Democrats: Buy health insurance you can't afford, or pay a fine!

[Agent 007]

http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/20792422/detail.html.

 

[Hotdoger]

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is a moron.

Can't wait for him to get Daschled!

 

[melensdad]

As I understand it there is a proposed $3500 fine for a family of 4 with an income of $66,000 per year if they don't have health insurance.

JMO but if someone makes $66,000 per year they should be able to figure out how to afford to pay for insurance. There may be exceptions for some unusual reasons. However I suspect that a family of 4 with a mid-$60K income that can't afford to pay for insurance has its priorities set wrong, is living beyond its means (cars are too expensive, house is too expensive, something is too expensive???).

That said, I don't think it is the job of the government to fine people for making life choices . . . no matter how stupid they may be.

 

[melensdad]

Duplicate post

 

[mrjarrell]

It's the same as the Massachusetts plan. No insurance, you get fined. Only difference is that the Mass. plan was imposed by a Republican.

 

[melensdad]

It's the same as the Massachusetts plan. No insurance, you get fined. Only difference is that the Mass. plan was imposed by a Republican.

And that plan is bankrupt already!

 

[mrjarrell]

And that plan is bankrupt already!

Yep. And the "bi-partisan" plan that's likely to get foisted on us will likely be the same.

 

[WabashMX5]

But... but... but... Obamacare would never go bankrupt, because all its costs will be paid by fees imposed on the bad ol' Big Insurance and Big Pharma, with no economic consequences to regular ol' folks.

Because insurers' money just appears by magic -- the revenues needed to cover those fees would never get passed along to their regular ol' insureds in the form of higher premiums, would they?

And those fees would never be jacked up so high as to make private premiums unaffordable, pushing people into the "purely-voluntary" public "option" until the "option" becomes a de-facto single-payer system....

That's all just right-wing scare tactics, right? Right?

Either the politicians proposing this garbage are too dumb to be trusted with grown-up scissors, or they're so dishonest that they deserve mass impeachment. In either case, it's disgusting.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The fact that people don't have insurance IS NOT the problem.

The fact that medical treatment is so cost prohibitive as to require such maintenance insurance IS the problem.

Medical insurance should be for ruptured spleens, broken bones, etc. Medical insurance should NOT be for long-term prescriptions, mental therapy, routine checkups, etc.

We need to fix the costs associated with medical care, not require everyone to play the overpriced game.

 

[The_Possumn]

The fact that people don't have insurance IS NOT the problem.


We need to fix the costs associated with medical care, not require everyone to play the overpriced game.

brilliant. cap lawsuit amounts, which will drive down insurance costs and make physicains less likely to perform the testing for things that are only a .03% occurance. as malpractice drops, doctors can take on a wide swath of responsibility, increase compitition, drive down cost, etc. physicians spend a lot of money in the CYA game. It is a shame someone didn't propose this in the house....

 

[RCB]

While SOME money goes to malpractice insurance, most of it goes to pay for those lavish offices/hospitals, newest gadgets and of course salaries.

And lets be honest for a moment, even if tort reform were to occur we would see little to no savings as there would be a plethora of other items to fill the void. We have seen it in a multitude of other industries.

Remember the cost savings were supposed to see from daylight savings? (Thanks Daniels) I remember living in Lafayette, they started doubling the water rates to pay for a new more efficient state to replace the old one. In the end they kept both plants and the doubled water rates.

There are countless examples of this sort of stuff. Once they see extra green, it gets gobbled up.

If you want real cost savings, I think the way medicine works here in the us needs to be reexamined.

This includes increasing what drugs can be offered over the counter and increasing who can provide healthcare services.

 

[The_Possumn]

There is a lot of truth in those statements, but more than you thinnk goes to malpractice. I would like to make mention of the number of general practice physicians delivering children. Most GPs now days can't even afford the malpractice to delive 20 babies a year. acoring to medfriends.org, the average OB makes over double what the average family med guy does, so it cost you twice as much to have him catch your kid. Now some stranger in cyberspace rarely changes opions, but i believe that tort reform would allow GPs to deliver babies, set bones, and so on with out sending you to a specialist, and thus charge less. This would also free up our specialist to treat the cases that really need them in a more timely manner. bottom line is, supply and demand prevails. people might not be great shoppers, but insurance companies are, and they would surely pick up on the change. rigorous entrance requirements, extensive training, terrible hours, and monsterous debt make specialist of any sort pricey. as an aside, right now, there is are grants that will pay for your IU med school if you become a GP and practice in an underserved area of indiana.

our state is great example of limited tort reform. suits are capped at 1.25 mil, making this state one of the more desirable to practice in and care cost less. In light of all of the information i have provided, i must confess a small conflict in interests; Mrs. Possumn will become Dr. Possumn this spring. (at which point we will move out this crime-infested area, provided obamacare doesn't brake us trying to pay back the 100s of g's we owe.)

i'll spare you my salaries rant

your final point is a very good one; more people should seek out DOs and the like.

 

[indykid]

My daughter is studying to be a surgeon.

Malpractice insurance not expensive? A brain surgeon pays about $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance. To earn that, he/she has to earn $275,000 just to pay for the insurance and the taxes on that income. Still hasn't put food on his/her table. To make sure he/she doesn't get sued, he/she has a lawyer on retainer, to also tell him what tests to run to keep from losing any potential lawsuit. Add maybe $60,000 for lawyer retainer? Then the brain surgeon needs an accountant to keep his income/expenses in order so the IRS allows him to practice medicine. Say another $25,000. We are now up to $400,000 (remember the taxes on the money earned to pay lawyers and cpa) and the surgeon has yet to buy food.

Yep, it sounds so good to hear a surgeon makes almost a million a year, yet once you break it down, they really don't make that much for themselves. And don't forget the dozen or so years of school, and the continued education required to stay up with continuing advances.

And that is just doctor costs.

Like stated above, the surgeon's lawyer tells them which tests to run, normally unneeded, but a must so that if the surgeon proves to be human, and gets sued, they are able to continue practicing since they did all they could to make sure the patient was covered 100%.

If only there was tort reform, and doctors were recognized as human and allowed to make honest mistakes. If doctors were perfect we would not have law suits and needed malpractice insurance and lawyers, but if they were, they would be called GOD. Unfortunately they are not.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Mandatory taxation for choosing not to abide the wishes of Government?

Can we label this as wholly un-Constitutional beforehand, or must we march on the Capitol with shells packed upon our backs?

 

[Armed-N-Ready]

What they wanted

It's all part of that "HOPE &CHANGE" they wanted last November.