Anyone here NOT have a health care plan/coverage?

[PEP]

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?sho wall

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

Dont prisoners get free health care in jail? Problem solved!

[hater]

mmm same punishment you could get when you eat on the subway

[boutons_deux]

I think the calculation is that one way or the other, with required health insurance, you're going to pay one (buy insurance) or the other (be penalized). Does anybody see a better way to get the low-end people to cough up their scarce money for health insurance?

For self-employed people, health reform has to allow them to deduct 75% or more of their health insurance costs from their pre-tax income, just like employees on health plans who pay zero or very little, while getting the health insurance benefit tax free.

Even better, make the public insurance option so attractive that employers get out of the health insurance business altogether.

This would create the largest insurance pool to cover the health costs, while down-sizing the private insurance companies into bankruptcy, or relegating them to offering top-up plans to cover what the public plan doesn't. No tears shed.

[spursncowboys]

So Obama wants to bring back the debtor prisons, and let terrorists free in America.

[spursncowboys]

I think the calculation is that one way or the other, with required health insurance, you're going to pay one (buy insurance) or the other (be penalized). Does anybody see a better way to get the low-end people to cough up their scarce money for health insurance?

Classy... This is the problem with Liberal "help". They never want to help the individual, just tell them how to live.

[boutons_deux]

"never want to help the individual"

how is a lower cost public option with an offer subsidize it NOT help for the low-end INDIVIDUALS?

And how is that telling them how to live?

The public option and mandatory insurance could be interpreted as some of society being fed up with taxpayers subsidizing low-end people in ERs of public hospitals and clinics, people who put off routine health care (aka, "not knowing how to live") until their disease is an emergency, much more expensive to treat and expensive over many years, all picked up by taxpayers now.

Pretty stupid way to organize society, huh?

[spursncowboys]

"never want to help the individual"

how is a lower cost public option with an offer subsidize it NOT help for the low-end INDIVIDUALS? It's the term you used to describe them. Also I don't believe it will be lower costing. People below the poverty line can already get free or close to free healthcare.


And how is that telling them how to live? You are telling someone, healthy, that even though he doesn't want to buy healthcare, he has to.


The public option and mandatory insurance could be interpreted as some of society being fed up with taxpayers subsidizing low-end people in ERs of public hospitals and clinics, people who put off routine health care (aka, "not knowing how to live") until their disease is an emergency, much more expensive to treat and expensive over many years, all picked up by taxpayers now.

Pretty stupid way to organize society, huh? The Government option is just going to increase the taxpayers subsidizing, but instead "low-end" ppl, it will be middle-end and maybe even higher. "not knowing how to live"- I see the slippery slope already. After they get out of jail for not having health insurance are the Gustapos gonna come in and make sure they don't have things made with transfat and high fructose corn syrup?

[boutons_deux]

"I don't believe it will be lower costing"

Then why did dubya give the private health insurance companies $50B to participate in Medicare Advantage? Because the private health care companies couldn't compete with Medicare. Medicare Advantage is, plain and simple, corporate welfare, the kind of welfare Repugs LOVE to dole out.

It's insurance. Nobody healthy knows when an accident or health catastrophe will arrive. Did you follow the story of a supposedly "healthy" ST person losing a toe to diabetes?

[spursncowboys]

"I don't believe it will be lower costing"

Then why did dubya give the private health insurance companies $50B to participate in Medicare Advantage? Because the private health care companies couldn't compete with Medicare. Medicare Advantage is, plain and simple, corporate welfare, the kind of welfare Repugs LOVE to dole out.

It's insurance. Nobody healthy knows when an accident or health catastrophe will arrive. Did you follow the story of a supposedly "healthy" ST person losing a toe to diabetes?
Yeah I realize that murphy's law stuff and all that. I just don't think the govt. should be making someone to get healthcare or buying it for people. Im not a Bush cheerleader either. Unlike you Obama girls, I have opinions I decided before the President or DailyKos make a stand on it.

[boutons_deux]

"should be making someone to get healthcare"

Don't worry, everybody's required to have auto insurance
(good for spursandcowboys when somebody runs into your car, Murphy happens A LOT), but plenty of people driving around without it.

auto insurance creates YOUR RIGHT to be compensated by the at-fault driver's insurance company.

[ChumpDumper]

So Obama wants to bring back the debtor prisons, and let terrorists free in America.Which terrorists does Obama want to free in America?

Link?

[fyatuk]

I don't have a health plan and have no interest in one. I'm in a high risk group (smoker, lazy, family history of cancer and diabetes) and have no interest in finding out anything is wrong with me until it kills me. I'd decline treatment anyway (especially after watching my mom go through it).

Don't know why anyone would even want me in the same risk pool as them.

[hater]

I don't have a health plan and have no interest in one. I'm in a high risk group (smoker, lazy, family history of cancer and diabetes) and have no interest in finding out anything is wrong with me until it kills me. I'd decline treatment anyway (especially after watching my mom go through it).

Don't know why anyone would even want me in the same risk pool as them.

as long as you keep declining treatment, you are contributing. :tu

[fyatuk]

as long as you keep declining treatment, you are contributing. :tu

Like I said, have no interest in getting treatment for anything, and even if I do decide I need something, I have no problems paying out of pocket or on credit (I have huge credit limits compared to everyone I know).

Of course, if this compulsory insurance passes, I'll have to sign up for group coverage at work. People who think removing employer from insurance is a good idea are stupid. In the vast majority of cases employer's pay a large potion of the bill. You remove them from the equation, and all those people will have significantly higher bills.

The goal should be to get the employer to contribute equally to employees health care regardless of whether they get their insurance through an employer sponsored group or not.

[s0ldEONs0ul]

Which terrorists does Obama want to free in America?

Link?

Perhaps it's only his opinion.

[clambake]

Like I said, have no interest in getting treatment for anything, and even if I do decide I need something, I have no problems paying out of pocket or on credit (I have huge credit limits compared to everyone I know).

Of course, if this compulsory insurance passes, I'll have to sign up for group coverage at work. People who think removing employer from insurance is a good idea are stupid. In the vast majority of cases employer's pay a large potion of the bill. You remove them from the equation, and all those people will have significantly higher bills.

The goal should be to get the employer to contribute equally to employees health care regardless of whether they get their insurance through an employer sponsored group or not.
damn..

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have a health plan and have no interest in one. I'm in a high risk group (smoker, lazy, family history of cancer and diabetes) and have no interest in finding out anything is wrong with me until it kills me. I'd decline treatment anyway (especially after watching my mom go through it).

Don't know why anyone would even want me in the same risk pool as them.
Even with a health care plan, I rarely use a doctor. I'm the same way. I just want to live my life, not worrying about something a doctor may say I have. When I die, I'm OK with that. I'm happy with my spiritual self and don't fear the next life. I just don't want to be kept alive when I should be dead.

[spursncowboys]

"should be making someone to get healthcare"

Don't worry, everybody's required to have auto insurance
(good for spursandcowboys when somebody runs into your car, Murphy happens A LOT), but plenty of people driving around without it.

auto insurance creates YOUR RIGHT to be compensated by the at-fault driver's insurance company. car insurance involves you having a car. This is completely different.
"(making people buy health insurance and penalizing them if they do not) not a tax, it's a fine! And I think it might be unconstitutional" -B. Oreilly Talking Points
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553723,00.html

[rjv]

so i take it people who deliberately opt to not be covered will not bitch and bemoan those other individuals who also do not have coverage but also may at some time have to use emergency or clinical services.

[fyatuk]

so i take it people who deliberately opt to not be covered will not bitch and bemoan those other individuals who also do not have coverage but also may at some time have to use emergency or clinical services.

Anyone who wants coverage should be able to get it. Anyone who doesn't should not be fined for it. And people should be held responsible for their expenses.

Hospitals should have more legal remedies to collect unpaid ER bills, etc.

I've even said before I'll pay taxes to fund/subsidize ERs, but I'll bitch and moan to high hell if someone wants to fine me just because I don't want a health plan.

The words "government" and "compulsory" have no business being anywhere near each other.

[clambake]

so, you don't mind paying your meager little taxes to justify your 150K trip to the ER?

[fyatuk]

so, you don't mind paying your meager little taxes to justify your 150K trip to the ER?

Isn't the goal of liberals to have the rich foot the bill for the poor?

And once you add up all the taxes, fees, and compulsory purchases forced on me by the various governments I'm subjected to, I pay somewhere between 25-35% of my annual salary to them. That's hardly meager.

Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with raising EVERYONE's taxes to subsidize ER services, just like is done with Police, Fire, Military, etc. I just have a problem with fining people without insurance.

Provide hospitals with legal recourses for unpaid ER bills, add a subsidy, and put through some legislation that might actually reduce health care costs instead of spreading a forcibly raised cost around to everyone.

[clambake]

un huh, earlier you said to make employers foot the bill.

you sound very liberal.

[rjv]

Isn't the goal of liberals to have the rich foot the bill for the poor?

And once you add up all the taxes, fees, and compulsory purchases forced on me by the various governments I'm subjected to, I pay somewhere between 25-35% of my annual salary to them. That's hardly meager.

Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with raising EVERYONE's taxes to subsidize ER services, just like is done with Police, Fire, Military, etc. I just have a problem with fining people without insurance.

Provide hospitals with legal recourses for unpaid ER bills, add a subsidy, and put through some legislation that might actually reduce health care costs instead of spreading a forcibly raised cost around to everyone.

if the reason for the fines would be to cover for health care costs wasted on the uninsured would you still be opposed to this? that is, is the an economic issue, or a civil rights matter for you ?

[fyatuk]

un huh, earlier you said to make employers foot the bill.

Employers should HELP foot the bill. I'm in favor of defining a percentage of salary (something like 5-8%) and require EVERY employer to contribute that to whatever healthcare plan a person has (capped policy, uncapped policy, health savins account, whatever). In return, let them deduct that expense from payroll taxes before contributing their share.

Combine that with an ER subsidy either on property taxes (with a higher rate on multifamily, commercial, and industrial properties), or an increase in income tax.

Limit non-economic damages on liability lawsuits not involving death or permanent disability to a multiple (3-5 times in my opinion) of economic damages (costs of procedures + lost wages).

Offer loan forgiveness programs for doctors and nurses who serve in understaffed areas.

Move regulation of insurance to the national level to reduce the overhead on insurance providers.

Institute required loss ratios on capped policies only in exchange for requiring the inclusion of preexisting conditions on those policies.

Allow hospitals to put a lien on houses, wages (with limits), and tax refunds to collect unpaid medical bills.

Increase grants, subsidized loans, and scholarships for medical professionals (Doctors, RN, LVN, Nurse Practitioners, Paramedics, etc).

Oh, and I do support creating the exchange, but I adamantly disagree with requiring all indivudual policies go through it, and the facist regulations included in the discussion (HB3200 in particular) should only apply to exchange policies.


you sound very liberal.

I don't care what anyone classifies me as, because the labels don't really fit me. I'm a socialist on the local level, minimalist on the federal level. At least in idealogy. I realize my idealogy will not come to pass, so I at least want to get things right on the federal level so we don't end up spending way too much for no benefit (like with TARP. Could have had a much bigger effect at probably 10% of the cost).

[fyatuk]

if the reason for the fines would be to cover for health care costs wasted on the uninsured would you still be opposed to this? that is, is the an economic issue, or a civil rights matter for you ?

As long as it functions like a fine, I'm against it. Charge a tax to everyone or don't charge it at all. The reason is irrelevant.

[clambake]

why should employers help foot the bill?

you already stated that you wouldn't take any personal responsibility in covering yourself.

why the double standard?

[SpurNation]

Hospitals and physicians started this mess long ago by overcharging to insurance companies for services rendered in order to compensate for those who could not/would not pay.

Insurance companies started increasing premiums and lowering benefits because of the increase in population not purchasing insurance because of insurance cost rising to the point it was not affordable due to compensating for increased physician and hospital charges.

Now that's from the public sector.

From the private sector...insurance companies raise their malpractice rates to physicians and hospitals because of the increase in malpractice suits. From what I've heard...I don't have the data in front of me...but most malpractice suits are made by...get this irony...uninsured people who are receiving "free" health care to begin with.

So...IMO...if rate regulation...caps on malpractice suits...and systemic problems aren't addressed...it won't matter what plan or penalty is assessed to the geneal public because the same corruption will ensue only to have a bigger pie to bite from by these entities.

Another question...Where would the revenue generated go if one is fined for not having health insurance...the government? (Just another pie eating organization introduced into the already stain faced entities getting fat off the corruption that exists now)

Yeah...that's what we need. Here's a novel thought...what about the government protecting the general public from the already corrupt system through government regulations to the private sector instead of becoming another member of that crowd and apply stiff penalties to those entities for not complying with regulatory conditions instead of forcing people to compensate for the already inflated cost.

The real BS about this whole thing is...NO BODY is saying health care costs will reduce or regulations to the entities will be addressed...they're just looking to make sure the already INFLATED costs and CORRUPT practices can continue through a mandated public coverage law.

[fyatuk]

why should employers help foot the bill?

Because many health problems are created or exascerbated by stress, often related to the indivuals employment, as well as the fact that many diseases are spread by working within the tight confines of the workplace. If they help spread the health problems, they should help foot the bill.


you already stated that you wouldn't take any personal responsibility in covering yourself.

Where did you get that? I've stated very clearly that I cover myself. I don't have a health insurance plan, but it something comes up, I sure as hell better be the one that pays for it (except of course if the cause of the bill was related to someone elses negligence, in which case they should). I've said before I would want my credit cards filled up, a lien put of my house, my income tax refunds confiscated, and my wages garnished until the bills were paid.

I don't like passing my bills onto society or anyone else. They are mine, and I will pay them even if it takes me the rest of my life.

If they were better done, and an option through my employer, I would have an HSA. I have no interest in having an insurance policy, though. It's a ripoff for the vast majority of the population and just increases the amount of money spent on healthcare for society as a whole.


why the double standard?

What exactly is the double standard?

If you mean my demand that employers pay for insurance without me having a policy, that's BS. I stated a system I'd like to see without stating what my participation in it would be.

See above, in my system I would have an HSA with both my employer and myself contributing to it.

Under the current system, and the ones proposed under Congress, I see no point in having coverage and strenuously object to the facist nature of the regulations and obvious indirect subsidy for an inefficient system.

[clambake]

Because many health problems are created or exascerbated by stress, often related to the indivuals employment, as well as the fact that many diseases are spread by working within the tight confines of the workplace. If they help spread the health problems, they should help foot the bill.
your kidding about this....right?




Where did you get that? I've stated very clearly that I cover myself. I don't have a health insurance plan, but it something comes up, I sure as hell better be the one that pays for it (except of course if the cause of the bill was related to someone elses negligence, in which case they should). I've said before I would want my credit cards filled up, a lien put of my house, my income tax refunds confiscated, and my wages garnished until the bills were paid.

I don't like passing my bills onto society or anyone else. They are mine, and I will pay them even if it takes me the rest of my life.

If they were better done, and an option through my employer, I would have an HSA. I have no interest in having an insurance policy, though. It's a ripoff for the vast majority of the population and just increases the amount of money spent on healthcare for society as a whole.
you will not likely be able to cover the cost of an emergency, you may never work again, tapping out you credit cards and whatever available equity does not mean your debt would be paid.




What exactly is the double standard?

If you mean my demand that employers pay for insurance without me having a policy, that's BS. I stated a system I'd like to see without stating what my participation in it would be.

See above, in my system I would have an HSA with both my employer and myself contributing to it.

Under the current system, and the ones proposed under Congress, I see no point in having coverage and strenuously object to the facist nature of the regulations and obvious indirect subsidy for an inefficient system.
again....why do i have to contribute?

[fyatuk]

your kidding about this....right?

Hey, if you disagree that employers should contribute or not, that's one thing, but the reasons I posted for my opinion are all widely accepted.


you will not likely be able to cover the cost of an emergency, you may never work again, tapping out you credit cards and whatever available equity does not mean your debt would be paid.

BS. You're talking extreme cases. The average ER visit ranges from a little less than $1k to about $3k. I can easily cover those costs. Hell, I try and keep a slush fund that large.

I don't approve of surgery or life support, so it's not like I'll have huge costs for that (my decision makers should I be incapacitated know this as well).

And you have no idea what my credit limit is, so you can't say "you will not likely be able to cover the cost." Those rare super-expensive outliers is why I suggested a tax to subsidize ERs.


again....why do i have to contribute?

Contribute to what? It's unclear what you are objecting to here.