# Fines Proposed For Those NOT Carrying Health Insurance!



## MA-Caver (Sep 8, 2009)

> *Fines proposed for going without health insurance*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So paying out $750.00 a year isn't a hardship? Hell some years I barely made THAT much! I appreciate Obama opposing this and hopes that he will veto the hell out of that part of the upcoming plan. While many companies offer health plans as benefits for working there, most only do it for full time employees and those who have been with the company for more than 90 or 180 days. My company now has that plan but only for employees who have been there for a year and at "full time". I am considered "part-time" right now because I'm regulated to less than 40 hours a week. That's fine with me at the moment. Next March will be a year of employment and I'll be moved to "full time status" with an add on to benefits package. 
But I'll be damned if I'm going to shell out $750.00 a year just because I cannot at the present afford health insurance... even at a low monthly rate. 
At least Obama is against it and the guy who's bright idea it was won't be able to get it past him... so we hope!

Thoughts, comments?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 8, 2009)

In 2007 I paid $2817 in premiums for medical insurance for myself and my son.
Here's the thing, neither of us needed a doctor's care that year, so, I spent nearly three thousand dollars for nothing. That money would have come in very handy EVERY paycheck...
Fining people who don't choose to have medical insurance sounds like a tax on self-reliance to me.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 8, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> So paying out $750.00 a year isn't a hardship? Hell some years I barely made THAT much! I appreciate Obama opposing this and hopes that he will veto the hell out of that part of the upcoming plan. While many companies offer health plans as benefits for working there, most only do it for full time employees and those who have been with the company for more than 90 or 180 days. My company now has that plan but only for employees who have been there for a year and at "full time". I am considered "part-time" right now because I'm regulated to less than 40 hours a week. That's fine with me at the moment. Next March will be a year of employment and I'll be moved to "full time status" with an add on to benefits package.
> But I'll be damned if I'm going to shell out $750.00 a year just because I cannot at the present afford health insurance... even at a low monthly rate.
> At least Obama is against it and the guy who's bright idea it was won't be able to get it past him... so we hope!
> 
> Thoughts, comments?


 

My friend who recently lost his job, is having to pay just under $350 a month. That is $4200 a year. He is single no family, but in his early 50's.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 8, 2009)

Big Don said:


> In 2007 I paid $2817 in premiums for medical insurance for myself and my son.
> Here's the thing, neither of us needed a doctor's care that year, so, I spent nearly three thousand dollars for nothing. That money would have come in very handy EVERY paycheck...
> Fining people who don't choose to have medical insurance sounds like a tax on self-reliance to me.


On the flip side of that... In the first six months of this year, my family has probably spent more than I've paid in health insurance premiums with this employer -- and possibly in my entire working life.  One major medical event will do that easily...

Any insurance contract is a gamble; the insurance company is betting that you won't cost them more than you pay them -- and they're counting on that being true in enough cases that the guy who does cost 'em more is covered (with left overs for profit!) by everyone elses.

I've got concerns with every version of universal health care that I'm hearing being floated.  I really suspect that the problem with health care isn't the lack of insurance; it's the additional costs whether it's unnecessary (and sometimes inappropriate) tests done, malpractice insurance, and just plain the model where insurer A  negotiates one fee, insurer B another, and the "street price" is something completely different.  I think that looking at those aspects, rather than trying to provide universal insurance would better serve us.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 8, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> malpractice insurance


Oh look! You said the magic words! 
Malpractice insurance is what has driven the cost of health care so high. That is why ANY health care reform that does not include TORT REFORM is doomed to failure.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 8, 2009)

And not to mention that once health coverage is extended to a population that previously were uninsured/underinsured, there will not be sufficient doctors available.  In many places, there is already a medical shortage.  Adding more people without a way of adding more medical professionals will make the problem worse.

What good is health insurance if there isn't a doctor available to see you?  Will the people then be forced to visit the emergency room if the local doctors are already booked up and not accepting new patients?

Will another governmental "stimulus" be extended for those who will choose medical profession as a career?  Does the government even have funds to do that?

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 8, 2009)

Indeed with the rising cost of Malpractice insurance on the doctors and others in the med profession it is why they must raise their costs. So who is to blame here? Doctors who make mistakes? Ambulance chasers who go after the doctors who make mistakes? Insurance companies who raise the rates of coverage of doctors who make mistakes? Or is it just simple greed all around for everyone? 
People should be in some way compensated for the mistakes doctors make but those should be looked into very carefully. 
Yet with all of that... what really should or could be done? 

IMO, while health care is in need of reform... the reform should cover ALL aspects of health care... from diagnosis to treatment to paying for it to after care and so on. 
Pharmaceutical companies need to be heavily regulated and fined more often for their own version of malpractice and encouraging doctors to prescribe their drugs  http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/06/21/pharmaceutical_giant_to_pay_fines.htm 
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/9/1046-a
http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/09/02/Pfizer.fine/index.html

When a doctor does something wrong/malpractice then they need to be held in review to ensure that whatever went wrong is identified so it doesn't happen again. 
As far as the families are concerned... sigh... well only example I can think of is that my own father underwent eye surgery (laser) at the strong encouragement of the doctor/optometrist yet at the same time he was asked to sign a liability release wavier which prevented malpractice suit against the doctor... now he's blind and is having to rely upon his wife and myself to get around. The state of Tennessee has been great in providing assistance in helping him get training to learn Braille and a computer with braille displays and all of that... but the pain and suffering he is undergoing, losing what sight he had left and missing out on a lot. Does he not get any type of compensation? 
:idunno: 
For myself I'm trying to be very careful about what I do, how I drive, how I work and so on. I don't know what all health care is going to be like when I get in my 60's and 70's (if I live that long  ) ... I'm going to hope that I can find insurance or some type of coverage that will help me out should I ever need hospitalization or invalid care if it ever happens. 

I dunno... it's scary what's going on right now.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 8, 2009)

Ceicei said:


> What good is health insurance if there isn't a doctor available to see you?  Will the people then be forced to visit the emergency room if the local doctors are already booked up and not accepting new patients?
> - Ceicei



And I can tell you from experience, both personally and professionally, that there are already often 2-3 hour waits to be seen in one... so if that becomes the "norm" one can expect that will double as the patient load increases.


----------



## still learning (Sep 9, 2009)

Hello, Nearly everyone have a cell phone..and many cannot live without it...

Yet....medical insurance...is NOT as important here...until one needs to go..

...one can at least call for help!

It is who pays for those medical cost? ...that will bare the burdens...most likely US!

.... at least in many States...one can call a hotline and get free medical advice!

Aloha, for fish bites? ..


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm against this, but let me play devil's advocate:

For those that decide to get health care, the law requires that they still receive emergency medical treatment.  This "fine" is to pay for their "emergency care" insurance, since they refuse to get full coverage.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm content to let Supreme Comrade Obama and Comrades Pelosi, Reed etc decide what is best for me. I am but a simple American Peasant who couldn't possibly be smart enough to decide what is best for me.


----------



## Carol (Sep 9, 2009)

Not to worry.  Prices will only go up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'm against this, but let me play devil's advocate:
> 
> For those that decide to get health care, the law requires that they still receive emergency medical treatment.  This "fine" is to pay for their "emergency care" insurance, since they refuse to get full coverage.



If one has no job, and unemployment is just enough to pay the rent and buy food, how does one REFUSE to buy health insurance?

That's the part that gets me. That "Let 'em eat cake" attitude by people (not you KP 5-0) who think that even if you're unemployed, you still have plenty of money, you just don't WANT to spend it on health insurance.

Look, when I made $7 an hour, I paid for my rent, my car insurance, my gasoline to get back and forth to work, and frozen burritos for dinner.  No extras, no movies, no this or that, and NO HEALTH INSURANCE.  If I got sick, I was sick until I got better.  If I had gotten REALLY sick, I'd have ended up in the emergency room.  But no matter how you sliced it, I did NOT have the money for health insurance premiums.

So now it will be against the law for a guy like I was then to not buy their own health insurance.

And that's going to make health insurance more affordable how?  And that's going to help mister seven bucks an hour how?  And that's going to help me if I get laid off how?

Right.  It's not.

This health care crap is just that.  Crap.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2009)

The government doesn't care. They think that everyone is like them, can make $$ out of thin air.

Owe child support? Lost your job?  Electric getting turned off, and haven't eaten in 3 days?  Too bad.  Better have that support check lest they put you in debtors prison for "willful violation of a court order". See you choose to not give that non-existant money up.

Same mindset exists here.  You choose to somehow be poor, etc, but you can find that money for your mandatory insurance. If not, we'll fine you, and eventually put you in jail for "willful tax violations".

The government screwed up the whole bail out thing, overlooking including safeguards on all those trillions of OUR dollars they gave away to their buddies in the investment and banking industries. They made sure that their friends got a little bit on the side too, buried in a thousand unread pages.  They did it again, and again and again.

And we do nothing.  

They run multi-trillion dollar corrupt systems such as welfare, food stamps, social services, medicade, medicare, the VA and so on.  Systems with acknowledged bloat, corruption and graft, as well as inefficiencies and sluggish response. 

And they expect us to trust them to look out for our best interests?

When they have proven that they only care about ensuring they have the best of everything in a private system -WE- can't access?

Enough already.  It's time to turn these self-serving sorry sons of bitches out into the street, and put real public servants in office again.

I'd like to see a million American march on Washington.  

Enough of this crap already.  Time to stop talking folks. It's time to march.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Owe child support? Lost your job?  Electric getting turned off, and haven't eaten in 3 days?  Too bad.  Better have that support check lest they put you in debtors prison for "willful violation of a court order". See you choose to not give that non-existant money up.



I see this as even more onerous than people without jobs being put in prison for failing to pay child support.  At least if you have no children, you (generally) cannot be made to pay child support, so one could at least argue that you chose to have the kids.

However, it used to be that no one in this country 'had' to do much of anything.  You did not 'have' to have a job at all if you didn't want one.  If you could survive on your own hunting, trapping, or growing what you needed, good for you.  You didn't have to have a permanent address, you didn't have to carry identification of any kind, you did not have to prove you were born here, you didn't have to prove you were a citizen.

If you wanted to live off the grid, and you had no income, you didn't have to file an income tax return, pay into social security, or have much of anything to do with the government if you didn't want to.

However, our advanced civilization is taking that all away - for our own good, they say.

You must have a social security number now.  It's the law.  I got mine when I was 12 and got my first job that deducted taxes.  Now they make kids get them before they'll let the parents take them home from the hospital.  You have to have ID.  You have to prove you're a citizen.  You have to prove your right to vote.

They're experimenting with GPS tracking systems in cars so you can be taxed 'fairly' on how much you drive, never mind that it also keeps track of WHERE you drive - all for your own good.

And now, even if you are as free as your Creator made you - even if you have no job by choice, and live off the land and take nothing from anyone, you MUST buy health insurance.

And to do that, you must have a job.  You must have ID.  You must have a SSN.  You must, you must, you must.

And the #*@&$ liberals think that's just peachy.  Sometimes I want to find a tree-hugging liberal and just punch him directly in his nasty "I know what's good for you" mouth.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If one has no job, and unemployment is just enough to pay the rent and buy food, how does one REFUSE to buy health insurance?
> 
> That's the part that gets me. That "Let 'em eat cake" attitude by people (not you KP 5-0) who think that even if you're unemployed, you still have plenty of money, you just don't WANT to spend it on health insurance.
> 
> ...


 
All it will do is allow them a venue to say now that, since there is a "reduced" health care cost due to their intervention, and people still can't afford it, the we must have taxpayer funded universal health care.

As we used to say in the 80's: it's a C-O-N-spiracy.... *S*


----------



## still learning (Sep 10, 2009)

Hello, Minumun pay, car payments, car insurances, children's expense,rent due,electric bills,water bills,gas bills....$7.50 per hour...child baby sitter...etc..cell phones..

and those who cannot find jobs or don't want to work..how can ONE (USA) fine them?  or low paying jobs...how do you fine them?

Food...or medical insurance?  .....eat to live...pay for life-(medical insurances)!

Aloha,

PS: USA - cannot get everyone to wear a sitbelt or have those people get car insurance-medical plans attact...

How can?  ...our government expect "fines" will work?

They cannot even solve the "drug" problems even in Prisons?  ....

USA -...NO wonder..we feel our government is HOPELESS at times...

Except for collecting TAXES....? um


----------



## blindsage (Sep 10, 2009)

Malpractice is the biggest red herring in the health care debate.  Just because you can find facts to back up your opinion doesn't necessarily make the opinion reality.

No man is an island no matter how much rhetoric he wants to spew about 'freedom'.  Punch me in the mouth Bill.


----------



## HeartofJuyoMk2 (Sep 10, 2009)

I think you all miss the point. I costs so much for uninsured people to get injured, and with a public option, it wont cost anything if you cant afford insurance, so there is no point NOT to have healthcare.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 10, 2009)

HeartofJuyoMk2 said:


> I think you all miss the point. I costs so much for uninsured people to get injured, and *with a* *public option, it wont cost anything if you cant afford insurance*, so there is no point NOT to have healthcare.


 
Actually, it costs exactly the same.  It's just that someone else gets the honor of paying for you.


----------



## blindsage (Sep 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Actually, it costs exactly the same. It's just that someone else gets the honor of paying for you.


They already do.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 10, 2009)

blindsage said:


> They already do.


 
Then why are we discussing this?  Problem solved.  Move on to the next handout.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Then why are we discussing this?  Problem solved.  Move on to the next handout.



So what exactly is being solved?

- Ceicei


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 10, 2009)

Ceicei said:


> So what exactly is being solved?
> 
> - Ceicei


 
That's what I'm trying to figure out.  We have one person going "yay, free stuff" like the cost of treatment magically disappeared, I point out that _someone_'s going to pay for it, and then blindsage saying we already do.  So what's the point of changing the system?


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Then why are we discussing this? Problem solved. Move on to the next handout.


 
Because the ER as primary care is really expensive. And letting health issues get worse until the ER is needed costs more in the long run.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 10, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Because the ER as primary care is really expensive. And letting health issues get worse until the ER is needed costs more in the long run.


 
True, but not every health issue develops into a problem requiring ER involvement.  You're looking at the cost of prevention of 1 illness vs. the cost of addressing the same problem in the ER.  The actual cost would be the prevention of _every_ illness vs. the treatment of a subset of those illnesses in the ER.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And the #*@&$ liberals think that's just peachy.  Sometimes I want to find a tree-hugging liberal and just punch him directly in his nasty "I know what's good for you" mouth.



Democrats, not liberals.

The whole idea is very much against liberalism, and to be honest seems quite conservative to me.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 10, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> Democrats, not liberals.
> 
> The whole idea is very much against liberalism, and to be honest seems quite conservative to me.


 
Don't know how you attribute it to conservatism, but I'll definitely agree that this has nothing to do with liberalism.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If one has no job, and unemployment is just enough to pay the rent and buy food, how does one REFUSE to buy health insurance?
> 
> That's the part that gets me. That "Let 'em eat cake" attitude by people (not you KP 5-0) who think that even if you're unemployed, you still have plenty of money, you just don't WANT to spend it on health insurance.


 
Ok, I'll dive in. Did you not hear the part of Obama's speech last night that included a financial difficulty waiver?  That was in there for the express purpose of excusing those who _cant_ afford to get insurance while holding accountable those that simply _wont.  _

I can't help but think there's some double-speak involved here.  On the one hand, critics of health care reform blame so much of the problem on the uninsured and how "the rest of us" end up shouldering the burden.  But when the reform includes a policy designed to address that, Obama's criticized for "taxing self-reliance".  Um, pick one?


----------



## zDom (Sep 10, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The government doesn't care. They think that everyone is like them, can make $$ out of thin air.
> 
> Owe child support? Lost your job?  Electric getting turned off, and haven't eaten in 3 days?  Too bad.  Better have that support check lest they put you in debtors prison for "willful violation of a court order". See you choose to not give that non-existant money up.



Exactly.

Based on their "formulas" I now pay nearly 1/3 of my gross earnings in child support (the Congresslords who are working on healthcare reform probably pay this much monthly on greens fees and highballs. When I appealed to the judge who knew full well what I earned and what my expenses were, he said "Earn more money." Great ****ing idea! Why didn't I think of that?). 

Child support is the first thing that gets paid because if I don't I go to jail.

THEN I pay for a place to live, food and gas so I can get to my job to earn the money that keeps me out of jail.

And now these Congresslords are in the process of deciding that I will also pay for health insurance &#8212; not only on me, but on my children &#8212; or face a fine.

I reckon I'll end up making payments on the fine since I won't be able to afford the insurance and making payments on this federal fine should keep me out of jail.

But then, that's what we peasants are for: being indentured servants to the ruling class.


----------



## blindsage (Sep 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> That's what I'm trying to figure out. We have one person going "yay, free stuff" like the cost of treatment magically disappeared, I point out that _someone_'s going to pay for it, and then blindsage saying we already do. So what's the point of changing the system?


Yeah, that's what I said.  Let's go back prior to that comment and see if you can continue contributing to the rational discussion without resorting to this garbage.


----------



## blindsage (Sep 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> True, but not every health issue develops into a problem requiring ER involvement. You're looking at the cost of prevention of 1 illness vs. the cost of addressing the same problem in the ER. The actual cost would be the prevention of _every_ illness vs. the treatment of a subset of those illnesses in the ER.


No, your talking about the prevention of the same subset of illnesses that are currently treated in the ER but with much less cost.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 10, 2009)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Ok, I'll dive in. Did you not hear the part of Obama's speech last night that included a financial difficulty waiver?  That was in there for the express purpose of excusing those who _cant_ afford to get insurance while holding accountable those that simply _wont.  _



Again? That trick NEVER works.  Obama needs a new hat.



> I can't help but think there's some double-speak involved here.  On the one hand, critics of health care reform blame so much of the problem on the uninsured and how "the rest of us" end up shouldering the burden.  But when the reform includes a policy designed to address that, Obama's criticized for "taxing self-reliance".  Um, pick one?



None of the policy addresses ANYTHING that helps me in any way - it can only cost me money, and a lot of it, and for other people.  I am not interested, not even slightly.  But in the end, I'll get the shaft, and liberals will run around slapping each other on the back for solving *my* problem, while I pay more for what I do get and more for what I have to buy for other people.

I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.  I do not want it.  My insurance is fine, leave me the *#)@89 alone.  But no, nobody will do that.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 10, 2009)

"People are going to require health insurance like they require auto insurance."

Uhhh..how is that a fair comparison? I dont HAVE to drive a car if I dont want to pay auto ins.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> "People are going to require health insurance like they require auto insurance."
> 
> Uhhh..how is that a fair comparison? I dont HAVE to drive a car if I dont want to pay auto ins.



Correct, and that's my complaint as well.  Yes, most of us have cars, and most of us have insurance, and I fully understand the concept of mandatory insurance - and I support it, and I comply.

However, if I choose to sell my car, I don't have to have car insurance.  If I just park it and don't drive, I don't have to have car insurance.

But under this new wonderful plan that is going to make me so much happier, healthier, and take less money out of my wallet all at the same time, if I lose my employer-provided insurance - for whatever reason - I have to buy health insurance or I am a criminal.  Just walking, breathing, not doing much of anything, I'm a criminal like I just robbed a bank.

Nice.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 10, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> True, but not every health issue develops into a problem requiring ER involvement. You're looking at the cost of prevention of 1 illness vs. the cost of addressing the same problem in the ER. The actual cost would be the prevention of _every_ illness vs. the treatment of a subset of those illnesses in the ER.


 
A great many either truly do, or the ER gets used as primary care. Example, my lower back flared up last month. Over a period of about 3 weeks it got progressively better. I went to see my GP who prescribed an anti-inflamatory. I had not had access to a GP I would have gone to the ER for that problem, at a greater cost to the system.


----------

