Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1259067756]The language of the bill has been modified to not include jail time for failure of paying the tax. Wesley Snipes got nothing to do with this.



The irony in your hypothetical, though, is that you'd get free health care in jail. I guess at the end of the day the government WILL get their way of you being covered. In any case, it's a fallacy that you'd get jail time so it's a non issue.</blockquote>


Where is the delineation between Income tax and Failure to Have Health Insurance tax on the future tax forms? Or are they going to create a separate IRS-like agency just to collect insurance premiums or penalties? Wesley Snipes went to jail because he willfully refused to pay income tax after he bought into some nutter's ranting about fine print in the tax code. Guess what? He lost and he went to jail... and still has to pay taxes.



The point is this: I don't care what a month-old mock up says, there is no way to enforce mandatory participation without penalty that includes the force of law and the threat of jail. If the IRS is in charge of collecting these tax "fines", you had better believe that you will pay or end up behind bars for the same reason that Wesley snipes is in jail; the system fails unless everyone pays into it. All it would take is a supplemental amendment passed as part of an omnibus budget bill. You might be naive enough to believe what they are telling you, but experience has taught me that I cannot possibly be too cynical when it comes to government.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1259067756][quote author="Nude" date=1259059715][quote author="green_cactus" date=1259058808][quote author="Nude" date=1259053645]If you are under the impression that this is "health insurance reform" you are ignoring the other part of the government's role, which is that they will PUT YOU IN JAIL if you don't buy into their new plan, on top of the taxes they will need to collect to cover those who are deemed to poor to pay.</blockquote>


You certainly have a source to backup your claim of what sounds like mandatory jail time for not being covered. The bill as of 10/19/2009 (S.1796) states:

</blockquote>


Tell me, why did Wesley Snipes go to jail?</blockquote>


The language of the bill has been modified to not include jail time for failure of paying the tax. Wesley Snipes got nothing to do with this.



The irony in your hypothetical, though, is that you'd get free health care in jail. I guess at the end of the day the government WILL get their way of you being covered. In any case, it's a fallacy that you'd get jail time so it's a non issue.</blockquote>


So what is the penalty if someone like BLT decides that it is better to not get insurance because of the cost?



BLT made a decesion that $800 per month is too much to pay. Everyone has their delta on what they are willing or able to pay.



Is the IRS going to then add interest and penalties? So you first get the bill then the mafia, I mean the IRS, sends you the bill which is 2 or 3 times what the insurance is and then slaps a tax lien on you and your property...... All because you didn't have the money to pay for your insuarance.



Great plan.
 
Oh and the CBO estimates that in 2016 it will cost about 7k a year for an individual and 15k for a family of four.



Oh and under the Dem's plan we have the sliding scale again on cost so the more you make the more you pay for your insurance!!! WooooHooooo.



So I would have the benefit of paying 15k a year for my insurance while someone else gets to pay 6k for the same exact insurance.



Sign me up for that.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1259116954][quote author="green_cactus" date=1259067756][quote author="Nude" date=1259059715][quote author="green_cactus" date=1259058808][quote author="Nude" date=1259053645]If you are under the impression that this is "health insurance reform" you are ignoring the other part of the government's role, which is that they will PUT YOU IN JAIL if you don't buy into their new plan, on top of the taxes they will need to collect to cover those who are deemed to poor to pay.</blockquote>


You certainly have a source to backup your claim of what sounds like mandatory jail time for not being covered. The bill as of 10/19/2009 (S.1796) states:

</blockquote>


Tell me, why did Wesley Snipes go to jail?</blockquote>


The language of the bill has been modified to not include jail time for failure of paying the tax. Wesley Snipes got nothing to do with this.



The irony in your hypothetical, though, is that you'd get free health care in jail. I guess at the end of the day the government WILL get their way of you being covered. In any case, it's a fallacy that you'd get jail time so it's a non issue.</blockquote>


So what is the penalty if someone like BLT decides that it is better to not get insurance because of the cost?



BLT made a decesion that $800 per month is too much to pay. Everyone has their delta on what they are willing or able to pay.



Is the IRS going to then add interest and penalties? So you first get the bill then the mafia, I mean the IRS, sends you the bill which is 2 or 3 times what the insurance is and then slaps a tax lien on you and your property...... All because you didn't have the money to pay for your insuarance.



Great plan.</blockquote>


Just read the bill. There's a difference between civil penalties and criminal penalties. In the senate finance committee revision of the bill it states:



10 ??(1) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PEN

11 ALTIES AND INTEREST.?In the case of any failure

12 by a taxpayer to timely pay any tax imposed by this

13 section?

14 ??(A) such taxpayer <strong>shall not be subject to

15 any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect

16 to such failure</strong>, and



If you do not have the money (vs. refusing to pay), there are adjustments that will kick in.
 
What is the penalty if you can pay and choose not to?



In other words if there is no penalty or enforcement then it is not really MANDATORY now is it?



Lets just say I am a guy that doesnt' think paying $800 a month for insurance is a good idea, so I don't get insurance.



The IRS penalizes me but I don't pay. They keep sending me bills but I don't pay them.



Now what? They just say OK sorry for bothering you!
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1259124565]What is the penalty if you can pay and choose not to?



In other words if there is no penalty or enforcement then it is not really MANDATORY now is it?



Lets just say I am a guy that doesnt' think paying $800 a month for insurance is a good idea, so I don't get insurance.



The IRS penalizes me but I don't pay. They keep sending me bills but I don't pay them.



Now what? They just say OK sorry for bothering you!</blockquote>


I didn't say the bill made any sense - just that jail time as penalty was not in the language of the bill. For this scheme to work it has to be a public option. Without the public option and "forcing" people to be covered, it just becomes a godsend to insurance companies.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1259121097]Just read the bill. There's a difference between civil penalties and criminal penalties. In the senate finance committee revision of the bill it states:



10 ??(1) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PEN

11 ALTIES AND INTEREST.?In the case of any failure

12 by a taxpayer to timely pay any tax imposed by this

13 section?

14 ??(A) such taxpayer <strong>shall not be subject to

15 any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect

16 to such failure</strong>, and



If you do not have the money (vs. refusing to pay), there are adjustments that will kick in.</blockquote>


You're right, there is no mandate for criminal prosecution in the Senate bill. There is also no requirement that any person or business participate in Federal Health Insurance programs in the Senate bill. This is also just the Senate bill, not the House bill or even the reconciliation bill that would have to be created should the Senate bill pass.



So you tell me, how will this bill provide better health care insurance coverage without being able to collect from the cheap people or compel those without insurance to join in and pony up their fair share?



So, to recap... no, you won't go to jail and you won't even have a lien placed on any property. Of course, the IRS won't differentiate between which part of your tax bill is for your lack-of-health-insurance fine and which is for you regular income tax. This leaves you no choice but to pay it (unless, you simply fail to account for it on your return, which would amount to filing a false return which could put you in... jail) since they will most likely just increase the withholding amount (thanks for the idea , Cali!) to match the number of dependents you claim with the maximum the Federal health insurance plans would cost for that size household to cover any fines. Taxes will be collected to cover the costs of this new plan, but those DO NOT INCLUDE the actual premium you would pay to either a private insurance company or the Federal public option. So not only do you pay what you pay now (if not more) but you get the privilege of paying even more in taxes to get it.



Seriously, you can pass a simple law that says "no rescissions, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, must have a 'general public' plan that is cost comparable to employer-based plans available to anyone over between 18 and 65, must offer identical plans across the nation" and then create a tax credit/subsidy to cover those too poor to afford their premiums WITHOUT taking over control of the whole system or even a small part of it... and for far less than a trillion dollars. Since they are attempting to grab as much control as possible, I am left to conclude that there is a reason for the power grab and leads me to ask "why?".
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1259128832]Seriously, you can pass a simple law that says "no rescissions, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, must have a 'general public' plan that is cost comparable to employer-based plans available to anyone over between 18 and 65, must offer identical plans across the nation" and then create a tax credit/subsidy to cover those too poor to afford their premiums WITHOUT taking over control of the whole system or even a small part of it... and for far less than a trillion dollars. Since they are attempting to grab as much control as possible, I am left to conclude that there is a reason for the power grab and leads me to ask "why?".</blockquote>


I wish it would be <em>that</em> easy. I certainly would like to see a strong regulatory body rather than absolute government intervention. I would also like to see a decoupling of employment and insurance. I would like to see an end to the collusion of local hospitals and medical providers. I would like to see doctors prescribe what is the most appropriate for my situation, not what will give them the most swag. I would like to see doctors restrain themselves to the proper treatment instead of the most expensive one they can bill my insurance. My list of dreams just goes on and on ...
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1259130551][quote author="Nude" date=1259128832]Seriously, you can pass a simple law that says "no rescissions, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, must have a 'general public' plan that is cost comparable to employer-based plans available to anyone over between 18 and 65, must offer identical plans across the nation" and then create a tax credit/subsidy to cover those too poor to afford their premiums WITHOUT taking over control of the whole system or even a small part of it... and for far less than a trillion dollars. Since they are attempting to grab as much control as possible, I am left to conclude that there is a reason for the power grab and leads me to ask "why?".</blockquote>


I wish it would be <em>that</em> easy. I certainly would like to see a strong regulatory body rather than absolute government intervention. I would also like to see a decoupling of employment and insurance. I would like to see an end to the collusion of local hospitals and medical providers. I would like to see doctors prescribe what is the most appropriate for my situation, not what will give them the most swag. I would like to see doctors restrain themselves to the proper treatment instead of the most expensive one they can bill my insurance. My list of dreams just goes on and on ...</blockquote>


The Health system has become so broken. The Doctor that I used for my Hernia Surgery in June has gone on to no longer

take patients with Insurance. His entire practice is now based on paying cash.

Doctor Petersen Rocks. I was quoted over $ 28,000 at Mission for the procedure I did not want. The cheap Laproscopic

repair method. This guy did it the more expensive method and charged me $ 6000.00

Where does all that money go ? Not to the Doctors. Not to the Patients. It goes to the bloodsuckers that somehow have gotten in between the Doctor and the Patient.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1259131683]The Health system has become so broken. The Doctor that I used for my Hernia Surgery in June has gone on to no longer

take patients with Insurance. His entire practice is now based on paying cash.

Doctor Petersen Rocks. I was quoted over $ 28,000 at Mission for the procedure I did not want. The cheap Laproscopic

repair method. This guy did it the more expensive method and charged me $ 6000.00

Where does all that money go ? Not to the Doctors. Not to the Patients. It goes to the bloodsuckers that somehow have gotten in between the Doctor and the Patient.

</blockquote>


Not to mention the toll your body will take for an unnecessary procedure. Another problem with your quote for $28K is that it is very hard to know a priori what your out of pocket expense will be. For example, if the anesthesiologist is out of network and charges beyond the reasonable and customary amount, you may be on the hook for a substantial expense. You may not find this out until your bills start flowing in.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1259130551][quote author="Nude" date=1259128832]Seriously, you can pass a simple law that says "no rescissions, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, must have a 'general public' plan that is cost comparable to employer-based plans available to anyone over between 18 and 65, must offer identical plans across the nation" and then create a tax credit/subsidy to cover those too poor to afford their premiums WITHOUT taking over control of the whole system or even a small part of it... and for far less than a trillion dollars. Since they are attempting to grab as much control as possible, I am left to conclude that there is a reason for the power grab and leads me to ask "why?".</blockquote>


I wish it would be <em>that</em> easy. I certainly would like to see a strong regulatory body rather than absolute government intervention. I would also like to see <strong>a decoupling of employment and insurance</strong>. I would like to see <strong>an end to the collusion of local hospitals and medical providers</strong>. I would like to see <strong>doctors prescribe what is the most appropriate for my situation, not what will give them the most swag</strong>. I would like to see doctors restrain themselves to the proper treatment instead of the most expensive one they can bill my insurance. My list of dreams just goes on and on ...</blockquote>
It actually is that easy, it's just that our legislators don't want to fix things, they want to put their stamp on history like those who passed Social Security and Medicare, despite the obvious failings of those two programs to live up to their author's promises.



And we agree on the items I bolded; the two others can be better addressed by removing the need to practice defensive medicine.
 
<em>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."</em> - Benjamin Franklin
 
Or we can just keep our head in the sand and let the Status Quo on Health Care continue.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and

expecting different results. "



-Benjamin Franklin
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1259053645][quote author="gypsyuma" date=1259050710]Because the data is obvious that reform is what is best for this country.</blockquote>


What farking data? Please, show me something that hasn't been skewed, twisted, tortured, or just plain made up to fit one view or another when it comes to health care.



THIS THREAD ALREADY HAS TOO MUCH DATA IN IT - BUT THE SIMPLE FACT THAT WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY TO NOT HAVE MOVED TOWARD UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SAYS IT ALL TO ME. I THINK FOR ANYONE TO ARGUE THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG AND WE ARE RIGHT IS NOTHING BUT ARROGANCE. AND THIS "FARKING" FACT CANNOT BE SKEWED OR TWISTED OR TORTURED OR MADE UP.



And take that "looking out for #1" crap and shove it. If you can't figure out that both sides are arguing for what they think is in the best interests of the country, then you aren't intelligent enough to have a qualified opinion on the matter. I'm tired of people playing the "you are just selfish" card when discussing whether the Federal Government should begin dictating what medical treatment we can and can not have; especially when many of those same people would be marching on Washington if that decision was extended to abortion.



SHOVE IT WHERE? UP MY ASS? NICE ATTITUDE. I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE HEARD AND SEEN PEOPLE ARGUE THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT AS A REASON TO NOT HAVE HEALTHCARE REFORM. IF THAT ISN'T SELFISH, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS. AND THE SIMPLE FACT THAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE IS OK WITH MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO GO WITHOUT ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, WELL THEN YUP, THAT MEANS YOU ARE ONLY LOOKING OUT FOR NUMERO UNO. FEEL FREE TO TELL ME TO SHOVE THAT TOO - WHATEVER.



If you are under the impression that this is "health care reform" you are ignoring the largest part of the government's role in the proposed changes, which is nationalizing 1/6th of the economy. If you are under the impression that this is "health insurance reform" you are ignoring the other part of the government's role, which is that they will PUT YOU IN JAIL if you don't buy into their new plan, on top of the taxes they will need to collect to cover those who are deemed to poor to pay.



IF SOMEONE IS STUPID ENOUGH TO GO TO JAIL FOR THAT, WELL THEN HE OR SHE BELONGS THERE. PLUS OBAMA HAS PLEDGED THAT THE PLAN WILL NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT, SO YOUR EXCUSE ABOUT TAXES IS LAME.



So, to recap... show me the numbers that prove mandatory participation in government-run health care is better for the country in the long-term, both physically and financially, when they have to force people to participate under threat of imprisonment, have to raise taxes to cover the indigent/poor/lower class people, and have to ration care based on objective standards that have less to do with "we, the people" than it does with reducing costs. There are completely rational options that make the needed changes without taking responsibility away from individuals and putting on the collective nation, yet all I hear from the left is "free health care for everyone".



WE GIVE AWAY FREE BOMBS. WE SPEND BILLIONS ON DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. YET YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MONEY SPENT TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES AT HOME? WTF?



Newsflash: There is no such thing as "free" healthcare if it is being run by the Federal government.</blockquote>
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1259156484]Or we can just keep our head in the sand and let the Status Quo on Health Care continue.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and

expecting different results. "



-Benjamin Franklin</blockquote>


Exactly. More government involvlement will bring more cost in health care.
 
So we have to overhaul health insurance because we can't maintain the status quo, because the rest of the world has it, and because people can't find the caps lock key.



C'est merde de vache
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1259156484]Or we can just keep our head in the sand and let the Status Quo on Health Care continue.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and

expecting different results. "



-Benjamin Franklin</blockquote>


First what is being proposed is really Mandatory health care for those can afford it and subsidized healthcare for everyone else. Not Universal Healthcare in the traditional sense of the word or what people think Universal Healtchare is.



The CBO has the estimated that you will pay the $800 you don't want to pay now. How is that better for you?



<strong>This is really marxism at it's best when you look at the cost structure. From each according to his ability....to each according to their need.</strong>



Tell me why a family of four in Irvine should pay 15k for the same insurance a family of four in Arkansas pays $6300.



The cost structure is income based. So the healthy family of four that eats right, exercises, gets regular physicals etc will pay more then the family that eats McDonalds every day, sits in front of the couch and only goes to the doctor when their chest hurts.



That sounds like a fair program.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1259186593][quote author="bltserv" date=1259156484]Or we can just keep our head in the sand and let the Status Quo on Health Care continue.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and

expecting different results. "



-Benjamin Franklin</blockquote>


Exactly. More government involvlement will bring more cost in health care.</blockquote>


I would rather have the government act as the clearing house/insurer than the blood sucking insurance companies.

What good has an insurance company ever done. TV Commercials, Lobbyists, hyper Inflated costs.

Why do the Health Care Executives make these obscene salaries ? Hundreds of Millions of dollars ?

All of the ability to get between a Doctor, Hospital and Patient in order to maximize profit. Not care.

Why must Americans pay the most and get care thats third rate ? 34th in Developed Countries by Infant Mortality.



Or.

Lets just close more inner city hospitals and emergency rooms and go on the way we are. NOT.



Some form of Nationalized Health care is what the American People deserve. And I think its going to happen this cycle.

Medicare works. Why not expand it?



I love the conservatives that rant and rave about National Healthcare. Then turn 65 and guess what.

They just suck up to the Medicare System and STFU.

Hippocrates.

Notice all those GOP Senators love their Health Plan. How stupid can we be ? Our elected officials get the plan

and the American People get the shaft. WAKE UP.
 
<blockquote>34th in Developed Countries by Infant Mortality.</blockquote>


I love how liberals with a socialist agenda continue to throw this crap out there to scare people.



A tiny bit of research on this subject shows how other countries job the system to make their IMR lower then ours.



It is the extraordinary effort we put into "saving" children that actually raises our rate. The US goes by the strictest definition possible when we define a live birth.



Some countries don't report a live birth if the baby doesn't live for 7 days if they have a low birth rate. Some countries actually push the babies death in month twelve to month 13 so it isn't counted in the IMR.



There are plenty of other factors that cause this as well, Fertility Drugs....People having babies at an older age.... Women not taking care of themselves...IE Crack Babies.



So if we go to your Socialized medicine will we stop invitro or fertility drugs because of a higher chance of infant mortality.



Until every single country uses the same exact standard your IMR is useless.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1259186593][quote author="bltserv" date=1259156484]Or we can just keep our head in the sand and let the Status Quo on Health Care continue.



"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and

expecting different results. "



-Benjamin Franklin</blockquote>


Exactly. More government involvlement will bring more cost in health care.</blockquote>


An oligopoly brings more cost in health care as well - or can the current health insurance system better be described as a cartel??? Having a "free market" solution to health care presents an ethical challenge as well. Having less money would necessarily mean less coverage. Should mortality rates be dictated by income?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top