buy a $15000 dollar policy or go to jail
 

pelosi health care bill

well, this should end well.

I know that i'll resist this on simple principal.

I really hate Democratic leadership sometimes. Christ, what a mess this party is

Article 1 Section 8 of your beloved Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes". That's pretty definitive. And last I looked, tax evasion was still a crime. So... What's the principle you'd resist this on?

Oh yeah, I remember: Democrats are doing it. Silly me.

This is what happens when they try to craft a bill with insurance reforms like covering pre-conditions etc.. while trying to maintain the mostly private health insurance nature of our employer based system. The only way to keep rates from going up to pay the additional cost of the reforms is to force everyone to purchase a policy bringing in millions of new policy holders.

IMHO they should be proposing a single payer system that includes everyone but politically I guess it can't be done at this time. Those interested in keeping the status quo have bought the votes of too many of our politicians.

To me there theory is that if more people are covered then the risk pool will be larger thus lowering insurance premiums for everyone. The problem with that is that the people who can't afford insurance now have no way to afford it once it's mandated that they must. So without some sort of public OPTION I can't see how this is going to be possible. Insurance companies aren't going to lower premiums out of the goodness of their hearts because they would go bankrupt if they did. So it seems like we are back to square one. I wouldn't be suprised if this bill fails miserably.

Where's the 15,000 figure come from?

I was sort of wondering that myself. The only figure I see is 2.5%. I suppose if you make $600 000 per year that could be relevant, but if that's the case I think you can probably afford it.

Well if you follow the link to the GOP scare tactic site it does indeed claim you'll be forced to pay for 15,000 policy by 2016. To prove it they link to a CBO page that states-


Which mentions 15k but doesn't state that's going to be the cost to a family. Pretty standard GOP tactic... when the facts aren't on your side scare the crap out of people. Either that or claim it will lead to gay marriage.

I think slapping a 30,000 dollar tax or go to prison is more than justification enough. The congress can suck my ass because at this point, this 'tax' is not only excessive, but it's also 2/3rds of my annual income. So I guess it'd be great to have health insurance but be homeless. NOT HAPPENING!!!!! So yes, i'll resist and resist with every bit of violent force I can muster.

no, not even.

one other thing: Article 1 Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes" applies ONLY to paying for general welfare shit, NOT to give it to health insurance companies.

[QUOTE=dksuddeth;2726151]I think slapping a 30,000 dollar tax or go to prison is more than justification enough. The congress can suck my ass because at this point, this 'tax' is not only excessive, but it's also 2/3rds of my annual income. So I guess it'd be great to have health insurance but be homeless. NOT HAPPENING!!!!! So yes, i'll resist and resist with every bit of violent force I can muster.



Dude, you can't seriously think that you are going to have to pay 30k in taxes. Not unless you make well over half a million a year...which you may I don't know. But if you think you're going to pay 2/3 of your income in taxes I don't know what to tell you other than that will never happen, nor is it even being remotely proposed.

Wow, now we're up to 30K! Nicely done. I mean if 16K doesn't scare the crap out of people surly 30K will.

You didn't happen to read the relevant CBO statement did you?

According to those guidelines, one might end up paying over $30 000. Y'know, if one makes $250 000 or more per year. So, not quite as stunningly rich, but still pretty damn well-to-do.

I want your job, dk.

For the record, I think mandating insurance without including some sort of public option is a horrible idea, as well. Fortunately I have a commie single-payer system to fall back on, so I don't have to worry about it.

But let's try to keep things relevant to the discussion, here. Scare-mongering just makes you look foolish.

going by the understanding that it would have been 15k per policy, and that I have two people to insure (myself and my disabled wife) yes, I come up with 30k.

No, but having now read it and applying the percentages they state in the report, I can expect to pay nearly 6,000 on a 'tax' to buy a mandatory health insurance policy. On an already tight budget where I scramble to pay an electric bill every month. Nice.

I'm curious, do you have insurance now? If so is it employer paid, or do you own an individual policy for you and your wife?

I was wondering when violence or guns, or violent force was going to make an appearance in this thread, it always does in all your threads dk, just a matter of time, you like talking about resisting with violence a lot, but that appears all it is, a whole lot of talk.

I bet the next cost will be 100 million dollars coming from the repubs, that'll scare the crap out people.

I dunno but I have a feeling if the Republicans was trying to do this most here would be up in arms but since it originated with the Democrats it's ok.

I hope soon we all start looking past this Democrat/Republican shit and realize we are all in this together. There is some middle class people that aren't going to be able to afford this bill. Especially the one's that are right above the imaginary line that is undoubtedly drawn in the sand between the full government ride and the one's that can "afford" it. Another point to make is 6 weeks ago the insurance companies was the bad guys of this debate and now we see they have their hands all over it. Not only have they managed to mandate everyone have auto insurance now they have weaseled health insurance out of everyone. Not to mention that promise "not raising taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year" huh?

If you had paid attention & read further, there will still be the "Public Option", which a lot of people forget, ls Still Their Choice - not just 1 option mandated by our Government. The USA will still provide "options" unlike so many other countries.

I've got my healthcare down to about $2,400 a year now thanks to a bit of creative accounting, but the deductibles are quite high. If anyone's having serious trouble, PM me and I might be able to offer some suggestions.

Healthcare should only be compulsory if it's universal. Passing a corrupted "public option" and then mandating coverage is a gift to the insurance companies and a slap in the face to everyone that can't afford it.

I was simply stating my point of view here. My criticism is primarily of dksuddeth's numbers, which appear to be coming from some made up bogeyman.

Regarding comparisons of healthcare in various countries (including comparison of single payer systems with the current US healthcare structure), we've discussed that here extensively in the past and I have no particular interest in revisiting the subject. If you're interested in that sort of thing, I might suggest starting here.

Reading is fundamental.

This bill reads as if it was written by and for the insurance industry. The watered down public option will be available to very few people and most will have no option but to buy from a private insurance company. Even the small public option in the current bill will probably not get enouigh votes to pass the Senate and will have to be eliminated from the final bill.

I am tired of hearing the rhetoric from some proponents of this bill who say,
"If you like your current insurance, you can keep it, but if you are not happy with it you can purchase it elsewhere".
This only applies to the small percentage who do not get their insurance through their employer.

I have no insurance right now. unaffordable. The wife has lost hers because it can no longer be paid for due to other circumstances. With a serious pre-existing condition, high risk pool would make it even more expensive.

I truely am sorry for that. Does she not qualify for social security disability?

DK, I sort of remember you mentioning that your wife might need to seek
help through Medicare.

I had to go the Social Security disability route to qualify,
and it was not an easy path, but doable.

I'm kind of stuck now living on $758.00 dollars a month, (I'm 50 yrs.old and single)
but the Medicare coverage I consider worth it, as flawed as the current sytem is.

I know I'm not really addressing the OP,
but I just wanted to say,
I know the stressors involved with having someone you love needing care,
and wondering how and if it's going to happen.

I wish you and your wife all the best.
These are difficult times indeed.

I don't feel like it'd be appropriate for me to argue what I see as the best answer for the medical industry by using DK's wife in my illustration.

What I can say is that I sincerely hope she gets better and you guys are able to get into a better situation.

"One million dollars."

Well, call me cynical, but since the republicans have lied with every breath they take since the health reform thing started this time around, I'm just going to assume this is complete and utter bullshit.

she does, hopefully. we've had lawyers working on it for about 9 months now. we're also hoping to get her on medicare as quickly as possible.

I wish you luck with that. I know it is an extremely difficult process to go through.

Well having fought with an insurance company to the point where I had to hire an attorney to get them to pay claims they were clearly responsible for under my policy I truly and honestly feel for you and hope she's gets on SS disability and medicare. But after reading your posts it really sounds like you're absolutely and completely against any socialized national health care program... which is exactly what medicare is. I read many of your posts and it seems you hate the federal government and want it to stay completely out of your life. It fact you often state you're willing to take up arms against the federal government. So why would you sign up for a national federal health care program? Seems to go against all your principles.

I typed up and then abandoned this exact same question, put about 1/100th as tactfully as Tully just did.

dk, while I honestly wish for the best for you and your wife, it sure seems like your mouth and your feet are headed in opposite directions on this one. Will you please speak to that?

For the record I received a PM from DK detailing some info he would prefer to remain private. Understandable given the situation. The health of a loved one is a very private matter. I can respect that. But I think the issues and questions being asked could be addressed without discussing any private information.

I think it would be nice if DK could take some time to explain his logic. Cause I'm still lost on it.

Honestly DK's posts remind me of a neighbor I once had who campaigned against a local fire dept bond measure. The measure failed and a couple years later his barn burned down. Then he bitched it took the fire dept. too long to respond... duh, their tanker truck was over 30yrs old and about half of their radios didn't work.

for those wishing to hear an explanation or clarification from me, here goes. I believe most people on here know my political stances as Libertarian. This does not make me an anarchist, nor does it make me an anti-government person. What this means is that I am 'limited' government, as the founders intended. The more you allow government to control things, the more they control you and the events in your life. Now, some people have no problem with this governmental control in their lives, but I do. It's been a repeated event in history that the more power you give a government, the more of your freedom you end up surrendering.

That being said, I'm finding myself in between the rock and the hard place with the health care reform. The authoritarians on here want government to intervene and control prices of medical care so that it's affordable for all involved. I believe this is the wrong way to reform health care. I also am having to face the prospect of resignedly participating in a government health care program for the private reasons as discussed earlier. Does this mean, to some here, that I should willingly accept a socialized health reform program because I may be coerced in to having to participate? If so, i'm sorry to inform you that it doesn't.

I don't know what else to really say except that my mixed emotions about this whole episode in my life, and my spouses life, have probably resulted in an even further positioning of my ideologies. Some would probably call it extreme. So be it.

I do know for certain that the mandate or prison portion has solidified my resolve. I will not submit. I will resist by any means necessary. most of you will not want to understand that position. That's a shame for you. At some point in your lives, you will unfortunately realize that you surrendered too much liberty, too freely, and will be too late to do anything about it.

If a DK falls in the woods and no one is around to hear him... does he utter anti-government my-cold-dead-hands sentiment?

Red Dawn Law: If a thread mentions the U.S. Constitution, there is a 75% chance it will involve white men blithering about armed rebellion.

...

No, seriously... this talk of sensational .01% scenarios is about as campy as the script of The Day After Tomorrow.

The numbers are FOX-o-Vision wishy-washy and the aforementioned penalty structure simply represents a typical legal action buffer window.

You say you'll do X if they don't follow The Plan, but you'll really only go as far as G. Law school - bargaining 101.

...

I hope nobody gets shot up during the rebellion... they should know they can't afford the medical bills.

...

You mean our tax dollars are required for services like police, fire, EMS, and DoT?! Inconceivable!

I do know for certain that the mandate or prison portion has solidified my resolve. I will not submit. I will resist by any means necessary. most of you will not want to understand that position. That's a shame for you. At some point in your lives, you will unfortunately realize that you surrendered too much liberty, too freely, and will be too late to do anything about it.[/QUOTE]


While I'm sympathetic to your situation, this statement is rediculous. You aren't going to purchase insurance, nor are you going to pay the tax associated with not purchasing insurance? And how will that in any way help your situation? Having principles is all well and good until they directly harm your family and loved ones. Are you really going to punish your wife because you don't believe in this legislation?

I think where some see governmental control other s see governmental assistance.

People aren't good and evil, nor is the government. My daughter is currently serving in the US Coast Guard. Last summer she participated in 14 at sea rescues in the Gulf of Mexico. She's no longer at that station and is assigned to shore duty. But I like the fact that if I'm at sea in the US coastal waters and have a problem I know I can radio the Coast Guard and they'll do their damnedest to come help me. I like my tax dollars going to such efforts.

My parents are both on medicare. I like that they have health insurance they can afford. I think everyone should have such coverage.

That said there's a bevy of other uses of my tax dollars I'd prefer to see used differently then they are being currently.

Thanks for not whitewashing the conflict, dk, and I do get the moral agita it causes you.

However, to have it further dig your heels in is counter-intuitive and, from my perspective, regrettable. I would think it would embolden you to go to work for others in your situation, not to harden your stance that such people get further screwed. But then maybe I'm a pragmatist and you're an idealist.

This is a common stand for people that need to have the constitution interpreted as a 'living' document. It's necessary so they can use the force of government to mandate their own personal view of america, with the courts tyrannical position that is.
In reality, it's very easy to know what the founders intended, for those with the intellectual honesty and integrity to actually READ the debate papers, federalist papers, and anti-federalist papers. It also helps to read essays from constitutional scholars that were produced in the 10-20 years AFTER the ratification. I know that's too hard for some people to do because that would put an end to their agenda, but that's just how it is.


k, whatever.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

My wife stands solidly behind my principles, so she is not being punished. I'm sure lots and lots of progressives are going to call myself and those who think like me ridiculous, or other less polite names, and that's fine. At some point, the progressives are either going to consider my death or imprisonment 'necessary' in order to continue their totalitarian agenda or they will have to reconsider what they are doing when enough of us are killed in the process of their enforcement. Either way, I stood by my principles while you live with my blood on your hands.

Wait, why are they going to consider your death necessary? One man and over a few thousand dollars? GTFO.

This is rich. You don't see mercenaries with Visa or Mastercard patches doing drive-bys in suburbia, do you?

Next thing you'll be trying to convince us is that the IRS has roving death squads in middle class America.

[/COLOR]

My wife stands solidly behind my principles, so she is not being punished. I'm sure lots and lots of progressives are going to call myself and those who think like me ridiculous, or other less polite names, and that's fine. At some point, the progressives are either going to consider my death or imprisonment 'necessary' in order to continue their totalitarian agenda or they will have to reconsider what they are doing when enough of us are killed in the process of their enforcement. Either way, I stood by my principles while you live with my blood on your hands.[/QUOTE]

Are there any taxes you are for? if so what are they? The punishment for not paying any tax is a fine or inprisonment, so I really have no idea what you are objecting to. The governmet uses tax dollars for all sorts of things that I feel are unnecessary, but not paying my taxes puts me in jail and for no good reason. They aren't going to change their minds simply because I didn't pay my taxes. And an armed revolution against the US army is beyond absurd, you will be dead in minutes, again for no good reason. You will be labeled a nutcase finatic like the mcvey's of the country and no change would come about.

The great thing about people who espouse a mantra of "armed rebellion" against a "tyrannical government" is that despite everything they bitch about, it's never QUITE enough to actually go through with said rebellion. If you believe them, the camel has a million straws on its back, but it's never quite enough to break

As an intelligent Libertarian, I know and understand that SOME taxes are necessary to pay for certain things, like interstate maintenance, military hardware and troop support, and unfortunately paying treasonous politicians their unearned salaries. It's also, again, completely and totally intellectually dishonest to mandate that I buy an insurance policy and call it a tax. We all know its not, yet most are quite willing to bend the definition of words as long as it gets them what they want. I'm not.


I'm not talking an armed revolution against the army. I'm one man and know that I have no chance at all. I'm simply stating that IF/WHEN the government sends armed agents to arrest me for not complying with their unconstitutional mandate or paying their tax/penalty, I will resist. That will inevitably wind up with lethal and deadly force being employed. I have no illusions of the outcome.

Read his last post. The Man is going to have to make him resist.

[QUOTE=dksuddeth;2726902]As an intelligent Libertarian, I know and understand that SOME taxes are necessary to pay for certain things, like interstate maintenance, military hardware and troop support, and unfortunately paying treasonous politicians their unearned salaries. It's also, again, completely and totally intellectually dishonest to mandate that I buy an insurance policy and call it a tax. We all know its not, yet most are quite willing to bend the definition of words as long as it gets them what they want. I'm not.


This tax isn't any different from any other tax in america. You don't have to buy insurance, if you don't you pay a higher tax. Just like you don't have to smoke cigarettes, but if you do you are going to pay a HUGE tax on them. Neither is illegal or unconstitutional.

Wait, I can't be the first one to mention the bittersweet irony behind the idea "I'd rather die than pay for health care."

Maybe I missed it.

Yeah, I was trying to work in the "Live Free or Die" thing, too.

From what I read you're in a situation where you can not afford health care, health care a family member needs. You're not thrilled about enrolling in a government run health care system and you do not believe in having a system where the government is "to intervene and control prices of medical care so that it's affordable for all involved."

What type of health care program are you in favor of?

you truly do not see that this 'tax' is in actuality a penalty for non compliance? is this any different than a poll tax? if you want to vote, you're going to pay extra? Or if this were a tax increase on people who refuse a flu vaccine? it's a 'tax' that is levied on a specific class of people, those that don't buy mandatory health coverage. I can't help but think we've really lost all concept of the constitution if people can really justify this and call it constitutional.

I understand your convictions about the constitution, I really do. But a document written 200+years ago was designed to change with the times. It has to in order to sustain our country. If we were never allowed to change/expand on our original constitution we would have failed as a nation a very long time ago.

If we're concerned about the wishes of our founding fathers, shouldn't we be pissed that America isn't a Roman utopia of masonic ideals?

Honestly. Aren't we supposed to be much more agrarian?

Okay, who's gonna pick the cotton?

I've never heard a strict-constructionist-framers-intentionalist explain what the intent was behind the amendment procedure. Why do you think they wrote that in there? And since they did, do you really think they didn't intend for us to use it?

Was it a misuse of the amendment procedure to abolish slavery in the 13th Amendment? To grant the vote to people other than white men in the 15th and 19th Amendments? Was it a violation of all we hold sacred to limit the President to two terms in the 22nd? Are you still hopping mad about giving Washington DC representation in the Electoral College like those treasonous bastards did in the 23rd?

Not a single one of those things could have been foreseen by the framers. And that last one is a good example. DC wasn't the residential center that it is today when the constitution was written. There really weren't civilian residents there to represent, in any substantial numbers. But times (like they do) changed. That change required a change in the makeup of the body intended to represent the populace in electing their President. So the amendment procedure was used to keep the document (gasp) alive and relevant.

There are plenty of DC residents lobbying for a constitutional amendment to give DC representation in Congress. Would that violate the framer's precious intent? Did they intend to have a major US city have no representation? They certainly didn't say anything about DC having congressional representation in the document they wrote! They must have intended that people living in DC have no representation, then! Why do you think they intended that? It couldn't possibly be that their foresight was limited and they knew it and so gave us the power to adapt their document, could it?

IMO being literal and about the Constitution is almost as ridiculous as being literal about the Bible, and leads to nearly as nonsensical outcomes.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

Whoever it is, you're gonna have to pay for their health insurance!

Ya know, I'd gladly pay $15000 right now to have healthcare for the rest of my life.

I'm trying to understand the logic. The individual mandate for health care, which really only requires people to purchase private insurance, is somehow going to lead inexorably to a totalitarian state of government. That would be the same totalitarianism that refers to a type of government that has total control over all aspects of its citizen's lives. Let's ignore for the moment that getting from individual mandate to totalitarianism is a ludicrous leap.

So then, after you refuse to obey the laws of this country by engaging in tax evasion, and you either wind up in prison for a short time or are given a fine, we will have your blood somehow on our hands.

It's good to see that you were able to make a visit to the hyperbole fairy today.

P.S. It's really just that health care is what's being debated at the moment, right? Because somehow libertarians were able to stomach the federal income tax, state income tax, local property taxes, sales taxes, toll roads, mandatory car insurance, and innumerable other government sources of revenue up until this point. Something tells me that a few years from now most libertarians will be telling us that with universal health care now in place and precisely zero evidence of totalitarianism, the U.S. is thisclose to totalitarianism and god help us if we raise the marginal tax rate by half a percent.

the whole "intention of the founding fathers" thing is such a red herring. At least the Catholic church has a god and an infallibility doctrine to support it when it makes claims like that.

Yeah, and isn't it funny that people who get all stompy about the framers intentions have the same intentions they ascribe to their beloved framers? Coincidence much?

Social Security always says "No" initially, unless you're blind or missing a limb. It's pretty automatic. Any lawyer with even a modicum of talent can get your wife on SS Disability on the first appeal. The good news is - as soon as she's approved, the Disability will be retroactive to her time of becoming disabled, which means you'll get a pretty nice check if it's been awhile. Minus the attorney's 30%, of course.

And, as you know already, anyone on Social Security Disability is eligible for Medicare - which is another name for that "evil" public option.

The bad news is - once you start(ed) to make over $30k per year, her SS becomes taxable income. I know - it's totally fucked up, but it's the truth. You'll need to plan for that or face an ugly surprise from the IRS come tax time.

Folks,

The biggest single reason for my lack of support of the healthcare plan is this.

The government has proven over and over that it is incapable of running these types of programs. Do we need reform? Damned right! But do we want another government run program? Hell no! See all the other bankrupt efforts..... social security, medicare and medicaid the list goes on and on (hence our deficits - this isn't a Republican / Democrat issue, they are both capable of running amuck on spending). Bush did it and Obama is surpassing W's irresponsible pace . You absolutely cannot run private interest business in competion with government non profit (sic) programs. All you accomplish is bankrupting the viable business and then the program that replced it. Fix it , don't wipe it out!

The second item is how do we (you and I) pay for it??? Expanding the risk pool to bring down costs is poppycock. I got to make those decisions for my former employer for the last few years and I can assure you as we grew from 90 folks to 500 folks our costs didn't go down, nor did our major cases go down, they increased seemingly at an exponential rate. Sure it is a microcosm, but it provided a real life case.

For the record those that make $600K will pay 150K in federal tax (probably close to the minimum) and from 0-as much as $40K in State taxes, depending on the state they live in, assuming they give a bunch of money to charities. And substantially more on both counts if they do not.

Expanding the risk pool will absolutely bring down costs. That's how insurance works. Your particular case is not a typical example of this. The more people contributing to the over all reserve pool for insurance the cheaper the premiums will be.

I guess I left out one key component. The additions must all be paying the fullfare premiums, and I hardly think this will be the case.

is it constitutional to force people by law to carry car insurance ? do you skip out on that ? that's a $500 fine in my state.

maybe you missed some of the other posts where it details and defines that it's not the federal government that mandates you buy auto insurance? Your state does that. It is state law. It's done that way because congress KNEW (at that time anyway) that they had no authority to do that, so they told the states that they would withhold federal highway funding to any state that didn't mandate it.

Which IS constitutional and no different than mandating health insurance.

apples and oranges. the withholding of funds is considered a constitutional power, yes. That has absolutely zero to do with congress mandating health insurance. The STATES mandate it in order to receive the funding. Now, if congress wants to go that route with health care, then THAT would be considered constitutional, but I imagine that 80% of the states would then find themselves facing lawsuits testing their own constitutional power.

Consider the mandate to have health insurance as an excise tax.

The federal government has the power to impose excise taxes...for revenue, as a "penality" or both.

The whole unconstitutional argument is simply Tenthers blowing smoke out of their ass.

not according to the supreme court. taxes can be raised as revenue only. penalty taxes are null and void.

watch us not comply.

You're right.....poor choice of words.

Taxes can be imposed for a regulatory effect, not a punitive effect.

They can also be imposed for dedicated programs.


Hey...its cool.

Don't pay the fine (tax) if is assessed on you....and don't answer census questions you dont like....and dont comply with any government program you dont think is constitutional.

I'm all for civil disobedience...but if you are in the position of not having health insurance, just dont be a hypocrite...dont utilize any government-funded health services to which you have not directly contributed.

States can't overide a federal statute. If it's passed by congress it's law, states have no say. Unless there is specific language in the bill that states can opt out.

Or go ahead and use the programs, and come to terms with the fact that your principles, noble though they are, just aren't real-world-worthy.

But don't be a hypocrite.

By the way, dk--and, look, this is a personal question that you absolutely don't have to engage with, but I'm curious: does your wife know about your plan to nobly sacrifice yourself as a martyr to strict constructionism? Does she support your intention to use deadly force against anyone trying to extract $750 from you? My sense, from your post history, is that she needs you rather badly, and the state she needs you in is alive. Has she ever tried talking any real-world sense to you?

It might not be unconstitutional but in my opinion it is just plain wrong to force people with the threat of prison to purchase products from our polititians' campaign contributors. It looks like the millions the insurance industry used to buy our congress is going to pay off big time when millions of new customers are forced to buy their products. Getting rid of that pesky tiny public option will be icing on the cake.

I agree it is not the perfect solution.

At the same time, every time a person w/o insurance goes to the emergency room for routine care or has an emergency operation and then reneges on the bill, you and I pay it in higher premiums. Where is the personal accountability here?

Every time someone with a communicable disease goes to work or school because they didnt have health insurance to visit a doctor, others are impacted.

We cant force people to be healthy, we can force them to at least have the mechanism in place to minimize those particular potential adverse impacts.

Taxes are a burden we bear for the greater good.

I dont like the fact that a large percentage of my local property taxes go to public education when I no longer have a child in the public education system, but thats how the system works. I can choose not the pay that bill and face the consequences.

I dont like the fact that 20 cents of every one of my tax dollars ends up in the pocket of Haliburton or other defense contractors to pay for a war that I dont support. I can choose not to pay and face the consequences.

And the fact remains that most of the uninsured who will refuse to purchase insurance will either be at an income below the level to be penalized (3X the poverty level) or at an income (above 3X the poverty level - ie, about $65k for a family of four) where they can chose to pay $1500 fine or purchase affordable insurance (which would benefit the family).

The "go to jail" scenario is so extreme that it will virtually impact no one other than those who choose to be martyrs. The IRS is not going to prosecute someone for $1500 bucks.

where can I find out where I fall in this schedule of incomes and whatnot ? I don't have health care and I'm hoping a cheaper option will open up to me through all this. I looked into it about a year ago and it was gonna be like $500+ a month and I just thought that was ridiculous. I'm definitely pro national single payer system like Canada or other countries.

There are good fact sheets on the proposed Insurance Exchange (where you would purchase insurance), including the credits based on income...and the benefit packages that would be available....from basic to high end and priced accordingly.

Insurance Exchange

Guaranteed Benefits

The Senate version is slightly different.

And in the end, if legislation is enacted, the details on the cost of the four different benefit plans are not in the bills, but would be in follow-up regulations.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

It is also a fact that many of the provisions will take up to 2 years to develop regulations, seek public comments, etc.

But there are immediate benefits:

Provisions That Take Effect Immediately

thanks...I've needed very little in the way of paid health care. but I do want it and would like to see a Dr. at least annually.


I was curious, for abortion in the case of rape, someone mentioned "provable" case of rape. makes one wonder if you gotta wait for a conviction in a rape case to go forward w/ the abortion. I'm fine having it included in a woman's plan to use at her own discretion.

Health insurance is as much for an unanticipated catastrophic event as it is for regularly health maintenance.

As a young guy, you dont want to be in position of having to face declaring personal bankruptcy if you cant pay the huge hospital bill (and the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist,....)

I don't have a problem with our government providing health care and/or insurance and taxing us for the cost. I think the whole health care system is out of control and should probably be totally government controlled with a single payer system.

Forcing us to buy products from private companies including their large campaign contributors is an entirely different matter. It's almost as if this bill was written by and for the insurance industry. The bill will even transfer money from our government to their private coffers by using taxpayer money to subsidize people to pay their high premiums. If people decide to not give their government determined share to the private insurance companies they will be fined and threatened with jail.

This whole fiasco of transferring public money to private insurance companies is the result of congress being paid off by the insurance industry and refusing to pass single payer legislation.

A more accurate analogy to this health care bill's requirement to purchase a private industry product (insurance) would be "you don't have to buy cigarettes but if you don't buy a government dictated quantity each year you will be fined."

I think that is a bit of a stretch.

IMO, the mandate is simply an excise tax you can avoid and, if you are currently uninsured, protect your family at the same time (as a result of less expensive insurance options that would be available as opposed to the current market).

It also requires you to take personal responsibility for your health care rather then force other taxpayers to bear the cost if you renege on an expensive, unanticipated medical bill.

And, while there are good features for the insurance companies, (millions of potential new customers). There are good things for consumers, like ending anti-trust for insurance companies, opening the closed markets in many states, requiring coverage of those with pre-exisiting conditions, capping out-of-pocket expenses, etc. which is why the industry is spending $millions on lobbying and media buys opposing this bill.

I would prefer a stronger public option and ultimately, a single-payer, but the votes are just not there and comprehensive reform like this will be even less likely if the Democrats lose that super-majority in the Senate, which is likely in 2010 ...at which point, we are back to NO reform.

The lesser of evils or accepting a good bill knowing that the possibility of a better or perfect bill is not a reality? I guess it is a matter of perspective.

I saw a Republican Senator (Bob Corker) on MSNBC today debating this bill with Chris Matthews. He said something like " you know if the Republicans were in the majority and we proposed this bill most liberals would probably be against it." By forcing people to contribute individually via premiums and collectively via taxes to private insurance companies, I wonder if there isn't some truth to this. Even moreso when they strip out the tiny public option language.

In my opinion the only way a forced insurance requirement will be good for most of us is if there is a wide scale government subsidized public option available to everyone. Once we go this far we might as well have single payer government furnished health care and do away with insurance since most health care insurance companies will not be able to compete.

It may surprise you to know that there's a flourishing private healthcare insurance industry in Canada.

Supplemental insurance. The existing companies might have to alter their business models under a universal program, but there's no reason they couldn't survive.

So far it is beginning to look like a perfect storm for failure in the Senate. There are 4 Democrats who say they will not vote for any bill with a public option in it and quite a few Democrats who say they will not vote for a bill without a public option. All Republicans accept for maybe 1 or 2 will vote against this health care reform bill no matter what form it takes.

I suspect they will have to strip the public option out and strong arm the pro public option Democrats to vote for the bill anyway in order to get the 60 votes and pass something.

I agree it is still an uphill battle...but far too soon to predict an outcome.

I suspect the end result will be some type of "opt-in" public option which, again is not my preferred choice, but grudgingly acceptable in order to achieve the numerous other beneficial provisions.

I have to add that I thought the Corker comment ("you know if the Republicans were in the majority and we proposed this bill most liberals would probably be against it.") was pretty damn funny, given that the Republicans hadnt proposed anything for the six years they controlled Congress and hardly have a record of putting consumers first.

Do you think the "wouldn't vote for it" democrats would support a filibuster? Because if not, then only a simple majority is needed to pass the bill. They only need a supermajority to pass a cloture vote to terminate a filibuster. Is it just me, or is it about time for a Roberts Rules Reset?

I say, let those Dem holdouts twist in the wind come re-election time when the public option is working and they're in record holding out against it. And obviously, let the Repubs flounder like the minority they are.

That's a good question. I imagine it would be rather bold for these 4 Democrats to abandon their President and party leaders and refuse to even terminate a Republican filibuster. If they can't get all of them they will need a Republican or 2 to switch over.