Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
Quote:
But what I can't really wrap my head around is the fines being charged by the government for not buying what the article describes as 'affordable medical coverage.' Why fines? If you don't want to buy health insurance, why should you be forced to? |
As noted in the article you quoted, the reasoning is similar, although not quite identical idea as forcing insurance on motorists. In a system where public tax dollars are being used to set up and help cover health care, those who don't want to get it, but then get sick or hurt and use emergency facilities are a drain on the system as a whole. Unlike the motorist case, there's not a direct person to person tradeoff, where their lack of insurance primarily affects you or I, but instead that lack of contribution to the pool is spread over everyone.
Health insurance is inherently a scam, as the idea of all insurance is making a profit based upon the statistical likelihood of events occuring in a large enough group. To consistently make the 20%+ profits that the companies often do, they need to charge you a significant enough premium that the sum of your collective risk and cash outflow, along with profits, doesn't overwhelm your payments. This provides a secondary reason for why the government would fine you, as it helps to ensure that they achieve the highest rate of coverage possible, since larger pools produce more normalized rates of outflow. Finally, larger pools also allow the group greater leverage when bargaining with service providers and lobby representatives to negotiate prices / rates / benefits. Think Walmart in health care. By fining John Doe, or 1000 like him, and adding them to the pool, they are then theoretically able to negotiate improved benefits which are passed on to the other members. |
Quote:
In essence, you're DOUBLE taxing someone for not wanting to purchase health insurance, which really makes no fucking sense to me other than to force someone into the gov't system, which I find to be inherently wrong. This whole plan doesn't even promote choice, its just a power grab. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us...ewanted=1&_r=1
So Massachusetts did this back when. I had personal experience recently just trying to get a doctor within the Boston area. I guess the biggest problem being touted by the article here is the availability of primary care physicians. Everyone's becoming a specialist. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entire nation is forced to get insurance. Also a year later: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/he...cy/16mass.html |
The fuck? I'm trying to just find A job and now they want to fucking fine my ass because I'm unemployed and without health insurance? OH GREAT, ONE MORE FUCKING THING I GET TO WORRY ABOUT :mad:
Quote:
Quote:
I cannot believe its come to this. I'm all for revamping the health care system but this is more of the rich punishing the poor and trying to 'squeeze a little more blood out of a rock' kind of crap. Excuse my language but at present this is making me very pissed off. |
Quote:
|
I can't even see this going far as I can already see the lawsuits. Dark Nation's situation is exactly what I am looking at. "So I have no income, and can't get a job due to the recession, and you are fining ME for it because I can't pay for health insurance?"
I also see the situation that Dark is talking about. What happens if you are making just barely enough to survive but that amount is too high to be exempt? The cost of living in certain cities is higher than others and/or if you have a family, then this could happen. And the bill will have steeper fines for those who have families. Also, I am curious on what they do for people overseas, especially if they do charity work. They get little to no money. Is the government suggesting that those people be 'punished' for helping out others? Or at they exempt? Then there are the lawsuits just going on free choice. I mean, just look at any of the lawsuits that have went after way more controversial topics and WON and you can only imagine how this would go. Finally, what about people who are just deadbeats. You aren't going to get money from them anyway, so how is fining them even more (as they obviously won't pay for health insurance) going to help? Zero income means you get zero from them. Adding the amount expected doesn't change things, and sending them to jail for a longer term means WE have to pay more. |
Poor and those without income and assets will get subsidies, of course. It's misguided to think that you choose not to
And health insurance should be mandatory. Why? Because the health system will pay for you when you need it in an emergency. If we had a system where you can't pay you get no service then not being insured wouldn't be a big deal, but as it stands now you have the freeloader dilemma. Now, for my ideal plan Dark Nation's problem would be a non-issues because health care would be social insurance like in Europe--you pay based on your income and assets. But, America because of our political climate, will have a messy system to make everyone in Congress happy. This has everything to do wit keeping costs down. Insurance is only successful when it can pool risks. This is why states that force insurance companies to take patients with prior illnesses but don't mandate insurance suffer from high insurance rates and sometimes insurers leaving the state because it creates a situation where the most at risk patients get certain types of insurance and those who think they are healthy don't drastically driving up costs for everyone in the system. Now if only people would take Len Nichols' suggestion of social insurance where Americans get vouchers for care a little more seriously this debate would be on the right track... |
Dark Nation, I really feel for you on this one. It's a situation I'm about to be in. I just recently have finished college and I have no idea what I'm going to do for work. Right now I do have two part time jobs, but having those I am probably exempt from any subsdies or help.
and I'm definitely not a hardship case. At 23, whenever I have a problem doctors just laugh and tell me I'm healthy even though I know something is clearly wrong. But that is beside the point. I really don't understand why we can't use a plan like gren proposed. Are we, in America really this greedy? People complain about the steal from the rich and give to the poor theory, but what does stealing from the poor and giving to the rich do? Who does that help? Not those who need it. Revamping health insurance needs to be on an income basis. |
Quote:
I already posted articles about how health care availability has gone down. The state hasn't been able to successfully pay for people's health insurance. I shudder to think what would happen if we tried to give people an allowance for health care directly. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, because it is. But there aren't any simple solutions, and I'll really resent it if I wind up in a worse position because people want one. |
Obama's healthcare bill is corporatist garbage and nothing resembling the public healthcare option this country should have.
|
I'm sure this whole thing is sunk, anyhow. Given the public outcry, this won't be nearly as close as Cap & Trade (which should die a horrible death).
|
Quote:
There's nothing genuine about the response against the healthcare bill from those town hall meetings. Don't these people know what's good for them? |
This bill sounded pretty bad
But then I saw Dull & Gech both agreeing that it is bad So now I think maybe it is pretty good? :( |
Devo not fully understanding the TRUE WEIGHT of Pangs current moral dilemma.
(still lollin) |
I guess you could call it an injoke in that Dull is saying things that are mostly objectively true but you know he is like scowling when he says them because they are all dirty, dirty lies from the Obamessiah-controlled Zionist MSM
|
|
I don't think most people even know what the fuck's going on with healthcare right now.
|
Barney Frank is pretty much the best fat gay guy since Brady.
|
Wow... just... wow.
Question: It appears I may be eligible for ACCESS, which is for low-income families and is paid for by (drumroll) state taxes, I wonder if this would exempt me from that ungodly idiodic provision as Devo quoted (Also, source of that?). But seriously, if they include any sort of 'mandate' like that in the bill, I'm ... well I'm sure what I'm going to do. I AM going to, however, call my reps and senators to oppose this particular rider (and push for supporting a public option but LOL REPUBLICAN SENATORS). I said it months ago but it bears repeating: FUCK THIS BILL |
Quote:
And yes, this mandate is definitely in the Baucus bill, and that's being voted on tomorrow. It was actually worse before it got amended a bunch of times. The fine for not buying into private insurance used to be double what is being proposed now, and because of this health insurance companies pulled a 180 today on their faux stance for health care reform. |
I meant LOL REPUB SENATORS as in the two asshats "representing" Arizona. John's Kyle and McCain, but it seems LOL POLITICIANS is more accurate.
|
Have those of you unhappy with what's coming out of Washington on healthcare reform considered contacting your state governments to push them towards giving you what you want? If you want a public option and Washington isn't going to give you, there's nothing that says that, say, Sacramento can't provide one independent of whatever the federal government does.
|
Quote:
|
And now Pelosi seems to have done a 180 on her stance and now supports the Public Option, apparently:
Pelosi makes case for government-run health option - Yahoo! News Quote:
|
Two years later, a major update to the topic appears.
*ahem* A U.S. Appeals court strikes down the health insurance individual mandate requirement from the Healthcare Legislation. Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement - Yahoo! News Quote:
|
What is the functional difference between that and universal health care paid by tax dollars?
|
The functional difference is that with universal health care there's a government rate for it, while the individual mandate could leave people in a shitty position of having to choose between multiple avenues of coverage that doesn't fit them.
So in the end, sure, everyone has health care, but in one case you're just given it and in the other you're told to get it OR ELSE. |
Being forced into choosing which of the most corrupt, non-functional health companies you deal with isn't universal health care. Universal health care is regulating the health companies so they aren't a for-profit business, but rather exist purely to provide care.
|
Maybe it's the innate Asian in me that thinks this way; doctors should be paid to keep you healthy, not grip out all your savings and your grandchild's Morgage to pay for your care when they fuck up and don't prevent you from getting sick. I think that's also another problem with health care cost, we talk a lot about how fucking expensive it is to keep our sick medicated or cared for or how many kids need Ritalin, but nearly or barely not enough talk about investing in methods of *keeping* people healthy. That includes investing in educating people to eat better and such.
|
Quote:
actually honestly scratch that thought, really the only thing that should be done (and that can be done to benefit the taxpayer) is to end the for-profit medical institution. I have no interest in protecting the profit margin of companies that have no interest in protecting my profit margin (or take-home pay, you know, whatever). apropos to this conversation: Open enrollment is going on with my employer. I have the option of picking up their health insurance, or staying on COBRA for the next year. My COBRA payments are $600 a month, for one person; the monthly payments for my company are significantly cheaper but the coverage is such that my COBRA coverage is actually cheaper in the long run. It has nothing to do with doctors being out of network, and I'm not riddled with cancer, preggers, or supporting a family. This is such bullshit. |
For some time now, the individual mandate has been on appeal to the Supreme Court.
This 6th circuit decision had previously ruled it constitutional, and now that we have conflicting circuit decisions, only the Supreme Court can make a definitive ruling. Given the nature of the legislation, they should take up the case soon enough to decide it before any of the mandates start to kick in. |
Quote:
That said, I do think it's kinda hilarious how health care companies only want to put money out once you're already sick. After my dad had a heart attack they gave him access to weight loss therapy classes for two months. He lost a bunch of weight, was eating better, and pretty much doing everything correctly. Insurance goes "Oh, you're doing fine now, go find somewhere else to exercise" and that pretty much knocked him off his momentum and he couldn't find another place with similar facilities nearby, so he regained most of what he had lost. Fast forward a year or so and there's another mild event, back in the hospital, and then insurance covers two more months of weight therapy (until it ended last month). He'd even be willing to pay for the stuff himself, but you can only get access to the place through insurance. :( |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.