I have hear this mentioned a few times now, not sure how accurate it is but it sounds plausible. With the new government option you would have to have health insurance of some kind or be fined, maybe up to $1000.
My question is if someone is broke and homeless how do they expect them to either be covered or pay the fine? I really hope this isn't the case.
yeppers....but I'm sure there would be income requirements. It would be people who make more than X per year would have to purchase insurance. Poorer people would be covered under like medicaide/medicare or something.Originally Posted by EvilMonkey
this may be one of those fright wing scare tactics....remember in the primaries when hillary wanted to mandate everyone in to having insurance, which would have included fines for no coverage like it is in massachussetts and obama argued against it saying the same thing you just mentioned....
i know he said he wanted to mandate children's health insurance, but i don't think that would include any fines...i'm pretty sure he would do it the way they did it here in illinois when he was a state senator...our allkids insurance program is available to every single child under the age of 18 regardless of family income...
families aren't required to participate, but if they do, they may pay a monthly premium based on their income...for example, a family of 4 who makes $80,000 a year might have to pay $50/month for their child's coverage but a family of 4 whose income is $30,000 per year would have no premiums for the exact same insurance coverage...
in the same example, the family who makes $80 k might have to pay $10 for an ER visit and $1 per day for a hospital stay whereas the other family would pay nothing...this depends on which of the 3 plans you choose...too, some may have a $5 co-pay and others no co-pay at all...
compare this to employer provided insurance where covering your children can zap an additional $100+ a month from your paycheck and if your kid gets sick, then you're still left with 20% of the bill...i can tell you when i found out about dylan's condition, i applied right away...20% of his month long nicu stay alone would have cost us over $50,000 -- i can't even imagine what his surgery and subsequent hospital stay would have cost us, not to mention all the doctor's visits, therapy, medications and ER visits we've been through over the last 7 months...
i am not declaring bankruptcy as a result of my child's medical bills right now thanks to the work obama did for us while he was here...
Apparently MASS. has a similar plan on a state level and they do fine those not on it. I don't think it's a right wing scare tactic as much as a valid concern. It does sound like if you are poor enough you will be covered anyway, which makes sense.
Thanks for explaining how this actually works, PC. Here's hoping the President has a really good collection of stories like yours. To get something meaningful for all of us passed he is going to need real-life stories to share.
Arrogance is nothing to brag about.
i just meant a fright wing scare tactic in that they are going to push the mantra "obama will fine you if you don't get his insurance" in an effort to derail universal health insurance...there is no precedent for him to do this but there is precedent for him not to
my point was that obama has already fashioned a health insurance model that works, without the need to fine anyone -- as a result, we have something like 98% of our kids in this state covered with health insurance (and yes, it includes dental and vision)...so i don't see him just tossing a structure he helped create to implement something he didn't believe in during the campaign...now, i could be wrong, but i would be surprised if fines were part of the programme...and i hope i'm not wrong...
Last edited by poetrychic; 07-03-2009 at 09:37 AM.
i was wrong
it's not some "just" kind of fright wing scare tactic, it's a bill senate democrats are trying to get through...i wonder if they're doing this because they really don't want there to be health-insurance reform (afterall, many senate dems are greased by the healthcare industry, too) and when it fails and obama doesn't get health-insurance reform accomplished they can say, "look we tried, you just didn't want it done"...in any case, i'm interested to see how this will play out:
WASHINGTON – First you paid to insure your car. Soon you may have to add health insurance premiums to that stack of monthly bills as well.
In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, 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 fines of more than $1,000.
The details were unveiled Thursday in a health care overhaul bill supported by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines would 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.
Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would offset at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick.
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.
The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines, which would be collected through the income tax system.
The new proposals were released as Congress neared the end of a weeklong July 4 break, with lawmakers expected to quickly take up health care legislation when they return to Washington. With deepening divisions along partisan and ideological lines, the complex legislation faces an uncertain future.
Obama wants a bill this year that would provide coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and reduce medical costs.
In a statement, Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick."and
The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a letter to colleagues that their revised plan would cost dramatically less than an earlier, incomplete proposal, and help show the way toward coverage for 97 percent of all Americans.
The Congressional Budget Office, in an analysis released Thursday evening, put the net cost of the proposal at $597 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago. Coverage expansions worth $645 billion would be partly offset by savings of $48 billion, the estimate said.
However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.
The Health Committee could complete its portion of the bill as soon as next week, and the government health insurance option virtually assures a party-line vote.
In the Senate, the Finance Committee version of the bill is unlikely to include a government-run insurance option. Bipartisan negotiations are centered on a proposal for a nonprofit insurance cooperative as a competitor to private companies.
Three committees are collaborating in the House on legislation expected to come to a vote by the end of July. That measure is certain to include a government-run insurance option.
At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Under Senate health care plan, either way you pay - Yahoo! News
i like that the bill makes it so pre-existing conditions can be covered and that if you leave your job you can take your current coverage, but a minimum of $1000 in finesi am very disheartened by this information...sigh
I am nervouse about the whole thing, but something has to be done. My premiums went up 200 dollars just this last year, and we were already living paycheck to paycheck. I tried to find cheaper insurance, but no luck...
It's a $900.00 tax payable upon filing your state taxes, if your not signed up for some type of program.
MassHealth provides alternatives that are pro-rated for your income.
I know for instance in order for me to cash my unemployment benefits check, I need to produce a valid Healthcare card each time.
Fortunately my wife carries my insurance which has very good coverage, knock on wood.
As draconian as it sounds, I think you have to have some sort of sanction, otherwise the whole program falls apart. If people who can afford insurance, but are relatively healthy are not in the pool, paying, there is not enough money to float the system. And if and when these people need emergancy, we are back to people in the ER not able to pay for their care. The idea with covering everyone up front is that pool of money is large enough and no one is presenting themselves at the ER asking for free care, so the hospital, et. al. can charge what it actually costs, rather than a mark-up to cover free care.
Posting Permissions
Connect with Facebook
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Reply With Quote