Healthcare or ELSE!!

[Dryden]

If this isn't a threat, what is? Sign up for the "New" healthcare system or get fined $1000.

Senate Health Care Plan Would Impose $1,000 Fines for Refusing Coverage - Political News - FOXNews.com

[Bill of Rights]

It looks more like it's not "the "New" healthcare system" (i.e. Obamacare) but rather a strong incentive to people to not end up at a hospital unexpectedly as a "self-pay". It's saying (as I read it) that if your employer offers insurance, you have to take it (or have insurance from elsewhere, like your spouse's employer) or be fined. It also says that employers who don't offer insurance must do so or be fined, theoretically to remove the group of employers who don't do so.

While I recognize that at present, the rest of us end up footing the bill for those who are uninsured who need medical care and that this is not our responsibility and I see that this could be viewed as a way to put the burden of expense on the person in need of care rather than all of society (a good thing), I can see it forcing more employers to simply close up shop and further increase unemployment. The more appropriate answer should simply be to say that if someone cannot afford medical care, we will no longer provide it, perhaps excepting children unable to provide for themselves. There is no reason they should suffer for their parents' indolence.

What I want to know is where in the Constitution the fedgov is given the power to enforce mandatory insurance coverage? I suppose you could stretch "promote the general welfare" to encompass this, but that's almost as much of a stretch as is done with the interstate commerce clause.

Blessings,
Bill

[Kirk Freeman]

BoR, it's in the Buying Votes With Other People's Money Clause.

[StarbaseSSD]

Personally, if the fine is only $1000 for a single person, I'll pay the fine, and still refuse the coverage.

[Dryden]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

What I want to know is where in the Constitution the fedgov is given the power to enforce mandatory insurance coverage? I suppose you could stretch "promote the general welfare" to encompass this, but that's almost as much of a stretch as is done with the interstate commerce clause.

Blessings,
Bill

This was my point. Will Life Insurance be mandatory? Dental coverage? Can our government force us to make "smart choices"?
What makes America the Land Of Opportunity is that you have the right to succeed OR fail. It's our choice.

[jediagh]

BoR wow very, very good point there and one I will use when we hae the heated family debate this weekend on this topic that I see coming at the BBQ. Thanks

[Turtle]

Yay more shackles..... I love the feel of cold steel around my ankles.

[ggglobert9]

They say we will be eligible for the same health care that the feds get...does that mean I get a ride to the hospital in a limo instead of an ambulance and that I will get all my medicine free?

[flagtag]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

It looks more like it's not "the "New" healthcare system" (i.e. Obamacare) but rather a strong incentive to people to not end up at a hospital unexpectedly as a "self-pay". It's saying (as I read it) that if your employer offers insurance, you have to take it (or have insurance from elsewhere, like your spouse's employer) or be fined. It also says that employers who don't offer insurance must do so or be fined, theoretically to remove the group of employers who don't do so.

While I recognize that at present, the rest of us end up footing the bill for those who are uninsured who need medical care and that this is not our responsibility and I see that this could be viewed as a way to put the burden of expense on the person in need of care rather than all of society (a good thing), I can see it forcing more employers to simply close up shop and further increase unemployment. The more appropriate answer should simply be to say that if someone cannot afford medical care, we will no longer provide it, perhaps excepting children unable to provide for themselves. There is no reason they should suffer for their parents' indolence.

What I want to know is where in the Constitution the fedgov is given the power to enforce mandatory insurance coverage? I suppose you could stretch "promote the general welfare" to encompass this, but that's almost as much of a stretch as is done with the interstate commerce clause.

Blessings,
Bill

The "insurance" at my place of work cost $58 a week. (we work part time- seasonal) That's 20 hrs a week average.

The problem is (or ANOTHER problem) that it was nothing more than a DISCOUNT program - 10% paid on any bill.

NO, we do NOT need government to ORDER us to get insurance, they need to make insurance more affordable - by reducing rates, if anything (but I don't even like that intrusion to a point) AND/OR force the insurance companies to cover everything for that amount. No refusal to cover preexisting issues.

Our government needs to stay out of our business.
(It wouldn't, however, hurt to crack down on those who run up insurance costs by going to the Emergency room just because they have a cold and want drugs.) And it wouldn't hurt to get rid (refuse to cover) all of the illegal aliens that use those services for "free". (to them, not us) THAT would save millions every year.

[flagtag]

Another thing to think about. If "our" government runs the insurance companies out of health care, what do you think they will do?

If they lose money from the health care area, they will transfer the lost income to the other insurances - Life, auto, homeowners, etc.

We will be paying more in all those areas because they aren't going to give up the health insurance premiums.

(How many insurance companies cover only health? No, they won't be going out of business, they will just "adjust".)