Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
May I suggest:
Buy health insurance via an affordable guaranteed government option or be refused health care and barred from emergency rooms. Pay your share according to your abilities or suffer the natural consequences.
OK, a dumb suggestion. There will always be those who refuse, who won't play and pay, and we are too good-hearted to let them die on a sidewalk or in an auto accident just because they don't have an insurance card. Then who pays? We do one way or the other.
So what is the answer? Subsidize the foolish? Yep, we will continue to subsidize them.
All we can hope to do is reduce their numbers for their own good and the good of all of us and finding a way to force them to have insurance is the only way; well maybe not the only way, there's always full-on socialized medicine.
I fully understand the argument that those without health insurance place a burden on everyone, but there are many human behaviors that result in society picking up the tab. Anything that ends up in court places a burden on the taxpayer, but we don't force people to buy child-custody insurance, or divorce insurance. Government cannot and should not pick up the pieces for all bad human behavior. Besides, it is often hospitals and charitable organizations that pick up the tab for unpaid medical bills.
As I have stated before, in a utopian world, I would not be against a government option, but in this real world, I think it is a Trojan horse that will lead to single payer.
What I suggest would still be a burdon on society but it would carry a penalty for those who mooch. Take care of them in the emergency room, then if they can't pay their bill, have them serve a term in jail and work off the debt to society by cleaning trash on the roadside and paying for their keep in jail.
Any freebies should be paid back to society via manual labor. Freebies such as healthcare at others expense, foodstamps, subsidized housing etc.
That or they work in advance for vouchers and can use those vouchers for food, healthcare etc.
Don't forget Brian that many are entirely unable to physically work: age and tremendous physical and mental disabilities. Are you really going to push a 60 year old woman out on the road to pick up trash etc, cause at 60 she will not yet have qualified for Medicare/Aid. How would your plan work in such situations?
I understand Alan's comments. The difference between us is only priorities. My first priority is access to health care regardless of ability to pay the full going fare. Don't forget that not all health issues are due to personal health malfeasance. Health care insurance is just unavailable to some and out-of-bounds financially for many others. FEMA interventions, personal loss due to divorce (hence child custody issues), collapse of businesses (banking and auto come to mind!), etc all follow, in my mind, government's responsibility to ensure common basic health care.
Most of these people you refer to have families. Maybe their families could earn vouchers for their loved ones. Transferrable earned medical vouchers. Some plan like that. Sure there are always a very small contingent of citizens who do not have family due to a tragedy or something. We can alway find one or two exceptions.
You over-estimate the goodness of many families and their willingness to chip in. They are all willing (our included) to accept the socialized medical plans automatically given to those over 65, if we all had had to chip in for our grandparents needs for all the years they lived beyond 65, we might be singing a different tune. What about those who had only one child and those who had 9 (like ours), quite a burden for the one versus the burden for the nine.
It seems unfair to make it a law that you be required to have health insurance or you go to jail. There are people who simply cannot afford it. People are going to put a roof over their heads and food on their tables before they'll dish out for medical insurance. Even the public option will not be cheap and if they can't afford it, they can't afford it. Crimany...putting them in jail? What about the unemployeed or handicapped, or senior citizens that simply don't have enough income to pay the insurance. How do force them to pay? I don't understand how that could possibly work and be fair. Explain it to me.
Like all federal (and various state) programs, there will be a tiering of the prices that one can be forced to pay. For example, Medicare comes at various prices for various economics stratas.
This irks Republicans, but each according to one's ability to pay.
I know this conversation is over with (looking at the times written) but I must say, insurance CAN be forced on the citizens. Does not EVERY vehicle have insurance...you cannot register your car without proof of insurance and if you are pulled over without it you are given a HUGE ticket. If cars can me mandated to be insured...cannot people be mandated to be insured?
From our discussion page, I know you have a strong opinion about mandates. Would it not be sufficient for the mandate to be to insurance companies only, that they do not deny anyone insurance who wants it with a limit to the rate they can charge people with preexisting conditions?
Post a Comment