Anyone here NOT have a health care plan/coverage?

[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 en ies.

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 en ies 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 en ies 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 en ies 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 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 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. , 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.