Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage

[tyler34]

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 new proposals were released as Congress neared the end of a weeklong July 4 break, with lawmakers expected to quickly take up health care legislation when they return to Washington. With deepening divisions along partisan and ideological lines, the complex legislation faces an uncertain future.
Obama wants a bill this year that would provide coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and reduce medical costs.
In a statement, Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick."
The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a letter to colleagues that their revised plan would cost dramatically less than an earlier, incomplete proposal, and help show the way toward coverage for 97 percent of all Americans.
In a conference call with reporters, Dodd said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care" closer. He said the bill's public option will bring coverage and benefit decisions driven "not by what generates the biggest profits, but by what works best for American families."
The two senators said the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the proposal at $611.4 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago.
However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.
The Health Committee could complete its portion of the bill as soon as next week, and the presence of a government health insurance option virtually assures a party-line vote.
In the Senate, the Finance Committee version of the bill is unlikely to include a government-run insurance option. Bipartisan negotiations are centered on a proposal for a nonprofit insurance cooperative as a competitor to private companies.
Three committees are collaborating in the House on legislation expected to come to a vote by the end of July. That measure is certain to include a government-run insurance option.
At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.



Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage

[right winger]

When i was a kid America used to be free.

[Vigilant]

One step closer the edge!

[SigSense]

I was talking (just shoot me now) to a verified liberal the other day and they said that each American had a "Right" to health insurance/care. I gave her that look of disdainment and said "Precisely WHERE in the Bill of Rights is health care or insurance mentioned?"

She shook her head (you know the look, like here's a person with facts....) and said that it's an inalienable right. I asked her if there was also a "Right" for each American to have car insurance? I mean after all....it IS insurance. She saw that I would not be a supporter of her historical interpretation of our rights and chose to shut up, and this made me happy.

[Drail]

So now if I choose not to support the corrupt medical/insurance industry in this country I'm going to be fined by the government? Isn't this sort of like EXTORTION?

[smokingman]

Originally Posted by Drail

So now if I choose not to support the corrupt medical/insurance industry in this country I'm going to be fined by the government? Isn't this sort of like EXTORTION?

Yes it is extortion. But do not worry your "fines" will go to help give the needy insurance(ie line the insurance companies pockets).And yes most major insurance companies are 100% behind this plan,they stand to make truck fulls of money,while still turning down claims of actual sick people.
I know this from personal experience with my insurance company.I nearly had to sue because they denied every claim I had for 6 months.Total was roughly 20k,the reason...i missed putting my initials in the middle of my yearly update form(in a very tiny box in the margin,and no instructions said to initial there).Sad part was that every time I called I was told "You have coverage sir,if a claim was denied please resubmit it" for months.It took nearly 6 months to get to the bottom of why my claims where being denied.

[hornadylnl]

I was listening to America Right on xm yesterday and a lady called in about this. She said they dropped their work insurance because they were paying for abortions so in essence, their weekly premiums were subsidizing abortion. They dropped their work plan and pay about $500 a month into a Christian organization that is a pool of money that is like insurance but technically isn't. She feared being fined for not participating because you just know that bamo isn't going to count what they have as insurance.

I wish everyone had insurance but not at the expense of the freedoms of others. Is there a free country left on this planet that us Gaults can move to?

[Libertarian01]

To All,

One of the many groups that does not have health insurance are young, successful people in their mid 20's to mid 30's. Statistically this is a group of people that doesn't need health insurance. Couple that with the mindset of the invincibility of youth and these folks put off purchasing health coverage until later in life.

The Senate plan claims that these folks are not "carrying their own weight" in the overall cost of national health care. Thus, they are trying to "incentivise" this group to participate and carry their rightful load. Ergo, buy insurance and participate or pay a fine.

I do NOT agree with this. These people generally do not need health care. Younger people are less likely to have any significant healthcare issues, speaking in a solely statistical sense. The problem is, you don't buy insurance because of what you know will happen, you buy it in case the improbable happens. I don't know I will have an accident, statistically most people drive through life with nothing more than a minor fenderbender at worst. BUT we carry auto insurance because we might have a major problem that we cannot financially deal with on our own.

End of opiniion/observation on the Senate plan.

As to healthcare being a privilage or a right, I believe I will stand alone on my island on this one.

It occurred to me a while back that for healthcare to be a "privilage" you must be willing to allow EVERYONE that does not have insurance and/or wealth to die in the streets without even trying to do something to help them.

While healthcare may not be a "right" I believe that it is more than a "privilage". I am uncertain as to how to classify this with a word but the idea of being so calous as to just letting people suffer because they don't happen to make enough money to pay for their medical care on their own OR to have been able to afford health insurance seems unreasonable to me.

With that I AM willing to step over the dead corpse of some fool who doesn't take care of themselves and am more than willing to deny medical care to people who have been educated on what would help them, but they are just too lazy and/or resisitant to a lifestyle change to improve their own health. In the end I guess I would be reluctantly willing to pay for corpse removal through tax dollars.

I will fully admit hypocrisy here.

This is a problem to be solved by those far wiser than me. Alas, I believe that we have yet to elect such wise folks.

Regards and a safe 4th of July,

Doug

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

Not fair for business to be required to provide health coverage. You can't control peoples eating habits, whether or not they smoke, or if they exersise. Why should business owners pay for their bad habits.