It'll be Simpler Just to Pay the Fine (unemployment, insurance, companies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I could pay $75 or $100 a month to cover myself with health insurance vs trying to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars should I become afflicted with a catastrophic disease - I would be stupid not to pay the $100 a month.
That is a monthly cable bill for some people. And its the monthly pizza and beer cost for others.
Why are people willing to spend money on crap while willing to forego something as important as medical coverage?
Where do you figure you will only pay 75-100 a month for an insurance policy?
Thanks for your response,I want to make a couple of points.First Blue Shield is a non profit,and my understanding of the HC bill is that non profits will not be part of the state exchanges.That was part of the Baucus bill right from the start and the {R} leadership made a huge mistake by not supporting.
I would consider that plan as a free market approach due to the fact that insurance companies would have to compete with non profits thus driving down cost.Of course the insurance companies would be at a huge disadvantage considering they are seeking profits on everyones misery.
The Baucus plan that the {R}s should have supported also included a sliding scale,example a 20 year old would be in a plan with low payments and a high deductible.Which would work for that age group since a majority of them have no HC needs.
Then when they age they are kicked up into a different bracket with more being paid for coverage.Which is fair to them instead of the present bill where the only division is are they single or family.And it also makes them subsidize the older generation.
But if by some miracle there is a plan in the 100 to 150$ range to cover myself I will get HC insurance,I do not think that will be the case and I will just pay the fine.
Under current Federal law....if a hospital accepts federal dollars i.e medicare reimbursement; they cannot refuse to treat someone who shows up in the E.R. So, if you are in a car accident or have the flu or fall down and break your arm...the hospital has to treat you whether you have insurance or not. Does this new bill change that?? If it doesnt, then some people will just pay the fine of $750/yr and show up in the E.R. for treatment or pay the fine until you need health care...then buy the insurance, get treated until you are well...then drop the insurance again and pay the fines.
The er is only obligated to treat emergencies. You get a pain and it turns out to be ms or cancer then you are out the door. Paying your fine won't help you then.
Thank you for completely ignoring the entire point of my post, and zeroing in on a stereotyped example chosen specifically because of the stereotype...
You've demonstrated two things with your reply. First, you don't have the capacity to counter the actual content of the post. Second, you thought I was being literal with the Starbucks comment. Put both those things together, and what it says about you isn't very complimentary.
What a stupid attitude......... "i'd rather pay a fine and have NO health care than pay a premium and have healthcare"............ This must be a close contender for the most stupid argument against the health bill award.
The fine is cheaper than the premium, correct?
The bill requires insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, correct?
The bill prohibits insurers from turning down an applicant, correct?
The bill requires insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, correct?
The bill prohibits insurers from turning down an applicant, correct?
Think about it.
I'm surprised very few people can understand that. Insurance is going to get expensive as hell though, because so many people will drop for that very reason.
Ok, so nobody likes the mandate. And nobody is going to be able to afford the insurance we're required to buy now. So what's the simple solution?
Just pay the fine. Look on it as just another tax that happens to be 2% of your gross salary. Find ways to cut a little here and there to make up for the lost income.
Which would you rather have to be responsible for paying (other than neither, which is not an option), a 2% fine and be done with it, or a $15,000 annual tab for your family's insurance which really doesn't insure your family at all?
That may be what they in reality want. More money in government coffers.
If anyone actually believes that Pelosi and Reid actually care about you and your health, you're more naive than I ever imagined.
This is what the snake oil salespeople in DC are counting on people paying for extra $$$ in their coffers IMO.
The stupidity of the OP's argument as well as that of the Republicans is that in most states we are required to have liability auto insurance and they raised much less of a stink (if any) about that. And the owner of the auto liability insurance will never see a benefit in caring liability insurance unless they have an accident which is their fault.
Can any of the supporters show me the part of the constitution which requires that I pay some of my earnings to a private company for me own good?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
