Fines proposed for going without health insurance

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Fines proposed for going without health insurance - Yahoo! News

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.

The fast-moving developments 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.

House 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.

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.

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.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

I personally think that one way to cut cost is to let intersate packages.. and law makers need to quit forcing the insurance companies to carry things in policies that we don't need to pay for.. if plans were simplified.. the cost would come down. And letting people be able to buy accross state lines would also cut cost for there would be more competition.. also.. Tort Reform is truly in order.

[Guest justme]

that is a proposal by our fine fascist leaders in Washington...

it is outrageous what they are doing to this country and to our citizens. I hope that bill fails.

[Guest HexHead]

I personally think that one way to cut cost is to let intersate packages.. and law makers need to quit forcing the insurance companies to carry things in policies that we don't need to pay for.. if plans were simplified.. the cost would come down. And letting people be able to buy accross state lines would also cut cost for there would be more competition.. also.. Tort Reform is truly in order.

The problem with buying insurance across state lines is that insurance is not federally regulated, it's state regulated. Each company has to file rates and plans with the state's insurance department where it wants to do business. Each state controls the rates and provisions of the insurance policies sold in that state. Rates are calculated based on loss runs in that state. You have no idea how complicated letting anyone from any state buy insurance from wherever they want to would be. And it wouldn't necessarily be cheaper.

[Mike.357]

fining people for not having insurance is fairly ridiculous and a good way to not get re-elected.

There is no right to health care

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

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.

They fail to mention that those who choose not operate a motor vehicle are not required to insure a car. There is no choice with this penalty. You cannot avoid it other than by being dependent on the gov't or dying.

I think some old guys once put on an obsolete piece of parchment something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". They obviously didn't have proper health insurance, otherwise they would have gone and received treatment for their mental disabilities which make them think gov't isn't the answer.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

The problem with buying insurance across state lines is that insurance is not federally regulated, it's state regulated. Each company has to file rates and plans with the state's insurance department where it wants to do business. Each state controls the rates and provisions of the insurance policies sold in that state. Rates are calculated based on loss runs in that state. You have no idea how complicated letting anyone from any state buy insurance from wherever they want to would be. And it wouldn't necessarily be cheaper.

As it is now.. but with "change".. it could be different.. It would take some effort on our part to let the politicians know.. that they need to stop listening to the lobbiest on health insurance packages.. and simplify them.. Insurance packages are so chocked full of stuff that most of don't need.. but we are forced to pay for that coverage.. I think that if the people were able to tailor their package to as how they seem to need.. and with the walls broken down be the states on buying them.. the cost would deff come down.. a bunch..

[Guest canynracer]

If they cant afford the health care, how the $^%@# can they afford the fines? sooo, they ignore the fines...like I would...tell the gov to take a number if they want money.

[LagerHead]

The problem with buying insurance across state lines is that insurance is not federally regulated, it's state regulated. Each company has to file rates and plans with the state's insurance department where it wants to do business. Each state controls the rates and provisions of the insurance policies sold in that state. Rates are calculated based on loss runs in that state. You have no idea how complicated letting anyone from any state buy insurance from wherever they want to would be. And it wouldn't necessarily be cheaper.

You're right, I have no idea. However I think that having 1300 to choose from might force a couple or more of these to offer up just a little bit extra at a lower price. Others that wanted to compete would have to do the same. The rest would go the way of the dodo. I know it's not that simple, but competition is always good for the consumer.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

The Beatings will continue until Morale Improves!!!

[ftncityfatboy]

"we hold these truths.....life, liberty, & the persuit of happiness...and whenever any form of government becomes destructive......it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT", "laying its foundation on such principles and justifying its power in such form, that to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness..."

JMTCW

[strickj]

As it is now.. but with "change".. it could be different.. It would take some effort on our part to let the politicians know.. that they need to stop listening to the lobbiest on health insurance packages.. and simplify them.. Insurance packages are so chocked full of stuff that most of don't need.. but we are forced to pay for that coverage.. I think that if the people were able to tailor their package to as how they seem to need.. and with the walls broken down be the states on buying them.. the cost would deff come down.. a bunch..

The problem with that is insurance companies make their money from people not using a service.

It really doesn't matter what the Government tells them they can,or can not do,they will always have to charge people for services they don't use.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Thirteenth amendment...

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Paying taxes to pay for healthcare that you MUST have seems to fit that definition. I guess that will never see a court, though.

[Mark@Sea]

SunTzu, you've been tried and convicted of freedom, to the detriment of our would-be rulers. Obama and his 'progressives' are just working out the sentence..

Someone posted a youtube of a bunch of 'progressives' chanting "we want pie, we want pie" (remember michelle obama telling America we'd all have to share a piece of our pie?)

It was sickening - I thought of zombies, really. Coming for my 'pie'.

[Guest SUNTZU]

We're good friends, but if it involves zombies, I'm tripping you, Mark.

[Mark@Sea]

Ain't running. Making my stand. Watch out for the hot brass.

[Guest HexHead]

Insurance packages are so chocked full of stuff that most of don't need.. but we are forced to pay for that coverage.. I think that if the people were able to tailor their package to as how they seem to need.

Exactly what stuff do you think we don't need?

Insurance is designed to cover the "unexpected".

[Guest SUNTZU]

Ain't running. Making my stand. Watch out for the hot brass.

Well, I do have a plan...and it involves shooting stuff.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Exactly what stuff do you think we don't need?

Insurance is designed to cover the "unexpected".

Not for me to decide.. it is up to the individual to decide.. You may feel that you need more than the next person.. that my friend is up to personal choice.. the "freedom" to decide.. instead of having something you don't want. Like for instance.. as a male.. you wouldn't need breast implant coverage or cervical cancer (though that could happen but really rare).

Just like the average younger person doesn't need the same coverage that others may.. in fact many younger singles don't even choose to have a health plan.. (You remember when you were in that era, right!). I am saying that health packages can be tailored to the individual and what they want in a package, they determine their cost.. and allow people to shop across state lines for a package that suits them.. this will bring competition and with that, premium cost come down..

Personally.. I have no complaint with the cost of mine.. I pay 76.00 a month for my plan with the state. And it is an 20% co-pay plan.

There are ways to make it more compatable for people to have insurance without the gov. intrusion.. It will just take work to get it done. But, in saying that, it will take state gov. intrusion to get it there.. that is the bad part I guess.

[MikeW]

The problem with buying insurance across state lines is that insurance is not federally regulated, it's state regulated. Each company has to file rates and plans with the state's insurance department where it wants to do business. Each state controls the rates and provisions of the insurance policies sold in that state. Rates are calculated based on loss runs in that state. You have no idea how complicated letting anyone from any state buy insurance from wherever they want to would be. And it wouldn't necessarily be cheaper.

I agree. If a carreir wishes to write business in XYZ State then there is nothing preventing them from doing so. They file, if approved, they can start writing coverage.....

However, States do not control carrier rates. Each carrier allowed to write coverage in the State must submit rates based on sound actuarial results of that particular carrier. The State has the sole power to approve a carrier to write business in the State but not to dictate what premium they must charge.

The only “rates†calculated from the entire states “loss runs†are workers’ compensation base rates that all carriers must use; even then not all data is included (e.g. self insured’s, uninsured, and self-insured groups). Each WC carrier must then file their own lost cost multiplier that is applied to the States base rates. There are several States that do not allow WC carriers in their State. They have a WC program administered by the State (monopolistic).

I agree that removing the States right to control insurance in their State is not a good idea. Although it may sound simple to remove State regulation of health insurance, I believe that it would create a much larger issue than we are currently experiencing.

I do not think that consumers have adequate knowledge of the particulars of their own insurance issues much less the issues of the entire country. I do not have a Life & Health license so I am not aware of all the issues with health care. However, being in the workers’ compensation insurance industry and having a background in Property & Casualty insurance I can identify that the increase in medical cost is the driving force of the cost of health insurance (duh, I know). Workers’ Compensation carriers are also struggling due to medical care cost increases..so I can relate.

What are the cost drivers of medical insurance? To me the drivers are an aging population, new types of medicine, increased litigation, and illegal/indigent health care service consumers.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

What are the cost drivers of medical insurance? To me the drivers are an aging population, new types of medicine, increased litigation, and illegal/indigent health care service consumers.

That I can agree with.. I am a knowledged person when it comes to insurance.. but I am not afraid to throw ideas out there either..

Yes.. the aging populace is a factor.

Yes.. R&D cost are paid for by the consumer.

Yes.. There needs to be some sort of Tort Reform.

Yes.. Illegal and indigent consumers truly drive up the cost on everyone else.. which is one of my main beefs. We shouldn't have to cover them.. !!

[greenego]

If they cant afford the health care, how the $^%@# can they afford the fines? sooo, they ignore the fines...like I would...tell the gov to take a number if they want money.

This will be tied into your tax return. That's how Mass. does it now. Thank you Gov. Romney. They will take your tax refund or add to your tax bill. IRS will enforce.