Senate bill to fine people more than $1000 for refusing government healthcare..

[Guest justme]

Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage - Political News - FOXNews.com

WASHINGTON -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will 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.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, 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 penalties.

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set 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. The fines 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."

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.

In a conference call with reporters, Dodd said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care" closer. He said the bill's public option will bring coverage and benefit decisions driven "not by what generates the biggest profits, but by what works best for American families."

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 presence of a 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.

[greenego]

This is the same crap they do in Massachusetts. It doesn't work. If your cannot prove you have insurance, they will add it on to you tax bill on the state income tax return. I am guessing our masters in Moscow, I mean Washington will do the same. And I am also guessing that the ones they deem unable to pay will get another handout from the all and wonderful government.

[Guest go-vols]

Notice the first line "Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage....". What about all the illegals that are using our health care system on the taxpayers dime? Are they going to start refusing care to them, or be required to pay up front?

This is just another program where the honest, hard-working American is going to pay more taxes to cover. I'm sick of this whole "spread the wealth mentality". I have to keep making more sacrifices while the government spends away and comes up with new programs to cover those who choose not to work.

When are we going to come together and say enough?

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, 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 penalties.

However, motorists choose to drive. There is no law requiring insurance if you don't drive. However, this is taxing you to live. While I have not done enough research to create a good argument, I would think this would be unconstitutional. Any thoughts?

[greenego]

However, motorists choose to drive. There is no law requiring insurance if you don't drive. However, this is taxing you to live. While I have not done enough research to create a good argument, I would think this would be unconstitutional. Any thoughts?

Unconstitutional ?? How many thing has happened in the last six months that could be unconstitutional? Its very apparent that the current government will not let a little thing like the constitution stand in their way. After all it was written to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. The big question is what can be done to stop this?

[strickj]

Well,if they did away with the right to medical service to thoses without ins with this "healthcare plan" then it would cut down on cost overall.

Just imagine what a law that says everyone as the right to wrecked car repair would do to auto ins cost.

[Guest redbarron06]

Ohh the future looks so bright for our country

[Guest 1817ak47]

people are going to buy food and housing before they buy car or health insurance. I have driven without insurance in the past because I didn't have the money coming in to pay for it, let alone keep everything else up. now who are we going to report out proof of insurance to, the wonderful failing post office. heck the post office is losing volume partially cuse they have pissed off alot of people in there disorginazed and unprofessional ways that they try to manage a business. so what did they do, jack up there rates to balance there budgets when people have started using fedex and ups more. now are the increased rates going to encourage business with them no, in 08 therer excuse for rate hikes was high fuel cost, not I can understand that, this year fuel is hte lowest it has been in about 4 or 5 years, so whats there excuse now! I am all to afraid our health care will work like hte wonderful post office runs there "business" of mail and parcel delivery

[Guest Moody]

Called "shared responsibility payments,"

I stopped reading when I got to this... I'm really apalled at the state of our Nation, these days. It seems, no matter how I vote, I cannot seem (with the help of others, whom are like-minded) to make a difference and put a cease to this stupidity.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

We are already paying for the uninsured poor who get "free" care (at exhorbitant cost) in emergency rooms.

Should we eliminate the requirement that drivers have insurance?

Requiring medical insurance actually makes MORE sense as we may have a choice about whether we drive, but we have little or no control over whether we get sick or injured.

I'm not crazy about government bureaucrats, but they're preferable to insurance company bean counters making decisions about my family's health care which is what we have now.

[Guest bkelm18]

We are already paying for the uninsured poor who get "free" care (at exhorbitant cost) in emergency rooms.

Should we eliminate the requirement that drivers have insurance?

Requiring medical insurance actually makes MORE sense as we may have a choice about whether we drive, but we have little or no control over whether we get sick or injured.

I'm not crazy about government bureaucrats, but they're preferable to insurance company bean counters making decisions about my family's health care which is what we have now.

So instead of insurance companies making decisions about your health care, you want politicians to make those decisions instead. Is that what you are saying?

[strickj]

So instead of insurance companies making decisions about your health care, you want politicians to make those decisions instead. Is that what you are saying?

Its the politicians that are making my health care decisions atm.

So,yes I will say without a doubt I get much better service now then I EVER did with any private insurance company!

Ill add that its the heads,and lawyers making your decisions with private insurance companies.

If you dont like what they say,there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't see how that's better then a politician that can loose his job for making bad decisions:shrug:

I suppose its the things I've personally seen,and had done to me that makes me despise private ins.

Its just one of those thing were reading about it online doesn't give you the education,and insight into how things actually work

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Its the politicians that are making my health care decisions atm.

So,yes I will say without a doubt I get much better service now then I EVER did with any private insurance company!

Ill add that its the heads,and lawyers making your decisions with private insurance companies.

If you dont like what they say,there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't see how that's better then a politician that can loose his job for making bad decisions:shrug:

I suppose its the things I've personally seen,and had done to me that makes me despise private ins.

Its just one of those thing were reading about it online doesn't give you the education,and insight into how things actually work

There is one major flaw in your argument, however. First there is no RIGHT to cheap healthcare. There was a time when people paid for all of their medical expenses. You have the option to mitigate your risks by going with an insurance company. If you don't like the insurance company or doctor or hospital, you can find another one. It may be at your own expense, however.

That being said, I have no problem with a government alternative for those who want and benefit from it, but it would seem the current politicians want a government SOLUTION instead. And that I simply cannot stand for.