Outrage - Can someone explain why there shoud be a PENALTY IMPOSED ON people without insurance?

[grahamhgreen]

"From HR3200

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. "



This is completely outrageous and unacceptable, IMHO, can anyone explain why you would tax after the fact as a penalty, rather than before the fact to make sure we all are covered? It is so obviously a scam, I can hardly stand it.

[undeterred]

1. Because you can't fuck the poor too much.

Apparently.

[grahamhgreen]

40. Thank you for explaining it without the 1,000 additional pages!

[kenny blankenship]

159. Well? they're the one segment of society that can't fight back.

The most they can do is commit petty crimes out of frustration and rage. Then they go to jail. Rich win.
If they really think about fighting back they go to federal Supermax. Rich win again.
If they're invited to join a political coalition including suburban socially liberal fiscally conservative white collar "centrists", and they give their votes at election time, that coalition turns out to only care about insurance corporation profits and the sacred free market "choices" of its wealthiest members. Rich soooo win.

Why not fuck powerless people like that? What's the downside?

[Laelth]

169. That's about the size of it.

The Democratic Party is committing political suicide if it passes a law requiring the uninsured to buy insurance. Most uninsured people lack insurance because they can not afford it. Unless it's subsidized 100%, most of them still won't be able to afford it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Carl Skan]

2. Because...

The more people insured under a program, the more the risk can be spread out across those in the program and thuse lower the cost per member.

Not saying I agree with it, just explaining the reasoning.

[grahamhgreen]

7. Question is, why not just take it out in payroll taxes to start with, unless you

are trying to extract money without giving coverage!!!!

[Carl Skan]

12. That assumes mandatory participation in the government program

And there's no way a mandatory participation program will pass.

[CTyankee]

127. We have it with Medicare. Try refusing to pay your Medicare tax...

Oh, and once you are on Medicare and you go on Part B (drs visits) about $95 is automatically deducted from your Social Security check each month. If you don't agree to go on Part B you have to either prove you have other coverage or, when you do sign up later, you pay more each month as a penalty.

That's the LAW now that the American people live with and if you were to ask them if they want to get rid of Medicare they would not let it happen.

[Carl Skan]

132. Oh we already have it?

Great, then what are we wasting our time on?

[grahamhgreen]

134. That's medicare - for the ederly only!

[CTyankee]

136. My point is that we accept "mandatory" with Medicare.

I think we should have Medicare for All but it doesn't look like that will happen. So we're faced with a problem: supporting what we don't really want vs. disaster if we do nothing.

No wonder we're all crazed...

[grahamhgreen]

141. Mandatory private insurance would be a worse system than what we have now, IMHO.

To avert this disaster we have to have the public option.

To increase the viability of the public option, anyone forced forced to pay a penalty (as in the current bill), should instead be forced to buy into the public option, IMHO.

[CTyankee]

151. This makes me crazy. You too?

I think it is an evil plot by the RW to makes us nuts so we can't effectively deal with them on this issue...

I'm almost convinced of this...

[grahamhgreen]

161. Yes! Mandatory private insurance in NOT A SOLUTION to our HC crisis!

And there is no discussion of this minutia in the media - it's pass or FAIL, not what the bill says or does.

[Hannah Bell]

147. but mandatory penalties will pass? something wrong with that logic.

[alittlelark]

103. WOW Lotsa PPL w/o stars telling us what it is.

I scrolled down a ways....................

[Donnachaidh]

114. yeah -- POOR people cannot afford stars, even here

So let's be even more elitist and put them down for that, too.

[Retired AF Dem]

143. You can afford that star

You should be able to afford more taxes. Thankyou.

[lexanman]

58. why couldn't

the exact same thing happen with a single payer system, instead of a for-profit one? More people insured under single payer, more risk can be spread and lower costs to members. You just made a good point for single payer, not "forced to buy private for-profit" insurance who's goal is funnel wealth to a few at the top.

[grahamhgreen]

61. BINGO!!!!!

[lexanman]

64. thanks

[Carl Skan]

63. I'm not sure why you think I disagree with what you said

...

[lexanman]

66. I don't think you disagree

I just question the people who think its a good idea with for-profit private companies who's goal iis only to make money, that's all.

[Carl Skan]

69. It's not but my idealism has faded over the years

and I realize that there's simply no way anybody is going to pass a bill that eliminates insurance companies all together.

[lefthandedlefty]

111. Nice theory,but

we have been required to buy liability insurance for years now and the price just keeps going up.I hate insurance companies they will always milk us dry as long as they are still allowed to exist.In Obama`s speech the other night I never the what the price of affordable ins.was.Is it a thousand a month or is fifty dollars a month or somewhere in between.What is affordable for one could force another into the poor house.

[Carl Skan]

112. What price doesn't just keep going up?

Uninsured driver insurance fell like a rock once mandatory auto insurance began. And yes, there is a direct comparison in the fact that making insurance mandatory would reduce the cost of Medicare/Medicaid that is currently burdened with paying for their health care.

If you are debating whether a larger pool of insured brings down the cost per person or not (which I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not), I'd only suggest you do a few minutes of research on the subject. That's the entire idea behind insurance and it's the reason I pay out the ass for health insurance for my small business vs a larger company that has much lower rates for better coverage.

While single payer would be best (partly due to the reasons cited above), if you think eliminating the insurance companies will ever pass congress, we'll have to choose to live in different realities. I'm not a fan of arguing for things that have absolutely no realistic chance.

[virgogal]

3. Nope,but they do it in Mass. Proof of insurance needed at tax time.

[CTyankee]

4. Right now, you have a payroll deduction for Medicare. You have no choice to pay this.

Is this "completely outrageous and unacceptable"? Well, it is what it is.

Same deal here...

[grahamhgreen]

14. No, it's not - they are not taking this out to cover you, they are taking it out as a penalty and

you get nothing, as far as i can tell (or is coverage provided - and where?):

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[CTyankee]

26. I was merely talking about the power of the government to extract payment from you

for a government program. That's all. You may, or may not, live long enough to receive Medicare but you are taxed anyway, so....?

[grahamhgreen]

30. So that makes it insurance - this is just a penalty for being unable to afford something, if

they want to get you insurance, they should just take it out up front in payroll taxes - here you pay but get nothing.

[CTyankee]

33. Well, how ARE "they" going to take it out of your pay?

If they don't take it out of payroll taxes, how can they do it? I really don't know because I haven't seen this thing played out but it seems to me that if you don't get it out of payroll taxes, which start at dollar one (as opposed to income taxes), you might not get it at all.

But as I said, I haven't heard the alternatives. I'm all ears...

[grahamhgreen]

37. it should simply be taken out in payroll taxes, unless you provide proof of private insurance.

[CTyankee]

43. RIght, just like Medicare.

I don't hear lots of people complaining about the Medicare taxes taken out of their payroll taxes...

Income taxes, yes...

Everybody loves them their Medicare. Why? Because if it werent for Medicare what would happen to their old parents? And what would happen to THEM when they get old enough for Medicare.

I cannot tell you how many 50 somethings still in the workplace who say they would LOVE to be on Medicare and wish they could be...what does THAT tell you?

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Medicare deductions aren't going to the CEO of United Healthcare

or some other corporation already bragging about record profits.

[crickets]

100. ^THIS. Thank you! -nt

[CTyankee]

137. Right. And that seems to be the horrible sticking point in this whole debate.

I hate that we have to somehow kowtow to the insurance industry. I think it is evil. But unless and until the American public stops having tantrums over "socialized" medicine and believing the horse shit about Canadian and European health care, we will never get what we want.

I am not holding my breath.

[SammyWinstonJack]

175. +1

:thumbsup:

[eridani]

108. And I don't mind, because only 3% of that is diverted away from CARE for administration

Being forced to subsidize the profits of useles shitstain intermediaries is another matter altogether.

[sendero]

5. WHAT DON'T YOU GET?

If your income is at a certain level or above YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY INTO THE SYSTEM.

How do you THINK it should work, the tooth fairy pays for it?

There is a penalty for those who can AFFORD to pay in but don't. Because they have other priorities like living beyond their means, like most Americans.

[grahamhgreen]

16. But are you covered - if so where is that stated?

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[backscatter712]

42. You make below 133% FPL, you get Medicaid. You make between 133% & 400%, you get help.

You're on the sliding scale, and it should be affordable - there are caps on premiums and on out-of-pocket costs such as copays.

Everybody does need to pay in.

What, you thought a single-payer system would have been free? Everybody would have been paying into that too - it's called "taxes", and if you don't pay, they can put you in jail.

[grahamhgreen]

44. At least when they put you in jail you get insurance. I think your missing my point

They are "taxing" you but the tax is really just a fine - you get nothing in return for paying the money.

If it were a tax - you would be covered by insurance the next year. Or is that what they are saying? If so, where?

[backscatter712]

54. That's a good point.

Maybe the fine imposed should be involuntarily applied towards say a public-option health coverage program if you don't get coverage like you're supposed to.

Sort of like when you don't comply with city laws that require you to keep your lawn mowed and free of weeds, eventually, the city will send workers to mow your lawn and clear your weeds for you, then stick you with the bill.

[grahamhgreen]

Yes - a good fix!

[eridani]

109. WA state single payer proposal is $75 per year per adult

--and a 10% payroll tax on businesses (harddhip exemptions for both categories). Nothing at all wrong with being forced to pay that. There bloody fucking well IS something wrong with being forced to pay $410 a month for the crappiest tier, which is so much more expensive because of the "need" to subsidize useless shitstain intermediaries with their Enron business model.

[Laelth]

171. That I could pay.

An extra 3K/year (as per the House bill, calculated for me and my wife on our income) I can not pay.

There's nothing "affordable" about the House bill's public option insurance for the uninsured--not unless you make under 133% of poverty, and then you would qualify for Medicaid.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

170. It's not affordable for me. That's all I can tell you.

I will most likely become a criminal, and I will be fined, but I won't be insured.

That's terribly unjust.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kestrel91316]

62. How about those of who simply don't earn enough to afford insurance???

We are to be penalized and still have no coverage??? This is criminal.

[CTyankee]

129. You get a subsidy or, if you are too poor for even that, the idea is to expand Medicaid

upward and include those who truly can't afford it. I'm sure there would have to be some checks on your income, etc, but that's how it will be done.

[RB TexLa]

101. But will my high deductible plan that goes with my HSA be consider acceptable coverage?

Is the savings which grows each year allowing me to have lower premiums be considered as part of the coverage for acceptability?

[grahamhgreen]

119. My guess is yes...?

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Because under the current system, hospitals are required by law to provide emmergency care to people

without insurance. These people are a financial drain on hospitals, many of which are non-profits.

Are you willing to let hospitals turn away the sick and injured who are uninsured?

[stray cat]

13. Let them die - I think requiring participation or a fine is more humane but I guess

we could just let them live with their decision as responsible individuals and if they can't pay up front for the procedure let them die - outside the hospital of course -

[gmoney]

85. Bingo...

It's partly an incentive to buy coverage, but also a penalty to those who make an excuse for not getting some form of coverage, then when they get sick or get hit by a car, wind up in a hospital with no means of payment. Letting the uninsured die on the streets (as someone suggested) is a little too GOP for my tastes.

Sort of like how, theoretically, you can be fined for driving without insurance.

I hate the idea that you're forced to buy insurance, especially if they don't have a public option. But a perceived flaw of the current system is that the uninsured who receive "free" emergency room care drive up costs for those who are responsible enough to be covered. There's probably some truth in there.

I think a huge stride that could be made is that everybody gets the "repriced" price that insurance companies manage to negotiate. The bills on my gallbladder operation were like $14000, but repriced down to about $3500, most of which I paid as deductible and co-pay.

[grahamhgreen]

120. I think I could live with it if the fine is applied to the persons insurance for next year.

not as good as taking it out in payroll, but I could live with it.

But I can't live with fining people and giving them nothing in return....

[gmoney]

126. well, then people would just roll the dice...

If the fine is applied to future premiums, then there is absolutely no incentive to sign up. You could just ride free until you were caught, or until you got sick.

Think of the fine as covering past unpaid premiums that the person should have paid if they'd signed up as required, and probably a penalty portion as well.

The idea of insurance is that you pay in even though you may not need it at the moment, so that when and if you do need it, it's there. In reality, if you were very fortunate, you'd NEVER need to make a substantial claim on your home, health, or auto insurance. But shit happens...

Do you think you don't need homeowner's insurance because your house isn't on fire at the moment? I'd love to not pay my annual premiums, and if the house did catch fire, be able to buy insurance at that point and have it pay to rebuild and replace my belongings. But the reality is, if that happened, I'd have to pay for everything out of pocket, which I probably wouldn't have the money for, and the bank that holds my mortgage would be pretty pissed about it. So, as a condition of the loan from the bank, I'm required to insure the asset I'm using as collateral for the loan.

[grahamhgreen]

133. No, at the end of the year, if you are being levied the fine (tax), then it is applied to your next

years premium, and the next year you are covered. So you are not covered when you are not paying. Therefore, no-one is ridiung for free.

But really, the public option should be one plan that is deducted like Social Security from your paycheck - then it's all done, finished, no free ride, simple, AND NOT A SCAM TO TAKE MONEY AND GIVE NOTHING!

[gmoney]

139. It might, but you keep assuming everyone gets a payroll check every two weeks

I'm sure a good percentage of the uninsured are self-employed people, maybe work mainly for cash under the table, or other people who are on the edge of the system. Gardeners, day laborers, nannies, strippers, street performers, whatever. Or even those who are not employed. Plus there will be objectors who will say "I don't need no health insurance, I ain't payin'" and try to resist -- until they shoot their foot off with their shotguns or run their pickup truck into a tree.

I'm sure there will be options for payroll deduction for premiums -- and the people who do work for employers who actually collect FICA and withholding and stuff will ALSO be put in the position of verifying that their employees are all included in some sort of insurance coverage plan, either company based or through some other method.

But the way it works is, if you don't comply with the law, you pay a penalty. If you have your employer withhold too little from your paycheck, and you end up owing a lot come April 15, there is a penalty because they're trying to get you to stay within the withholding guidelines. But the penalty is on TOP of the amount you owe, and interest on that amount. Otherwise, there's no deterrent. Everyone would have nothing withheld, put that money in the stock market, then complain they lost it all when taxes came due.

The system is changing to presume that the "I can always go to the emergency room" backup is a form of health coverage, and if you're not in a formal plan, you'll be penalized for being "protected" by this safety net without paying in to the system. Think of it as retroactive premiums.

[grahamhgreen]

142. Those who don't get payroll checks still have to pay taxes at the end of the year,

what if we attach the 'tax' (fine) onto their payment of income taxes, and apply it to their next years premium, so that they are covered for the next year? Then there is only the first year of the plan in which they are not covered (or covered by the rest of us for ER care, actually).

This makes more sense to me.

What I'm suggesting is simply that the penalty be applied as the next years premium payment in a public plan, instead of just a penalty. Could you live with that?

[gmoney]

148. Honestly, no... play by the rules, or pay a penalty.

Not to sound like a hardass, but if this system is designed properly, there will be no excuse for not signing up, unless you're trying to avoid paying your fair share. It's not like there won't be a ton of press about what to do and where to get information.

If these people avoid paying in for the time prior to paying taxes, what makes you think they'll fess up and start paying in just because the tax bill is due? And again, why should they get months of free coverage when the rest of us won't? If they're poor enough, they can get Medicaid (probably). A lot of the people I described last time probably don't pay income taxes anyway because they're trying to get by "off the grid" -- getting paid in cash, no bank account, etc, basically to avoid paying taxes, or because they're hiding out for other reasons (illegal immigrant, child support, warrants, etc). But some of them are going to get sick or hurt, and will be treated if they go to an ER.

What part of "a penalty is a punishment" don't you get? Your notion essentially rewards people who manage to cheat the system.

What your describing is like on the old style trains... one guy buys his ticket for LA to NY and pays $200. Another guy sneaks on and manages to dodge the conductor of the train until they get to St. Louis, and when the conductor asks him for his $200, the guy says "but we're in St. Louis, and the fare to NY is only $100." Is that fair to the guy who paid the real fare?

You bounce a check and get assessed a $30 fee, they don't "rebate" that next time you write a check. You get caught speeding and get a $200 ticket, they don't apply that to your license plate fees or next car insurance premium. If you amass $20 in overdue fees at the library, they don't hand you a free book when you pay it.

I would love it if we could get the "insurance" part of this out of the picture entirely and just be single payer, with taxes covering the expenses of a reformed, streamlined health care system. Yes, the freeloaders would continue to freeload, and I don't think there's a way around that totally. But what you keep proposing just rewards irresponsible/unethical behavior.

[grahamhgreen]

149. The unethical part is penalizing someone when you could easily just provide thiem with health care

for the money they are paying. Basically you are stealing from them to support your own health care.

Which is our present system, as well, IMHO.

I will fight this with every bone in my body.

You don't just get to charge people money and give them nothing. That is extortion and theft. IMHO.

Thanks for the dialog!

[gmoney]

154. How is it stealing to ask for someone to pay for something?

If they're going to pay the money, then they should pay it up front like everyone else and everything is fine.

If they choose not to pay the money up front, then why should they get a free ride until they feel like paying or are caught not paying?

Medical coverage, while it isn't tangible, is not nothing. It is something, it is valuable, that's why it's expensive.

It's like your city fire department... everyone pays every year to support the department... but only a few people will actually need their services during the year. Just because you don't feel your house won't catch on fire doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay your share to receive the protection.

Nobody is going to be penalized until the plans are in place and available, and it will be widely known where and how to sign up. Theoretically, for those who don't already have coverage, there should be some sort of qualifying coverage that will be affordable to everyone, or provided free of charge if their income is low enough. So it will be easy to avoid the penalty situation.

Those who are going to be penalized are only the ones who deliberately choose NOT to participate, because they're receiving the protection/coverage of the community's ER, even if they don't use it. Think of the penalty as paying back for the coverage already received.

[grahamhgreen]

157. Oh, I see what your missing!

1) Those being penalized are not getting a free ride - they DO NOT get medical coverage for this penalty!

2) When you go to an ER, they will treat you, but THEY WILL ALSO SEND YOU A BILL! So you are not getting ER TREATMENT, EITHER. (unless you are indigent, but that's not who will be penalized).

In the end, you are penalizing people for being alive and not paying a penalty.

The other thing to look at is why are we trying to pass a health care bill?


Is it for the people or for the companies that are ripping off the patients and the doctors and the hospitals already?

We are not trying to protect the Insurance companies from the people, who are already using their money to deny people coverage and buy gold plated china for their corporate jets while directing 16% of the economy through their pockets - we are doing the exact opposite, trying to return the funds wasted in these corporations to provide health-care to the people!

Now, if you wanted to apply these penalties for another tier of treatment - say ER treatment - I might be able to reach agreement, although I think it would be better just to apply it to their basic health care so that we can all be protected, not only from accidents and disease, but also from the HC insurers who would rather post a higher profit than give cancer treatment to a child who needs it.

[grahamhgreen]

164. Also, I don't see a mechanism that guarantees that this fine money is paid back into the HC system..

Do you?

[BlooInBloo]

8. I think some here REALLY thought it was going to be free.

[blue_onyx]

77. No

Some of us thought Obama would live up to what he said during the election. The fact that he was against a mandate was part of why I supported him.

Requiring people to purchase insurance is a giveaway to the insurance companies...it's that simple. If the Democrats had a backbone, they would enact a single-payer system paid for through ending the wars and increasing taxes on the rich to pre-Reagan levels.

[Laelth]

174. Hear, hear! n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[sarcasmo]

160. Bingo, and who will be the first person to go to jail for not having health insurance.

[sandnsea]

9. Don't Raise Taxes No No No

That's why. No matter what is done, somebody is going to scream.

[grahamhgreen]

18. They don't provide insurance - just a penalty - or am i wrong??? (text)

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[sandnsea]

31. A tax to provide insurance = "socialized" health care

OH NOES!!!!

You'd be happy, but another 30% of the country would be screaming, maybe more.

[grahamhgreen]

34. No - the 'tax' DOES NOT PROVIDE INSURANCE! If it does - show me in the bill, please.

[sandnsea]

36. The bill has a Fine, *you* want a tax

and coverage. I am trying to explain to you why a tax and automatic coverage isn't the plan.

[grahamhgreen]

39. In the bill it IS a tax - (text) - but try again - Why not a payroll tax for the public option?

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[sandnsea]

47. That would be "socialized" medicine

Certainly it makes no sense. But that's living with the wing nuts will get you. I thought they wrote it as a fine, but it's still the same reason. A tax to directly cover your health care would be the dreaded socialized medicine. That's it, that's all.

[glowing]

10. Its this one issue that has the "actives" split in two.

They're already paranoid about anything and everything "govt".. so the mandatory crap has half of them demanding for people to jam the phone lines insisting on dropping the whole damn plan on its ass... the other half are demanding for jamming the phones insisting on Single-payer, medicare for all type of program.

All of them want the entire medical system overhauled.. from food safety/ organics to alt. meds taught to dr.s in med school. I'm considering Canada... LOL.

[truedelphi]

93. M. dreamt last night that we won the lottery and after we

Finished celebrating, he said the big topic fo us was which country to move to.

Germany, or Canada. Of course, since we had won the lottery, we could afford to live in both.

[glowing]

152. Oh, yes... If I won the lottery, I'm not sure that I would choose to live in this country.

Perhaps I'd maintain a small residence to come back to to visit family.. however, I believe I would live in Europe somewhere... Italy for a while, Spain, France, England.. I would probably hop around a bit. I'm not so sure that I'd choose to live in Canada if I won the lottery.

[truedelphi]

155. So the only remaining thing to do is to actually

Win the darn thing. You win it on Wednesday, I'll do it on Saturday, and between the two of us we can compare notes about when to visit which countries.

[glowing]

156. sounds good to me. LOL

[clear eye]

166. Gee, in all those countries you would have to endure frightening single-payer systems,

and the citizens supporting it. In the UK you'd have to withstand socialized medicine. How would you cope?

[clear eye]

165. Seems you've bought into the disinformation about single-payer.

The single-payer bill that's been offered to Congress, HR676, doesn't overhaul the entire system. It should be called "single-payer health financing" rather than single-payer health care, because it doesn't touch the rest of the system, only how it's paid for. Maybe you should know what something is before you condemn everyone who supports it and decide to flee the country because of them.

[stray cat]

11. Lets just not treat anyone without insurance if they refuse to participate

although sitting around watching them dye may be worse that requiring participation or fining them. However, if we prefer people who don't participate won't be treated even if the incident is fatal - that works too

[peacebird]

24. "watching them dye" - is that Loreal or Clairols?

But seriously - you advocate letting people die because they don't buy insurance? Good grief.

Health care should be about HEALTH CARE - not INSURANCE COMPANIES GETTING RICH. If we fired the insurance companies, and the HMO's with their "Profit first" motives then we could afford to give everyone access to health care.

[bbinacan]

28. "watching them dye"?

Are they going to turn a blueberry color like in Willie Wonka?
:rofl:

[kestrel91316]

65. Being too poor to be able to afford insurance = "refusal to participate"???

:rofl: :banghead: :cry:

[earthboundmisfit]

75. Hmm, I wonder who came up with that phrase...

"Refusal to participate"...If words could smell, those smell just like INSURANCE COMPANY...

[doc03]

15. They do it with auto insurance! n/t

[grahamhgreen]

20. Which is a scam. In Australia my car insurance and registration was $25 for a year in 1993!!!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Which is relevant... how? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

27. It's an example of how they passed laws that benefit corrupt insurers in the past.

[Seeking Serenity]

22. That's not the same.

Only liability auto insurance is mandatory, i.e., insurance to pay someone else for damages you caused to them.

Auto insurance to cover your own car is not mandatory.

[doc03]

29. But I also have to pay for uninsured and

under-insured motorist insurance to protect myself even though it's momentary for everyone to have liability insurance to drive. I think I'm getting screwed.

[grahamhgreen]

32. When everyone is covered with health insurance (like AUS), then your libility goes down on your

car insurance because if someone is injured they are already covered, BTW.

[TorchTheWitch]

130. and you can opt out by not owning a car

the only way to opt out with mandated health insurance is to be dead.

[sarcasmo]

162. Again I ask who will be the first person arrested for not having health insurance.

With this system it will happen.

[Cleita]

17. This is unacceptable.

It doesn't work. The lab results are in and the experiment is a failure, so why would we want to repeat that failure nationwide?

[Doremus]

19. I thought Obama said today he would veto any plan that had a penalty.

I thought I heard him say that though I will admit I was working at the time and listening to the Q&A on someone else's TV.

[Cha]

97. I hope he said

that..'cause that's just stupid.

[grahamhgreen]

158. LINK ???

[lexanman]

21. forcing people to buy something

under threat of economic or other penalty is Fascist economics. Mandatory car insurance is the same thing, even if intentions are different.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Wow, check out all of those fascist European social democracies.

:crazy:

[ipaint]

38. I know imagine requiring Europeans to purchase insurance from

a non profit company.

[lexanman]

48. what do they force

people to buy in a private for-profit market?
List one thing.

[grahamhgreen]

52. Wars, military, police, courts, firemen, roads, sewers, etc.

[lexanman]

57. I said

Private-For Profit market..not government. Those would be called taxes.

[armyowalgreens]

89. They are not forcing you to purchase private insurance. They give you the option...

to purchase private insurance or pay a fee to the government.

[lexanman]

95. Who is they?

socialist European democracies, or do you mean Mass. here in the US. Because if you mean Mass. that is called Fascism. You either buy private for-profit insurance you are fined. Its not a fee. It is a fine. A punishment. That is economic Fascism. They don't have that over in European and Scandinavian countries. They have single payer systems.

[armyowalgreens]

98. Semantics won't help you...

That "fee" or "fine" is supposedly going to help fund public forms of healthcare. Which is perfectly reasonable.

As long as they have a lower-income limit on the fine, and it is not ridiculously expensive, I see no reason why this isn't a good idea.


Calling it "fascism" just makes you look like a fool.

[lexanman]

99. the fine is not going to fund public forms of health care that is a lie

there are no forms of public health care in Mass. If you like Romneycare, well there is nothing more to say. Calling it Fascism is a fact. Fascism is corporatism. It is corporate interests controlling the government. Private for-profit corporations forcing people to buy their product under threat of fine by the government which they control. That is called....let's hear it again for the whole board to see....Fascism.

[grahamhgreen]

122. The problem is in the word 'supposedly' - the bill shoudl state it pays for your insurance premium

[grahamhgreen]

121. The problem is the fee you're paying DOES NOT get you insurance - it should.

[backscatter712]

51. That's another reason why I'm a fan of the public option.

Don't like the private guys? You do have an alternative, so you can give them all the finger while still being covered.

But like I said, somewhere, the rubber has to meet the road, and health care ain't free, even when the system isn't broken and prices are reasonable. At some point, everybody needs to pay in - it's a responsibility.

[clear eye]

167. Yeah, but the public option being proposed has to by law have all the exclusions

in coverage that the lowest tier (read cheap, crappy) private insurance does. And if things go as they have been w/ this Administration the person put in charge of determining those exclusions will come directly from the insurance industry. I take Obama at his word when he says he will only support a plan that won't lead to a single-payer system. That includes making the public option so heartlessly inadequate that not only won't anyone who can afford better avoid it, but it will poison public sentiment against government administered programs in general--especially single-payer. It's why they want to blend Medicare into it as well; so that program will no longer be a beacon for a well-administered government plan Statements that are being issued emphasize savings through using cost/benefit to decide what to deny in the public option. How much is 5 extra years of life worth at age 75? age 55? If you don't earn at age 75, is it worth nothing?

All this to maintain the for-profit system.

[armyowalgreens]

88. LOL. They aren't forcing anyone to buy anything.

Jesus.

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. You must have fun at tax time. n/t

[WillowTree]

41. OK. Here's the deal, like it or not.

The only way that the proposed system has any hope of succeeding is if as close as is humanly possible they get everyone covered by one plan or another. The only other way that they could make it work would be to make it such that if someone opts out, they either can't get back in or they'd have to meet some kind of pre-existing conditions criteria. Otherwise, a prohibitively high percentage of people would simply decide that they're healthy enough and don't have many medical expenses so they don't want to pay anything to get coverage, either through a public plan or through the commercial insurance market.......until they get sick. Then they could simply go out and get insurance after the fact, and what plan, either public or private, could possibly survive under those circumstances? It would be like thinking you could buy homeowners insurance for $300 once the house is already in flames and expecting it to cover your $100,000 loss. How do you think that pre-existing conditions clauses in health insurance policies came to be in the first place?

One way or another, everyone, or as close to it as possible, has to participate or the program can't be sustained.

[backscatter712]

46. QFT.

Hate to say it, but this is where the rubber meets the road. Everyone needs to be in, and everybody needs to pay in. With the costs of health care, I'm all for sliding-scale subsidies like what's in the HELP bill and HR 3200, so monthly premiums are affordable, and the truly poor should be on Medicaid and getting their health care for free.

But as much as possible, everybody who can pay in should pay in. Otherwise you run into problems with adverse selection. Give help to those that need it, but make sure everybody participates - in both benefits and responsibilities.

[grahamhgreen]

56. I don't mind every paying, but if you pay this tax, I don't think you get coverage....

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[backscatter712]

71. Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, if you pay the fine, the fine pays for insurance. n/t

Granted, the insurance paid for by the fine should be on the expensive side, so people are encouraged to play within the rules.

[grahamhgreen]

72. The fine pays for your insurance? Do you have a reference, this is a critical issue for me.

It would be especially helpful if you could cite it in the bill.

Thanks!

[backscatter712]

73. I didn't say it was in the bill, just that it should be in the bill.

As in it should be, but isn't...

[grahamhgreen]

50. The problem is, they are merely fining people, not insuring them. If they are going to 'tax' you,

then paying the tax should men that you are now insure. This does not seem to me to be the case.

If it is the case, where is it stated?





SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[WillowTree]

79. So why not just GET COVERAGE?

Either buy into the Public Option or get whatever insurance you want with the money that would have gone to the fine. They're giving you the option. Exercise it!

Jeez! Small wonder that in some arenas Republicans and/or conservatives get away with claiming that the Left is nothing but whiners who don't ever want to have to take responsibility for anything.

[grahamhgreen]

84. Some peopel will intend to but will not be able to for various personal reasons - the car died,

the house was broken into, their father died, etc.

These people should not be fined, unless the fine is applied to their insurance.

[WillowTree]

92. Or they could "apply it to their insurance" themselves.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what's the point of fighting a (potential) reality when there's a reasonably simple solution? Is it always necessary to find reasons why something won't work instead of trying to find a way that it will?

[grahamhgreen]

117. I think all we need to do is make sure the fine is applied to the persons next year of

insurance, instead of just being a fane that gets them nothing... at least I could live with that.

[grahamhgreen]

118. I think all we need to do is make sure the fine (tax) is applied to the persons next year of insuran

I think all we need to do is make sure the fine (tax) is applied to the persons next year of insurance, instead of just being a fine that gets them nothing... at least I could live with that.

Although it really begs the question of why we just don't take it out in payroll taxes - easier and cheaper in the long run, IMHO.

[lostnfound]

110. If you make $30,000 a year 2.5% = $750..

How much insurance will that buy you? Will it buy you insurance if there are pre-existing conditions (for you or your child..)?

If you have to pay the fee but it actually ensures that you have heath care, that would be a bargain. If you have to pay the fee but still don't have access to health care, people understandably would object to a further burden on low and middle income families.

I need to read the whole plan..

[Old and In the Way]

53. Agreed.

Seems to me that the earlier one gets into the coverage, the lower his annual premiums should be. That should provide the right incentive for everyone to get coverage early in their lives. And if you decide to risk (say, after age 21) going without coverage and you end up needing medical care, well, I'm sure the hospital can work out a payment schedule that you'll be obligated to pay.

[ipaint]

55. Everyone chips in with taxes, everyone covered, no problem.

Forcing folks to shackle themselves permanently to a for profit industry that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in it's quest for ever increasing profits, an industry that controls health care reform and refuses to allow any proven successful reform option to even be considered.

I don't think so.

[Laelth]

172. That's exactly why health "insurance" has to go.

It doesn't work in the context of health care, and you explained why ... very well.

Single payer eliminates the problem you cite. Health care should not be for profit.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Old and In the Way]

45. Maybe the answer is, everyone should drop their insurance...then we'd all profit!

I pay $11K/year for my family. I had a Republican tell me the other day that he doesn't have insurance because, if he got sick, the hospital has to admit him. Hmmmm....what am I missing?

I'm only 1/2 kidding about everyone dropping their insurance. If we all did that...it would kill the private health insurance industry anyway and then we could get the government's attention on universal healthcare. BTW, I'm not opposed to paying my current premiums to the USG for a progressive healthcare system...I'd hope all Americans would feel the same. Anyone who has dealt with the private health market knows what a fight it is to get claims processed. It's almost a full-time job.

And if you want deluxe/niche/specialty coverage...that's the market private health insurance could play in. At a premium, of course.

[TheCowsCameHome]

49. Because Massachusetts thought it was a great idea.

How's that working out?

[Sebastian Doyle]

140. Willard Mittens Brigham Romney thought it was a great idea.

A man who chains dogs to the roof of his car, and raids corporations for a living.

Yeah he was qualified to decide what was the best health care solution for Massachusetts.

[kestrel91316]

59. We should be grateful there is no criminal penalty such as incarceration.

:sarcasm:

[ipaint]

60. Oh, I'm sure the for profit prison industry is salivating

counting the days until repubs are back in power.

[grahamhgreen]

68. Because then they HAVE to give you medical!!!

[spanone]

67. please show subsection (d) what are the requirements

[grahamhgreen]

74. subsection (d)

`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.

`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:

`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[BlueIdaho]

70. Seriously?

Are you really trying to argue the fine points of a piece of legislation that is NEVER going become law? Folks its over. Enjoy 2009 - in 2010 we will lose our majority in the senate and the combination of new republican house members and blue dogs will make Obama a lame duck for the last two years of his only term in office.

We fucked up. We walked into a knife fight with a bag of marshmallows. Lets face it we're big on heart and small on spine.

[bob4460]

76. Ok I must be missing something

What about the 7 million of us who do not have jobs????

[blue_onyx]

78. I guess we better find a way

to make hundreds of dollars magically appear every month.

[Naturyl]

81. As one of those seven million, I can answer that.

We neither count or matter.

Simple question, simple answer.

[many a good man]

87. What you're missing is reading comprehension

The bill is supposed to GIVE you Medicare if you are below the official federal government poverty line PLUS 33%. If you don't have a job then you don't have an income. Therefore you get Medicare. Medicare is insurance. Free insurance, like old people get. You won't get fined if you just sign up for free Medicare.

The meager goal is to make health insurance affordable, not make it free. What do you think, we live in a compassionate, civilized country or something???

[Naturyl]

80. Is this actually going to happen?

Someone say it isn't so. I had been assuming the claims that the uninsured would be penalized were right-wing propaganda.

I agree 100% that "this is completely outrageous and unacceptable," and no "risk-management business-speak is going to change my mind.

Penalizing people for being unable to afford something IS WRONG.

Is this really the administration's idea of "health care reform?" If so, I have no further use for them.

[grahamhgreen]

82. delete

[slackmaster]

83. The obvious solution is to avoid the penalty by not working

You still get free health care.

[femrap]

86. There's an individual....

a young one, probably male, who is say, 27 and works as a contractor for Wall Street making $95,000/year and doesn't want to pay for insurance because he is a rich asshole.

That's who gets TAXED for NOT buying insurance. OK?

[grahamhgreen]

123. It could be if the tax is applied to his inurance! Why not just take out his premium from his paych

paycheck, then he's covered!

[mzmolly]

90. It's a tax incentive to get health care coverage.

This is a common way to encourage various, desired behavior among the citizenry.

[grahamhgreen]

124. But the tax should deliver heath-care to the individual. This should be in the bill.

[mzmolly]

131. Tax code can't deliver health

care. I do think the better way to go is to repeal the Bush tax cuts to pay for health care, but...

[Canuckistanian]

91. You need a critical mass of people to make insurance work

If there aren't enough well people paying premiums, you won't have enough funds to pay out to the users of the system.

It's sound reasoning, but a LOUSY tactic to use to get everyone to pay.

[mike_c]

94. that's why a single payer universal health care safety net for ALL Americans...

...is the ONLY real answer. All this other crap is just... crap.

[Naturyl]

96. Agreed. (n/t)

[crickets]

102. Yep. -nt

[leftstreet]

106. Yep!

[and-justice-for-all]

104. A penalty on what one can not afford to begin with?? Huh whut?

if there is more to this, please provide the info.

[grahamhgreen]

135. Here's the section that no-one disputes is a penalty only, with no insurance provided: must be

Must be changed or corrected for me to tell my rep to vote for this (who is a single payer co-sponsor).


SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(B) the entire taxable year.
`(c) Exceptions-
`(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
`(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.
`(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
`(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year.
`(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
`(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.
`(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.
`(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:
`(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).
`(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
`(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
`(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
`(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
`(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
`(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. It is sensible, acceptable and necessary.

In a system which relies on insurance, the uninsured are a systemic problem - EVERYONES problem.

But the penalty isn't high enough to serve as an effective deterrent. The conscientious people will pay upwards of 10%. It's still cheaper to rely on the kindness of strangers.

Don't worry, if you make less than 400% of FPL, you can buy public insurance, subsidized by uncle sam.

[grahamhgreen]

125. It is crazy and a scam, IMHO, unless the tax (fine) applied to the persons insurance

But really why not just take the premium out in payroll in the first place?

[clear eye]

163. It is a form of mandate w/ the tax being the sentence for noncompliance.

After all mandated private insurance + Medicaid worked so well in Massachusetts. :sarcasm:

[Mimosa]

107. Insurance exec had told me their lobby would win

During 1992 or 1993 (when the Clinton admin was working on healthcare) I was conversing with a young insurance exec about universal health coverage. I wanted it, of course. He laughingly told me universal single payer will NEVER happen in America, that the insurance lobby owned Congress. True in 1993, true now, I guess.

[Donnachaidh]

113. those of us with pre-existing conditions are going to get royally fucked,

both by the insurance companies AND by the government. FORCE me to buy insurance I couldn't afford in the first place?

This is NOT the change I voted for. And I won't be voting the same way agian, if this give-awy to the insurance companies goes through.

[mmonk]

115. The way to avoid this is single payer.

[Faryn Balyncd]

116. Because the 250- 600% SURCHARGE that hospitals charge those denied insurance isn't enough penalty!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/16/eveningnews/main674598.shtml

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2003_3679711

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Faryn%20Balyncd/1




:sarcasm:

[yodoobo]

138. Because health care is a civil right and a responsibility

That everyone is entitled to.

If you refuse to buy it for yourself, then you make it more difficult to provide for others who do want to be insured.

At first I was totally against this provision, but the more I've thought about it I think that Obama is right on with this.

Health care is somewhat unique is that it is both a civil right, and a responsibility to ourselves and to everyone else.

[grahamhgreen]

144. The problem is the provision does not provide health insurance for the payer, as it must for me to

sign on.

[Gwendolyn]

145. I think you could compare it to the fine imposed by single payer countries.

Although the fee for health care is taken from one's taxes, if you don't pay them, you're fined. That fine doesn't apply to next year's health care fees either. Not an exact analogy and only works for the self-employed, but guess there's the same sentiment behind it. Everyone's got to pay in for it to work.

[grahamhgreen]

150. But you GET HEALTH CARE COVERAGE!

[Gwendolyn]

153. Yeah it's not the best analogy.

The only comparison is that in both cases there is a fine which is not applied to the next year's worth of health care coverage.

[Hannah Bell]

146. to criminalize people, of course.

[Pryderi]

168. Isn't the fine based on income? n/t

[OllieLotte]

173. It's an effort to get everyone to pay into the system.

Many wouldn't pay in until they had a problem, then they would want to sign up for insurance. Kinda like buying auto insurance after the accident.

[grahamhgreen]

177. But you are not paying for nothing - when you pay the tax, you should at least be covered for

next year...

[dysfunctional press]

176. but you would know about the penalty before the fact...that's the point.

it's supposed to be the incentive to buy coverage.

[grahamhgreen]

178. Some will not. Especially the working poor. It is simpler and less dishonest just to apply this

fine to their next years premium, at minimum.