Wonderful - pay a fine for not having insurance

1. 61

   nicompposted 14 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..."

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome to Massachusetts

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teeny120posted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
2. 64

   Mishaposted 14 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...

   replyreport
   1. 68

      lrohnerposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Mishaposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            lrohnerposted 14 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  lrohnerposted 14 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                  2. 64

                     Mishaposted 14 years agoin 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

                     replyreport
   2. 61

      nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Mishaposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            nicompposted 14 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
3. 68

   lrohnerposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
4. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   Paranoia never sleeps

   replyreport
   1. 61

      nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      To paraphrase you; I am paranoid about sleeping.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Jane@CMposted 14 years ago

   Thats just sick!

   replyreport
6. 59

   Newyork204posted 14 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???

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Michael Willisposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
7. 67

   Michael Willisposted 14 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!!!

   replyreport
8. 61

   Lisa HWposted 14 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. 
   
   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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You a military Brat?

            replyreport
9. 64

   Mishaposted 14 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.

   replyreport
10. 64

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

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

    replyreport
    1. 61

       nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
11. 0

    sandra rinckposted 14 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.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
       1. 0

          sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

          replyreport
          1. 68

             ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin 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

             replyreport