Fines proposed for going without health insurance

[Howzit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so 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.

Nonetheless, 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


Does this ensure coverage for all or ensure profits for all insurance companies? If you can't afford to pay, you can't afford to pay...

[femmocrat]

1. That should be popular.

:eyes:

I can hear the conservatives howling now!

[droidamus2]

2. Question?

Okay they are going to fine people that don't have the money to begin with. Where is that money going to go? Let me guess it will be used to pay for some kind of 'private' medical insurance for those people. So when it comes down to it people keep bitching that we 'can't afford' the public option but they would end up pay much more than they would through any tax because of the penalties. It's time to introduce Baucus to the back bench just tell him that he will get no comittee appointments until he learns to play well with others specifically the leadership of his own damn party.

[YewNork]

8. But - people who can't afford it are going to be given assistance to pay for it.

What this fine is meant to do is to get the people who can afford insurance to buy at least a minimum amount of coverage. Those whose incomes are too low
will receive credits to buy insurance.

In the end, the only way that the insurance companies are going to agree to cover everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, is to get more
healthy people into the insurance pool.

[DJ13]

3. If nothing else, that will be a great jobs program

for Republicans as they retake the Senate and the House in the coming two elections.

[Democrats_win]

4. Doesn't this violate the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

The 4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
----


This fine, could be seen as a seizure and this differs from auto insurance. Driving is a privilege thus the state can mandate auto insurance. This health care fine is more like some sort of fee on a person's right to exist. This fine is just fundamentally wrong.

[customerserviceguy]

6. Not any more than any other tax

That's what this will be, a tax on not paying for insurance, or being lucky enough to have a job that provides it for you.

[Howzit]

7. Auto insurance is more about covering my liability if I crash into you than any loss I might suffer

Health insurance is more direct than auto insurance, unless I am carrying untreated communicable diseases such as TB.

Still, just because someone has health insurance does not mean they have or use health care.

[YewNork]

9. Health insurance is about covering your liability to pay for medical services

And just because someone has automobile insurance does not mean that they will use the services that auto insurance pays for either.

You don't carry auto insurance to drive. You carry it to cover expenses (liabilities) that might occur. Since these expenses are often larger than what the average person is able to pay, auto insurance is mandatory.

Similarly, you carry health insurance to cover expenses that might occur.

Some states will give a car owner the option of not taking auto insurance and instead, depositing an amount of cash with the state, equal to the minimum amount of auto insurance that must be carried.

Maybe those who choose not to carry insurance should have to prove that they can afford to pay for their medical expenses.

[Howzit]

11. "Maybe those who choose not to carry insurance should have to prove that they can afford to pay"

"Maybe those who choose not to carry insurance should have to prove that they can afford to pay for their medical expenses."

Sounds like a reasonable option.

[frazzled]

5. D'oh; where have you been the last 4 months?

This is the progressive position. It's the one Obama didn't want to take in the primaries, but it's the one the party has more or less settled on, and there have been penalties in the 3 house bills, the 1 senate bill, and now the senate finance committee bill. Requiring everyone to get insurance is really the only way to achieve universality and cut costs. And of course, to insure everyone, you have to have the means to enforce it.

What the Wall Street Journal does not report is the other part of the equation--the help people will get to pay for it. Medicaid will be expanded to include people up to 133% of the poverty level--and that includes single individuals. That in itself is huge and will cover many more people at the poorest end of the economic scale. People who earn up to 400% of the poverty level (I think that's $88,000 for a family of four) will receive subsidies to buy the insurance, on a sliding scale. Lastly, people who fall through the cracks will be able to receive waivers--those who even with assistance can't afford it.

This is not a surprise. It's not news. It's an attempt to get you jacked up, and you fell for it.

[zbdent]

10. Maybe Baucus should be eliminated in the primaries for

putting forth such a POS ...