• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

Sep 8, 5:20 PM (ET)
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.
In advance of what Obama hopes will be a game-changing speech to lawmakers, the one idea that most appeals to the Democrats' liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate 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 government insurance plan.
Now what? :confused: So if you don't have a plan or can't afford one you'll be fined? Is this suppose to be a selling point to the American public?
 
Link


Now what? :confused: So if you don't have a plan or can't afford one you'll be fined? Is this suppose to be a selling point to the American public?

Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with financial aid to those who can't afford it. This plan is no exception. No one is going to be fined because they can't afford health insurance.
 
With no public option, this proposal is morally bankrupt.
 
Welcome to the Baucus, watered down plan. This is what the Republicans wanted, right? A watered down plan that did nothing real? This is what that looks like. No public plan, you get this crap. No single payer, you get this crap. Sorry, but the Moderate Dems and Conservatives have done this. Welcome to your Representatives' crappy ideas.
 
Comparing mandatory health insurance to compulsory auto insurance is ridiculous. Auto insurance is mandatory due to the the fact that you have the ability to cause injury or damage the property of others.

Who's property am I that they can demand that I provide coverage to protect myself? I'm not hurting anyone if I elect to not have health insurance...
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the Baucus, watered down plan. This is what the Republicans wanted, right? A watered down plan that did nothing real? This is what that looks like. No public plan, you get this crap. No single payer, you get this crap. Sorry, but the Moderate Dems and Conservatives have done this. Welcome to your Representatives' crappy ideas.

How in the world does Republicans not wanting a public option translate into proposals to fine people for not having health insurance?

Are you seriously saying "Either vote with us on a public plan or we'll fine your asses?"
 
Comparing mandatory health insurance to compulsory auto insurance is ridiculous. Auto insurance is mandatory due to the the fact that you have the ability to cause injury or damage the property of others.

Who's property am I that they can demand that I provide coverage to protect myself? I'm not hurting anyone if I elect to not have health insurance...

Yes you are. You're hurting the taxpayer and/or the hospital you end up at if you get hit by a bus.
 
Yes you are. You're hurting the taxpayer and/or the hospital you end up at if you get hit by a bus.

Flawed argument, you're assuming I don't have an emergency fund piled away that could completely cover my costs.

There's no reason I should be required to pay for health insurance when my lack of it would not hurt anyone but me.

If I had government healthcare, the taxpayers would be paying for my care anyway, what's the difference?
 
Flawed argument, you're assuming I don't have an emergency fund piled away that could completely cover my costs.

Yes, I am assuming that. Most people don't have such a fund. You might be one of the few who does, but public policy should not be based solely on YOU.

In the Massachusetts version of public health care, exceptions are made for people who are able to "self-insure" anyway. If it's that big of a deal, I'm sure this plan could incorporate something similar.

theangryamerican said:
There's no reason I should be required to pay for health insurance when my lack of it would not hurt anyone but me.

If you are one of the few people with a couple million dollars in the bank, then I really don't care if you have health insurance. Otherwise, it is very much a public concern whether or not you have health insurance, just like it is very much a public concern whether or not you have auto insurance.

theangryamerican said:
If I had government healthcare, the taxpayers would be paying for my care anyway, what's the difference?

No they wouldn't. You would be paying a monthly premium for your public health insurance, just like you do now for your private health insurance, unless you were unable to afford it. Which contradicts your claim of being able to self-insure.
 
Last edited:
Typical Liberal ideology. Progression for progression's sake, despite it's obvious detrimental effects.
 
No they wouldn't. You would be paying a monthly premium for your public health insurance, just like you do now for your private health insurance, unless you were unable to afford it. Which contradicts your claim of being able to self-insure.

If you think that the amount you pay in premiums alone is going to completely cover a major medical expense without the insurer having to shell out extra money, I don't know what to say other than you have no idea how insurance works...
 
If you think that the amount you pay in premiums alone is going to completely cover a major medical expense without the insurer having to shell out extra money, I don't know what to say other than you have no idea how insurance works...

The whole point of insurance is risk-sharing. Of course your premiums aren't going to cover a major medical expense, but most people don't HAVE a major medical expense. Actuaries determine what the premium should be based on the probable expenses.

I'm not sure where exactly you think I said that your premiums would cover a major medical expense. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Link


Now what? :confused: So if you don't have a plan or can't afford one you'll be fined? Is this suppose to be a selling point to the American public?

No, you will be fined if you can afford health insurance and don't bother to get it.

Right now, if you spend your health insurance money on a trip to Disney World or a new Plasma TV, you can just go to the emergency room and have your state foot the bill.

People use the emergency room as their free primary care physician. Things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity go untreated and unmonitored until a person has diabetes, heart disease, a stroke... and then guess who pays for the really expensive stuff...

prof??

Which would you prefer--people being responsible. People being irresponsible and letting everyone else pay for it.
 
Typical Liberal ideology. Progression for progression's sake, despite it's obvious detrimental effects.

Thanks for the hyperbole with zero proof. Now, move along.
 
The whole point of insurance is risk-sharing. Of course your premiums aren't going to cover a major medical expense, but most people don't HAVE a major medical expense. Actuaries determine what the premium should be based on the probable expenses.

I'm not sure where exactly you think I said that your premiums would cover a major medical expense. :confused:

You specifically said the cost me having to go visit the ER after getting hit by a bus would NOT be paid by the taxpayer because of my premiums. If my premium doesn't cover it all, where is the rest of the insurance money going to come from?
 
Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with financial aid to those who can't afford it. This plan is no exception. No one is going to be fined because they can't afford health insurance.

No. Even if this is the case, then those who can afford it are being fined because there are others who cannot afford the mandate.

EDIT: <apologies to Hazlnut, he already stated this point>
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the Baucus, watered down plan. This is what the Republicans wanted, right? A watered down plan that did nothing real? This is what that looks like. No public plan, you get this crap. No single payer, you get this crap. Sorry, but the Moderate Dems and Conservatives have done this. Welcome to your Representatives' crappy ideas.

how about

instead of getting their wet dream passed, they are going to pass a disaster so the public sees their wet dream as teh only way to fix it...

partisan hack, chop chop
 
You specifically said the cost me having to go visit the ER after getting hit by a bus would NOT be paid by the taxpayer because of my premiums. If my premium doesn't cover it all, where is the rest of the insurance money going to come from?

Umm
From the other people who paid into the insurance plan who DON'T get hit by buses? :2wave:
 
No, you will be fined if you can afford health insurance and don't bother to get it.

no, that's not how it works

it fines any american caught breathing without insurance

exactly as driving is handled in california

if you can demonstrate that you're low earner, you can qualify for HELP

unfortunately, 20% of $1000 a month for Ms Single Motherhood still leaves her with $800 to kaiser each moon for herself and her kids

as usual, h-nut doesn't know what he's talking about

during the campaign, obama said repeatedly, "fining families who can't afford health care in the first place doesn't make sense"

but it's been a key element of waxman/rangel, hr3200, from the start

of course, h-nut doesn't know waxman-rangel

he doesn't know energy-commerce

he doesn't know ways and means

would you prefer to postulate with The hyper prepped and ultra experienced Prof pursuant to parliamentary proceeding, poser?

he'd perceive it a pleasure

LOLOL!

the NEWS is that BAUCUS (here's your chance, h-nut, you can actually LEARN one of those elusive ANSWERS---LOLOL!) has now adopted the LANGUAGE OF FINES

h-nut doesn't know what he's talking about, he passes off his thoughts as reality

for instance, he doesn't know anything about baucus' precise role in this health care debate

despite the fact that the montana senator, THE GATEKEEPER, is probably more important to obamacare, where rubber meets road, than the president himself

baucus has worked his butt off for this president, but according to the overworked finance chair, "the president has not been much help"

oh, well, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD (an inside joke h-nut doesn't get)

LOLOLOL!

My Way News - Fines proposed for going without health insurance

Newsvine - A look at health care plans in Congress
 
Umm
From the other people who paid into the insurance plan who DON'T get hit by buses? :2wave:

Who are...? Say it with me "Taxpayers." Which means it's what kind of money? "Government." Good, now that we've established that, you can concede that the taxpayer eats the cost of my medical care regardless.
 
Who are...? Say it with me "Taxpayers." Which means it's what kind of money? "Government." Good, now that we've established that, you can concede that the taxpayer eats the cost of my medical care regardless.

That's just stupid. You could say the same thing about private insurance. The other members of your private insurance plan are taxpayers too. That doesn't mean "the taxpayers" are paying for it.

A government health care plan doesn't necessarily mean that all your expenses are on the public dime. Most public plans that have been proposed involve people paying premiums and collecting health care expenses...just like private plans. The only structural difference would be subsidies for those who can't afford insurance, and those people certainly wouldn't fall into the exemption you were bitching about for people who can self-insure.
 
Last edited:
The Dems had already planned to fine people for not carrying health insurance. This is nothing new and sure as hell isn't a Republican invention.

I think the Dems are doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot, though.
 
No, you will be fined if you can afford health insurance and don't bother to get it.

Right now, if you spend your health insurance money on a trip to Disney World or a new Plasma TV, you can just go to the emergency room and have your state foot the bill.

People use the emergency room as their free primary care physician. Things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity go untreated and unmonitored until a person has diabetes, heart disease, a stroke... and then guess who pays for the really expensive stuff...

prof??

Which would you prefer--people being responsible. People being irresponsible and letting everyone else pay for it.

Yes. Naturally. The answer is to fine and tax people and use the excuse "because if you don't have insurance it costs the state and other people money".

Lets ignore the fact that the reason that happens is because of regulations put in by government that require it in the first place. So essentially "Because we mucked up with something and force the hospitals to do something, we're using that as an excuse to say we have to take money from you too".

Here's a WILD idea...

How about instead of fining people for choosing, you know that whole freedom thing, not to purchase insurance and choosing to take that chance simply because it may cost hospitals money you remove the requirements that hospitals MUST care for people regardless of whether or not they can pay?

....well of course, we CAN'T do that. If we do that, then we can't have the greedy government (Remember folks, when individuals want to actually choose how to spend their hard earned money, they're greedy. When the government decides to take that money it did NOTHING to gain, they're just being "kind" and "humane" :roll:) taking money and redistributing it to those that we think deserve it to be "FAAAAAAIR"

I swear to god, it mystifies me sometimes. "Lets break something, and then, once its broke, use the fact its broke as a reason to do even MORE"
 
Back
Top Bottom