The main reason why people don't have insurance is because they can't afford it.
If you can't afford insurance, penalizing someone for not being able to afford it is among the most absurd rules to come down the pike. Why don't we start penalizing the homeless for being homeless.
One might suspect that one reason for doing this would be to create some kind of even playing field for how much each procedure can cost or charged (to insurance companies). At present, when the uninsured enter a hospital they are charged way in excess of what an insured person is charged. The poor pay the highest amount. The insured pay less.
I fear this thing is an abomination.
McClatchy: What Congress' health care overhaul likely means for you
Q: I don't have health insurance. Would I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?
A: Under both bills, most Americans would be required to have coverage or to pay a penalty. Some would be exempted from the requirement, called an individual mandate, due to financial hardship or religious reasons. Under the House bill, you'd have to have coverage by 2013 or pay up to 2.5 percent of your income; the penalty couldn't exceed the average cost of a plan sold in the exchanges.
The Senate version would take effect in 2014. The penalty for not having coverage would be $95 in 2014 or 0.5 percent of an individual's income, whichever is higher. The penalty would rise in 2016 to $750, or 2 percent of income, up to the cost of the cheapest health plan.
6 comments:
The fines will grow and grow and grow. This absurd Fascistic law amounts to nothing more then extortion. Its one thing for the Gov't to tax us and then provide Health services using Private contractors, but it's quite another for it to Force us to have to directly buy a Health Ins. policy which then contracts these services. Its not only rotten and corrupt as hell but its also hopefully Constitutionally illegal. It sets a terrible precedent as well. Whats next? Gov't forcing us to buy Cable services or else or any other product or service of some politician or party likes? Its one of the most obnoxious laws passed by Congress since the runaway slave act of the 1850's that forced people to turn over runaway slaves to their masters even in free states. The Dems. have with this one obnoxious authoritarian act squandered much of the political capital they have gathered these last few yrs. On so many levels its just plain wrong and politically stupid. After 8 yrs. of Gov't lawlessness under the Gopers you'd have thought they'd learned something? Apparently not.
Its curious I've talked with well intentioned people who see this particular requirement as good. Truth is some people out there really and truly have nothing, no money, no assets, nada, zip. I think people don't really understand that and what its like to live in that kind of economic hold. I have to read somewhere what the hell they were thinking when they put this one up there. Truly what the hell were they thinking.
Yes, I know, many seem to think the mandate is a good thing. The reason for this is because it appears to be a redistribution style act. What these folks aren't understanding about it are the subsidizes they are waiting for are not written into the act! They are merely political promises the Dems. have made as a kind of bribe or hook. It goes like this elect us and WE will make sure your Private policy gets paid ..OR ELSE! The problem is this someone else has to pay for this and the Dems. plan to pay for it will gut what's left of the middle class. Once the Gopers get in these subsidies will be cut but not the mandate because the Gopers are Corporatists as well. They'll just up taxes on the middle class even further. The mandate is a slippery slope that will come back to haunt the Dems. its authoritarian and its regressive as hell. I hate this bill as it stands . Forcing us to buy a Private product or service is a precedent that is scary. I don't care what the motive is.
"Forcing us to buy a Private product or service is a precedent that is scary. I don't care what the motive is."
This is the crux of the issue and you've identified the salient point here. Part of me wants to believe it has the same logic as requiring a driver's license. This is very discouraging.
The drivers lic. idea has been put forth by the Corporatists as a false rationale, but think about it for a second. You only need car Ins. under two instances. In some states like NJ if you own a car its the entity Insured not the driver. In other states if you have a license and a car u need Ins. In no State that I know of are U required to have Ins. just to have a license only! This health Ins. thing has no Federal precedent and will be challenged.
good point
Post a Comment