jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (33 posts)

Wonderful - pay a fine for not having insurance

  1. nicomp profile image62
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    Personal freedom continues to ebb away...
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_ … e_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..."

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Welcome to Massachusetts

    2. teeny120 profile image60
      teeny120posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is very sad - there was news report on about some doctors/facilities where they are doing flat rate pay with unlimited visits, etc. People found this promising. I hope it grows as it is only in a few states. I believe it was dateline where I heard this.

  2. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Don't you already have the same kind of penalty for say car insurance? Don't see any difference really. This is not to say this is right, this is to say i am surprised you tolerated this so long, and keep tolerating it...

    1. lrohner profile image85
      lrohnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Misha, my darling, you are only somewhat correct. We are mandated to have car insurance that will cover the other driver if WE cause an accident. We don't have to have insurance that covers us or our car. I actually understand and agree with that law.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I do know this Lisa, I've been paying it about 10 years already. And no, I disagree with this law, and I think that I am forced to subsidize bad drivers. not much I can do though, so I pay - yet always make sure i pay as low as I can. smile

        1. lrohner profile image85
          lrohnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Misha, without this law, I think of my soon-to-be 20 year old and very immature son. If there were no laws about this, he would drive around at the speed of sound without insurance, and God help those that are in his way. They could be forced to ruin their lives over medical bills that were no fault of theirs. I hate to say this, but cut into people's funds and you're hitting them where it hurts. This is one law I (hate but) agree with.

          1. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Without mandatory insurance, you would have riders on policies for your son to protect himself and his son if they were hit by some reckless driver.  The insurance company would then be free to go after the creep who drives like a bat out of hell and take him for just about everything he has.  Rough justice of a sort, but effective, I would think.

            1. lrohner profile image85
              lrohnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not worried about my son being hit, I'm worried about him hitting someone else! And knowing what I know about teens, I'm pretty darn glad this law is in place.

              1. ledefensetech profile image79
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I still think the threat of losing your insurance is a deterrent for most.  After all you can make choices, but you can't choose the consequences.  So make sure all of your decisions are good ones.  I hear you though.  Kids do think they're indestructible and only a close brush with death seems to convince them otherwise.

              2. Misha profile image74
                Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You can always buy such an insurance for yourself, when and if you need it. No need to force me to buy it, too smile

    2. nicomp profile image62
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I was hoping this would come up. Car insurance is required for liability coverage only. Your comparison is incorrect.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is not an exact parallel, but it is correct. My point is that you allow your government to dictate you how you spend your own money, which applies to both cases. smile

        1. nicomp profile image62
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong again. Having a car is voluntary. Millions of people don't have cars. Being required to have car insurance is therefore not required of every citizen.

          And there is no public option. Somehow, the car insurance industry survives just fine. How about that?

          A simple way to reform health care is to change what insurance covers. Have a sniffle? Pay for an office visit instead of expecting Humana to foot the bill. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it was expected to cover you every time the check engine light came on.

  3. lrohner profile image85
    lrohnerposted 7 years ago

    I wouldn't lose sleep over it. That's a bill that's not going anywhere...and fast.

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Paranoia never sleeps

    1. nicomp profile image62
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      To paraphrase you; I am paranoid about sleeping.

  5. Jane@CM profile image60
    Jane@CMposted 7 years ago

    Thats just sick!

  6. Newyork204 profile image59
    Newyork204posted 7 years ago

    Don't worry.  That's not going to pass.  Its all talk.  Who would enforce it???  Would they make a special task force to police everyone's insurance card???

    1. Michael Willis profile image77
      Michael Willisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There has been talk about this for months actually. If passed it would set up as the Tax/IRS system is I read in one report.

      But...I hope you are right and this will not pass.

    2. nicomp profile image62
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No problem there. It can be policed on your income tax return.

  7. Michael Willis profile image77
    Michael Willisposted 7 years ago

    Another way for more BIG Government to take money from the people...and we would have NO choice. Lets take from the poor to protect the rich health care industry.  Makes perfect sense!!!

  8. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    In Massachusetts, our tax returns won't go through unless we also include a signed statement that we have insurance, and state what that health insurance is.  It's a "special thing" that comes with Federal tax returns just for those of us in Massachusetts.  lol

    There's also fines for those "deemed to be able to afford health insurance" who don't sign up for any. 

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … geId=58146

    It's all part of Massachusetts being on the cutting edge of freedom.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...................What!?

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It's a Massachusetts thing, you wouldn't understand unless you lived there.  My dad was stationed for three years in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You a military Brat?

  9. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    I think you are mixing up whom this law is designed to "help". There is no coincidence that YOU are paying for this insurance, not the people you or your son might hit.

    And I know what I am talking about, I came from the country that did not have such an insurance, they introduced it just a few years ago. In the absence of such an insurance your main problem is not in being hit but somebody, but in hitting Mr Rothschild's or Mrs Clinton's car. big_smile

  10. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    I think you keep missing my point altogether, but that's OK. sorry I interrupted your thread, will try to stay away. smile

    1. nicomp profile image62
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I got your point and I explained why you were off base. No worries.

  11. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Doesn't sound like Obama is on board with this at all and car insurance is not required if you do not have a vehicle.  Liability insurance is mandatory on all vehicles (full if it has a lean) however people who can prove that they make enough money to cover the cost of any accident are not required to have any insurance. 

    I think the article was crap because like ncomp said, auto insurance is not mandatory like the article says it is.

    Besides it wouldn't pass.  People who can't afford insurance to begin with wont pay the fines either and their tax returns aren't likely to cover the cost of the fines either.  They would be digging us into more debt if they did that... so I think.

    1. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It wouldn't be the first time the government made our debt load heavier, would it?

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No but there is always that inkling of "hope" that they might just use their friggin' brains for once. big_smile

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think it's possible for politicians to use their brains.  Doug French has a very interesting hypothesis as to why that is:  http://mises.org/story/3686

 
working