No Jail Time for No Health Insurance

Avatar for ddnlj
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
No Jail Time for No Health Insurance
9
Wed, 11-11-2009 - 1:41pm
Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

November 09, 2009 6:30 PM






 From Sunlen Miller:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.


“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a the House bill for those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If they refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.


Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.


“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance.  That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”


The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.


It's interesting that those who are against healthcare reform are the first ones to complain about people whom they say CAN afford insurance, yet won't purchase it. But here we have the president wanting a provision to try to make everyone pay their own way, and these same complainers are finding fault with that, too.

 

If the healthcare is affordable, if it is available on a sliding scale depending upon income, there is nothing wrong with everyone paying their own way. It shouldn't be a freebie for ANYONE except the handicapped and the elderly. On the flip side, it shouldn't be so outrageous the average person simply avoids it due to cost.

 

Having everyone who needs it pay their own way helps pay for the system they are using. It could help weed out those who have a legal right to it and those who don't. It could help stop some of the "freebie fraud" that goes on in the current system; if you have to pay your own way and the freebies are cut out then fraud will have to subside.

 

There's still nothing so wrong with this healthcare reform idea that it should be eliminated. It is necessary in so many ways.

 
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Wed, 11-11-2009 - 5:49pm

Under the House bill, the government decides what your insurance will cover. Under that bill Abortion can't be covered by any privately purchased or publicly provided health insurance for example.

The government will decide what you can afford. For a family making $50,000 per year, I understand the government feels you can afford $7,500 per year. For a family making $100,000 per year it appears the government thinks you can afford $20,000 per year.

If you don't pay it, under the House bill, the government decides how much financial punishment to inflict on you civilly up to $250,000 per incident. Criminally the government can decide to put you away for up to 5 years.

People who currently purchase private health insurance tend to be responsible. We also value freedom. This bill will remove a lot of freedom.

If the government can force us to purchase health care it deems affordable. Can the same government order us to purchase an all electric car for $100,000 if it deems the car is affordable and that the mandate to purchase such cars is in the public interest? Can the government mandate we pay Acorn representatives? Can the government mandate we purchase credit cards with 200% interest and $1,000 annual fees? What exactly would limit the government from deciding what we MUST purchase in the future and what would prevent the government from deciding what we MUST pay? What prevents the government from deciding that deprivation of liberty is reasonable for failure to buy what it mandates on terms it mandates?

We are opening up a pandoras box which will deprive us of substantial liberty in the future.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Wed, 11-11-2009 - 6:14pm
Do you have a link on that? TIA

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Wed, 11-11-2009 - 11:41pm

It would help if you could be more specific about the "that" you would like clarified.

About the only thing I added in my second post was the abortion ban in the House bill. I'll just assume banning abortion was the "that" you meant.

See for example - http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/abortion_language_in_house_bil.html

On Saturday night, before approving its landmark health bill, the House adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to tighten restrictions on abortion funding in the bill.

That much everyone agrees on. And that's about all everyone agrees on.

Supporters say it merely continues a long history of prohibiting federal funding of abortion. "Let us stand together on principle. No public funding for abortion, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortion," said Stupak on the floor.

But abortion-rights backers are calling it the biggest rollback of abortion rights in a generation.

So far 40 members of the House have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying Stupak's amendment "represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled," They are vowing to vote against any final bill that included the amendment in it.

So who's right? It depends how you crunch the numbers.

At issue is not so much banning federal funding for people in the government-sponsored public plan -- that was pretty much a given -- but in the new insurance "exchanges." These are the new marketplaces where individuals and small businesses will go to buy private insurance under the bills.

Under the Stupak language, private insurers in the exchange could not offer abortions to women who get public subsidies to buy their policies.

This is where the dispute comes in.

Abortion foes say plans could offer two different options -- a plan with abortion as a benefit to people paying for their policies with their own money, and one without for those getting subsidies. But abortion-rights backers disagree.

"It is not clear that health plans would even be allowed to offer two separate plans under other provisions of the act, such as the anti-discrimination and guaranteed-issue provisions," says a memo from Planned Parenthood.

Meanwhile, the two sides are also sparring over how many abortions are actually paid for by insurance.

A 2003 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by abortion providers to private insurance. Abortion opponents say that shows that eliminating abortion coverage is not much of an issue. But the Guttmacher Institute itself points out that its numbers don't include women whose abortions were paid for by Medicaid (17 states cover Medicaid abortions using state funds); abortions for which women submitted their own reimbursement requests; or those paid for out of pocket.

A Guttmacher researcher told us that while the study did not collect any specific data on what types of abortions were reimbursed by insurance and what types were not, it was "logical" to conclude that more first trimester abortions performed in abortion clinics that cost only a few hundred dollars are self-paid, while more second-trimester abortions, that are often performed for fetal abnormalities or maternal health reasons in hospitals and can cost thousands of dollars, are reimbursed by insurance.

There is no exception in the Stupak amendment for either of those situations; only for abortions that directly threaten the life of the pregnant woman.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Thu, 11-12-2009 - 12:07am

Ooops...sorry. I was talking about the income numbers and the amounts of insurance required. I thought that there was supposed to be some subsidies for families.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Thu, 11-12-2009 - 1:29pm

I saw a summary presented by an economist on the Cavuto show on either Fox News or Fox Business. They have been trying to go over the costs at least on the Cavuto program. I can't stand Beck or Hannity.

The first place that pops up for me on a google search is here - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

A small clip from the above link follows:

"On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer."

****************

Cavuto has had various economists, both liberal and conservative providing various opinions about the legislation. He has also been trying to determine the plans impact on both individuals and small companies.

He has a bakery owner who employs 80 people on a few times to speak not only about the health care reform, but also about the cap and trade.

Fox Business seems to like to help us understand how individuals are affected by various government programs.

I recall David Asman on America's Nightly Scoreboard interviewing retired individuals who had put 401K money into GM for example. One heartbreaking story was a retired NYC school teacher who lost $90,000 she had invested. The GM bailout didn't bail out small investors at all. She was very old, and had lost most of her retirement investment. It was very sad.

CNBC seems to focus more on the large corporate side, and how large companies are affected by the government. Fox Business covers that during the day, at night they try to help individuals see how stuff will affect their daily life.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Thu, 11-12-2009 - 3:39pm

Oh...I remember McCaughey's article.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Thu, 11-12-2009 - 6:00pm

2016 isn't 9 years away. Most of the House bill does not go into effect until 2013. I believe there is a 3 year wait (while we pay taxes for the bill) before it provides benefits. The reason 2016 is selected by the CBO to the best of my understanding is that will be the effective date for open enrollment under the plan.

2016 is to the best of my understanding about 6 years and 2 months away as we are in the last month and a half of 2009.

My understanding is the delay in providing benefits is to improve the CBO score. The extra 3 years of tax income makes the cost appear lower as for 3 years extra tax is coming in but no significant benefits are being paid out.

Regardless, it appears our government anticipates private policies to cost families making about $100,000 per year approximately 20% of their income. That 20% is pre-tax income.

By the time this mandate threatens people with prison and or quarter million dollar civil penalties Obama will be out of office. Whoever comes next will have to deal with the mess this creates.

As best I understand it the Senate isn't as warm to the public option, and perceives a different funding structure than the House. Reconciliation could be difficult. It will be interesting to see what we wind up with.

There are several new taxes that will severely hurt small businesses. I do not know how Congress intends to help them in the future if at all and what it will cost.

Starting in 2002, by a 1997 law, Medicare payments to providers were to be cut to control costs. In each year since 2002, we have only passed the legislated cuts to providers through once and that was in 2002. Our track record of actually cutting Medicare isn't good.

Half of the funding for the House bill comes from supposed future Medicare cuts. It is doubtful these will ever materialize.

The CBO isn't permitted to doubt that the cuts will be made, if it were, it would add half a trillion dollars to our deficit over the next 10 years. Which is a lot for a bill that will only provide a few years of benefits during those 10 years.

The House also plans to have Medicare D negotiate with Pharma to cut Medicare D costs to seniors. This seems opposed by the Senate and by Pharma. If a medication weren't able to get a discount acceptable to the government it wouldn't be available to seniors. This could result in seniors not being able to get medications they do now, medications that save and prolong many lives.

When an elderly person needs a cancer medication that the government couldn't get an acceptable price on, should we tell that patient too bad, it's for the public good? If instead of a senior it is one of our children, what then?

Currently NICE in the UK which approves drugs for NHS, establishes a value for each year of life remaining to a person. Then determines the cost of services that person may require, if the cost exceeds the remaining years of life, the service is denied. Currently many cancer medications are denied by NHS. I've read articles by people who are told by NHS if they privately purchase the medication that the NHS won't provide any related treatment. Thus patients are forced to pay for all related care privately.

We are going to swap one set of problems for another. With bureaucrats at the government calling most of the shots.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Thu, 11-12-2009 - 11:51pm

What makes you understand that? Do you have some inside information?

I believe that the policies will cost $20K a year. The vast majority of us receive our insurance through our employer. The employer usually pays a significant portion of the premium. My DH's company pay 70% of the premium. We pay the rest.

Why do you doubt that? Don't you think eliminating the 14% bump that Advantage programs cost us will help significantly.

Regarding your statements about the UK's health system, aren't you glad that we are not looking at a system even remotely close to what the UK has?

 

Avatar for ddnlj
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 11-13-2009 - 7:44am
A family making 50,000 or 100,000 a year probably has employer-sponsored healthcare, so they wouldn't have to worry about what the government wants to charge.
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket