forums
Jul 3rd, 2009 03:08 AM
