But that is true now for someone who doesnt have insurance. That 40K just wont get paid if they dont have it.
So they file bankruptcy and we all pay for it.
So long as the fine is significantly lower than the cost of the premium, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone without insurance today is going to run out and get it even at a lower, government subsidized price.
For the most part this fee is going to be paid by the employer, the employer initially made a bussiness decision when he decided not to offer health insurance. Now he has to rethink the decision and in most cases that tax should be just high enough to make it worth his while to offer insurance.
Those with pre-existing conditions who could not get insurance before will likely sign up, but those who lack insurance today for other reasons will not rush out to get it.
In most cases they didn't have health insurance becuase thier employer didn't offer an affordable plan. I believe most employers who previosly did not offer plans will decide it makes more sense to offer a decent plan than pay the tax.
So this legislation will only increase everyones premiums, everyones taxes and have little impact on the number of uninsured.
Everyones premiums have already been shooting up 5-20% a year for the past 3-4 years. So worst case scenario is doesn't change anything.
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
For the most part this fee is going to be paid by the employer, the employer initially made a bussiness decision when he decided not to offer health insurance. Now he has to rethink the decision and in most cases that tax should be just high enough to make it worth his while to offer insurance.
No, the fees are going to be paid by the individual. Why is health insurance the employers obligation anyway? Part of the problem with our current system is the fact that the insurance is employer based. As an employer I can tell you that I will pay whatever is less--insurance or tax. (I dont think any new law will effect me anyway as I employ less than 10 people) If significant savings can be had by corporations that drop coverage, many will do so. That will all depend on the fine/tax imposed upon corporations that do not provide insurance. Not sure if they have decided upon a figure yet.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
My understanding is that this is only true if thier self-employed. I would agree that this needs to be tweeked somewhat for that small percentage of workers who are self employed. Perhaps a tax credit to offset all or part (based on income) of the health tax if the cost of health insurance would excede 10% of the persons annual income. I don't think anyone is expecting this to be perfect right out of the box, it's going to take a lot of adjusting here and there to get everything running smoothly.
I don't think it's likely that large businesses and corperations will start droping peoples insurance. As a PM for my company, I can tell you that compensation and benefit packages for our employees are carefully put together to insure we are able to attract and retain the highest quality people. We do our best to take care of our employees and our employees do a very good job of taking care of the company.
Originally Posted by lordbt
No, the fees are going to be paid by the individual. Why is health insurance the employers obligation anyway? Part of the problem with our current system is the fact that the insurance is employer based. As an employer I can tell you that I will pay whatever is less--insurance or tax. (I dont think any new law will effect me anyway as I employ less than 10 people) If significant savings can be had by corporations that drop coverage, many will do so. That will all depend on the fine/tax imposed upon corporations that do not provide insurance. Not sure if they have decided upon a figure yet.
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
For the most part this fee is going to be paid by the employer, the employer initially made a bussiness decision when he decided not to offer health insurance. Now he has to rethink the decision and in most cases that tax should be just high enough to make it worth his while to offer insurance.
If goverment option available, employers will love that. Dump all complaints on the goverment and not have to keep a benefits person just for Health insurance. And not have to worry about investigating the different companies or following up on complaints, as its the goverment, take it up with them. Providing health insurance to workers is alot more than just paying the part of the premiums.
In most cases they didn't have health insurance becuase thier employer didn't offer an affordable plan. I believe most employers who previosly did not offer plans will decide it makes more sense to offer a decent plan than pay the tax.
More than likely, they will evaluate the fine versus the cost of the cheapest legal insurance, and decide which would be more cost effective.
Except for goverment option than see above.
Everyones premiums have already been shooting up 5-20% a year for the past 3-4 years. So worst case scenario is doesn't change anything.
All this work, to shoot for nothing changes?
Trillions added to the debt, for status quo?
This is why I don't support anything is better attitudes.
So far, I have not heard the goverment doing anything to reduce costs except for price fixing. Telling healthcare people they can't charge more than "x" for this procedure or visit. Not many businesses can use cookie cutter charges and survive, Because the excess charge is alot less frequent than the undercharge.
I do hope most people realize, CONgress dislikes being restrained by the Constitution, no matter which side of the isle they are on. When they spew the "for the good of the CHildren(People, poor, ignorant, whatever else they come up with to issolate a cause.)" and try to pass laws, that the Constitution doesn't allow, they can't understand why the Constitution is restricting them.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,
and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you didn't think you could do before.
R. Emanuel COS
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
Originally Posted by ArnautDaniel To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It takes a certain naivete to take a politician at their word....
"Remember laws are our friends, its the lawyers we have to look out for."
the three stooges, Political jokes aren't as funny after they're elected. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A.I am nobody
B.nobody is perfect
A=b&B=c, so A=C
C. I am perfect To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Severin Rheinfelser, SCA(period 1300-1350)
First Equestrian Champion of the Flaming Gyphon 2009 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
On steed Maximillion. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Islam is not the problem, blind faith is.
Christians need to cast their nets in the sea of despair, not in the aquarium of church-----come, I will make you fishers of men.
So far, I have not heard the goverment doing anything to reduce costs except for price fixing. Telling healthcare people they can't charge more than "x" for this procedure or visit. Not many businesses can use cookie cutter charges and survive, Because the excess charge is alot less frequent than the undercharge.
But the current reimbursement scheme has skewed the system and introduced serious inequities. Mainly, that technology-intensive specialty care is reimbursed so much higher than primary care. Procedures are rewarded much more than simpler, cognitive interventions. It creates an incentive to deliver the most costly treatments. But to correct this will require some change in patient expectations. People will have to accept that the most expensive interventions are not usually indicated as initial treatment for most illnesses.
One way to address this is with high deductibles. IMO, any universal insurance plan should mainly cover catastrophic illness, and leave individuals financially responsible for their own initial health needs. When people have to pay, say the first $2000-3000 every year out of pocket, they will be much smarter health care consumers and far less likely to overutilize. Not to mention, the premiums for such coverage should be more affordable.
__________________ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. --- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
But the current reimbursement scheme has skewed the system and introduced serious inequities. Mainly, that technology-intensive specialty care is reimbursed so much higher than primary care. Procedures are rewarded much more than simpler, cognitive interventions. It creates an incentive to deliver the most costly treatments. But to correct this will require some change in patient expectations. People will have to accept that the most expensive interventions are not usually indicated as initial treatment for most illnesses.
One way to address this is with high deductibles. IMO, any universal insurance plan should mainly cover catastrophic illness, and leave individuals financially responsible for their own initial health needs. When people have to pay, say the first $2000-3000 every year out of pocket, they will be much smarter health care consumers and far less likely to overutilize. Not to mention, the premiums for such coverage should be more affordable.
The private insurance market should just give you a lump sum for whatever illness you have. Come down with pancreatic cancer? Here is $150,000 for treatment; spend it as you see fit. You keep 1/2 the money you spend under this.
That will incentive people to keep costs low. Kind of like if you get in an accident with your car.
I strongly support the individual mandate, but I think it's really stretching the general welfare and commerce clauses to claim Congress has the power to establish it. If an individual mandate is enacted at the federal level, I'm sure it will be challenged in the courts. Will be very interesting to see what happens.
The states have the power to mandate health insurance, and ideally, that's where it should be done.
So you support aomething that you don't even think is constitutional? You support the government putting you in jail because you can't afford or don't need health insurance?
And people wonder why the left is considered tyrannical.
That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.
Just because the South lost doesn't give the government the power to do anything it wants. The outcome of the civil war didn't void the Constitution.
When comparing State government to Federal government, it looks to me like the Federal government has a much better track record of promoting the individual rights of minorities than the States. It is precisely because I am concerned about individual liberty that I favor Federal power over State power.
Right, that's why the DEA raids the homes of med pot users in states that have excersized their Constitutional right to legalize med-pot. The federal government isn't interested in your rights, only their own power. How can anyone be so stupid to believe the fed cares about your rights.
1. I agree with the current interpretation of the constitution, which allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare.
The current interpretation renders the Constitution meaningless, and allows the government to do anything with those widely abused clauses. People like you are the problem with this country. I can only hope your among the first to be ground up under the tread of our ever increasingly tyrannical government.
Could you explain exactly how an individual will be forced (not just encouraged) to purchase Health Insurance? I have not seen any version of health care reform that forced individuals to purchase coverage
How about, we'll fine the hell out of you, and throw you in jail if you don't pay those fines.
Congress, on both sides, has had only contempt for the Constitution and individual liberties for a very long time. These people need to reigned in, thrown in jail, or God willing, die. Kennedy's death was a great thing for this country. One less corrupt career politician ruining this country. It's just too bad few a few more didn't croak with him.
Linear Mode
