Can someone explain to me how this is going down? I mean, so I'm required to buy health insurance. But I'm dirt-ass poor and I'd rather use my miniscule fundage for...I dunno...let's say...food.
Who tracks to be sure I've bought my insurance? What happens when they catch me? Do they issue a citation that goes to the top of my "shite I can't afford Pile"? And how many man hours are we burning keeping an eye on people to force them to buy this thing they can't afford? And what happens when I don't pay my citation for not buying this thing I can't afford? Are they going to fill the jails with me and my ilk?
Or are they simply going to pretend everybody's paying into the "pool" and adjust rates accordingly for those of us who are actually buying it?
We were all Quitnesses.
why do you hate the poor and want them to die in the streets without mandatory coverage?
-V
I am completely in favor of throwing people in jail who's income level permits them only to buy the most basic level of food, clothing, and shelter if they do not opt to purchase health insurance.
Seriously. How are they addressing this? Surely, some hayseed from WI isn't the first person to ask this question.
And it's "whose".
Why don't you do the research? It's like if you claim unicorns exist, it's not incumbent on me to prove the negative.
GG, from what I understand, there would be subsidies for people like you who actually can't afford it.
The penalty for not having insurance if you could afford it would be a monetary one, not jail time. I would guess that it would be tracked with the IRS and the penalty would be accounted with your tax return... that would make the most sense to me, but I do not know that for sure.
That's the thing...nobody seems to have any answers. In fact, I can't find anything on enforcement anywhere.
There were a couple old articles by liberal rags berating the stupidity of Romney for trying to force mandatory health insurance on the good people of Mass.
That's about it.
I also wonder how they determine if you can or cannot afford it. How do they figure that out?
I am not taking the stance of "I don't want it", but I sure as hell want to know all about it before I give it the nod of approval.
It's kind of important to know this kind of stuff because it MATTERS. A lot. To a lot of people. Wouldn't it be smart for those that are shaping this thing and trying to sell it to America to address these concerns with clear and concise answers to questions everyone wants to know the answers to? Either those shaping the thing don't know, or the they do know, and the answer isn't going to seem favorable to most Americans. Neither choice makes me very comfortable...
Or maybe the answer IS out there and I am just not looking in the right places. It certainly wouldn't be the first time...
"You have to approve the bill to see what's inside."
-Nancy Pelosi
Meet your enforcers:
I read in Time or Newsweek a few months ago that you will need to file a form with your federal income tax that proves you have insurance. The fines go up each year that you don't have coverage. The figures I read were something like $50 the first year, $75 the second and so on up to a max of $500. I'm not positive of the numbers they used but I do recall them be far lower than one even one month of insurance would cost (for me).
I am the thread killer.
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.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7983609
that's $1000 at minimum that the gubment will be deducting from everyone's salary.
and Neil, you frighten me sometimes.
thestallion: and Neil, you frighten me sometimes.
Your inability to pick up my sarcasm frightens me.
Although I will say I can understand certain elements of logic to this. Healthcare is one of the few products/services that an indigent person can receive the benefits of without paying for them first. If you have no money and you go to the hospital, you're going to get treated, and someone else is going to pay for it. The only services I can think of that are similar in this regard off of the top of my head are police and fire protection, both of which are paid for by taxes or fines.
If we're going to elevate healthcare to the level that fire and police protection are on, then fines and penalties would really be no different than what is done to people who don't pay their taxes, which isn't an egregious abuse of government power.
I'm sure the theory here is that it's a way to offset some of the costs created by those with healthcare needs but complete and total indignation about their lack of insurance.
I don't think I like how it's constructed, but this is what you get when we as a society can't have a responsible discussion about taxes and budgeting without devolving into soundbite shouting matches. For an example of this, see Pawlenty, Tim: -> Fees.
Neil Annwn: thestallion: and Neil, you frighten me sometimes. Your inability to pick up my sarcasm frightens me.
my apologies - i just re-read your post and it appears my reading comprehension drops to a fail at 3-4 AM...sarcasm detected!
thestallion: Neil Annwn: thestallion: and Neil, you frighten me sometimes. Your inability to pick up my sarcasm frightens me. my apologies - i just re-read your post and it appears my reading comprehension drops to a fail at 3-2:59 AM...sarcasm detected! -V
my apologies - i just re-read your post and it appears my reading comprehension drops to a fail at 3-2:59 AM...sarcasm detected!
Had to double take but when I did, it was real funny.
'da f**k is dat? SH*T!'