Reply With Quote
mmm same punishment you could get when you eat on the subway
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/09..._.html?showall
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!
Last edited by PEP; 09-26-2009 at 01:18 PM.
mmm same punishment you could get when you eat on the subway
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.
So Obama wants to bring back the debtor prisons, and let terrorists free in America.
Classy... This is the problem with Liberal "help". They never want to help the individual, just tell them how to live.
"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?
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.
You are telling someone, healthy, that even though he doesn't want to buy healthcare, he has to.And how is that telling them how to live?
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?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?
"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.
"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.
Which terrorists does Obama want to free in America?
Link?
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.
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).as long as you keep declining treatment, you are contributing.
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.
Perhaps it's only his opinion.
damn..
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.
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 uncons utional" -B. Oreilly Talking Points
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553723,00.html
Last edited by spursncowboys; 09-28-2009 at 01:00 PM.
so i take it people who deliberately opt to not be covered will not 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 and moan to high 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.
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.
un huh, earlier you said to make employers foot the bill.
you sound very liberal.
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 ?
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.
Ins ute 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 Prac ioners, 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.
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).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
