Fines Proposed for Going Without Health Insurance

jillio said:
Please indicate using sections of the bill any support for the fact that millions will be left uninsured. This is simply not fact.
Click to expand...
I was still referring to the CBO's analysis. This was in a letter to Charlie Rangel on July 17.

According to the preliminary analysis conducted by CBO and the JCT staff, once the proposed changes were fully implemented, the number of uninsured people would decline by 35 million to 37 million relative to our projections under current law—leaving about 16 million to 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured.
Click to expand...
Link (pdf file): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf

jillio said:
Because instituting it at state levels will not produce desired results.
Click to expand...
What are your reasons?
 
I would rather pay a $200 tax a month towards health reform instead of paying over $400 a month for health insurance in which doesnt cover all medical costs. To get my son's swine flu meds, if he had tested positive would have costed us close to $100 because our health insurance wont cover it.

If the taxes are lower than what I pay for my health insurance, then I would be happy because nobody would be uninsured and I wouldnt encounter surprise high medical bills.
 
jillio said:
Please indicate using sections of the bill any support for the fact that millions will be left uninsured. This is simply not fact.

Because instituting it at state levels will not produce desired results.
Click to expand...

And you don't have to go far into the bill to see that. I'm only at Section C and section 124 and I can already see that in H.R. 3200. I assume we are referring to the same bill?
 
Foxrac said:
It's nothing is new about her to worry about US government and believe in myth stuff.
Click to expand...

Foxrac, I would advice you to lay off my back. You need to focus on this issue instead of talkin' about me.

MODS: Please, advise that he needs to lay off. He kept talkin' about me in every thread I went when ever I share my opinions/POV and such.
 
deafskeptic said:
And you don't have to go far into the bill to see that. I'm only at Section C and section 124 and I can already see that in H.R. 3200. I assume we are referring to the same bill?
Click to expand...

To see that millions will be left uninsured?
 
jillio said:
Look at the long range predictions. This is not Instant Breakfast. Results will take time.
Click to expand...
The 16-17 million figure is the long range prediction. That's for the year 2019 and I can't find any further projections. Did I miss it? (Let me guess the response: "It's in there. Find it.")

jillio said:
Because state wide implementation is too varied and not comprehensive enough to create sufficient impact overall.
Click to expand...
There's nothing to keep the states from offering European style single-payer health care. At least it's constitutionally sound. The fact that it's varied is a good thing. States can learn from each other what works and what doesn't. If one state collapses financially, at least the damage is minimized. Also, there's no need for you or me to impose our solutions on each other or the nation as a whole. You can live in a state that adopts a solution with high government involvement and I can live in a state that adopts a more free-market approach and we can both be happy.
 
darkdog said:
The 16-17 million figure is the long range prediction. That's for the year 2019 and I can't find any further projections. Did I miss it? (Let me guess the response: "It's in there. Find it.")


There's nothing to keep the states from offering European style single-payer health care. At least it's constitutionally sound. The fact that it's varied is a good thing. States can learn from each other what works and what doesn't. If one state collapses financially, at least the damage is minimized. Also, there's no need for you or me to impose our solutions on each other or the nation as a whole. You can live in a state that adopts a solution with high government involvement and I can live in a state that adopts a more free-market approach and we can both be happy.
Click to expand...

It is still not comprehensive enough nor widely implemented enough to create an overall impact. What about the citizens of this country who don't have the option of moving to a state that has effected reform? We are the United States of America, not individual territories.
 
jillio said:
It is still not comprehensive enough nor widely implemented enough to create an overall impact. What about the citizens of this country who don't have the option of moving to a state that has effected reform? We are the United States of America, not individual territories.
Click to expand...

spoken like a true Federalist :lol:
 
jillio said:
It is still not comprehensive enough nor widely implemented enough to create an overall impact. What about the citizens of this country who don't have the option of moving to a state that has effected reform? We are the United States of America, not individual territories.
Click to expand...
If Ohio moves to single-payer, everyone in Ohio is covered! I think that would have a huge impact on Ohioans' lives, for better or for worse. If it works out, then granted, not everyone can up and move to Ohio, but they can push for the same reforms in their own states with appropriate adjustments to accommodate regional differences (something the states are more qualified to do than a bunch of guys in DC). Frankly, I'm more concerned about the hundreds of millions of Americans who won't have the option of moving to a different country if the federal government's plan becomes a big fat failure.

Entrusting the federal government to do this is quite a gamble. Yes, we all have our convictions and we're all pretty sure we're right, but we have to allow for the possibility that we're not. After all, anyone can be wrong on anything. There's a chance I could be wrong so that it is indeed possible to achieve the utopian dream of having a government run health care program that guarantees coverage to everyone regardless of income, decreases costs without hurting quality, does not need to ration, does not create shortages or long wait lists, does not limit innovation, runs without deficits, and is funded solely by the richest 5% of taxpayers. If it's possible, let's see a state achieve it first. If it's not possible, we'll really be shooting ourselves in the foot trying to make it happen at the federal level and the fact that we had "good intentions" at the time of the bill's passing will be of little comfort against the hard realities.

The way the Constitution was set up, most of the power was supposed to belong to the states. The federal government's purpose is mostly to defend the country and maintain peace among the states. The powers of Congress are specifically enumerated in the Constitution (mostly in article I section 8) and nothing in there allows congress to offer a public option or do most of the things in the bill. The typical justification is the general welfare clause. However, the way the people understood it at the time they ratified the Constitution, the general welfare clause really wasn't an enumerated power, but more of a preamble in article I section 8 to the enumerated powers that followed which were to be carried out for the general welfare. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 41, explained, "Nothing is more natural nor common that first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." The founding fathers specifically said it could not be used as justification for anything the federal government wanted to do ostensibly for "the general welfare".
 
ok - mandatory health insurance. a confusing issue.

we already have "socialized" health insurances called Tricare, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would like some of you to baby step us one by one so that we all can understand the issue better and better.

Medicaid - Medicare - Tricare
1. what's the difference between these?
2. Who is eligible for it?
3. What's good about it?
4. What's bad about it?
5. What kind of improvements are needed for these?
6. How is mandatory health insurance any different from these?
7. How is mandatory health insurance any better than these?
 
Jiro said:
ok - mandatory health insurance. a confusing issue.

we already have "socialized" health insurances called Tricare, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would like some of you to baby step us one by one so that we all can understand the issue better and better.

Medicaid - Medicare - Tricare
1. what's the difference between these?
2. Who is eligible for it?
3. What's good about it?
4. What's bad about it?
5. What kind of improvements are needed for these?
6. How is mandatory health insurance any different from these?
7. How is mandatory health insurance any better than these?
Click to expand...

Medicare is available to seniors. Once seniors retire, their employer sponsored health insurance is generally no longer available to them. Retirees would be swamped with the medical costs that come with age. Medicare was started as a way to combat this.

Medicaid is an insurance option for individuals and their families falling into the lowest SES categories.

What is good about it is that seniors and the individuals falling into the lowest SES do not have to forego health coverage.

What's bad about it is that it leaves a huge gap in coverage for individuals that do not qualify and cannot get insurance through employer sponsored programs or privately.

Improvements are needed in the way money is being spent, especially in Medicare, and Obama's proposal includes the reforms to do so.

Mandadory insurance would cover those that do not fall at either end of the spectrum for qualification in Medicare and Medicaid...in other words, the working poor, and self employed.

See above.

Obama just did a great job of answering all of these questions, and many more, in his speech to joint congress.
 
Jiro said:
ok - mandatory health insurance. a confusing issue.

we already have "socialized" health insurances called Tricare, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would like some of you to baby step us one by one so that we all can understand the issue better and better.

Medicaid - Medicare - Tricare
1. what's the difference between these?
2. Who is eligible for it?
3. What's good about it?
4. What's bad about it?
5. What kind of improvements are needed for these?
6. How is mandatory health insurance any different from these?
7. How is mandatory health insurance any better than these?
Click to expand...

TRICARE:

1. TRICARE is considered a benefit in exchange for military service. It is not a national "right." It is not bestowed upon people by virtue of their need, such as Medicaid, or their age, such as Medicare.


2. Who is eligible for it?

Eligibility

TRICARE is available to active duty service members and retirees of the seven uniformed services, their family members, survivors and others who are registered in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). The uniformed services include the:

* U.S. Army
* U.S. Air Force
* U.S. Navy
* U.S. Marine Corps
* U.S. Coast Guard
* Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service
* Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association

TRICARE is also available to members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families. Benefits will vary depending on the sponsor's military status.

Learn more about eligibility for members of the National Guard and Reserve.

TRICARE beneficiaries can be divided into two main categories: sponsors and family members. Sponsors include active duty service members, retired service members and National Guard/Reserve members. Family members are spouses and children who are registered in DEERS. Other eligible beneficiary categories include:

* Medal of Honor recipients and their family members
* Surviving family members whose sponsors have passed away on active duty
* Widows/widowers and children whose sponsors have passed away after retiring
* Un-remarried former spouses

Learn more about eligible beneficiary categories.

DEERS Registration is the Key
You must be registered in DEERS and have a valid uniformed services ID card. Sponsors are automatically registered in DEERS.

Learn more about DEERS.

Medicare Eligibility and TRICARE
Under Federal law, if you're a eligible for premium-free Medicare Part A for any reason, you must have Medicare Part B coverage to remain eligible for TRICARE, unless your sponsor is on active duty, you're enrolled in the US Family Health Plan or if you're enrolled in TRICARE Reserve Select.

Learn more about Medicare eligibility and TRICARE.

Deciding to Enroll
Deciding to enroll in any of the TRICARE health plans is an important one, but it is a personal decision. Only the following plans require you to enroll, and enrollment is not available to all beneficiaries in every plan. Click on any of the plans below to learn more.

* TRICARE Prime
* TRICARE Prime Remote
* TRICARE Prime Overseas
* TRICARE Global Remote Overseas
* TRICARE Reserve Select
* US Family Health Plan

Note: Active duty service members must enroll in TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Prime Remote, TRICARE Prime Overseas or TRICARE Global Remote Overseas depending on where they live and work.

http://tricare.mil/mybenefit/home/overview/Eligibility

Eligible Beneficiaries

* Approximately 9.4 million



3. & 4. Depends on the plan--each one is different.

People who use Tricare also pay into Medicare.
 
darkdog said:
If Ohio moves to single-payer, everyone in Ohio is covered! I think that would have a huge impact on Ohioans' lives, for better or for worse. If it works out, then granted, not everyone can up and move to Ohio, but they can push for the same reforms in their own states with appropriate adjustments to accommodate regional differences (something the states are more qualified to do than a bunch of guys in DC). Frankly, I'm more concerned about the hundreds of millions of Americans who won't have the option of moving to a different country if the federal government's plan becomes a big fat failure.

Entrusting the federal government to do this is quite a gamble. Yes, we all have our convictions and we're all pretty sure we're right, but we have to allow for the possibility that we're not. After all, anyone can be wrong on anything. There's a chance I could be wrong so that it is indeed possible to achieve the utopian dream of having a government run health care program that guarantees coverage to everyone regardless of income, decreases costs without hurting quality, does not need to ration, does not create shortages or long wait lists, does not limit innovation, runs without deficits, and is funded solely by the richest 5% of taxpayers. If it's possible, let's see a state achieve it first. If it's not possible, we'll really be shooting ourselves in the foot trying to make it happen at the federal level and the fact that we had "good intentions" at the time of the bill's passing will be of little comfort against the hard realities.

The way the Constitution was set up, most of the power was supposed to belong to the states. The federal government's purpose is mostly to defend the country and maintain peace among the states. The powers of Congress are specifically enumerated in the Constitution (mostly in article I section 8) and nothing in there allows congress to offer a public option or do most of the things in the bill. The typical justification is the general welfare clause. However, the way the people understood it at the time they ratified the Constitution, the general welfare clause really wasn't an enumerated power, but more of a preamble in article I section 8 to the enumerated powers that followed which were to be carried out for the general welfare. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 41, explained, "Nothing is more natural nor common that first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." The founding fathers specifically said it could not be used as justification for anything the federal government wanted to do ostensibly for "the general welfare".
Click to expand...

Again, impact on one state's residents does not create an impact on the other state's residents. Just like tort reform, proposed by you, in several states that place malpractice caps have not significantly reduced medical costs in either that state nor across the board.
 
jillio said:
Again, impact on one state's residents does not create an impact on the other state's residents.
Click to expand...
That's sort of the point. If Ohio passes a program that turns into a huge failure of a boondoggle, at least the damage is limited and people outside Ohio are not impacted. However, if Ohio manages to create a medical utopia with all pros and no cons, other states like Texas can take note and model it.

Are you saying that there's zero possibility that this will not work out as well as the supporters claim? Do you suppose there might be some non-zero possibility the critics are right? If so, we're essentially putting all our money into one stock that we really think is going to go up. I'd rather spread my money across 50 stocks to minimize the damage from any one going south.

jillio said:
Just like tort reform, proposed by you, in several states that place malpractice caps have not significantly reduced medical costs in either that state nor across the board.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Here's a good article that sums up Texas' experience pretty well including the pros and cons. Smaller malpractice awards draw doctors to Texas, but limit claims - The Boston Globe

While curbing abusive litigation won't come close to solving all of our problems, it will help a great deal. It's estimated that frivolous lawsuits are responsible for around 10% of our health care costs, the vast majority of which comes from practicing defensive medicine (i.e. ordering unneeded tests solely to avoid lawsuits).

Malpractice caps are not the only way to go and I think a loser pays system would work better. Still, I'd rather have the states try it before imposing some grand experiment on the whole country.
 
darkdog said:
That's sort of the point. If Ohio passes a program that turns into a huge failure of a boondoggle, at least the damage is limited and people outside Ohio are not impacted. However, if Ohio manages to create a medical utopia with all pros and no cons, other states like Texas can take note and model it.

Are you saying that there's zero possibility that this will not work out as well as the supporters claim? Do you suppose there might be some non-zero possibility the critics are right? If so, we're essentially putting all our money into one stock that we really think is going to go up. I'd rather spread my money across 50 stocks to minimize the damage from any one going south.


That's not true. Here's a good article that sums up Texas' experience pretty well including the pros and cons. Smaller malpractice awards draw doctors to Texas, but limit claims - The Boston Globe

While curbing abusive litigation won't come close to solving all of our problems, it will help a great deal. It's estimated that frivolous lawsuits are responsible for around 10% of our health care costs, the vast majority of which comes from practicing defensive medicine (i.e. ordering unneeded tests solely to avoid lawsuits).

Malpractice caps are not the only way to go and I think a loser pays system would work better. Still, I'd rather have the states try it before imposing some grand experiment on the whole country.
Click to expand...

Again, you cannot impose it state by state and determine the impact nationally.

You are aware that the current bill contains protections for doctors from frivolous lawsuits? It is a part of the currently proposed reform. It is but one part of the overall reform.

The vast majority of medical cost increase comes from the amount of money hospitals and doctors loose when treating the uninsured, not from malpractice suits.
 
Back
Top