DeFazio proposal to let people opt out of individual mandate

[Qutzupalotl]

DEFAZIO OFFERS COMMON SENSE FIX TO THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE (02.01.2011)
Proposal to resolve constitutional concerns; people can opt out

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) announced his intention to introduce legislation in response to a federal court ruling against the constitutionality of the health care reform law Congress passed last year. In a letter to his colleagues, DeFazio asked them to support the Personal Responsibility in Health Care Insurance Act, which he plans to introduce in the next few weeks. The bill would allow individuals to opt out of the insurance mandate by signing an “affidavit of personal responsibility” that would waive their right to taxpayer funded medical assistance. This would help resolve the constitutional questions surrounding the individual mandate.

“Yesterday’s District Court decision to strike down the entire health care reform law was unnecessary,” wrote DeFazio. “Congress can quickly resolve the issues of constitutionality and the limits of the federal government by reforming the individual mandate with an opt-out clause that allows for full personal responsibility. I believe buying insurance should be a choice, not a matter of federal coercion. But with that choice, comes responsibility.”

DeFazio’s legislation is a common sense fix that would resolve constitutional questions about the individual mandate. Individuals that choose to opt-out would agree that any debts incurred because of medical care are theirs and theirs alone.

It is estimated that every person who purchases health insurance pays an additional $1400 each year for unreimbursed medical care for the uninsured and the underinsured. DeFazio’s bill would ensure that the burden of unreimbursed care would not be transferred on to taxpayers or healthcare providers. Those who choose to gamble without insurance will pay for their own medical expenses.

(copy of proposal at link)
http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=662

[safeinOhio]

1. Be your own death panel.

sounds fair, mean, but fair.

[rgbecker]

11. LOL!

[dhpgetsit]

2. Yes, but...

I don't think a hospital ER is going to turn away a destitute patient because they are one of those who signed the waiver. At least I hope not.

[rhett o rick]

5. No but the individual will not be able to be treated for cancer in the ER.

Like today, if you have cancer with no insurance, you can go to the ER and they will stabilize you and send you home to die. They will not treat your cancer or give you a heart transplant.

[JDPriestly]

15. Hypocratic Oath - requires doctors to heal everyone.

They can demand payment. Doctors get stiffed a lot -- so to speak. It's very difficult to collect from someone who is dead and was indigent while living. But then, the public has to pay for the care of the indigent no matter what. So I think that De Fazio's suggestion is good.

De Fazio's idea will put pressure on the insurance companies to limit profits so that people don't opt out.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. And underline the point nicely

Reads like a real ninja-move to me - undercut the GOP blowhard righteousness, and force people who are upset by HCR to look at it very personally.

[napi21]

3. Bad idea. Nobody who actually has the ability to pay their own

HC expenses would ever go without ins, so those who opt out would simply declare bankruptcy and the bill would be the State's or the Fed's anyway. IF it's implied that those who opt out wouldn't get ER care as it is today, I can't see that appening either. I don'tknow what the law is that mandates hospitals to give any and all people who present to the ER regardless of their ability to pay, but it's not been changed AFAIK.

I respect Pete and usually agree with him, but on this one, he's responding to a very RW judge and I think that's a mistake. Let the damn HC laws go to the SCOTUS and let them make the final judgment. I think they'll declare it constitutional.

[housewolf]

4. How does that restrain hospitals from charging more for expreses from the unisured folks?

which was the intent behind the mandate

[rhett o rick]

6. The intent behind the mandate was to require everyone to pay into a system

that guarantees coverage to everyone. If you dont have the mandate, everyone would figure out they can opt out until they get sick. That wont work. You need the healthy people paying for the unfortunate.

If people choose to opt out, then heaven help them.

[Vinca]

7. That's essentially the way it is today.

I haven't been able to afford insurance and recently had a crisis that caused a visit to the ER and a bill that amounted to $1,000 an hour. They sent the bill to me, not some welfare fairy in the sky. Who else would be responsible for it? In any case, "reform" whether mandatory or not will find many people falling through the cracks. We need single-payer. If you're an American, you're covered. Paid for out of the common funds.

[Qutzupalotl]

10. Definitely agree about single payer.

IIRC, DeFazio supported SP too. He has some reservations about the law, and this proposal addresses his biggest objection.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. I think the idea here is twofold:

1) to answer the constitutional concerns, and

2) to scare the hell out of people so that buying insurance maybe doesn't seem so bad after all.

A poster above asked how it would control costs of the uninsured. I don't know, but my guess is that most people, when faced with paying all their HC costs out of pocket, will opt in.

[rhett o rick]

9. Great idea. First of all, those making the biggest fuss over this all have health insurance.

They are the right wing that say they dont want the government telling them what to do but carry health insurance themselves, the bastards.

I believe there will be very few people opt out. If you opt out you will save about $750 a year. In other words, if you dont opt out it will cost you $750 a year for government guaranteed health care. If you opt out of government guaranteed health care to save $750 a year, you deserve to die from cancer alone. (I of course dont want anyone to die alone with cancer, even Dick Cheney. I was just trying to make a point)

[JoePhilly]

12. You nailed it!!

I have a Tea Party guy in my (fairly affluent) neighborhood. He claims that making people carry health insurance is fascism.

I asked him if he carry's it now ... knowing full well that he does. He says "that is not the point!!"

So working from there ... it is fun to make him squirm by arguing that those who really can't afford coverage will get exempted, and those who decide to "roll the dice" pay a little more in taxes, but much less than insurance would cost them.

At which point, he stutters like a fool.

I love the OPT OUT idea for adults, but not for your kids. As a parent, you should be required to make sure they are covered because they have no choice.

[rhett o rick]

13. Thanks, I havent "nailed" much for a long time. But two comments

1. all children under 18 should be covered by Medicare.
B. we are currently mandated to pay for defense, infrastructure and a lot more.

[JoePhilly]

17. Yes and Yes. nt

[BenzoDia]

19. I largely agree. Kids should be covered no matter what.

I'd prefer to not let adults opt out. But if the whole law is in jeopardy, then drop the mandate.

[rhett o rick]

14. The HCR Act should have been worded like Medicare Part B.

If you wish to join when first eligible bingo, go for it. If you opt out and then decide years later to join, you are charged a huge fine.

[derby378]

16. Whether this bill passes or fails...

...what Hillary Clinton said about health care in America still holds true today even with the new "reform" law: We have the best health care in the world, but the stupidest way of paying for it. And the insurance companies want to keep it that way.