jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (47 posts)

Fines for Not having health insurance?

  1. jiberish profile image78
    jiberishposted 7 years ago

    From Politico:
    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."

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Its a good thing Obama isn't a tyrant or we could really be in trouble!

      1. jiberish profile image78
        jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This letter was in answer to Ensign's question:

        "We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment," Ensign said. "That seems to me to be a problem."

        1. jiberish profile image78
          jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats are considering a tax on high-cost insurance plans to help pay for health care overhaul that tops President Barack Obama's domestic agenda

  2. jiberish profile image78
    jiberishposted 7 years ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats are considering a tax on high-cost insurance plans to help pay for health care overhaul that tops President Barack Obama's domestic agenda

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They are gonna do something no matter what we say! It will cost them them big in 2010 and 2012, but its their own fault!

  3. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    What if...God forbid...it's not as bad as you think it might be?

    1. jiberish profile image78
      jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Here's a question....Those who don't have health insurance, obviously can't afford it now....what if they are required to sign up as stated or be fined?  It is NOT going to be FREE.

    2. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It already is. The constitution is being abused. That's offensive enough for me.

    3. lrohner profile image86
      lrohnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      UW, I'm surprised at you! Putting people in jail for not having health insurance? I lived in Florida where people got hefty fines for letting the sucklings (whatever they are) on the trees in front of their house grow more than 2 inches. Both seem fairly ridiculous to me.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There is no evidence that that will happen. I doubt it would.

  4. nicomp profile image60
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    If that passes, we can only hope there are enough patriots who will challenge it. Drop insurance, get fined, refuse to pay, get charged with a crime, and pursue the case through the court system until it reaches the Supreme Court.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In other words, guarantee it won't work.

      1. nicomp profile image60
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You lost me.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You won't allow it to have a chance to work even if it turns out not to be what you expect.

          1. jiberish profile image78
            jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Again:  Here's a question....Those who don't have health insurance, obviously can't afford it now....what if they are required to sign up as stated or be fined?  It is NOT going to be FREE.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You said that already. I am sure you will have to have a certain amount of income before they fine you for not having it if that is what will be required. And it is still what if.

              1. nicomp profile image60
                nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The Bacous amendment included a minimum income level before the fines kicked in. It's sickening that the federal government is reduced to fining citizens for not buying insurance AND for buying insurance that they deem is too expensive.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You are getting sickened by something that you don't even know is true.

                  1. nicomp profile image60
                    nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this
              2. dutchman1951 profile image60
                dutchman1951posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Uninvited???
                The Poverty level is 14,000 a year or less
                are you saying that if you are below that level, you will not be fined?

                I think that is part of the current argument over the public option...not sure though. To me that would be un-equal treatment of american citizens, all or none if you ask me.

                Jon

          2. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Umm, you lost me too Susan. smile

            What to have a chance to work? A jail time?

    2. profile image0
      Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly.  And I'm one of those between a rock and a hard place.  Have paid my own way (no insurance) for most of my life, have no insurance now, and want very much to be one of those willing to take the hit and hang in there through whatever the consequences have to be.

      Trouble is, I've ALSO got a disabled wife who would come completely apart if I were tossed in jail and/or federal prison for standing up.  She believes as I do, we're very much on the same page, but I'm the one who's helped her stay alive for 13 years, and continuing with that mission is no small responsibility.  I have no fear whatsoever of prison but all the fear in the world of failing Pam.

      It is truly astounding, the massive numbers of folks out there--well intentioned people for the most part--who remain unable to sense the horror stalking all of us in the form of this compulsory facet of the President's dictatorial proposal.

      1. lrohner profile image86
        lrohnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, Ghost. Read this thread to see how stupid the Canadians think we are:  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/22816

  5. profile image0
    Scott.Lifeposted 7 years ago

    So how am I going to buy insurance when I can't even afford gas for my car after losing my job to this strengthening economy? Now I'm to be punished for poverty? Isn't this no different then the debtors prisons of 19th century England? You're going to punish me for being broke by fining me then imprisoning me if I can't pay. That makes perfect sense. meanwhile millions collect disability for obesity and fraudulent conditions, yet after serving my country and busting my ass for the last fifteen years I can't even get unemployment benefits that I have paid into my entire adult life. Yeah that seems fair.

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you want the government to pay for for not working?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't the point of paying into unemployment so you will get some back when you need it?

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I repeat, why should the federal government pay anyone for not working?

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Nicomp the federal government can't pay for anything! If he has payed into unemployment it is his money! Taxes are collected from us! They don't have money that didn't come from us! Get it?

            1. lrohner profile image86
              lrohnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Because, at least in my case, the Connecticut government has managed to run all of the jobs out of the state. There's nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. No one wants to own a company here. They pay unemployment so that all of the people won't leave as well. After all, a government can't govern without people, can they?

      2. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think he is saying that!

        1. nicomp profile image60
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          An Unemployment Check is a payment for not working, is it not? I've never received one, so I don't know.

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    the link is broken

    1. nicomp profile image60
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      try again. I edited it

      1. jiberish profile image78
        jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        that is from sept 9th, what I posted is from yesterday

  7. kerryg profile image88
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    Susan, the bad news is, the right wingers are right about Baucus's plan. It was essentially written by insurance industry lobbyists and is awful.

    For more about the legislative mess that is the current state of health care reform, this is a good (but slightly out of date and also depressing) article from the perspective of a fellow progressive who supports a single payer system: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st … _and_wrong

    The good news is, you're right that accommodations have been made to ease the burden on low income families. One of the versions of Baucus's bill (not sure if it's the most recent) offered tax credits for families that make up to three times the federal poverty limit to help cover the costs, which would theoretically cover everyone from households of 1 making up to ~$30,000 to households of 8 making ~$100,000.

  8. qbanmamiof2 profile image61
    qbanmamiof2posted 7 years ago

    With all this healthcare reform I am heavily surprised. Isn't that the beauty of this country where we are free?????

    I did hear a rumor that USA was a free country maybe I heard wrong.

    Healthcare should be a choice NOT an obligation therefore passing a law that FORCES you to buy health insurance is against this country's morals is it not?

    You choose to go to the Doctor if you want to be checked out or if you're sick. ALL ER'S have the obligation to stabalize you if you come in with an emergency regardless of your citizenship status, financial capabilities or if you have insurance or not. That is hospital policy but you choose to go, no one can force you to go to a doctor or hospital.

    THis plan is utterly absurd!!!  grrr... makes me mad

  9. jiberish profile image78
    jiberishposted 7 years ago
    1. jiberish profile image78
      jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is the hand writen note about the fines:



      http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/ … ml?showall

    2. profile image0
      Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Slight refinement:  It's "Max Baucus".  He's from Montana and a total politician in all of the negative meanings of that term.  I know this from numerous angles but will mention just one:

      In the early 1990s, the Feds were planning to put a HAARP tower in the Bitterroot Valley.  The area fired up in outrage, and a "town meeting" was held in the basement of the courtroom in Hamilton.  My ex-wife, Sadie, and I attended.  Keynote speaker was Senator Max Baucus, reinforced by an Air Force officer.  Key speakers in opposition were Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz and a host of us local folks.

      When it was over, Sadie turned to me and said, "It's good, right?  We defeated it?"

      "You didn't hear what Baucus was really saying," I told her.  "He never said they'd change what they intend to do with HAARP; they're just moving that one tower over the mountain into Idaho because of we're making noise here." 

      And so they did.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is good to know, thank you
        Jon

        1. profile image0
          Ghost32posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Um...yes...except "just a tower" in HAARP terms is something else.  In the event of war, when the towers could be activated by the government, EMPs (electromagnetic pulses) would emanate from those towers to shut down all electronics in a wide radius.  In other words, your car would stop instantly, as well as your electric clock, etc. etc.  Maybe your pacemaker, too. 

          The Air Force Officer even admitted that the move of the tower over the mountain to Idaho wasn't REALLY going to help the Bitterroot Valley all that much--the pulses travel for an expanding radius of something like 300 miles and go like through mountains like boiling water through cheesecloth.

          1. dutchman1951 profile image60
            dutchman1951posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I did not realise this, your right, this is no good at all.
            Makes me wounder if around Tulahoma and Chattanooga if we have same, but have not been told anything?

      2. jiberish profile image78
        jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, I was in a hurry, MAX.

  10. jiberish profile image78
    jiberishposted 7 years ago

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rohr … ode=8968-1

    “As we gather here in the nation’s capital, another illegal alien amnesty bill has been introduced in the Senate,” Stein warned. “Like its predecessor, this bill rewards millions of people who broke our laws with the gift of American citizenship…”

 
working