Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage

[steven johnson]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage...


Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJ...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Yep, force us to feed the bloated health care industry profit whores

who practice medicine without a license and make it next to impossible for their clients to get straight answers on coverage, etc.

[lindisfarne]

20. Inform yourself. There is a public option, so you wouldn't have to purchase private insurance.n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

60. only if they don't take the public option away

which is my fear.

[DaLittle Kitty]

62. FUCK DA FINES IF THERE'S NO COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC OPTION!

Fuck these assholes if they're going to side with the insurance companies!

[truedelphi]

89. Please calm down and join me for a

Then we will rant and rave together!

[sisters6]

70. A person who have to buy into the public option if not want private==insurance

companies will control each.

[Gormy Cuss]

83. Inform yourself. The "public option" is still a sop to the insurance companies.

We need single payer.

[Dr_Willie_Feelgood]

87. Would low income public option be free?

I am a cab driver in Metro Detroit making, after taxes and social security and fuel, about $12,000 a year.

On public option or single payer, how much would my insurance run? Would it be free to me? Or is the fact that I am "self employed" knock me out of it?

(Yeah, I would LOVE a W-2 job with insurance and all that jazz, but you take what you can get nowadays)

Would my income level entitle me to an exemption to the fines if I cannot get insurance?

Would I be able to seek "alternative" medicine solutions, or would I be forced to become a chemical waste dump for mainstream medicine?

[dysfunctional press]

2. why do they want to hand the senate over to the repugs in 2010?

because that's what something like this might well accomplish.

[bluestateguy]

3. I hear that in Mass. it's cheaper for some people to just pay the fines

and of course then thery are worse off: out for the fines and still no insurance. Correct me if I am wrong.

[lindisfarne]

22. They should just have a tax, equal to the cost of the public option, assessed by the IRS, and you

get a credit against that, equal to what you paid for health insurance, up to the cost of the public option.

Also, people who choose not to have health insurance should be required under law to file a document in a national data base, easily accessible by all emergency rooms, stating what your financial worth is, and refusing any and all care that exceeds that amount.

I certainly don't want to be subsidizing the people who choose to be uninsured once we have a public option and subsidies for those below a certain income level.

[depakid]

29. You'd have to repeal EMTALA

though it sounds like that might not be much of problem for you (and very likely 2/3's of Americans).

[lindisfarne]

36. Maybe we would. People who choose not to buy insurance seem to be indicating they don't want

expensive life-saving measures that they won't be able to pay for. We need to respect their choice.

The public certainly should not be paying for their health care, when they have the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance.

[Oregone]

42. If insurance paid to save people's life, why do 75% of people with medical catastrophes go bankrupt?

No, insurance doesn't pay to save people's life. Their 401Ks and homes pay for that. Their children also pay.

[lindisfarne]

46. That doesn't happen in many European countries which have insurance.Must be in the way we set things

up in the US. We'll have to change that & add more regulation, like no excluding people for pre-existing conditions!
And of course, have a public option. Which of course, you can work to change down the road, once people get used to a more expansive gov't role in health care. They might be less frightened of losing their private health insurance then!

[Oregone]

52. You have to change a TON of things, and they probably wont be changed

So sometimes piecework reforms just shake out and make things worse.

A lot of these European hybrid systems don't have over a handful of private providers, and they are non-profits anyway. You can hardly draw comparisons between what is being attempted to what they are doing. Obama himself said he wants something "uniquely American".

Thats why some people just want to do away with wasting money and political capital on guess work. Some people would rather see something proven, like Single-payer, put in place.

[lindisfarne]

54. You're such an optimist! We won't see eye-to-eye as I said! n/t

[Oregone]

59. No, Im more of a realist

[depakid]

50. When cornered, that's the same argument that some of the April teabaggers made

Though their arguments (when they could cough them up) were a bit more Libertarian/social Darwinistic.

Let 'em die on the street in front of the ER (I actually got a couple of them to say that- not that it took especially good cross x -they wanted to go there).

Part of the trouble is that both the public option and the current cap & trade scheme are both "foot in the door" measures- as opposed to workable, longer term solutions. Seen from that perspective, they make sense.

[Robb]

77. My bestest buddy in the world is in Mass....

...And says part of the problem is, with more people having some kind of health insurance than ever, and figuring they'd better use it, the system is overwhelmed.

He had poison ivy on his face, starting to swell his eyes shut. Wanted to see a doc. Two month wait, or go to the emergency room.

He toughed it out. Stupid, stupid system.

[Demeter]

80. There's Always the Emergency Room, I Suppose

Or a quick trip abroad to be treated by somebody else's single payer health program....

[stopbush]

4. This is the kind of shit we should expect when politicians don't have the guts

to initiate a full-blown single-payer system.

It's all about preserving profits for the private insurers, profits that will come back to politicians as campaign donations.

And you had better believe that the chits are being called in right now on every politician who has received even a dime from the private insurers.

[lindisfarne]

26. How is it preserving profits for the private insurers? People can purchase the public insurance. n/t

[depakid]

5. I would have less of a problem with this if I knew that there'd be full coverage

and not junk insurance with high copays and deductibles.

[santamargarita]

6. They now have everything we voted them in for and they act like that...

goddamn George Bush is still in charge!

[pnwmom]

10. Did you read the article at the OP? The government will be subsidizing the

costs for the poor and many in the middle class. The fine will be for those who can afford insurance but are choosing to go without. And it will help to pay for the costs when those people end up in emergency rooms.

[1monster]

35. And who decideds what one can afford? I'm snowed in under debt, slowly, very slowly paying my way

out, due to medical expenses from two major heart surgeries for a family member. It isn't just the medical debt, it is also the debt built up by impossible interest rates and fines for being late with payments while said family member was out out work, etc.,etc.

I had to drop insurance form myself and my son after my insurance company left the state. The closest thing to affordable insurance I could get then was $250 more than my previous insurance with half the coverage. And it was $250 more than I could afford.

Still, we make decent money for this area and would probably not qualify for government aid.

[lindisfarne]

40. So you think the current, unsubsidized system will be cheaper for you? n/t

[regnaD kciN]

96. It will be cheaper than having to pay more than you have...!

However bad the current system, you're not required by law to pay what you don't have.

[OregonBlue]

79. Exactly. I own a small business and my gross is good by my net is so low since this recession hit

that I'm just barely hanging on. Under Oregon's rules, they use the Gross so I do not qualify for Oregon Health Plan. I keep writing to Wyden and asking him if they are going to do the same with their public option. So far, no response. Credit card companies keep raising rates and everything else has gone up. Small businesses are failing right and left. I am so happy that I'm still in business but I don't know how much more I could afford to pay.

[regnaD kciN]

95. Precisely...

From what I recall of RomneyCare, those "subsidies for poor and some middle-income earners" wound up being just a drop in the bucket. Plus, they're all based on income level. If someone's carrying a huge debt load from previous medical emergencies, unemployment, divorce, etc., and the combination of that debt plus your new "individual mandate" comes to more than your disposable income, even with the drop-in-the-bucket federal subsidy...tough titties, grandma! There's always debtor's prison for the likes of you. (Or, if not, there will be soon enough.)

[Bill McBlueState]

121. and because it's based on income level,

any change in your family's employment status results in two months of you and MassHealth sending documents back and forth to verify everything.

When I lived in MA, that was my major objection to MassHealth: the administrative nightmare of trying to resolve even the most trivial issues.

[xchrom]

7. here comes the fine print. nt

[pnwmom]

8. I have no problem with this as long as the government provides

full coverage for the poor and adequate subsidies for the middle class -- as this article says it will.

[1corona4u]

15. I don't think....

there is a middle class in this country anymore. There are the rich fat cats, and the poor. That's all. If the alleged 'middle class' had to live on their 'money in hand'-no credit/loans, they be one notch lower.

[regnaD kciN]

98. "Adequate" subsidies...

Trust me...once this plan gets enacted, and the actual subsidies are announced, you can bet they'll be far, far less than people need, unless they're currently below poverty level.

It's called "the real world"...

[1corona4u]

9. What pisses me off is...

that they will fine US, the citizens of this country, but the illegal immigrants will STILL get healthcare for FREE, just by showing UP at an emergency room, or clinic. Jesus Christ. Can this country get anymore fucked up??!!

[jazzjunkysue]

11. It's called a "closed shop." It means, you either join the union, or pay their dues without joining.

Most states already have childhood coverage through 18 years. We're all covered in our old age.

So, this will stretch it out through our 20's 30's 40's. So, you were already paying for half of you lifetime, anyway.

This fills in the other half, when people are generally young and healthy and cheaper to cover.

Right now, you're already putting the expensive part of the population in the pool. This levels it out, making it affordable to everyone.

The current non-system of private insurance works alot like private schools: If you're too much trouble, like you have special needs or a pain in the ass parent or are just generally difficult, a private school can drop you, sending you to the public schools.

So the insurance companies want only healthy young people, sending the expensive people into the public pool. This will not work.

So, a government plan must include that healthy cheaper slice of america, in order to make it affordable for those in need.

That's what makes it socialist: The capitalists will no longer be able to deny the bad risks.

[lindisfarne]

30. You say it will send the expensive people into the public pool. Are you aware ins. companies won't

be able to deny anyone based on preexisting conditions, as Obama has strongly stated?

I also hope they will make premiums for the same coverage equal across all subscribers. I haven't seen as much discussion on this issue so am not sure what is planned.

Germany has very high regulation and we could adopt parts of their system. For example, the government evaluates the level of risk each insurance company has assumed, and the ones with lower risk have to pay into a government pool which is then distributed to those with a higher risk. That way, the field is completely leveled.

[Autumn]

12. Fuck them n/t

[regnaD kciN]

99. I'm amused by your avatar...

...because the proposed plan is almost word-for-word Hillary's proposal during the last primary season.

[Autumn]

116. I didn't like that plan either

so be amused.

[Oregone]

13. 75% of insured people go bankrupt in case of catastrophe, and you now get fined refusing that shit?

Nice band-aid on a broken system

[DRoseDARs]

14. Hmm, I pay Anthem BCBS $278/mnth for bargain bin coverage vs. $84/mnth fine?

I lost one of my jobs in January and with it my main income. I'm going to be out of personal savings by autumn, so sign me up for the fines! They I can afford!

[Go2Peace]

17. Only fines those with money to pay.. Please learn before reacting

I know this is not the nicest way to maintain the system but until we have a single payer option it is the only way to make sure that everyone is part of the pool. If you are poor than you will get help. Why anyone that is low income would be bothered by this is beyond me. If your income is low you won't need to be worried about getting fined because there will be subsidies and you will be insured instead.

Any just health system will require everyone participate. Whether through taxes or this. Otherwise you just can't have a comprehensive system.

Our people have such a funny mindset about paying for services. They want all these services but don't want to personally pay. That is impossible. But in the long run we will all pay much less once we get to a truly socialized system.

[1corona4u]

21. Stop defending a BAD idea.

That's what's wrong with the people in this country NOW. They find SOME justification for everything!!!

[Alcibiades]

28. folks are bothered

because every time the insurance industry looks like they are doing folks a favor, they are really picking the pockets of policyholders.

you want universal coverage? single payer has none of this crap.

[Dragonfli]

58. The problem is one that you can't see if you have a good job

Here it is:

What the Gov't thinks is "poor enough" to get help is usually well below the actual cost of eating and keeping a roof over your head. What they would consider "doing well enough" to pay a fine or buy insurance(no doubt a cover nothing $5,000 deductible plan that I can not afford to use) leaving me some new choices to consider - miss five or six meals a week, Give up het or electric, or live in a car.

I have -$100 a quarter for my so called budget right now (yes a deficit, soon I will no longer be able to float the extra I don't have and everything will fall apart. They will add a new bills to this.

I will go without housing I guess, or let them throw me in jail. BTW I make "too much" to qualify for Medicaid by about $500 a year. SO I know what I am talking about regarding what the champagne liberals and Gov't consider "subsistence" - a joke really.

I am glad you will be doing just fine.

What about people that make just a bit more than the so called officially poor?

You know, I had resigned myself to just not being able to afford health care after the "Reform".

Now I will well and truly be fucked along with many more people than the numbers suggest.

I used to make quite a bit more. Then my wife got cancer, died due to Insurance company stalling for six months on a key surgery. I am in debt for $49,000 for her illness (even tho we were insured at the time).

I only work a few days a week now because I am terminally ill myself and not able to do as much as I once did. If I were to try to treat it (only 30% chance I would respond anyway) I would be way to sick to even work the few days I can now, with my wife gone and no other family to help me, I would not be able to support myself at all.

I am sure there are millions like me that just don't count, funny thing is I did well for most of my working career, never well to do, but able to live and have comforts and health care, but even then I wasn't like you selfish fucks and had the same views I have now. I was you once except I gave a shit about the less fortunate! That is no longer a Democratic thing I gather, judging by the party and the easy hoorays over this bullshit reform when I can walk to Canada and see sanity it is the only conclusion I can reach regarding the "New Democrats".


edited to add

You know what - Fuck it! why should I bother posting or reading this Democratic (really republican) bullshit anymore.

I know most of the cheerleaders here fucking hate people like me anyway, old school liberals that believe in rule of law and an FDR concept of safety nets. Far left Crazy fucks, that's what you think of old school Democrats.

Too fucking goddamn corparate and apologietic of shit that just shovels money to the elite wearing a kinder face that the Refuckingpublicans. It is time to lurk only when I am bored - I can count the users here on my fingers that can even get what I post anyway as Centrists are not Democrats, they just post with the name and mostly here and mostly to push legislative shit that make republicans rich(er).

[lindisfarne]

64. Where did you get the idea that the public option will be a "high deductible" plan? It won't.

Some of your worries will go away if you simply inform yourself of what is being proposed.

I'm really sorry about your illness, as well as your wife. The goal of reform is to prevent people from being in the situation you are now. I hope you've negotiated with the people holding your medical bills and are only making very small payments. Don't let them bully you; if you need help, find a good, honest credit counselor (not one you have to pay or who promises you everything). I'm sure DUers can recommend good agencies. Is there no way you can reduce your income by $500/year so you'd qualify for medicaid? Maybe you've already looked, but there usually is free tax help available for the first few months of the year at least.

There will be subsidies, including partial subsidies, to help those below a certain income level.
The basic coverage will be more along the lines of Medicare than a high deductible plan. I'm not saying it will be medicare - just more like that than what you seem to think will be the case.

There's a lot of good information on DU - read it. You might feel better.

[bvar22]

88. Oh, you seem to have all the details.

Please give us some numbers so we can see where we fit in, and exactly how per month this going to cost us.
Also provide some hard numbers about coverage.

Thanks!

[glitch]

91. Please don 't let them get you down. I appreciate your presence here.

[regnaD kciN]

102. My reaction....

If you are poor than you will get help. Why anyone that is low income would be bothered by this is beyond me. If your income is low you won't need to be worried about getting fined because there will be subsidies and you will be insured instead.

Go2Peace, you're living in a fantasy world. Maybe poor people will get a pony!!! with their free health coverage, too?



I've lived in the real world long enough to safely predict two things: the costs per person/family for even basic coverage will be quite a bit higher than people are assuming, and the "help" will be quite a bit lower. Maybe if you're dirt-poor, you might get full coverage, but you'll see everyone else assigned a pro-rated percentage that will be lower than they need. And, if they're "cash-poor" because of high debt loads, as is true with lots of "middle-class" people in this country, tough luck, because those subsidies will be calculated on net income, period (i.e. assuming that people have no debts).

I wish I lived in Go2Peaceland, myself, but I think you'll find the reality quite different...and nowhere near as rosy. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[PSPS]

16. Wonderful. National RomneyCare.

The government has now been reduced to nakedly assuming the role of "enforcer" for the private insurance racket. You're forced to pay "protecion money" to the mob.

[mvd]

27. Yes, why not..

just require insurance companies to cover everyone that applies? And help poor people who want coverage to afford it? The public plan is another option.

[Oregone]

34. Why not? Because people with health insurance still go bankrupt

In fact, 48% of bankruptcies in the nation are from medical problems of those insured.

On edit: missed your sarcasm.

[mvd]

47. I was actually making the point that I oppose mandatory coverage

So in that way, it wasn't sarcasm.

[bluesmail]

18. What BS. Sounds like a group of R's backed by a group of bluedogs. eom

[OhioChick]

19. Stupid ass idea. n/t

[mvd]

23. Not the way to win hearts and minds over to the plan

It shouldn't be treated like some criminal offense.

[lindisfarne]

24. I'm all for this. Fines "at least half the cost of basic medical coverage" - why not make it the

full amount?

[Politicalboi]

25. So if you can't afford it they fine you

How about legalizing Marijuana, or making the price of a postage stamp a $1, or $50.00 for driver licenses through out the US. Tax us on things we use, so everybody has free access.

[lindisfarne]

32. Did you read the thread or the article in OP? There are subsidies for those who are below certain

income levels. Sigh.

[Oregone]

37. Fuck subsidies

Do you know what subsidizing poor people really comes down to? Giving them money to give to private corporations that provide inadequate care. It takes tax payer money and turns it into pay for executives and profits for already rich shareholders.

They should ONLY subsidize public insurance. Subsidizing mandated premiums on private insurers is the same as giving tax-payer money away. And since insurance companies don't give much back, its a bad deal

[lindisfarne]

39. Americans value choice, and usually vote with their pocket book. If private insurance is cheaper,

people will generally choose private. If not, they'll choose public.

You're giving the money to citizens and letting them choose how to spend it.

[Oregone]

43. Americans would value real affordable health care over choosing shit

Health *insurance* choice traditionally limits health *care* choice anyway.

You aren't just "giving the money to citizens". You are giving them money and forcing them to spend it on insurance, which 99%+ of the providers will be private. Therefore, you are shuttling tax payer dollars to private insurers to pay executives, inefficient administration, and profits for shareholders.

This is an IRRESPONSIBLE expenditure of public funds.

[lindisfarne]

44. We've disagreed over this before. I've pointed out that many European countries have non SP systems

that are cheaper than the SP systems in France & Canada, so there is nothing *inherently* cheaper about SP.
But I know we'll never see eye-to-eye, so I'll leave it there!

[Oregone]

53. And those multi-payers are often non-profit and are limited in number

Apples are being compared to downs syndrome oranges here. The US now and even with a public option will probably find no counterpart in Europe

France is not single-payer BTW

[Selatius]

118. What system does France have? I know the health care plan in France covers 80% of all costs.

And citizens are free to purchase supplemental insurance to cover the remaining 20%, but I don't know of anybody who would replace their public insurance with a totally private one.

[demodonkey]

97. Choice? Where the hell is MY choice?? I have NO HEALTHCARE AT ALL. Some choice. nt

[readmoreoften]

126. How can healthcare plus profit (private) cost less than healthcare (public)?

It can't. Unless "private" cuts labor costs and/or services. "Costs" will always be cheaper than "Costs-plus-someone-gets-rich." Always.

[regnaD kciN]

104. "Subsidies" = drop-in-the-bucket...

...that won't come near enough to helping middle-class Americans afford mandated health-care. Anyone who claims otherwise should stop reading Pollyanna and join the real world.

[1monster]

38. Don't give them any ideas. Florida is raising the price of drivers licenses, tags and registration,

and loads more. If the Feds get into too, I may have to give up my car and driving.

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. Exactly what some of us have been warning against for the last year.

Being forced to pay the insurance companies who then refuse to cover our claims.
I sincerely hope this generates HUGE outcry.

[lindisfarne]

33. Have you heard about the public option? It's this great thing that's been in the news for many many

weeks.

[Psephos]

86. Perhaps you can name a few examples of excellent govt. services

I can name you plenty of the opposite. That's why I think that the public option is decidedly not such a fine alternative. Government agencies can't be fired, and they can't be driven out of business by shoddy practices or better competitors. They are also subject to extreme political manipulation, particularly when the party we, ahem, don't vote for happens to be in power.

Here's what I've seen with my own eyeballs:

1. In government services, power, not money, is what drives the providers. Bureaucracies spread like slow-growing cancer, and for the same reason. They exist first of all to serve their own employees and directors. Those employees and directors provide services after, not before, they take their cut. Greed is not about money, it's about having the power of money. We on the left perpetually make this mistake. If you can get the power without needing so much of the money, it's still greed...in some ways, a worse form of greed, because it cannot be bankrupted or driven out of business. The only proven antidote to power (and greed) is diffusion and deconcentration. Creating a leviathan new bureaucracy will concentrate power, not decentralize it. It will increase power greed, not lessen it. That applies right down to the lowest-level bureaucrat, who has just one little button to push, one little rule to enforce, but who enforces it like their life depends on it (which, in a sense, it does). I see this in the university environment all the time, too.

2. Much, or even most, of the money that the government supposedly gives to the poor does not go to the poor. It goes to the middle class administrators and bureaucrats who operate the programs that distribute the money.

3. Any government-subsidized public option provider will have enormous political (rather than economic) pressures to distort the efficient allocation of its resources, and to subsidize its inevitable losses. Subsidization of the public provider will drive the private providers out of business, eventually.

4. Obama won with 53% of the vote. 47% of the voters did not want him for President. Most of them will see this as someone they don't like jamming something they don't want down their throats. If we lose just one in four of the independents who voted for O we will be facing a backlash in 2010. None of the other scenarios gets rosier, either.

By the way, Lindisfarne, despite my different opinions, I think you've done a great job in discussions here, and am glad we all get to hear your point of view. There is no perfect answer to any of this, of course...but without open discussion, we're nearly certain to get a particularly imperfect one.

[regnaD kciN]

105. Where's the beef?

Before you continue praising a plan whose price-tag you haven't seen, answer me these questions:

1) What do you think is a fair monthly cost for basic insurance for an individual? A family?

2) What is a fair amount of subsidy for poor and middle-income people?

3) With subsidies, what about the case of someone who is carrying a large amount of unavoidable debt, so has considerably less disposable income than average for their net income level?

4) And, once you have those figures, where does it say the proposal actually meets those numbers???

As I see it, giving general brush-off answers without specifics practically defines "buying a pig in a poke."

[Downwinder]

41. Will somebody please define "affordable?"

[lindisfarne]

48. You might go to senate.gov and see if the HELP committee web page has a copy of the bill up somewher

[Oregone]

49. I wish they would draw some lines in the sand with real numbers

Base them on income, dependents, etc.

[Dr.Phool]

45. Just fucking flat-out outlaw health insurance companies.

And expand Medicare to cover EVERYONE!

H.R. 676 had it covered. 3.5% additional tax on employees and employers both. No co-pays. No deductibles.

Real health care, not health insurance.

It's past time to get out the pitchforks and the torches, and run every single legislator and lobbyist out of Washington!

And as a reward for their service, we'll pass out French Revolution Severance Packages.

[mbperrin]

69. Hear! Hear! This is the actual answer. Right now you have enforcers in the

form of HMOs, insurance companies, PPOs, and all the other Os, who will not let you have care unless you give them 1/3 of what it would cost to treat you, and then they have the option to turn you away anyway.

Universal single payer is the only affordable answer.

[Grinchie]

51. Great idea. Now I will sign up, but refuse to work.

Considering that Insurance companies do a lot more with the premiums they collect, than pay for insurance claims, we have another forced marriage between the Crime syndicate (Insurance) and the Cops, (The Government, that forces you into a protection racket that doesn't work.

The current American government really is itching to fail, isn't it?

[lindisfarne]

55. Have you heard of this thing called a public option? It's mentioned in the OP!n/t

[mvd]

57. Might be a step forward, but I think..

Oregone makes some good points, since so many for-profits are out there.

[lindisfarne]

63. In fact, 48% of US health ins. companies are non-profit. Being non-profit doesn't improve anything.

They just have "reserves" which go to salaries & bonuses, rather than profits.
What really matters is how the system is regulated (this works well in many European countries health care system).

If the public option is cheaper and and there's some basic coverage across the board,people will generally (not always - some repubs will choose a private ins. over gov't based on ideology) vote for the cheapest.

Obama has clearly said no pre-existing conditions clauses will be allowed in policies.

[mvd]

68. I would disagree; profit should be taken out

The public option is a plus, but I'm opposed to the mandatory clause that in the short term gives too much leverage to private insurance while there are no guarantees about how the public option will work.

[lindisfarne]

74. You are aware that close to half the public is really scare of a government plan? Irratiional, yes,

but a reality. Do you remember trying to educate those folks during the Bush years? You seem a bit afraid of the public option, just as they are!

Setting up any new system, be it some public option or single payer, involves a lot of change. You don't avoid that by choosing one system over another.

We have Medicare as a working public option right now - 1 in 6 Americans use Medicare. I suspect for the public option, they'll start with Medicare as the working model and tweak things (I personally wouldn't be opposed to them simply initially expanding Medicare to everyone without health insurance and then gradually morphing that group into whatever ends up being the public option.)

If you currently have employer provided health ins., keep it. The 50 million who don't have insurance can be the test population - they have little to lose. Some will choose public option, some private insurance. Improvements in the system can be worked out. But if you lose your job or work for a small employer who provides poor insurance or none, you'll at least have some option.

Germany has well-regulated ins. companies, as do other countries (in France, 86% of the people supplement the gov't basic plan with private ins.).

[mvd]

82. No, I'm certainly not afraid of a public option

In fact, I hope it drives the for-profit insurance companies out. But I still want single payer.

[Hugin]

120. link please...

Is that 48% by volume of claims paid, membership, or what?

[regnaD kciN]

106. Give some dollar-cost specifics, so we can decide whether it's "affordable" or not...

...or STFU.

Just chanting "there will be a public option and subsidies" doesn't mean jackshit without specifics. And neither does snottiness and sarcasm.

[and-justice-for-all]

56. As long as there is a public option....sure...

that is what I will be using once it is made available.

[regnaD kciN]

107. No, because a public option, however cheaper than private insurance...

...can still wind up being priced out of reach.

I'd say "as long as full basic coverage for a family comes to less than $200/month (and much less for low-income families that can't even afford that), sure."

[EFerrari]

61. So now we will all be working for the insurance companies.

Sweet.

[lindisfarne]

65. Do you consider the public option an insurance company? I haven't seen it presented in that way

anywhere. Do you consider Medicare an insurance company? If you do, then yes, the public option would be an insurance company, but generally, Medicare is seen as a government program.

[EFerrari]

73. Oh, please go pedal your false premises to someone who will buy them.

[lindisfarne]

75. I'm not sure what you're calling a false premise or what you mean by "working for the ins. companies

then.

[ellie]

66. Great!

You want money from me? Get in line!

[Zhade]

67. This is just such fucking BULLSHIT. Obama and the Dems are failing us WHILE PEOPLE ARE DYING.

NT!

[PatSeg]

71. It's possible that the "fines" are a

bargaining chip that they may compromise on to get the needed votes to pass the bill.

[girl gone mad]

72. This will make Democrats really popular.

[depakid]

76. Hey, at least we're trying to do something positive for our futures

Which is one thing that's been proven untrue of almost EVERY SINGLE Republican.

I surely do hate to say that- yet look around, and you'll see that's the case.

[Festivito]

78. Why not fine them the cost of the health care insurance?

Then they pay it with their taxes that can't be avoided either.

Or, is this on top of not having enough money to pay their health insurance, we charge those people extra.

Sounds stupid.

[Honeycombe8]

81. Well, if we're going to have mandatory med. ins., then we have to have fines, I guess.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It reminds me of auto insurance.

Question is...the people who would choose not to get health coverage...would they EXPECT to get care if they got really sick? Like pneumonia or mono or cancer or arthritis or diabetes or whatever?

If someone expects health care, then s/he must expect to purchase it, if they are able to. Govt subsidies will pay, if the person can't afford it, right?

Plus, with all those extra people in the pool, the cost of care for everyone will go down. The more people, the more the efficiencies are.

Still, it's kinda creepy. All of our medical records will be online. So the fed will have a written record of everything about us from birth to death. That creeps me out. A young woman gets an abortion? It'll be online for all doctors she goes to in the future, even 50 years from now, to see. She will never be able to get away from it. Or a young man gets VD. It'll be part of his medical record for life. When he goes to the dr. at age 75, they will know he had VD at 18. That is very creepy. And not good. It would make me want NOT to get health care.

[mvd]

84. It's government intrusion the wrong way in my opinion

It's not like we can't start from scratch and just have the government be the single-payer. Any mandatory plan MUST have a public option, though - otherwise, it could be worse than what we have. I'm willing to accept the plan with a public option if it's all we can get through Congress right now.

[Honeycombe8]

115. I agree. Mandatory but no public option would be upsetting for many of us.

"Us" meaning citizens.

It would be like auto insurance, I guess. But it's not the same thing. Auto insurance records are not as personal, and auto ins. doesn't cost as much as med. insurance.

[New Dawn]

85. Forcing people to buy a product from a private company is fascist economics.

[glitch]

93. In a nutshell. nt

[bvar22]

90. Remember when auto insurance was mandated ?

"They" said it would become cheap and affordable with better coverage for all.
Did that happen?

[christx30]

92. Anyone want to

discuss the constitutionality or legality of forcing someone to enter into a contract against their will?
If someone is just above the line where the government will subsidize their health insurance, and are unable to afford it without bankrupting themselves or their families, what happens to them? When I was at my job until november, my family was hurting. I was $7 over the line to get food stamps. I would go a day or two without eating so my wife and kids could eat. But we still did not qualify.
Now we are getting it because I'm only making $9 an hour. They want me to choose to either get health insurance or pay $1000? At what point can we tell them to go to Hell? I will vote against any rep or senator or presidential candidate that is in favor of this horrible idea.

[regnaD kciN]

94. Let's do some math here...

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation.

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.

a) Using the private-insurance guidelines as an example, the fines would be somewhere around $6,340 for a family, or $2,352 for an individual. Might I suggest that's one hell of a lot "more than $1,000"...?

b) Or maybe the $1,000 figure is a clue for the cost of the public plan. That would imply that the public option would cost around $2,000 per year, or roughly $167 per month. But, if that's for an individual, what about for a family? The "family multiplier" in the figure above is around 2.7 times the cost of individual insurance. By that standard, a guess for the public-option coverage for a family would work out to $451 per month. While that's far better than current private insurance, how many uninsured-through-work families can afford $451 per month, or $5,412 per year? (Well, they'd have to, or else pay at least $2,706 for the "privilege" of not being insured.)

(And, personally, I'm sick of the "it's just like drivers having to carry auto insurance" canard. First of all, if you don't drive, you don't have to carry insurance. You don't get any "opt-out" ability for this insurance. Also, what is the average cost of auto insurance per month? You'd have to be a pretty poor driver to be paying more than $100; most probably pay much less. How does that compare to $451 per month?)

You know, one of my main reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton in last year's primary was the latter's insistence on just this sort of "individual mandate" solution. It's a shame that, when Obama opted to let Congress come up with the ideas for the plan, the leadership positions in that Congress were stocked with inside-the-beltway types who probably haven't had to pay a health insurance bill in decades, and who would thus share a liking for the "individual mandate" solution.

As far as I can tell, this has the biggest potential to sink any form of health-care plan...and rightfully so, IMHO. Forget the Faux ranters going on about "socialized medicine"...just wait until the average American finds out he or she will have to pay megabucks for health insurance for their family, or half-of-megabucks to "go without." Can you say "instant resuscitation of the political right?" Sure, you can!

IMHO, if we can't have single-payer, we better have a public option that provides robust coverage for no more than $200 per month per family. If we can't get that and/or forego any form of a fine-driven "mandate," we'd be better off dropping the whole idea now. The first principle of medicine is to "first, do no harm"...and the same should be true of any health care plan.

[glitch]

103. K & R THIS post. nt

[Hugin]

113. "if you don't drive, you don't have to carry insurance." -- Excellent point! nt

[AlphaCentauri]

100. Why not make a combination of all those insurance and make a single payment

so nobody has to worry about paying for auto, health, fire, robbery insurance.

[Liberty Belle]

101. This is terrible! There are many reasons someone couldn't afford healthcare.

Income alone is not adequate to assess this.

What if you helping support a parent in a nursing home? With $5,000 a MONTH in payments, who could afford healthcare for yourself?

What if your car needs major repairs, your wife needs chemotherapy to survive, your roof is leaking, your kid just lost his college funding (like in CA, where the Gov is issuing IOUs to students!) Shouldn't a person have the right to decide which need is most important to meet, and though risky, be free to make a choice to drop one's own healthcare premium to meet more pressing needs? Fining people for not buying healthcare insurance is just plain wrong.

The real answer is for healthcare to be a RIGHT, not a pay-to-play privilege. SINGLE PAYER is the answer, or else a public option in which ALL people can join without paying a premium.

Nobody in Europe would tolerate this kind of garbage.

I met Howard Dean today, and he said every country in Europe has public healthcare--except two (Switzerland and one other). Those two strictly regulate the insurance industry like public utilities.

[DJ13]

108. How about we fine the insurance industry if they fail to provide coverage

cheap enough to be affordable compared to the public option?

Then use that money to provide FREE coverage for anyone not covered by employers that net less than $50,000 per year.

Stop punishing the PEOPLE for being unable to afford health care, and start punishing the insurance industry for failing to price their product at levels that are affordable.

[Necon-Be-Gone]

109. Mandatory Health Insurance

Like auto premiums.... doubled once they became mandatory.

Why even have insurance, if all are covered with the same plan?

Other countries simply have an income tax and everyone gets the same health care.

[AzDar]

110. This is bullshit.

[Hugin]

111. I've got $10 that says this is the only part which passes... The rest being clipped away.

Man, I gotta get myself one of those lobbyist fellahs.

Why bother voting and campaign contributions... THIS is the way to make a difference!

The kicker being, the more corrupt the better!

[tomm2thumbs]

112. The Republicans are going to jump all over this through the 4th of July Weekend

Perhaps that is intentional - put something bad out there - make everyone angry about it, then say 'well, we can always do it this way...' and then get the resulting wave of support that would come from it. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seems SO stupid that there must be a false-flag game going on.

[Oldenuff]

114. Change.....

It's about all I'll have left from my tax return after paying the fine.

Freedom exemplified!If you don't buy the "service" you get fined...WooooHooo!

[area51]

117. GingrichCare

How nice to see democrats follow in Newt Gingrich's footsteps and go for his idea of having a law forcing people to buy rightwing, unregulated insurance, especially insurance that will force co-pays, have caps and deny claims. </sarcasm> Goddamn out of touch, elitist, bought-and-paid-for congress.

[SeeHopeWin]

119. Perfect! When there is a public option, people should have a policy...I like it.

There will be help available for those who need it.

[mbperrin]

122. All we have to do to check the effectiveness of mandatory insurance

is to look at the state of Texas requirement that all motorists carry liability insurance or face gruesome fines. Been in effect a couple of decades now.

In that time, we've been hit by 3 people, all of whom had a little piece of paper issued by companies like Great National Western Empire Collaterized Insurers or Behemoth Gigantic Insurance Corporation, who turn out to be issuers of little pieces of paper that cost about $100 for six months' dating, and they don't have money or assets to pay anything at all, so use your uninsured motorist coverage.

See, if you make something punitive enough, but people still can't afford to do what you really want them to do, carry decent auto insurance, then they will quite reasonably do what they can, which is pay a fly-by-night for a little certificate to present if stopped and asked for insurance coverage.

We need to quit dicking around with health and go to universal single payer now. No politician has the foresight or the planning ability to create an incremental approach to anything, so whatever fucking band-aid they pass is what we'll be stuck with for the next several decades, and with K Street in it up to their necks, you can be sure that corporate profits will be well provided for, whether or not we get any health care.

You need $25,000 in capital to form an insurance company in Texas for life and health coverage. Wonder what I should name it? How about the Amalgamated United Health Beneficiary Corporation and Paper Company?

[surrealAmerican]

123. The fact that they're suggesting this means they don't understand ...

... the problem.
Does this do anything positive in Massachusetts? People who can afford good insurance, but don't want it are not the problem. In fact, except for people who have religious objections to medical care, I can't imagine who these people might be.

[Vidar]

124. From the same Congress that just gave all our money to the banks.

[lolly]

125. Who defines "affordable?"

Let me guess-the insurance companies do.

And they would probably consider your entire take home pay "affordable."

Of course, they will reserve the right to cancel your policy if, after 10 years of making "affordable" payments, you actually need the coverage.

Then I guess you'll be fined for not having coverage.