"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul"

Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago

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.

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.

looks like a copy of the Massachusets mandated health plan

This is sad, real sad.

the day you can be fined for CHOOSING not to purchase health care is the day this country truly forgets what it is to be free.
When I was younger I didn't need health insurance, this is another power grab as well as an obvious ploy to raise more money for social programs.

The American people are too stupid to know they have lost their freedoms. Seen some myself right here.

I actually heard a talk show host on the only conservative (thus probably the only) talk radio station in the San Francisco area say this morning that the citizens of this nation are not smart enough now to keep the Republic from slipping away from them.

I truly believe now he is correct. It is long past time for some good old fashion civil disobedience on a massive scale against the kind of crap coming out of DC.

But it won't happen. The Lemmings will continue to march towards the cliff of national distruction.

Frisco

Add to this the 5,907 million metric tons of CO2 at $15 per ton, sin Taxes already in effect, taxes on premium to the health care you might not have wanted to begin with, gas tax, Mr. Frank scalping dividends from the Bank bailout interest routing them to neighborhood improvement, (again) you have to scratch your head and wonder who would buy into this pig in a polk. That's when Dave and company raise their hands, me, me, me.

My guess is everyone here is required to keep car insurance, too, right?
Remember how the sky fell back then?

Oh, and that time we all had to get seat belts in our cars.
All that wailing and gnashing of teeth.
(now where did I put my hair shirt?)

quote:

My guess is everyone here is required to keep car insurance, too, right?

Do believe you'll find that the only required car insurance you must have in most (if not all) states covers other people and other people's property, not your own ...

There is also a significant Constitutional difference between a state requirement and a federal requirement.

Your analogy is weak at best ...

Where is Uhler? He promised that this would not happen.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

My guess is everyone here is required to keep car insurance, too, right?

Do believe you'll find that the only required car insurance you must have in most (if not all) states covers other people and other people's property, not your own ...

There is also a significant Constitutional difference between a state requirement and a federal requirement.

Your analogy is weak at best ...

Universal health care would be paid for by a tax, just like SSI is a tax. Compared to private insurance it would be quite cheap. The poor could be subsidised, just as they are subsidised today - You don't make more income then your deductions, then you pay only part or none of the tax.

THIS proposal is worthy of criticism. Moreover, the savings of a universal health care system are simply NOT THERE. The same private bureaucracy is still going to be there, telling you what medical procedure is approved and which is not. They will STILL be taking their 25 or 30 percent right off the top.

Quite simply you will now be FORCED to pay your HMO. A person like myself who can't afford it, might have to go hat in hand, begging for a tax break.

A lousy plan.

Dave

mm. Well, right now you are required to pay a tax to pay for your granddaddy's medical care (SSI/Medicare), right?

And the world didn't come crashing to an end back then either.

Seems to me this time, it's a little more tax to make sure everyone gets in the system.

BTW, maybe somebody can explain to me why everyone's so busy defending the insurance industry's right to outrageous profits?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the way it works is that they take your money in a fool's bet (you pay $15 a month for the rest of your life betting that you're never gonna get sick and die ) They take your money and keep it by making sure to deny costly but necessary medical services. The more people they deny the fatter the profits they get to keep, right?

(Why are you on their side again?)

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
mm. Well, right now you are required to pay a tax to pay for your granddaddy's medical care (SSI/Medicare), right?

And the world didn't come crashing to an end back then either.

Seems to me this time, it's a little more tax to make sure everyone gets in the system.

BTW, maybe somebody can explain to me why everyone's so busy defending the insurance industry's right to outrageous profits?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the way it works is that they take your money in a fool's bet (you pay $15 a month for the rest of your life betting that you're never gonna get sick and die ) They take your money and keep it by making sure to deny costly but necessary medical services. The more people they deny the fatter the profits they get to keep, right?

(Why are you on their side again?)

What you seem to be missing here, is that Obamas plan basically forces you to put your money into the hands of the same thieves who are screwing us now. It's "Not," a tax, but a forced payment to a private company.

Whereas a universal health care system saves huge amounts of money simply by getting rid of the private money making bureaucracy.

It's another version of the TARP. Forcing us to give to those who have broken our backs and are at the point of being fired. No wonder Walmart thinks it's such a wonderful idea.

Dave

What is "affordable health care?" I can buy a high deductible major medical plan real cheap now. What we should do is stop subsidizing those who are milking the system. Make them work their bill off. Why should I have to work to pay someone else's medical bill.

In Pres. Obama's mind health care is a right. But isn't food and shelter a higher priority than medical care? Why shouldn't the gov't give you free food and a free place to live before than give you free health care? Transportation is more important to me than a health care plan. Give me a free car! Will we be penalized for not buying a Gov't Motors car? The list of freebies and gov't mandates go on.

quote:

Originally posted by RBruce:
Why should I have to work to pay someone else's medical bill.

I don't have kids. Why should I be taxed to send your kids to school?

Answer: Because we are a community.

Do you or do you not live in a country that has given each and everyone of us uncounted opportunities? We all do it and we should be proud to help our fellow Americans when they need it. If you make a little more then you should give a little more.

One of our government's responsibilities is to make sure our taxes are efficiently distributed.
That's why (yes, Grachus) a single-payer system is the way to go. There is absolutely NO reason we should give these thieves any money which is why I'm guessing this is the part of their poker hand which is revealed first.

My guess is they're trying to build support for a proper government run health insurance plan that will compete directly with established health insurance companies.
There's too many conservatives running around right now crying their little hearts out for those poor ol' insurance companies that're about to get spanked by the big bad mean ol' gov't for robbing people blind.

Am I misreading this?

Is it that people have to pay for some type of insurance and not run around running up big bills because they wont pay for any?

Or is this saying that you no longer can select your own dr and that you have to select one of Obama's that signs up for his program?

can you say Gestapo?

Is there anything in the bill about the repercussions for refusing the Mark of the Beast?

quote:

mm. Well, right now you are required to pay a tax to pay for your granddaddy's medical care (SSI/Medicare), right?

And the world didn't come crashing to an end back then either.

Seems to me this time, it's a little more tax to make sure everyone gets in the system.

Pls remember many of us seniors paid into the medicare from our earnings for many years to earn medicare benefit when eligable. Many also maintain private health insurance and not dependant on medicare. I live in Massachusetts where everyone is required to have health insurance. The state yax return is the means of fining those that do not. I believe everyone should pay a percentage from all sources of income for health insurance as a means of payment.

Until our politicians have to abide by the same type of insurance as the public they will continue to dictate the terms to us.

quote:

I don't have kids. Why should I be taxed to send your kids to school?

IMHO, you shouldn't ... and for damn sure you ought to be complaining, since you ARE paying, about the low return you are getting on your tax dollars from public education. You ought to be up in arms against teachers' unions ... and their stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

I really have a complaint ... I paid for my kids' private education ... and am still paying taxes for the public education of other people's kids. Wouldn't mind if public education wasn't so pathetically lousy when measured against that of other countries. Maybe we should adopt their education systems ... as well as their health care systems ... but hey ... the frigging teachers' unions wouldn't like that worth a damn.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

I don't have kids. Why should I be taxed to send your kids to school?

IMHO, you shouldn't ...

Without Public education half of the children in America wouldn't be able to read and write - We would be a Third World Nation, unable to compete with Guatamala...

What are you talking about?

Public education was the greatest advance of modern times, and made our society possible.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
and for damn sure you ought to be complaining, since you ARE paying, about the low return you are getting on your tax dollars from public education. You ought to be up in arms against teachers' unions ... and their stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

I really have a complaint ... I paid for my kids' private education ... and am still paying taxes for the public education of other people's kids. Wouldn't mind if public education wasn't so pathetically lousy when measured against that of other countries. Maybe we should adopt their education systems ... as well as their health care systems ... but hey ... the frigging teachers' unions wouldn't like that worth a damn.

We certainly should complain. We should give MORE responsibility to the Unions.

Other countries do this, and it forces responsibility. Most Union Members believe that they are doing the right thing for children. It's about time they got a shot at managing things. They're the proffesionals. It's not as if people get into this career to become rich.

Education Unions in Europe are much more powerful then they are here.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

I don't have kids. Why should I be taxed to send your kids to school?

IMHO, you shouldn't ...

Without Public education half of the children in America wouldn't be able to read and write - We would be a Third World Nation, unable to compete with Guatamala...

What are you talking about?

Public education was the greatest advance of modern times, and made our society possible.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
and for damn sure you ought to be complaining, since you ARE paying, about the low return you are getting on your tax dollars from public education. You ought to be up in arms against teachers' unions ... and their stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

I really have a complaint ... I paid for my kids' private education ... and am still paying taxes for the public education of other people's kids. Wouldn't mind if public education wasn't so pathetically lousy when measured against that of other countries. Maybe we should adopt their education systems ... as well as their health care systems ... but hey ... the frigging teachers' unions wouldn't like that worth a damn.

We certainly should complain. We should give MORE responsibility to the Unions.

Other countries do this, and it forces responsibility. Most Union Members believe that they are doing the right thing for children. It's about time they got a shot at managing things. They're the proffesionals. It's not as if people get into this career to become rich.

Education Unions in Europe are much more powerful then they are here.

Dave

All I can do is laugh ...

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

I don't have kids. Why should I be taxed to send your kids to school?

IMHO, you shouldn't ...

Without Public education half of the children in America wouldn't be able to read and write - We would be a Third World Nation, unable to compete with Guatamala...

What are you talking about?

Public education was the greatest advance of modern times, and made our society possible.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
and for damn sure you ought to be complaining, since you ARE paying, about the low return you are getting on your tax dollars from public education. You ought to be up in arms against teachers' unions ... and their stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

I really have a complaint ... I paid for my kids' private education ... and am still paying taxes for the public education of other people's kids. Wouldn't mind if public education wasn't so pathetically lousy when measured against that of other countries. Maybe we should adopt their education systems ... as well as their health care systems ... but hey ... the frigging teachers' unions wouldn't like that worth a damn.

We certainly should complain. We should give MORE responsibility to the Unions.

Other countries do this, and it forces responsibility. Most Union Members believe that they are doing the right thing for children. It's about time they got a shot at managing things. They're the proffesionals. It's not as if people get into this career to become rich.

Education Unions in Europe are much more powerful then they are here.

Dave

All I can do is laugh ...

Well, you've said the problem is with American Unions. So after you get up off the floor, from laughing so hard, you might try Google to find out about the European Unions...

Dave