• 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


You're splitting hairs... I pay a streetlight tax...I personally use those streetlights, which are on a public road. The government taking my money without my consent is a tax, no matter which way you look at it. I'm not completely anti-tax, just anti-big government, but let's be fair and call this whole proposed fine thing what it really is.
 
Kandahar said:
This twenty-something strongly supports a health care mandate, as does most everyone else I know. In fact, young people are the demographic most supportive of health care reform.
Click to expand...

I did say "a lot"; I didn't say "every" -- and favoring "health care reform" does NOT automatically mean supporting fines for not obtaining coverage.

(Of course, any way you want to spin it, health coverage mandates are anti-freedom, so throwing "authoritarian" stones is inadvisable in that glass house.)
 

You can call it whatever you like...but I think saying that "the taxpayers" are paying for it is misleading, because it implies that it would come out of the general fund and people will have no choice but to pay this "tax."

In reality, it would work essentially the same as private insurance plans: People who want the public option pay money in exchange for insurance coverage, and people who have health expenses receive a payout from that pool of money. Call it a "tax" if you like, but the only difference is that the government is the middleman instead of a private company.
 
Harshaw said:
(Of course, any way you want to spin it, health coverage mandates are anti-freedom, so throwing "authoritarian" stones is inadvisable in that glass house.)
Click to expand...

What?
 
earthworm said:
I concur, 95%.
What we need is the moderates from both parties working together to accomplish an improvement..
Click to expand...

Please change your item # 3 above back to my words, not yours!
 
Wow....this thread has really quitted down in a hurry. Either no one has anything more to say or you've all decided to go out and do some heavy reading from all those links I provided (see post #55). :lol:

Since I called for true debate, let me get things started....

The Public Option.

I'm for it and against it. I'll clarify...

The government public option would provide the broadest reach of health care coverage for those who could not or choose not to obtain their health care insurance through their employer. Under H.R. 3200, individuals and their families could acquire health care in four ways:

a. through their employer.
b. through Medicaid (for low-income individuals/families or disabled individuals under the age of 65).
c. through Medicare for retired (elderly) individuals.
d. through the newly formed Health Insurance Exchange (HIE).

Before going further, let me just say this: I am not for establishing the public option as it is currently outlined in H.R. 3200. Why? Because, IMO, it would needlessly create another branch of government. Why create another department of government when you already have one that could do the job just as well: the Department of Health and Human Services? Now, if the public option came directly under the DHHS, I'd likely be for it because all that would be done is expanding one branch of government that already carries out a large portion of our nation's health care policies anyway. But to create a new branch of government to do what another branch of government could do just as well, IMO, is wasteful. That said, the public option in and of itself isn't a bad idea. And here's why?

One of the major issue with health care reform that both sides would like to implement is making health insurance portable. It's not just a matter of whether or not you change from one job to another, but also the matter of if you move from one state to another. To that, let's look at the other "public option" being proposed which would be state-based. It is here that I think people miss the mark as to the significance of a government-based public option over a state-based public option.

Both H.R. 3200 and the Policy Option proposed by the Senate Finance Committe (SFC) suggest establishing state-based public options, that is health insurance exchanges within each state. However, there is a limitation on how broad health care would be under such a proposal. For example, if your state has one or two primary health insurance carriers who can offer "group" health insurance at an affordable price, chances are your employers will only be able to get insurance through that insurance company. In most states, competition would still be limited because you'd still have the same "players" involved. The SFC proposes that neighboring states could be allowed to form regional "co-ops". The benefit here is that the range of competition among insurance companies is broader, but you're still limited in two ways:

1) in what "group" to choose from; and,
2) how "portable" that insurance policy is for the individual.

Under state-based HIEs, you get more "options" and greater "portability", but both are limited to the "region" towhich you live and work. So, let's assume for example, you move from FL to NC. Provided that FL, SC and NC are all within the same region for state-based HIE coverage, there's no problem. But what if you move from FL to VA? FL to NY? FL to TX? Now, you have a problem?

The government-based public option would eliminate this "regional restriction" by ensuring that your health coverage remains intact "nationwide". So, even if you moved from CA to ME, not only would you still be covered but you'd also retain the exact same health benefits at the exact same cost no matter where you lived!

This is why having a government-based public option is so important. It represents true portability while maintaining benefit coverage and premimum costs.
 
Last edited:


The Dems's version of the bill places a massive tax on businesses.
 

Why don't you mention the money that is required to be spent by companies, large and small, to pay for this BS?
 
apdst said:
Why don't you mention the money that is required to be spent by companies, large and small, to pay for this BS?
Click to expand...

Well, since you brought it up why don't you provide the numbers. Remember: One of my rules for having real debate on this issue is you bring your argument and provide a means to fix it. So far, you've only provided your opinion, but no solution. Please, try again. This time put some thought behind it, as well as the math to support your claim.

apdst said:
The Dems's version of the bill places a massive tax on businesses.
Click to expand...
Both bills would impose taxes on businesses. Most of the tax burden would be offset within the first 5-10 years and the largest tax burder would come in the form of penalties paid by businesses both large and small if and only IF they DON'T provide health insurance to their employees.

But let's be fair here. If you've already got access to health insurance through options a, b and c...

a. through their employer.
b. through Medicaid (for low-income individuals/families or disabled individuals under the age of 65).
c. through Medicare for retired (elderly) individuals.
Click to expand...

...you likely wouldn't need the credits now, would you, because odds are you'd already have obtained your health insurace by another means other than option d...

d. through the newly formed Health Insurance Exchange (HIE).
Click to expand...

Now, under H.R. 3200 it is true that if you don't like the insurnace offerred by your employer and you wanted to get health insurance on your own, you could do so on the open market OR you could obtain it from the HIE. But here's the catch: Can you afford it own your own? It is here where things begin to get fuzzy (for me) on self-obtain health insurance. I'm not a tax lawyer. So, trying to follow all the proposed changes in tax laws as they pertain to the public option HIE make my head hurt. But as I understand it, either the money your employer would have paid toward the cost of your insurance in whole or in part would be subject to being taxed. If that is the case, then you as an individual would thereby be subject to having that portion of your income that would go towards paying for your health care taxed as well. It's only fair, right? As such, could you really afford to obtain health care either on the private market or through the HIE on your own even if your employer put the sum of your health care cost in your paycheck? Moreover, we don't know how much health insurance under the HIE would cost. So, it's difficult to determine at this point what the price tag to individuals would be. The idea (and the hope) is that it would be cheaper, but we have to remember this above all else: obtaining health insurance via the HIE is the 4th option until you elect to disenroll the following year (or within 30 days from initial enrollment). If you can get it through your employer, you will be automatically enrolled in an effort to minimize a "mass-exodus" to the government option. This happens currently with everyone who receives their insurance through their employer. So, I don't see where having it done via the public option should be a problem if you choose to go that route.

(Note: Earlier, I included text concerning the health care credits as proposed by both HCR proposals/bills, but since I don't fully understand how those credits would work as they apply to business and their tax liability, I removed that text. If someone has a better understand as to how the credits apply to business taxes, please provide the details. Thanks!)
 
Last edited:

No, the hospital presents the bill with payment options. You are going straight to the negative end when it is one possibility. IF they don't pay, then other measures can be taken. But to fine someone for not paying a bill before even presenting the bill is asinine and retarded.
 
jallman said:
No, the hospital presents the bill with payment options.
Click to expand...

And what if the patient dies right there in the emergency room? Or what if he wakes up, thumbs his nose at the hospital, and declares bankruptcy?

jallman said:
You are going straight to the negative end when it is one possibility. IF they don't pay, then other measures can be taken. But to fine someone for not paying a bill before even presenting the bill is asinine and retarded.
Click to expand...

Think of it like "uninsured driver insurance." I pay a premium on my auto insurance in case I get stiffed by an uninsured driver. Similarly, the American taxpayer pay a premium on their taxes in case they get stiffed by an emergency room deadbeat. I'd rather pass that expense to the people most likely to stiff the taxpayers, instead of making EVERYONE pay it. How about you?
 

The bill would place a 4% tax on companies that out $200,000 in payroll, who elected not to provide insurance for their employees. The tax rate goes up to 8% at $400,000 and above.
 

That makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, driving is an option. Having an automobile is an option. You carry this insurance to protect you.

What you propose with these fines is to make people carry insurance to protect everyone else from a possibly/possibly not paid debt by the individual.

Not thanks. I don't believe the government should be that involved. I don't think you or anyone else has a right to force a penalty on someone for not carrying personal coverage in anticipation that he is going to stiff the hospital. It's just retarded.
 

You're wrong about mandatory auto insurance. It isn't to protect you, it's to protect the other party with whom you might have an accident. It's why the minimum auto insurance you need to buy (at least in most states) doesn't cover your car or yourself at all...it only covers other people and their property. The purpose of these laws is to prevent you from not carrying auto insurance, causing an accident, and then leaving a blameless person with thousands of dollars in medical bills or car damages.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The bill would place a 4% tax on companies that out $200,000 in payroll, who elected not to provide insurance for their employees. The tax rate goes up to 8% at $400,000 and above.
Click to expand...

Alright, so what you're saying is that you're against taxing anyone who doesn't provide insurance to their employees. Here's the catch with not doing so: People and employers would simply drop their insurance coverage. And we'd end up with millions more people jumping onto Medicaid or worse, not having any health insurance at all. And then we end up with 1) and far less healthier country, 2) larger government debt from covering these people, but most of all, 3) tax paying citizens continuing to have their health care premiums rise because they'd be paying more and more of that hidden fee for emergency room visits which we all know people WILL use and sit back and wait for the bill for the initial "free-bee" health care they just received.

How many people pay their emergency room bill in a timely manner? 30 days? 60 days? 90 days after receiving treatment? Chances are most of us (myself included) pay this type of medical bill off whenever we can afford it...paying a little here and a little there. I mean, let's be honest! If you can't afford to pay it, you can't afford to pay it. Thing is, some people use the emergency room as "primary care" while others (like me) use it only when you have no other choise, i.e., a late night accident and your doctor's office is closed at 2:30am.

IMO, the only way to force everyone to have health insurance is to impose a tax. Like it or not, it's the only way to reduce health care costs in the long run.

(Oh, one other thing, apdst. The Reps are also proposing a tax penalty on business large and small who do not provide health care coverage to their employees. Don't believe me? Read the Policy Option for yourself and see...last paragraph, bottom of page 40.)
 
Last edited:

Hmm...I actually agree with apdst about something. I agree that companies should not be taxed, but probably for a completely different reason: We need to transition away from employer-based health care. The idea of health care tied to employment creates enormous economic inefficiency, because people are afraid to quit to look for a better job, or start their own business, or get an education, because they can't lose their health benefits. We'd be better off if we transitioned to an individual health insurance system (private or public).

I'd rather fine individuals who don't have health insurance instead of employers who don't provide it.
 

This was Senator McCain's approach as well, but one thing you forget is the cost to the individual for that insurance. Unless you can bring the cost down considerably AND provide the employee with more options to choose from, you'll never be able to break the cycle of providing low-cost health care to all on the open market EXCEPT via ones employer.

On the surface of it, I agree with "privaticing" health care fully, but how do you do it AND provide affordability, choice and portability?

Solutions are welcome. Think it through, people.
 

No, you're not getting it. I'm opposed to forcing companies to pay alot of money if they don't provide insurance, or pay a helluva lot of money to provide insurance for their employees.

4% of $200,000 is $8,000. An $8,000 tax bill, for a small business could force many of them out of business. It doesn't take a very big business to to pay out a $200,000 a year payroll. So, they only have two choices, pay $8,000+ in taxes, plus whatever other taxes they already have to pay, or provide insurance for their employees that could easily cost $30,000+ a year. All that will be accomplished is further dismantling of the economy.

IMO, the only way to force everyone to have health insurance is to impose a tax. Like it or not, it's the only way to reduce health care costs in the long run.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. This is the United States. The government shouldn't be forcing people to get health insurance, so as to pay for someone else who doesn't lift a finger to do anything for themselves. This is nothing more than the largest entitelment program in the history of the country, reducing health care costs has nothing to do with it. When's the last time the government did anything and reduced costs?

The single motivation for this bill is to take from the working class and give to the welfare class.
 
Kandahar said:
I'd rather fine individuals who don't have health insurance instead of employers who don't provide it.
Click to expand...


So, you're cool with fining an idividual $3,800 a year for not buying health coverage? Do you have $3,800 bucks just laying around, doing nothing? I don't. But, hey, I think they should do that very thing, because the Libbos will be driving s stake right through their own hearts.
 

Right, so how is this analogous to the debate in healthcare? Mandatory liability insurance is to protect others because driving is inherrently dangerous with the potential of causing lots of damage; Health insurance is to protect yourself, and like extended (non-mandatory) vehical coverage is optional.

If you want to argue that those without health covrage still may use health service and incur costs on others, well, that's a problem with the laws already in place (either not being enforced or allowing for too many loopholes), not a person's choice not to be covered. If you are worried about this issue, you should advocate that ER patients be hit with the bill after they recover, and if you believe it's wrong that they can just file for bankruptcy at skip out on the bill then your problem is with bankruptcy procedure, not actual healthcare.
 
I won't disagree with you on the later part of your post above, but you're not quite right on your take on small businesses being taxed.

There's atlelast three sections in H.R. 3200 and atleast one in the Policy Option that caters directly to taxation on small business (2-50 employees, if I remember the number correctly). Small business would fall in a completely different "tax bracket", so to speak, and would NOT be looked at in the same way as major corporations/state-government would. I'm sure the numbers you've quoted are for major corporations. For small business, H.R. 3200 provides tons of credits to help them offset the cost for providing health care coverage to their employees. In fact, there's very little in it that outlines imposing a tax on them, but I'm sure they'd be penalized just the same for not providing health care coverage for their employees just as big businesses would. Point is, businesses large and small would get help to defray the cost of health care.
 
Last edited:

Yes, to protect you from an enormous debt should you ever be at fault for an accident.

And that still does not address the fact that driving and having a need for auto insurance are totally optional.

The whole idea of fining people preemptively before they don't pay a bill is retarded no matter how you attempt to justify it.
 
apdst said:
So, you're cool with fining an idividual $3,800 a year for not buying health coverage? Do you have $3,800 bucks just laying around, doing nothing?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. I have health insurance.

apdst said:
I don't.
Click to expand...

Then you especially need health insurance, because if you don't have the money to pay premiums, how would you ever pay your medical bills?
 
Last edited:


Businesses, small and large, fall under the same tax laws. Small businesses don't get any breaks that large businesses don't get. There is no destinction between small and large businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…