It looks like Obama's healthcare is evolving into extortion

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul
WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

Interesting. Thanks for posting this. I sometimes get a little annoyed over all this talk of a universal health care system, when most no one seems to notice it will be no such thing; it will be a government controlled health insurance system. I wonder how many people in the health insurance industry will be forced to opt for government health care when the company they work for is driven out of business due to the government offering lower rates?

From another site.

John Stossel from ABC's 20/20 hits the nail on the head. Rather than universal coverage, we need to reduce coverage. Insurance being used to pay for everything is allowing runaway inflation. If people had coverage for major issues only and had to pay out of pocket for the regular stuff, the demand for lower prices would change the whole market.

Try asking a doctor to commit to a price up-front for cash...most won't know what to tell you, and a reason for that is they negotiate with insurance companies to accept a percentage of "usual and customary" charges. So, to get the $80 they need per office visit to be profitable, they bump up their price so that they still get that $80.

Those who have insurance get the benefit, those who pay cash get screwed.

Link 1

Link 2

I agree with zer0netgain, but there's 2 reasons why this fine for not having insurance is bad.

1. What about those who can't afford insurance? That certainly won't help them afford it.

2. Since the government would be trying to force people into the transaction, it would enable the insurance companies to screw those people over more than the rest of us. It gives them the incentive to charge close to the $3,800 government fine and provide very little coverage.

Virginia has a "uninsured motorist bond" you can pay in lieu of having car insurance.

However, it is high enough that most anyone can get minimum state-mandated insurance for the same or less than this "bond" you pay for, and paying for the bond does not do anything to deal with what happens if you have an accident.

So, no incentive to go without insurance because you won't save money.

I can see this fine for not having health insurance basically push people into the government plan because the government plan would be cheaper than not having insurance or going with a private carrier.

I do recall there being a "sliding scale" proposed so people who are poor would be covered by an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid rather than them being caught in the middle.

From what I understand, this is going to turn into a major windfall for the insurance industry.

Insurers have by now invested millions of dollars into making absolutely certain that there will be no "public option"--everyone will have private health insurance, if this passes.

Why not, instead, just have those people default to a public option. That way even if they don't have insurance, they still have coverage and will be paying a fee.


Not to eliminate the private options, but to give something available to the people who can't get insurance.

Because, the goal is to maximize profits for insurance companies, who will, in turn, maximize contributions to politicians.

And the citizenry gets left out.

A government that does not work for its people cannot stand.

I doubt Obama would sign any bill (compromise or not) that includes fines for not buying health insurance--especially if there's no public option. It's more appropriate to look at the American system as a kind of oligarchy than as a free market system; the barriers to entry are high enough to prohibit much actual competition and the overlap between insurer, provider, and hospital is pretty astounding.

There are 40+ million Americans who are uninsured and another 20+ million who cannot afford enough coverage (e.g. under insured)... the compromise plan would be of little benefit to these people; it still leaves the United States as one of the few Western countries to regard health care as a privilege to be afforded.

I used to volunteer as a chaplain when I was still a priest, and I have to say that visiting with patients who were dying of cancer because they waited to go to an ER for diagnosis and were unable to afford treatment was a pretty gut wrenching experience. A majority of the un/under-insured aren't freeloaders who don't pay taxes or work; they're hard-working tax-paying citizens who deserve a chance at life just as much as someone who's independently wealthy.

Sure he would; it was part of his campaign platform. there will be a public option and many people will have no choice but to opt.


The majority of the uninsured choose to not have healthcare coverage.

This is really all I see that needs to be addressed. The few people who somehow fall in the middle...as many insurance policies have cancer clauses, and there does seem to be a small margin of people who are not living above their means and genuinely cannot afford insurance.

I STRONGLY doubt that Wikipedia statement.

I have some experience with social services, and I can tell you two things.

1. They do nothing to help people who are anything above destitute. If you own your home (meaning you have a mortgage payment) and have more than one car (even if you need multiple cars because different people use each one), you tend to get nothing, even if you've hit hard times and you're basically on the verge of losing everything. Eligibility for someone making more than $50,000? I don't buy it.

2. To apply for any government assistance, they want to know EVERYTHING, and I mean stuff that a sensible person would think twice about handing over to a complete stranger. Likewise, you have to agree to constantly let the government access information about you, monitor your spending, and I'm sure there's a bunch of other life-controlling conditions you have to agree to. A lot of people would sooner do without the assistance than accept such intrusion into their lives. I went through it once just to get a total of $30 in benefits. After that was over, I destroyed my benefit card and determined I'd sooner beg for money in the street than EVER go through that again.

Any sliding scale includes an arbitrary cut-off point that screws over people who are on the wrong side of it.

Then why has the government of the United States lasted so long?

ruveyn

The idea of requiring everyone to have health insurance is not new. If any of you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know this. It is based on a plan currently in use here in Massachusetts. It requires everyone to have health insurance. It imposes a fine if you don't. It provides financial assistance to those who can't afford it. And it works.

It's only been in the last 50 or so years that things have really fallen apart as far as governance keeping up with technology and scientific advancements. The governance has been moving more toward using technology for control rather than to the benefit of its citizenry.

I wouldn't dare try to compare the government of 1909 to the government of today...why would you even start to?