Imposing fines for not buying mandatory insurance?

[Smurf-Herder]

Now this really bothers me. So it's either pay the government a fine, or buy insurance I can't afford. There will be tax breaks though - but the big tax cut I got from Obama in April only pays for a cup of coffee once a week. Then cigarettes went up a buck a pack.

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.

In advance of what Obama hopes will be a game-changing speech to lawmakers, the one idea that most appeals to the Democrats' liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a government insurance plan.

Democratic leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker.

Baucus, meeting with a small group of fellow senators, promoted a plan that would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans at a cost to taxpayers of under $900 billion over 10 years.

Some experts consider that a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in most states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level - about $66,000 for a family of four - would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign - a government insurance option - appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

He's called a public plan an important tool to help check the excesses of private industry. But his aides suggested on the weekend that he could sign legislation even if it does not include a public option.

In the Senate, the public plan is not part of Baucus' proposal. He's calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

It would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners. New purchasing pools would be set up in each state, allowing them to band together and get some of the advantages big companies now have.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090908/D9AJCL500.html

[MintJulep]

Smurf, this specific piece sounds similar to the plan Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney advocated.

In actuality, it would lower rates for all premiums, including the very expensive guaranteed-issue, HIPAA plans, as the pool of money would be significantly expanded. Something along these lines is much more palatable, IMO, than a "public option" which will destroy insurance companies and eventually force everyone, regardless of current insurance status, into government run healthcare.

Other elements need to be involved including some type of assistance, whether it be credits for those in an eligible income bracket or a subsidized assistance plan for those geniunely in need or denied for pre-x conditions. The less control govt has, the better off the quality will remain.

[Parade Rain]

Smurf, this specific piece sounds similar to the plan Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney advocated.

In actuality, it would lower rates for all premiums, including the very expensive guaranteed-issue, HIPAA plans, as the pool of money would be significantly expanded. Something along these lines is much more palatable, IMO, than a "public option" which will destroy insurance companies and eventually force everyone, regardless of current insurance status, into government run healthcare.

Other elements need to be involved including some type of assistance, whether it be credits for those in an eligible income bracket or a subsidized assistance plan for those geniunely in need or denied for pre-x conditions. The less control govt has, the better off the quality will remain.

That's not saying much. The quality currently SUCKS.

[MintJulep]

That's not saying much. The quality currently SUCKS.Well honey, if --God forbid-- Uncle Sam ever becomes in charge of our actual HC system, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.

The DMV will look like the Taj Mahal.

Seriously.

[Citizen]

That's not saying much. The quality currently SUCKS.

Do you really believe (not know, believe) ZERO social practices are involved with our current health care system?

[Parade Rain]

Do you really believe (not know, believe) ZERO social practices are involved with our current health care system?

WTF does that mean? Is this a 'gotcha'? Yeah, I'm aware of medicare. Your point?

[Parade Rain]

Well honey, if --God forbid-- Uncle Sam ever becomes in charge of our actual HC system, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.

The DMV will look like the Taj Mahal.

Seriously.

Only because 'uncle sam' is related to corporate interests. He's the uncle who MOLESTS the rest of us.

[Smurf-Herder]

Smurf, this specific piece sounds similar to the plan Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney advocated.

In actuality, it would lower rates for all premiums, including the very expensive guaranteed-issue, HIPAA plans, as the pool of money would be significantly expanded. Something along these lines is much more palatable, IMO, than a "public option" which will destroy insurance companies and eventually force everyone, regardless of current insurance status, into government run healthcare.

Other elements need to be involved including some type of assistance, whether it be credits for those in an eligible income bracket or a subsidized assistance plan for those geniunely in need or denied for pre-x conditions. The less control govt has, the better off the quality will remain.

The point is, I'm not a burden to anyone. I don't see a doctor unless I have the money. Nobody pays my medical bills, but me. If insurance were cheaper, I'd get it - depending on how much cheaper. I don't want someone forcing me to pay a third of my income for something I may not even use for a couple years. I haven't seen a doctor since 2002.

So what's the deal? I'll be only having to pay a quarter of my income for something I may only use once every couple years? How much cheaper will it be? Nobody's saying. What will the deductable and co-pay be? Nobody's saying. The only thing they're saying is what the fines will be; and that 60 year olds will be paying five times as much as 20 year olds. They got that much down.

[Moby]

The point is, I'm not a burden to anyone.
Right now you're not and I hope that you're healthy for many decades to come :thumbsup:

However, one of the biggest complaints about having illegal aliens in the USA is that when they have accidents or get sick, they become a massive burden on society because they have to get medical care. They don't have insurance but hospitals can't turn them away and have to make up the costs by raising rates on everyone else.

I'm sure that you've heard the argument or at least something very similar many times when dealing with illegal aliens.

So, if someone with no insurance is in a car accident, has a heart attack or breaks a bone they have the potential to impact all Americans.

While you may not be a burden on society and I hope that you never have to use the US medical system, many will become a burden.

In most states uninsured motorists have to pay a fine because it's well known they're a burden on society. Why should medical coverage be different?

[Smurf-Herder]

Right now you're not and I hope that you're healthy for many decades to come :thumbsup:

However, one of the biggest complaints about having illegal aliens in the USA is that when they have accidents or get sick, they become a massive burden on society because they have to get medical care. They don't have insurance but hospitals can't turn them away and have to make up the costs by raising rates on everyone else.

I'm sure that you've heard the argument or at least something very similar many times when dealing with illegal aliens.

So, if someone with no insurance is in a car accident, has a heart attack or breaks a bone they have the potential to impact all Americans.

While you may not be a burden on society and I hope that you never have to use the US medical system, many will become a burden.

In most states uninsured motorists have to pay a fine because it's well known they're a burden on society. Why should medical coverage be different?

Why can't the people being treated be billed and made to pay - like people I know who have no insurance?

If illegals are here and working, then they're making money. Are you saying a guy I know who has a $5000 emergency room bill, that he's paying on monthly, can just send the bill to Washington?

Why are illegals getting treated for free? Some of them make more than I do, if they're working construction jobs. Everybody I know without insurance gets billed - nobody I know without insurance is getting treated for free.

[Moby]

Why can't the people being treated be billed and made to pay - like people I know who have no insurance?

If illegals are here and working, then they're making money. Are you saying a guy I know who has a $5000 emergency room bill, that he's paying on monthly, can just send the bill to Washington?

Why are illegals getting treated for free? Some of them make more than I do, if they're working construction jobs. Everybody I know without insurance gets billed - nobody I know without insurance is getting treated for free.
No one I know is getting treated for free either.

Remember, most bankruptcies in America are due to medical expenses.

Maybe many illegals are being billed and paying. I'm just pointing out the argument that was used many times for many years. You've heard it before haven't you?

[Smurf-Herder]

No one I know is getting treated for free either.

Remember, most bankruptcies in America are due to medical expenses.

Maybe many illegals are being billed and paying. I'm just pointing out the argument that was used many times for many years. You've heard it before haven't you?

Yes, I have.

My point is, most insurance, unless it's an HMO, is a necessary evil. I had one job with an HMO that was great. $300 a month and it covered all doctor's visits, with only a $20 co-pay and a $10 co-pay on meds; and 20% for my part of anything major. The company paid half. But, when I worked for my brother-in-law, his insurance had a $2000 family deductable and a $1000 individual deductable. So we ended up paying $3600 a year for nothing. Only on the gamble that we might need catastrophic care; along with having to pay our regular medical bills.

I don't like insurance at all, except for catastrophic, or HMOs - where you get something for your money. And right now, I'm living on only one income; and everything is more expensive. I'll get insurance, if it's cheap enough, when all this is through. But it really burns me that my boss won't even offer to pay 50% as a benefit - while he's off on his skiing trips, European vacations, etc., in a small three employee company. I don't think any of the bills proposed apply to small businesses with less than 50 employees. So it will only mean that if it's mandatory, it applies to me alone. And that's what I don't like. Taking my money against my will to pay for somebody else; when I need everything I make now..

[MintJulep]

The point is, I'm not a burden to anyone. I don't see a doctor unless I have the money. Nobody pays my medical bills, but me. If insurance were cheaper, I'd get it - depending on how much cheaper. I don't want someone forcing me to pay a third of my income for something I may not even use for a couple years. I haven't seen a doctor since 2002.

So what's the deal? I'll be only having to pay a quarter of my income for something I may only use once every couple years?If everyone is paying, the premiums would go way down because there would be SO much more money in the pool. Right now, there are irresponsible people who can afford insurance but prefer to spend their money on other "things". There are also people who are young and think they've invincible who often waive medical coverage even on their job. So what happens when these people get injured or sick? It is passed on to everyone else.

How much cheaper will it be? Nobody's saying. What will the deductable and co-pay be? Nobody's saying. The only thing they're saying is what the fines will be; and that 60 year olds will be paying five times as much as 20 year olds. They got that much down.That's because they haven't worked out the fine details. No way would 60 year olds pay the same price as 20 year olds, at least, not if the policies are underwritten, which I'm sure they would be. That said, I imagine it would be CONSIDERABLY cheaper and actually a lot more affordable.

The cost of insurance is astronomical. Some policies cost as much as as a mortgage. It's ridiculous and something has to be done. Handing the system over to the govt is not the answer.

[Smurf-Herder]

If everyone is paying, the premiums would go way down because there would be SO much more money in the pool. Right now, there are irresponsible people who can afford insurance but prefer to spend their money on other "things". There are also people who are young and think they've invincible who often waive medical coverage even on their job. So what happens when these people get injured or sick? It is passed on to everyone else.

That's because they haven't worked out the fine details. No way would 60 year olds pay the same price as 20 year olds, at least, not if the policies are underwritten, which I'm sure they would be. That said, I imagine it would be CONSIDERABLY cheaper and actually a lot more affordable.

The cost of insurance is astronomical. Some policies cost as much as as a mortgage. It's ridiculous and something has to be done. Handing the system over to the govt is not the answer.

I want to hear the details, though. You know what they say, "The devil's in the details." I want to know what it costs and what it covers - and I want a choice.

[Bill Cosby]

The point is, I'm not a burden to anyone. .

Or it could be said "that @ this point you are not a burden to anyone"....:(

You like the other 46,999,999 other Americans need to have the peace of mind that should something happen to you or your loved ones you will not be dumped in an alley somewhere...

I totally understand & respect your position but self interest is not unamerican......!!!! The fucks on wall street living high off hog on your taxes seem to have no qualms about it

Eman a very strong conservative & has came out in favor of "the Obama plan" or any plan that he can get on....:thumbsup:

He has a pre-existing issue (Asthma) like millions & millions of other Americans....

I know you have thought that just maybe you are putting politics/idealism/philosophy before self interest here??? Who wouldn't???

Take your situation & Eman's Asthma... In no other industrialized nation would any of that be any kinda issue what so ever............... & even in many of those other ones either....

Sorry but I will never agree that two hard working brothers like you & Eman should ever have to suffer some kinda "born American" penalty... & that is if yea fucking like it or not..... :D

[Smurf-Herder]

Or it could be said "that @ this point you are not a burden to anyone"....:(

You like the other 46,999,999 other Americans need to have the peace of mind that should something happen to you or your loved ones you will not be dumped in an alley somewhere...

I totally understand & respect your position but self interest is not unamerican......!!!! The fucks on wall street living high off hog on your taxes seem to have no qualms about it

Eman a very strong conservative & has came out in favor of "the Obama plan" or any plan that he can get on....:thumbsup:

He has a pre-existing issue (Asthma) like millions & millions of other Americans....

I know you have thought that just maybe you are putting politics/idealism/philosophy before self interest here??? Who wouldn't???

Take your situation & Eman's Asthma... In no other industrialized nation would any of that be any kinda issue what so ever............... & even in many of those other ones either....

Sorry but I will never agree that two hard working brothers like you & Eman should ever have to suffer some kinda "born American" penalty... & that is if yea fucking like it or not..... :D


Look, I have multiple medical conditions, that I know would cost a few thousand between tests and treatment; if I were to see doctors about everything. I'd love to have insurance that would cover everything.

Let's put it this way. I'm open to it - IF they have no deductable, cover office visits, eye care and dental; and pay 80%. And it's affordable, without tanking the economy.

AND if they can convince me they're telling me the truth about what's in the fine print.

[foxbaron]

SO, if I pay the $3,800 fine am I then covered for all my medical needs?

Can I still go to the emergency room and get treated? Will I still get billed for it? IS medical care free after the $3,800 fine? If so, I'll pay the fine cause that' some cheap ass insurance.

What happens if I can't pay the fine? Debtors prison? Refusal of medical care in an emergency? Refusal of medical care, period?

How does the government plan on collecting this fine?

What happens if you are unemployed and can't pay it? What happens if you are employed and can't afford the fine let alone the cost of insurance?

Who gets a hall pass on the fines?

Do they charge interest on the fines? What percentage rate?

Will they create a whole new government agency to assess and collect fines? What will this cost us?

If you get fined and then get a job will you get a rebate on the fine?

How long will it take to get a rebate?

If you go to the emergency room and have no insurance do you have to prove you paid the fine before they treat you? What if you are unconcious?

Can the hospital kick you to the curb if you have no insurance card and no proof of paying the fine?

Do you have to show proof of insurance before the ambulance will take you away?

Will there be a data base of those who were fined and/or have no insurance? Will it be used to deny a person a job?

If you lose your job and your insurance do you immediately get fined for having no insurance or is there a grace period?

Does anybody ever think this crap all the way through and consider the unintended consequences.

The problem is the buttheads writing the laws on health insurance all have some of the best health insurance money can buy and have the incomes to afford the costs even if they get unelected and quite a few of them still are covered anyway because Congress takes real good care of themselves first.
They get medical care for life as does their families.

How about maybe we take all these tax exempt Churches, you know the ones who are supposed to help the downtrodden and the poor in society as well as their rich patrons and make them pay a health tax to help defray the costs of the uninsured.

Maybe it is time the Churches actually did a little of God's work for a change. Remember the saying, "What ye do for the least of them you do for me"
(Something like that)

Pay the tax to the state not the feds and let the state reimburse the hospitals in their state for the costs of emergency care. Won't cover all of it, but it would be a good start.

Damn it, I'm rambling again!

[Bill Cosby]

Look, I have multiple medical conditions, that I know would cost a few thousand between tests and treatment; if I were to see doctors about everything. I'd love to have insurance that would cover everything.

Let's put it this way. I'm open to it - IF they have no deductable, cover office visits, eye care and dental; and pay 80%. And it's affordable, without tanking the economy.

AND if they can convince me they're telling me the truth about what's in the fine print.

:yay: :happy:

What can I say.......... :dunno:

That is very modest & very reasonable....

When (not if) the deal gets done I will be proud of this country for a change... We may get their last (last industrialized nation to cover their citizens) but that is better than not @ all...........

It is the ppl not wall street that make this country what it is.... :thumbsup:

[Smurf-Herder]

:yay: :happy:

What can I say.......... :dunno:

That is very modest & very reasonable....

When (not if) the deal gets done I will be proud of this country for a change... We may get their last (last industrialized nation to cover their citizens) but that is better than not @ all...........

It is the ppl not wall street that make this country what it is.... :thumbsup:

Well all I can say is, it can't cost me more than $100 a month - because that's all I might be able to scrape up every month. That's why I don't have insurance now.

[Smurf-Herder]

SO, if I pay the $3,800 fine am I then covered for all my medical needs?

Can I still go to the emergency room and get treated? Will I still get billed for it? IS medical care free after the $3,800 fine? If so, I'll pay the fine cause that' some cheap ass insurance.

What happens if I can't pay the fine? Debtors prison? Refusal of medical care in an emergency? Refusal of medical care, period?

How does the government plan on collecting this fine?

What happens if you are unemployed and can't pay it? What happens if you are employed and can't afford the fine let alone the cost of insurance?

Who gets a hall pass on the fines?

Do they charge interest on the fines? What percentage rate?

Will they create a whole new government agency to assess and collect fines? What will this cost us?

If you get fined and then get a job will you get a rebate on the fine?

How long will it take to get a rebate?

If you go to the emergency room and have no insurance do you have to prove you paid the fine before they treat you? What if you are unconcious?

Can the hospital kick you to the curb if you have no insurance card and no proof of paying the fine?

Do you have to show proof of insurance before the ambulance will take you away?

Will there be a data base of those who were fined and/or have no insurance? Will it be used to deny a person a job?

If you lose your job and your insurance do you immediately get fined for having no insurance or is there a grace period?

Does anybody ever think this crap all the way through and consider the unintended consequences.

The problem is the buttheads writing the laws on health insurance all have some of the best health insurance money can buy and have the incomes to afford the costs even if they get unelected and quite a few of them still are covered anyway because Congress takes real good care of themselves first.
They get medical care for life as does their families.

How about maybe we take all these tax exempt Churches, you know the ones who are supposed to help the downtrodden and the poor in society as well as their rich patrons and make them pay a health tax to help defray the costs of the uninsured.

Maybe it is time the Churches actually did a little of God's work for a change. Remember the saying, "What ye do for the least of them you do for me"
(Something like that)

Pay the tax to the state not the feds and let the state reimburse the hospitals in their state for the costs of emergency care. Won't cover all of it, but it would be a good start.

Damn it, I'm rambling again!

Well, from what I remember seeing a while back, all your personal financial information, including IRS records, will be in a database for any government exchange; with access to your bank account to pay for any charges. So that might answer some of those questions.

If not ............ then I guess everything will just get more complicated.

[Bill Cosby]

Well all I can say is, it can't cost me more than $100 a month - because that's all I might be able to scrape up every month. That's why I don't have insurance now.

Hopefully it will not cost yea anything like that...

I think we already pay plenty of taxes... They need to start rellocating some of these funds....

[Smurf-Herder]

Hopefully it will not cost yea anything like that...

I think we already pay plenty of taxes... They need to start rellocating some of these funds....

I hear the proposed bill I started this thread on, involving the fines, has a multitude of changes in existing law; referring to bringing the government additional revenue to pay for the new insurance legislation. Part of it affects present insurance law and sounds extremely complicated, referring to modifying, amending, and nullifying specific sections, subsections and paragraphs of present law, that require you to read over a dozen pieces of separate legislation to understand what this bill actually consists of in it's entirety.

[doctordog]

I hear the proposed bill I started this thread on, involving the fines, has a multitude of changes in existing law; referring to bringing the government additional revenue to pay for the new insurance legislation. Part of it affects present insurance law and sounds extremely complicated, referring to modifying, amending, and nullifying specific sections, subsections and paragraphs of present law, that require you to read over a dozen pieces of separate legislation to understand what this bill actually consists of in it's entirety.

Why do you think goverment temps and ACORN are in your neighborhood, measuring your property and marking GPS coordinates where you live?:disbelief:

[Bill Cosby]

I hear the proposed bill I started this thread on, involving the fines, has a multitude of changes in existing law; referring to bringing the government additional revenue to pay for the new insurance legislation. Part of it affects present insurance law and sounds extremely complicated, referring to modifying, amending, and nullifying specific sections, subsections and paragraphs of present law, that require you to read over a dozen pieces of separate legislation to understand what this bill actually consists of in it's entirety.

Yep it is extremely complicated & I can not begin to read all of it...

One of the things I hope to see done is simplification......>>> More care less forms....

[Smurf-Herder]

Yep it is extremely complicated & I can not begin to read all of it...

One of the things I hope to see done is simplification......>>> More care less forms....

Read page 17 and 18 of Revenue Provisions. It talks of "standardizing the definition" of Qualified Medical Expenses, which sounds a bit vague. And it imposes billions of dollars of yearly fees on the very companies that provide medical services, equipment and insurance - which would actually lead to higher costs. It kinda sounds like just shuffling money in a viscious circle.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/framework20090908.pdf

[RK77]

Now this really bothers me. So it's either pay the government a fine, or buy insurance I can't afford. There will be tax breaks though - but the big tax cut I got from Obama in April only pays for a cup of coffee once a week. Then cigarettes went up a buck a pack.



This was one of the primary reasons that I couldn't support Hillary.

Mandates for the individual is a insurance industries dream AND I have not seen it keeping the cost of my auto insurance down.

[CosmicRocker]

If everyone is paying, the premiums would go way down because there would be SO much more money in the pool. Right now, there are irresponsible people who can afford insurance but prefer to spend their money on other "things". There are also people who are young and think they've invincible who often waive medical coverage even on their job. So what happens when these people get injured or sick? It is passed on to everyone else.

That's because they haven't worked out the fine details. No way would 60 year olds pay the same price as 20 year olds, at least, not if the policies are underwritten, which I'm sure they would be. That said, I imagine it would be CONSIDERABLY cheaper and actually a lot more affordable.

The cost of insurance is astronomical. Some policies cost as much as as a mortgage. It's ridiculous and something has to be done. Handing the system over to the govt is not the answer.

Yep universal coverage. everyone has to have some billing proceedure, not a los to the treatment center.

You pay for access to the uninsured anyway, the goals i think would be cost reduction, and universal access.

I still like Single Pay, but like the president said, there is more than 1 way to get there.

[CosmicRocker]

Well all I can say is, it can't cost me more than $100 a month - because that's all I might be able to scrape up every month. That's why I don't have insurance now.
Income will be a determinate of your costs, you may wind up paying little but still be insured.
But you need to have an insurance health care policy, so your billing will be to your policy, not "uninsured losses"

the only other thing is a free clinic option for the poor who can't afford it for free - but that's 2 tiered coverage.

[doctordog]

This was one of the primary reasons that I couldn't support Hillary.

Mandates for the individual is a insurance industries dream AND I have not seen it keeping the cost of my auto insurance down.

that has more to do with you being a female on her damn cell phone all the time while she is driving:lmao2:

[Bill Cosby]

that has more to do with you being a female on her damn cell phone all the time while she is driving:lmao2:

Females are better drivers than us....

I think she has an excellent point about the cost...

& Wouldn't you like to make it mandatory that everyone in America have to purchase products from your industry????

[MichMike]

Females are better drivers than us....

I think she has an excellent point about the cost...

& Wouldn't you like to make it mandatory that everyone in America have to purchase products from your industry????

The insurance industry wants no piece of even the Senate bill. Why? Well, it does indeed bring in free riders that will yield nice cash flow. However, it also brings in the sick (by law) - likely offsetting any gain and probably hurting profits.

The Senate legislation also caps out of pocket deductables. This is huge and is not (I can assure you) welcomed by the insurance industry. Any of the bills being considered - while not perfect - will drastically improve things for millions.

The goal - in my opinion - is not to destroy the insurance industry but to cover everybody, reduce healthcare related bankrupcies to 0% and stablize healthcare risk. As much as some hate the private sector, it needs to be part of this mix.

[Moby]

Mandates for the individual is a insurance industries dream AND I have not seen it keeping the cost of my auto insurance down.
I wonder about the average price of auto insurance. Mine has gone down over the past few years for a number of reasons but I would be interested to see the overall change in the past 10 years.

I don't think it's increased nearly as much as health insurance.

[Moby]

Well all I can say is, it can't cost me more than $100 a month - because that's all I might be able to scrape up every month. That's why I don't have insurance now.
With an HSA account you might be able to pull that off.

[Captain Obvious]

With an HSA account you might be able to pull that off.

Do you know how HSA accounts work?

[Bill Cosby]

The insurance industry wants no piece of even the Senate bill. Why? Well, it does indeed bring in free riders that will yield nice cash flow. However, it also brings in the sick (by law) - likely offsetting any gain and probably hurting profits.

The Senate legislation also caps out of pocket deductables. This is huge and is not (I can assure you) welcomed by the insurance industry. Any of the bills being considered - while not perfect - will drastically improve things for millions.

The goal - in my opinion - is not to destroy the insurance industry but to cover everybody, reduce healthcare related bankrupcies to 0% and stablize healthcare risk. As much as some hate the private sector, it needs to be part of this mix.

I don't think anyone wants to destroy an industry... They can insure all the cars & pets they want....

My livelihood is not protected so why should theirs be. Especially if it is causing 47,000,000 Americans to go w/out....

[MichMike]

I don't think anyone wants to destroy an industry... They can insure all the cars & pets they want....

My livelihood is not protected so why should theirs be. Especially if it is causing 47,000,000 Americans to go w/out....


I admire certain free market elements of our system along with France, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore...all have a fairly robust free market component (regulated pretty well minus the U.S.). Single payer systems (UK and Canada) are slowing moving to more of a mixed system. The key is to cover everybody, kept costs for people reasonable with caps and keep the system sustainable.

I think the solid left is making a mistake suggesting that no public option = a complete sell-out to private insurance. I felt that is where part of this thread was going. Insurance will not like this bill. Regulation, additional government support and a move to non-profit institutions is enough to get the job done.

[Bill Cosby]

I admire certain free market elements of our system along with France, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore...all have a fairly robust free market component (regulated pretty well minus the U.S.). Single payer systems (UK and Canada) are slowing moving to more of a mixed system. The key is to cover everybody, kept costs for people reasonable with caps and keep the system sustainable.

I think the solid left is making a mistake suggesting that no public option = a complete sell-out to private insurance. I felt that is where part of this thread was going. Insurance will not like this bill. Regulation, additional government support and a move to non-profit institutions is enough to get the job done.

Not everyone on the left is united on what to do....

Those that want to keep the status quo have the advantage/united front...

There are ppl that post here that do not have care... I have care....

Any plan that does not allow them to be covered I am against...

If they are not qualified for any reason, including financial I am against it...

I am not going to be dogmatic & say it has to be this or that... Often times names changes don't = games changes....

[MichMike]

reviewing more of the posts, a few comments:

1) Insurance works best when all people are in the mix. We need to get free riders (healthy and wealthy) in to offset the risk of folks with issues. Hence, fines if you do not get in.

2) Yes, healthcare will come with costs...we CANNOT get it free. The beauty of the Senate plan, is that there will be caps ensuring people don't pay more than about $10,000 per family out of pocket.

3) This is admittedly a large amount, but not nearly as much as sick people pay now. Also, the number of bankrupcies due to healthcare costs will drop to 0%...pretty nice.

4) 97 percent of people will be covered.

5) People will have to budget for healthcare like they do car insurance. We have to pay.

6) Taxing industries that bring in billions is after tax profits as a result of treating the sick makes sense to me. We need to pay for service to the needy (medicare, medicaid, etc). The insurance companies may try to raise costs, but the caps will protect all. Also, doctors will not get paid for needless tests anymore and Medicare Advantage (a scam) will more than make up for and cost increases. Non profits (maybe a public option) will be more robust as well creating some (ok, maybe only a little) competition for consumers.

7) No plan is perfect, but the Baucus plan is much better than what we have today. We need liberals, moderates like me, and even some mild right folks to join in and get this thing done.

[MichMike]

Not everyone on the left is united on what to do....

Those that want to keep the status quo have the advantage/united front...

There are ppl that post here that do not have care... I have care....

Any plan that does not allow them to be covered I am against...

If they are not qualified for any reason, including financial I am against it...

I am not going to be dogmatic & say it has to be this or that... Often times names changes don't = games changes....


Another good response. I agree on practically all fronts. Please see my most recent post. We need to get something done. As long as everybody realizes they'll have to pay a percentage of their income into healthcare, we can make this work. Remember, medicaid is going to increase to 133% of poverty. People over that will be significant breaks. CAPS will help tremendously.