Fines proposed for going without health insurance

fgarvb1

We are in for it now.
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Posts
12,729
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_healt...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2ZpbmVzcHJvcG9zZQ--

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 5 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

That left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs. That's an approach being pushed in the Senate by Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate whose support could be critical to any health legislation.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear. Snowe said Tuesday that Obama's been open to her fallback idea.

"He has not rejected it. He's been receptive, recognizing that there's difficulties with the public option," Snowe said. "The president recognizes that there's strong reluctance among the American people" to accepting a public plan, which Republicans have cast as a government take-over.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

____
 
Are you complaining about this?

The Governor of Massachusetts first forced this on his constituents.

His name was Mitt Romney. Guess which party he was.
 
Are you complaining about this?

The Governor of Massachusetts first forced this on his constituents.

His name was Mitt Romney. Guess which party he was.

..................................................................................................................

Don't know ...Don't care.

1. Doesn't sound constitutional

2. If people had that kind of money around they would buy heath insurance,unless they are outlaws in which case,
they won't care anyway.
 
Don't know ...Don't care.

1. Doesn't sound constitutional

2. If people had that kind of money around they would buy heath insurance,unless they are outlaws in which case,
they won't care anyway.

Which of our Constitutional rights do you think would be violated by such legislation?
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_healt...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2ZpbmVzcHJvcG9zZQ--

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 5 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

That left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs. That's an approach being pushed in the Senate by Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate whose support could be critical to any health legislation.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear. Snowe said Tuesday that Obama's been open to her fallback idea.

"He has not rejected it. He's been receptive, recognizing that there's difficulties with the public option," Snowe said. "The president recognizes that there's strong reluctance among the American people" to accepting a public plan, which Republicans have cast as a government take-over.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

____

Are you Raye_Tarded's alt?
 
This is pointless. If I looked hard enough I could probably find a bill that says we should all wear tinfoil hats to thwart Martian death rays.
When Congress and/or President actually back it then it's news.
 
This is pointless. If I looked hard enough I could probably find a bill that says we should all wear tinfoil hats to thwart Martian death rays.
When Congress and/or President actually back it then it's news.

B-but it's being thought about! Suggested on! Discussed over!

That's almost kinda sorta maybe so-so making it for real! Be scared! Be angry! Waaaaa! :eek:
 
No not entirely pointless.

Most of the population...Hell, I'd say 90% have NO ideal of the insanity that goes on in our Congress...Senate and House of Representatives.

If the did they would be either much higher voting turnouts or riots in the street.

Even a little light makes roaches run.

If one person pays more attention, votes or complains.

That, is enough.
 
No not entirely pointless.

Most of the population...Hell, I'd say 90% have NO ideal of the insanity that goes on in our Congress...Senate and House of Representatives.

If the did they would be either much higher voting turnouts or riots in the street.

Even a little light makes roaches run.

If one person pays more attention, votes or complains.

That, is enough.

IMHO people are more political now than at any other time in my short lifetime. They are more aware but shit like this doesnt matter untill it starts moving somewhere. It's a bullshit bill that wont go anywhere.

And one person noticing and voting doesnt work. It takes thousands. Thats why we have campaign rallies and tea bagging parties.
 
I'm really surprised that the right hasn't been screaming about individual mandates all along.

It's a good issue to unite people on the right who hate intrusive government and people on the left who insist that mandates w/o a real public option (looks like that's where we are headed) is are nothing but corporate welfare.
 
I understand the rationale for fining people who don't have insurance...it's a necessary "stick" to complement the "carrot" of Health Care Reform. Without an impetus to keep health insurance in place, you'd have the situation where a person goes to the doctor, gets told he has cancer or some other catestrophic illness, and immediately goes out and obtains a health insurance policy (since there'd be no 'pre-exisiting conditions' clause).

It's not unlike the beachfront homeowner who waits until the day before a hurricane hits to obtain flood insurance.

I don't like the "fine" aspect, but how else would you convince people it's in their best interests to carry insurance?
 
I Don't like the Governmental interference to start with.

The "Fine" thing.

It is something that was made up to be used as an bargaining chip to argue/force universal health care for all.

And if it is implemented it will Be just another turn of the government's screw to control the citizen's everyday life.

Affordable health care, I feel is the answer and always has been.

And other than an oversight committee of random congressmen the government should stay out of it.

Look at the mess govermental controls have made of every aspect they have meddled in!
 
I'm really surprised that the right hasn't been screaming about individual mandates all along.

It's a good issue to unite people on the right who hate intrusive government and people on the left who insist that mandates w/o a real public option (looks like that's where we are headed) is are nothing but corporate welfare.
Ahem, that's exactly what we've been "screaming" about all along.
 
Ahem, that's exactly what we've been "screaming" about all along.

I don't follow right blogs, just the ones that are referenced in TPM, but from what I've seen, it has been all crazy "death pane" bullshit and not sensible issues like mandate.
 
I don't follow right blogs, just the ones that are referenced in TPM, but from what I've seen, it has been all crazy "death pane" bullshit and not sensible issues like mandate.
You go with what gets people's attention.

Tell readers about the 10th Amendment and their eyes glaze over.
 
WASHINGTON — An Associated Press-GfK poll says that public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent.

The same survey shows that 49 percent now disapprove of his overall performance as president. In July, just 42 percent disapproved of how he was handling his job.

The grade people give Obama on health care has also worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.
 
It's a foolish idea. Which is why the democrats might go for it.

For one thing it's virtual unenforceable.

For another most people who don't have the money to pay for insurance don't have the money to pay any fines either. Is he going to build more prisons?

Fines are posibly the most unfair of all punishments. A hundred dollar traffic ticket means nothing to some people, for others it makes a difference whether their kids can have milk or not.
 
You go with what gets people's attention.

Tell readers about the 10th Amendment and their eyes glaze over.

"Death Panels" makes my eyes glaze over.

Being told that I have to buy private insurance I can't afford makes me release the safety catch on my Browning.
 
The Stalinists in the Democrat Party don't care.

Are they any different from the Marxists or the Francoists or the Trotskyists or the Dadaists or the Impressionists or the Raelians or the Merovingians in the Democrat Party? :confused:
 
Back
Top