Health bill individual mandate Those who go without insurance would pay a fine of up to 2.5% of adjusted gross income. So people who, after the government subsidy, still cant afford healthcare would be penalized by further loss of income?
That’s how Barack rolls
it doesn’t- kinda like the argument that we mandated car insurance years ago. to my knowledge driving is a choice… I guess the same could be said for existing?
This is just pure speculation. But perhpas this is a backdoor way to universal healthcare? I can see how people will scream that these uninsured are getting dinged when they can’t afford it… so we need universal. Again, just speculation, I have no evidence.
Why does everyone need car insurance, if they are willing to pay out of pocket for damages? Sure, premiums would go up a bit for the people who do choose to get insurance, since it would then have to cover accidents with uninsured drivers. However, I imagine that this would be offset by the decrease resulting from people not being forced to have insurance in the first place.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why does everyone need car insurance, if they are > willing to pay out of pocket for damages? Sure, > premiums would go up a bit for the people who do > choose to get insurance, since it would then have > to cover accidents with uninsured drivers. > However, I imagine that this would be offset by > the decrease resulting from people not being > forced to have insurance in the first place. Because liability car insurance is to protect other people, and damages you cause to them. Health insurance has nothing to do with other people…it’s all about self. I agree w/akanska. The comparison is ridiculous, yet everyone seems to just nod their heads and go along with it like it actually makes sense.
But can’t we just force people to pay for damages that they cause by crashing their car into stuff, regardless of whether or not they have insurance? It’s just a question of risk tolerance - that is, the risk is that you have to pay $$$ to repair your own car, or someone else’s property if you crash your car.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why does everyone need car insurance, if they are > willing to pay out of pocket for damages? Sure, > premiums would go up a bit for the people who do > choose to get insurance, since it would then have > to cover accidents with uninsured drivers. > However, I imagine that this would be offset by > the decrease resulting from people not being > forced to have insurance in the first place. you can do this. Both in cali and in texas you can not have insurance if you can prove you can cover the min liability levels out of pocket or with bond.
I think the idea is to avoid having the very wealthy self-insure. If you don’t have enough for insurance, your AGI is probably on the low side already.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you can do this. Both in cali and in texas you can > not have insurance if you can prove you can cover > the min liability levels out of pocket or with > bond. Really? Hmm… I would be interested in learning more about such things. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
^well that’s obvious but if you’re struggling to meet payments as it is with a $20K salary, and then the government swoops in and takes $500 more away from you as a penalty for not meeting its new requirements, that just doesnt seem right.
There are four ways to ensure financial responsibility that are approved by this state (cali) A person can make a cash deposit of 35,000 dollars with the Department of Motor Vehicles. This is a very expensive approach to assuring financial responsibility but it is an option. Another approach involves a 35,000 surety bond that is issued to a company licensed to conduct business in California. Some drivers choose to be self insured if they own fleets of more than twenty-five vehicles. These individuals need to have a certificate proving their self-insured status with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Drivers can also opt to simply purchase auto coverage policies instead. California car insurance is the most popular approach to establishing financial responsibility in this state. [this is a google copy/paste]
The fact of the matter is that people go without insurance because they know that if they get sick, doctors in emergency rooms are obligated to treat them. This causes the people that do have insurance to have to pay more because the money to pay the doctors for the free treatment has to come from some where. The idea of forcing insurance companies to cover someone with a preexisting condition only works if you force EVERYONE to buy insurance. The whole point of insurance is to draw from a big enough pool that when one person is unlucky enough to get a dreaded disease there will be enough money in the pool to cover it. Allowing people to wait until they get a disease just guarantees that the only people buying insurance are the ones with diseases and the whole pool collapses. Many people who don’t buy insurance could afford it but they would prefer to buy big screen tv’s then spend the money on something as mundaine as insurance. Just ask my wife. She is a teacher of the visually impaired and most of the kids that she teaches have parents who are on public assistance. What is amazing is that when she goes to their house to do the lessons she notices that both parents have iphones (i don’t have an iphone)…they usually have a big flat screen tv (I still have a clunky box)…and…well here is the funny part…they have no furniture…no decent clothes for the kids…and are usually trying to get her to advocate for them so they can get additional assistance from the state. The facts are that many people will cover their wants long before they cover their needs because in this country it has become standard to assume that the government is going take care of your needs for you.
^there’s a difference between being poor and being an idiot
jg, so what you are saying is that we need to insure people against their own stupidity? I guess it’s sort of hard to argue against that…
Jscott24 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^there’s a difference between being poor and being > an idiot I agree… but is it worth distinguishing causation and correlation in such things when we’re talking about social policy?
jg1996business Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The facts are that > many people will cover their wants long before > they cover their needs because in this country it > has become standard to assume that the government > is going take care of your needs for you. So we’ll just be reinforcing that behavior. Fantastic.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the idea is to avoid having the very > wealthy self-insure. Close. The best case scenario for the government is that the wealthy do self-insure and are forced to pay the tax thus paying for the health care of those that can’t afford it. What’s more, small business owners that don’t provide a health care option would also be subject to the tax. “Government is the illusion whereby everyone can live off the wealth of everyone else.”
Here is the problem. You make 50k/year and you pay a fine of $1250/year for not having health insurance. My highly subsidized plan from my company charges me $120/month = $1440/year. Here’s what will happen: people will go without health care coverage because it’s a lot cheaper. When they get sick, they will sign up for private health insurance because the new law will force insurance companies to take people with preconditions. Result: everyone else’s premiums will rise drastically to cover people with pre-existing conditions.