What you describe is what has happened in Massachusetts.
One way to get around the moral hazard is to exclude claims on pre-existing conditions for some set period, for example six months.
Because you would be penalized for not having insurance. Meaning you would have to PAY for NOT HAVING insurance. Which is actually where your proposition basically ends.
At any rate, this was part of one of the multiple bills circulating.
Right now pre existing exclusions are limited to 1 year on all group health plans (where most people get their coverage)
Several carriers in Texas already have NO exclusion for Pre X, including the Blues and Aetna.
UPS and FedEx aren't in compe ion with the Postal Service. They're prohibited, by law, from delivery of First Class mail. But, they couldn't do it for 44 cents (or whatever it is now), because neither can the USPS. That's why they're in such sad shape.
But, UPS and FedEx are kicking ass in the compe ive side of the market.
Way to make a good point Obama.
People would also have to get penalized for committing suicide as well, but I don't think that worries anyone committing suicide. The government penalize anyone whoever has his life risked by the no-insurance, just to show how carious they are with the health and lives of citizens. So when you get bitten by a dog you'd better go to some private clinics instead of public hospitals, otherwise the government run hospital would fine you hundreds of dollars for not taking enough care of yourself.
And, in another affront to the intelligence of the general public, Obama said this, at today's townhall discussion of health care in Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
Maybe he just misspoke. Or maybe he doesn't realize that just about everyone has seen this video:QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been quoted over the years when you were a senator, and perhaps even before then, that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan.
I'm beginning to see that you're changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I'm on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing, because who can compete with the government? The answer is nobody.
So my question is, do you still as a -- yourself now support a universal plan or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?
OBAMA: Well, I think it's an excellent question. So I appreciate the chance to respond. First of all, I want to make a distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things. A single-payer plan would be a plan like Medicare for all, or the kind of plan that they have in Canada, where basically government is the only person -- is the only en y that pays for all health care.
Everybody has a government paid-for plan, even though depending on which country, the doctors are still private or the hospitals might still be private. In some countries, the doctors work for the government and the hospitals are owned by the government.
But the point is, is that government pays for everything, like, Medicare for all. That is a single-payer plan. I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe, would be too disruptive.
Or maybe he meant "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter lately."
Please. What is the bill numbers of these "multiple bills" so I can look them up, or is this just more liberal propaganda?
In the House Democrats’ proposal—America’s Affordable Health Choices Act—those individuals who do not have employer-based medical insurance, and who choose not to purchase coverage, would pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income, if they cannot demonstrate “hardship.” This component of the legislation comes under the subheading “Shared Responsibility.” The Senate health committee fine would be $750 per individual.
From here: LINK
(If the World Socialist Web Site is blocked on your browser, I'll be happy to provide another source)
Here's another link from FreeRepublic, probably more to your taste: LINK
You are a lemming liberal tool!
That is HB 3200, the only one I know of! The one we have been talking about. That is not a different one.
Please direct you attention to some facts:
H.R.3200
le: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other , opening of actions:
Please, where are the other "multiple bills?"ALL ACTIONS:
7/14/2009:
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
7/14/2009:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Answer... There are none!
you're still denying there's only one bill?
Again, same bill, HB 3200. Section 401, part of text:
Please, show me one of these other "multiple bills?"SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. 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.
Huh?
I'm saying I haven't seen another one that isn't dead.
If I recall, you posted a few hundred congressional actions that were not another health care bill, and you want credibility?
Bill number please.
What about Obama's bill?
Show it to me in writing. It's all in his head until it gets a bill number.
Bill number please. Talk is cheap.
Does he have one? I mean, he claims to have a plan..but, he's yet to say if it's embodied in the pending legislation. He's kind of evasive on that point.
So if he doesn't have a bill then why are you implying he's lying?
So if ther are no details , as you eloquently point out, then why are you sweating something that doesn't exist?
OK, we can call him delusional instead. Is that better?
I'm still waiting to see one of these other "multiple bills" you liberal lemmings believe in.
What is he defending? And, there is a bill. It's just that it contains a whole lot of language Obama either doesn't understand or he's hoping we don't understand.
HB 3200 is the bill President Omaba is endorsing. There are no details in the fact most the provisions leave that for future development.
Still. HB 3200 is the only one out there.
Again, for the Nth time...
Where are these multiple bills? HB number please.
George, ElNono...
You guys must be Googling hard! Find anything to use yet?
Not really. My understanding is that there was another bipartisan bill being worked on by the Senate Finance Committee (article about it). I don't know where they're at with it, but with the recess probably not working on it right now.
My point still stands. You will be penalized for not having insurance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
