http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul
Are you for or against fines for people who are uninsured?
I think circumstances should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
How would this be applied? Based off total income? Amount of income actually left over after debt? I’m sure investigating every case would be costly for the U.S. Governme…me and you.
If somebody can’t afford health insurance, how are they going to afford a fine for not having health insurance?
Health Insurance is required in MA with fines for those who fail to be insured. It screws people who like myself, are independent contractors. Small business owners end up hurt the hardest. We are not eligible for discounts or state aid because it is assumed we have sufficient income even if we don’t.
The uninsured remain uninsured do to knowledge and/or ability to seek out proper insurance anyway. They just end up with more debt do to the fines imposed.
What happens if you have a pre-existing condition and no one will insure you?
It’s aimed at people who can afford insurance but instead choose to spend money on other things.
Then you would get whatever solution Congress knocks out, which has been the crux of the opposition. If Congress creates an insurance-of-last-resort then people are worried it will undercut other insurance policies (thus wiping them out).
Sooner the better.
Amen. If the government can provide a service that would wipe out the public providers of the service, why in the world would we protect the public providers of the service?
Bought stamps lately? The same reason the government outlaws monopolies should be applied doubly to administrators whose only qualification was winning a popularity contest.
Absolutely against. If people aren’t buying your product, it means you’re charging more than they think it’s worth. This proposal simply removes any incentive for insurers to offer a fair price to the people who have the least need for insurance, since the government will force them to pay anyway.
FYI this is the system that exists currently in Australia - those who earn over a certain amount (I think it’s $70,000 for individuals and $140,000 for families) are subject to a 1% levy of their income as part of the taxation system if they don’t take out private health insurance.
I think it’s a poison pill, designed to crash the bill if it gets attached.
It would help if at least some of you put some thought into your responses. The problem is that if you don’t have health insurance, and you get very sick, you end up having your bills paid by everyone else. Either because the govt will step in and pay or the hospital will eat the cost and pass it on via higher fees.
Now we could decide that if you have a heart attack or car accident and are brought to the emergency room and don’t have health insurance we could just let you die. As far as I’m concerned that’s what we shuld do with any of the conservatives who are out spreading all the nonsense about death panels and socialism.
But there are some people who don’t think it’s good public policy to have dead people lying in the alley outside the hospital, so they try and come up with a system to make sure that everyone has health care.
So what do you do? You can have the govt provide health insurance via a system funded by taxes. Or you make sure that everyone has access to health insurance by putting us all in a single “risk pool” so that individuals and small businesses can get the same rate as large group policies bought by bigger businesse and leave choosing insurance companies up to individuals This is the direction we are going. We will subsidize people who can not afford insurance, but what do we do about people who can insure themselves but don’t? We can let them die (again, that seems right to me), we can treat them and let everyone else pay for the freeloaders, or we can require them to have insurance just like we do for car owners. If we require them to have insurance then there obviously needs to be some sort of penalty if they refuse (just like uninsured motorists).
It’s like if we each paid for coverage from the fire dept. If someone’s house is burning down and they didn’t ante up, do we at least try and save anyone trapped inside or do we just tape the screams and play them on the Glenn Beck show for people’s amusement?
So it comes down to several choices:
- Pay for health insurance through general taxes like we do for roads, education, and parks.
- Leave it up to individuals amd let them die if they are uninsured.
- Leave it up to indiiduals and expect everyone else to pay for the freeloaders.
- Or require individuals to have insurance with some sort of penalty for not doing so.
The irony is that the last option, which will so enrage conservatives, may come about because of their insistence that universal health insurance not be paid by the govt.
There is a nationalized health system, though. So, effectively, everyone has health insurance. Everyone can use the Medicare system in Australia and can opt to buy private insurance on top of that. If you make more money than the thresholds you list and do not buy private insurance, you’re still covered through Medicare. The tax levy is not really a fine; it’s your contribution to Medicare.
Yeah I had to send a money order. USPS delivered it much cheaper then UPS or Fedex would have.
Exactly.
Under most of the proposals being discussed, they cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
This is the key point; it benefits small businesses and individuals, and gives people more choice of providers. Today, if you work for a large company you can switch insurers each year during “open enrollment” and following life changing events like marriage and birth of a child. If you are an individual policy holder and develop a medical condition, you may not be able to ever get another health insurance than you have now and if you do they will not cover the pre-existing condition. Just the one change to put us all into a single risk-pool and require health insurers to not exclude pre-existing conditions would be a huge improvement.
I’m sure that the Natonal Society of People Opposed to Their Own Self Interest will oppose it however.