Obama healthcare, accept it or go to jail.

[bman]

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM11...document2.html

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Polit...old_letter.pdf


Full Coverage: The Note: Buy Insurance or Go to Jail?


ABC News' Teddy Davis reports: The debate over whether the federal government should require all Americans to carry health insurance is heating up. The latest spark is a letter that Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, sent Thursday to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. Given that the health-care bill written by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus contains a $1,900 fee (or excise tax) for not buying health insurance, Ensign wanted to know what would happen if an American didn't pay the penalty. In a handwritten letter, Barthold told Ensign that under an existing provision of the Internal Revenue Code, willful failure to pay a fine can result in being charged with a misdemeanor which could carry a penalty of up to $25,000, or up to a year in jail, or both.


Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note

[spirit4711]

Barack Obama must really be a very powerful man that he can shove a law through 300 million or so Americans' throats on his own...

[Andrew Brunelle]

I thought this was a free country. We shouldn't be forced to do anything we don't want to do. This will not go over well. Do you know how many people will not buy health insurance if it is forced upon them in this manner? Are they going to put all those people in jail? It's all bought off by insurance company lobbyists, so no matter what happens, we will have gotten nowhere.

[aggie]

technically we are by law required to have auto insurance...who suffers for those that don't...the ones that do pay for it and the tax payers.

think of the alternative....someone has either affordable or gov. subsidized health insurance available....the choose not to get it....the lose their jobs, the get a catastrophic illness, have a horrendous accident...their kids need on going medical care for something....now you tell me....what are these people going to do: complain because they will suffer, may die if they don't get medical care...as some do now. use the emergency rooms which the hospital eats and the taxpayers pick up the bill.

emergency rooms don't pay for chemo, physical therapy, daily medication.

everyone who is screaming about not wanting to "pay" for the "deadbeats" or say how unfair it is that some people can't get life saving healthcare, the people that were making up stories about the "death panels"...the people who still think health care is a "privelege"....

you all tell me...what is the correct answer here...yell about how unfair it is to "force" healthcare down peoples throats...people to not get it out of "spite " of having it mandated, have ill health and possible die before their time...or take advantage of what is offered to them and the rest of us keeping our yaps shut about it!

seems like a no brainer to me....i swear some people just want disention and chaos and turmoil and confusion...just to prove a point...and i am not sure what that is....

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I thought this was a free country. We shouldn't be forced to do anything we don't want to do. This will not go over well. Do you know how many people will not buy health insurance if it is forced upon them in this manner? Are they going to put all those people in jail? It's all bought off by insurance company lobbyists, so no matter what happens, we will have gotten nowhere.

Our country is far from free. We are forced to do several things even if we don't want to, such as pay taxes. Having said that, I agree that requiring people to purchase healthcare coverage is bad idea. It is obviously just a way to get the insurance companies to go along with the new regulations, by guaranteeing an increase in business for them.

Personally, I would be surprised if the fine makes it through. If it does, the government will likely have significant subsidies to help most people purchase insurance who could not otherwise afford it. If it does pass, hopefully enough people will make their voices be heard that the administration will see the error in such a requirement, and reverse it.

[aggie]

yeah, and everyone yelling about the freedom this takes away will yell if their taxes to up, or their premiums go up because someone doesn't get affordable health insurance....same as we pay for the uninsured motorist.

making affordable health care insurance is taking care of our people for a change...not letting people die and children and elderly not getting the health care they need...so now we will have people protesting...not fair! can't force it !

soon the shoe will be on the other foot and if someone turns down affordable healthcare and gets a castastrophic illness...well then, maybe then they can exercise their right to die without care....this whole argrument makes no sense to me at all.

[Dharma]

Health insurance is unlike auto insurance in that I can always choose to not have a car and not have to pay the insurance. How can I choose not to have a body?

[aggie]

you can't....(i am talking about people that do have cars and drive without insurance, by the way)

yes you cannot choose to have a body...but you own it, you need to take care of it, feed it exercise it, provide health care for it if you get and illness or disease, a catrostrophic illness or debilitating accident, give birth to a deformed or special needs child, become old and feeble and need assistance, even get a damn good upper respiratory infection or a bladder infection....

and you know what? if you choose not to insure yourself and you cannot pay for your care...guess who does...ME! and every other insured, tax paying individual or public healthcare facility that you stiff...so the charges go up and my premiums go up. and we are right back where we started from...trying to get affordable healthcare for everyone.

so now the the anti esbablishment pseudo anarchist that are fighting for "rights" are trying to muck it up again....that's real progress

and if you can't choose to have a body...unless you do insure and take care of it...you CAN choose to kill it!

[cylon]

This whole debate makes me think of a starving man who stumbles into a room and sees a plate of food just sitting there, but it's like meal-worms and maggots and stuff that is not very palatable. But, the guy is starving, so he's going to probably eat if forced.

Little does he know that in the very next room, there's a whole table of salads and fresh foods that he would be much prefer.

The public healthcare option is the plate of maggots. Anything but the public option is the salads, the only problem is that the liberals are forcing the guys face into the plate of maggots. The salads are of course the rational and business friendly ways of providing health-care that could benefit more people, but the libs refuse to let anyone go and make their own decisions. It's called fascism. It used to be the government owned your income. Now they're going to own your body. Wonder what's next?

So, enjoy your maggots.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by cylon

This whole debate makes me think of a starving man who stumbles into a room and sees a plate of food just sitting there, but it's like meal-worms and maggots and stuff that is not very palatable. But, the guy is starving, so he's going to probably eat if forced.

Little does he know that in the very next room, there's a whole table of salads and fresh foods that he would be much prefer.

What if the guy doesn't have an extra $200 a month to pay for the salads?

[cylon]

The salads are the alternatives that would make it so the guy could have free/affordable health care. My analogy is saying that all options are not being considered, they have their favorite way of doing it, and all other ideas about how to get the same result, are completely silenced.

The goal is to have the government completely take over health care and shut down all the private insurers and make people exclusively dependent on the federal government. There have to be more options than that.

[rei]

i thought 'public option' means private is also an option. cylon, care to elaborate on any proof that they want to completely demolish for-profit health insurance?

[cylon]

The public option is taxpayer funded. It doesn't have to show a profit, it doesn't have to be competitive. Mix that with stiff fines and taxes on employers, and there will be a massive flood of people switching from private insurance to government insurance. Private insurance won't be able to survive, and the government will own your body.

The goal here is shut the private insurers down completely. Poke around online if you want to learn more.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by cylon

The public option is taxpayer funded. It doesn't have to show a profit, it doesn't have to be competitive. Mix that with stiff fines and taxes on employers, and there will be a massive flood of people switching from private insurance to government insurance. Private insurance won't be able to survive, and the government will own your body.

The goal here is shut the private insurers down completely. Poke around online if you want to learn more.

Quite the conspiracy theorist, Cylon . I suggest you research some health care systems outside the USA (hint: check out my country or other EU countries).

It's quite feasible and payable to give every citizen a basic health care insurance. Not for free, but we don't leave people in the cold without adequate care (is what I read here and elsewhere about the good old USA).

We still have flourishing insurance companies too.

Spare me the moral indignation about your lack of freedom. Take care of your fellow citizens.

[rei]

it seems to me the private companies can simply decide to take a smaller profit margin and stay in the game that way (and even the shareholders might likely take fewer profits over none at all). and it seems to me the idea here is to close some of the service gaps. if the private companies can't hold themselves accountable, maybe a public option is necessary. i'd prefer that all the options remain viable as this will increase competition and drive prices down, but i would not want health care to get more expensive OR more focused on quantity over quality than it already is in the U.S.

government may provide an option in the wake of overly dishonest/greed-driven private approaches - like how the private companies were exempt from some type of price fixing - google health care antitrust for details if you like - but even if government really does drive private insurers out of business, that really doesn't mean government will own my body or anyone else's.

we can go ahead and agree to disagree on this if you like.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

i'd prefer that all the options remain viable as this will increase competition and drive prices down

There I found one little needle in that haystack we can both agree on.

[aggie]

so how good of a job are the insurance companies that own our bodies....with all their restrictions, pre existing and experimental labels on things that could be life saving for people.

i work in health care for a provider and try to get necessary tests done for people and i talk to lay people that are making these decisions who can't even pronounce, let alone know the meaning of half of what questions that are asking me to determine if a patient has a test.

as it stands now with some insurance companies...if a person definitely has cancer and they need a pet scan to determine the origin...before they can have one they need all kinds of testing and biopsies which waste time to get the test....i could go on...but you are never going to convince me that the insurance companies who line their pockets AND pay out ridicuolous amounts for providers that are double dipping or milking the system, while people are paying out over the top premiums and collecting nothing when they need it...that the reform and public option is a bad thing.....

yeah...you may make it maggots and salad...but it is NO care vs care the government can provide.

throwing out words like fascism and communism and socialism is just that....do YOU who are doing that have good insurance that you can afford?...will you be willing to pay for your fellow human being that you feel is being offered maggots?

[cylon]

refer to my response to what I quoted from rei, that's my answer.

[rei]

are there any people here who work for a lobbying group or politician? you can contact your representative (if you live in the U.S.) to express your distaste for or satisfaction with the current proposed policy.

otherwise, isn't this a purely intellectual argument? are any of us in a real position to enforce our preferences regarding policy (other than through contacting our congressional reps if we aren't a member of a lobby group)?

and cylon i wasn't really asking you to dig through and only take what tiny bit you agree with (though i'll admit i do appreciate the effort). i was expressing my position and leaving it to you to agree or disagree as you like. after all that's your right as an american. however, i actually value the rest of the sentence you chose over the part you selected to quote. health care should be about quality over quantity, and really should not be in the realm of cutting corners to increase profits. it's a human rights issue for me.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

are there any people here who work for a lobbying group or politician? you can contact your representative (if you live in the U.S.) to express your distaste for or satisfaction with the current proposed policy.

otherwise, isn't this a purely intellectual argument? are any of us in a real position to enforce our preferences regarding policy (other than through contacting our congressional reps if we aren't a member of a lobby group)?

That's actually what's happening rei, people are calling their representatives like crazy. They're marching on Washington, they're going to town-hall meetings and vocally exercising their first amendment right to protest. And it's having an effect. Support for Obamacare by normal Americans is at an all-time low, the democrats in the house and senate who know how horrible it will be are refusing to go along with Pelosi's bill, or Reid's bill. Elections that may normally go towards democrats seem to all be heading towards republicans.

People are definitely speaking out. I don't know every single detail, but it appears right now that what we were calling the public option, Obamacare, isn't going to come to pass. Our representatives seem to be doing their jobs for once. What ends up passing will probably just be another failed government program.

There are so many ways to accomplish things through the private sector. I guess it comes down to your life philosophy, if you see things in black and white. Some people really are against people making profits and having money, and they would like to see any system that creates profit to be replaced by the federal government. Some people think they can make their own decisions better than the government, and want it relegated to the smallest role possible in their personal lives.

I believe there several ways we could get it so that we have affordable health care in this country, or free health care for those who truly can't afford it, without automatically going to the huge government route. But Obama, Reid, Pelosi, the fringe leftists in Washington... they really aren't concerned with listening to those options. They are crafting these bills behind closed doors and doing their best to push it through and bypass any criticism or debate.

But, like I said, it appears the tide is turning and they aren't going to get everything they want. All you have to do is give incentives to the insurance industry, ie tax breaks, and they'll extend that coverage. Better for everyone. I doubt this administration will do that though. The current Obamacare bills don't even have coverage starting for five years. Reform will be stalled until a new administration can offer real options.

[rei]

if the tide is turning i guess i'll have to activate my liberal calling tree!

i'm actually not against all forms of profit. i am against greed, valuing profit over people (including strangers, most of us value the people we know but do we value the ones we've never met?). but that greed motivation doesn't always happen. and i support the initiation of new regulations when businesses don't hold themselves to a good standard of accountability - just because you *can* take advantage of people doesn't mean it's right (for a number of reasons, and yes i know i don't have ultimate authority over others, i don't pretend to).

there are many ways to accomplish things privately and publicly. the current form of the public option is silly to me, allowing states to opt out of it. for places like mississippi (republican pride, which often manifests as selfishness aka 'individual responsibility') they will probably want to opt out without even checking on what everyone (not just the loudest voices) wants. and in MS the public assistance for health insurance really only covers children and the very, very poor. so that leaves a lot of people without adequate health care (not as simple as just getting a job either as more and more employers don't offer health insurance).

i just don't quite understand the against position for health care. again it is a human rights issue for me, and i tend to view the 'anti' support as a selfish position - i would really like to be proven wrong, i would like to find out it doesn't amount to a 'they aren't my problem'/'they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps' attitude.

[cylon]

Well all the attributes you just gave to the private sector is the exact way I feel about government, a big, selfish, monolithic power that wants to control every aspect of your life. I think any institution that has too much power is a bad thing. The good thing about the private sector is that it distributes that power to individuals who are allowed to create their own businesses and even compete with those big corporations. The government solution to that is just take all your personal resources away, and decide who should get them instead.

No one is "against health care". I know you don't believe that people actually think people should just be dying in the streets. The question is, what is the BEST way to achieve these things? You can't honestly tell me that a huge federal government program is the answer to EVERY SINGLE problem our country faces, or will ever face? Can't regular citizens ever be trusted to do the right thing, and solve these problems ourselves, which is the legacy of our entire country?

In my post I said government should allow tax incentives, (among other things) to encourage insurance companies to provide free/affordable health care. I don't think that's a "well it's not my problem" attitude. I don't know if you meant I was saying that, or you perceive that some people see it that way.

Oh well. It's a wonder this country is still here with people taking such opposite views of life.

[rei]

yes, a wonder indeed
i didn't mean people against health care, i meant people who are against government becoming involved (in any way beyond govt's current involvement) to create a more humane, less profit-driven model. whether that is through sizable incentives or a public option or something else, if the private sector has had all this time to provide solutions and has not made any real effort to do so, i think it's logical for the government to step in. that doesn't necessarily mean giant gov't. will take away everyone's individual rights (those arguments usually sound a bit chicken little to me). i think the greatest impact will be on large corporations, not individuals.

your suggestion for tax incentives is not a 'not my problem' attitude. i guess i've just faced so much support for keeping things fully private, and most of the arguments amount to 'that's not my problem.' i didn't mean to imply you had that attitude, though i admit when you first spoke up against the public option i did think you might have that perspective.

i also think this might be one of the most civil, intelligent discussions i'm aware of involving people who are both 'for' and 'against' the reform. such calm in these things has seemed rare to me.

[cylon]

Well people see things through their ideological filters, and that can be frustrating because each side clearly knows they are right, and the other is wrong. That will never change.

It's easy to get swept up in that though. I just try to remind myself that no one ever thinks they are wrong or that they have bad intentions, I know you honestly believe in what you're saying and that you think it's the right way to go, and I honestly believe in what I'm saying and I think it's the right way to go.

I think deep down most people want the best for themselves and for others. The only problem is getting too attached to a position, as if that position were your identity. For instance all my friends are liberals, it's always been that way. I'd be at a disadvantage if I ever said "you have different political beliefs. You are a bad person. I will not be your friend."

I try not to be that way, I do get passionate about things but we are all trying to do our bests in the face of others saying that we are full of crap and that we clearly can't mean what we are saying or have a hidden agenda.

I'll leave it at that, I'm debated out for the day.

[rei]

i don't think you have malicious intentions. i do think people believe their view is the best option, and i respect that.

i don't actually call myself a liberal... if you wanna get technical, i'm a utopian anarchist - a term i actually made up as i didn't think any of the existing isms were a perfect fit. (oh, and there's a heavy emphasis on the 'utopian' part of that.)

i know i won't sway you to see things my way, that is not really what i've been trying to do anyway. i've just be sharing how i feel about these things. i know you feel you are 'right' and i do understand - at least i think i understand - a bit about where you're coming from. that may be as much as any of us can hope for when we fall on opposite sides of an issue.

and especially for these hot button issues, i think usually it's quite rare for anyone to be swayed to the 'other side' in their perspective.

it will be interesting to see how the efforts at reform pan out. maybe there will be less emotion and more logic brought to the table. and i, for one, cast my vote for the option that will be of greatest benefit to the greatest number of people - whatever shape that may take.

[ar81]

US was forced to go to war...
US was forced to lose civil liberties and to create a concentration camp.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by cylon

The salads are the alternatives that would make it so the guy could have free/affordable health care. My analogy is saying that all options are not being considered, they have their favorite way of doing it, and all other ideas about how to get the same result, are completely silenced.

The goal is to have the government completely take over health care and shut down all the private insurers and make people exclusively dependent on the federal government. There have to be more options than that.

I do agree with you that not all options are being considered, at least publicly. I think that we need a real healthcare system overhaul, not just a few small changes like what is currently being proposed.

As for the government trying to take over healthcare and shut down private insurers, I do not believe that to be the case. I think that the public option is being pushed for by people who know we need real change, but are afraid to or unwilling to force the private insurance companies into making the necessary changes. It is possible that trying to force the private insurance companies into things that would make insurance more affordable would actually be viewed as more government involvement than the public option. The public option is an option. The only way it will lead to the government running private insurers out of business so they have a monopoly is if we allow it.

[aggie]

there will be public option that will make more competition so the insurance companies will have to have more affordable prices...people can still go with private if they want and the will be grandfathered in if they have it...the premiums will just go down. there are cuurently just a few states in the country that have the insurance companies that insure most of our citizens...this can help it take it to a state run level and again competition in prices.

government regulations will force the insurance companies to not deny because of pre existing etc.

no one is going to be forced to public option if the want private.

the gov. guidelines will make the insurance offered more uniform.

people do not realze that private insurance companies are in bed with the lobbyist and they are the ones reaping the windfall and paying very little out and causing people suffering. and the insurance companies are now in charge of peoples lives and making decisions for us that we, because of gov. intervention will be allowed to make.

medicare d was force on us by the previous administration (which is horrible and cause a large part of our deficit)...it is either that or no drug coverage...

never said gov was perfect...but let us face it most people are not doing a very good job or are UNABLE to with their healthcare.

the system sucks as it is....i will personally welcome this change....it is certainly better than what we don't have now.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by cylon

No one is "against health care". I know you don't believe that people actually think people should just be dying in the streets. The question is, what is the BEST way to achieve these things? You can't honestly tell me that a huge federal government program is the answer to EVERY SINGLE problem our country faces, or will ever face? Can't regular citizens ever be trusted to do the right thing, and solve these problems ourselves, which is the legacy of our entire country?

Yes, no matter what the view point of the person, everyone I know is for health care. We argue over it's implementation. The I-want-it-now, ready-fire-aim crew don't dive into the details of the economics enough. The current bills out there will save the patient and kill the economy that has to be there to save the patient. What could go wrong?

For the congress people who look at the economics of making this work, they know it will be a disaster but they also don't have enough financial smarts to make a working plan.

The Cato institute has the best ideas I've seen yet to create workable health reform and keeping it in the free market. The Cato Institute on Health Care Reform

[aggie]

technically everyone is for health care....but they want in the hands of who?

as i said...SOMEONE needs to be in control because....imo...NO not everyone can have even their own health entrusted to themselves.

the way people stuff themselves with garbage food, don't exercise, have unprotected promiscuous sex, drink, take drugs and then some people have the nerve to try to sue mc d's because it gave them high cholesterol??? give me a break....

there are people that legitimately can't afford it and need it and want it and others that are just cruising along making choices to abuse their bodies or drive under the influence or whatever and then making the insured taxpayers pick up the bill.

the insurance companies are running the show, they are getting ridicuously wealthy. public option and competition will actually be good for the economy.
healthcare is a big part of the problem with the economy, but not the only problem. an insured, healthy, responsible society can do the economy no harm. it can do it good, more jobs for more able bodied people and not having healthcare institutions have to eat the bills of the uninsured and ultimately have to have the tax payers pay it.

not having a reform of healthcare is NOT going to be the cure all for our ecomony.