Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Please remember the terms of your membership agreement.

Moderators: valis, garyb

dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by dawman »

Here's your mandatory plan.
So now we can round up the homeless and fine them for not having insurance.
This is exactly why I don't want Government Health Care........ :lol:
If this was designed to help everyone, then why fine the citizens for not having it.
This is shaking down the citizenry of the USA for cash that they have mispent.
One of the reasons this is true, just read how much the CBO expects to get in revenues from fining poeple who are not in compliance.......................36,000,000,000.
Yes, they claim this is the best thing for Americans to have.
If anyone votes for any of these clowns in 2010, you need your head examined.
It's our duty as citizens to vote these clowns out.
Did anyone here recieve anything in the mail asking you for an opinion..?.....NO.
This is being done without any of us being involved.

READ THIS TREASONUS BULL SHIT

_______________________________________________________________________________

WASHINGTON -- Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick.

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.

The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

The new proposals were released as Congress neared the end of a weeklong July 4 break, with lawmakers expected to quickly take up health care legislation when they return to Washington. With deepening divisions along partisan and ideological lines, the complex legislation faces an uncertain future.

Obama wants a bill this year that would provide coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and reduce medical costs.

In a statement, Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick."

The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.

Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a letter to colleagues that their revised plan would cost dramatically less than an earlier, incomplete proposal, and help show the way toward coverage for 97 percent of all Americans.

In a conference call with reporters, Dodd said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care" closer. He said the bill's public option will bring coverage and benefit decisions driven "not by what generates the biggest profits, but by what works best for American families."

The Congressional Budget Office, in an analysis released Thursday evening, put the net cost of the proposal at $597 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago. Coverage expansions worth $645 billion would be partly offset by savings of $48 billion, the estimate said.

However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.

The Health Committee could complete its portion of the bill as soon as next week, and the presence of a government health insurance option virtually assures a party-line vote.

In the Senate, the Finance Committee version of the bill is unlikely to include a government-run insurance option. Bipartisan negotiations are centered on a proposal for a nonprofit insurance cooperative as a competitor to private companies.

Three committees are collaborating in the House on legislation expected to come to a vote by the end of July. That measure is certain to include a government-run insurance option.

At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The Feds are the Gangsters, they put the Sicilian Mafia out of business, and learned the regimes and capos positions that fall on their swords for the Don, the whole shebang.
I am beginning to think that Gotti and Gravano have been in witness protection and are alive and advising the Presidents Cabinet members and Congress.

So now when you go to the Emergency Room and you have no insurance, the medical staff is compelled by law to help you,and while you're in a little curtained off space the cops come by and write a ticket.
This is as mean as throwing down little pieces of popcorn in a crackheads house.
User avatar
at0m
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Bubble Metropolis
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by at0m »

If this was designed to help everyone, then why fine the citizens for not having it.
Here, as a citizen, you cannot not have it: the health insurance comes with the citizenship... That's why it's a national insurance.

Did anyone here recieve anything in the mail asking you for an opinion..?.....NO.
This is being done without any of us being involved.
You don't get elections? ;p
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
User avatar
braincell
Posts: 5943
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by braincell »

I voted and I heard the message loud and clear. National Health Insurance won't work unless everyone pays for it. The healthy pay for the sick. This might not seem "fair" to you but this is what the majority of citizens want and the majority of doctors.
User avatar
siriusbliss
Posts: 3118
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Cupertino, California US
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by siriusbliss »

BC, they may want 'national' healthcare, but NOT this structure - which is why they are shoving it through without any 'national' vote.

This is CORPORO-FASCISTIC healthcare that only benefits the insurance companies and drug companies (who are hyping the bill and paying off Senators).

It's right there in our face.

This will only HURT those that can't afford insurance, or are not citizens, or are not employed. The evolution of this will be that people will eventually be working for the government for no pay in order to get health care. They won't be able to eat or have a house, but hey, they'll get pills to keep them breathing long enough to work for the man.

This is NOT a good plan, and will only backfire and reveal more corruption.

Greg
Xite rig - ADK laptop - i7 975 3.33 GHz Quad w/HT 8meg cache /MDR3-4G/1066SODIMM / VD-GGTX280M nVidia GeForce GTX 280M w/1GB DDR3
User avatar
braincell
Posts: 5943
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by braincell »

We vote for candidates based on their platform. We don't vote for issues on the national level and very few at the state level.
User avatar
siriusbliss
Posts: 3118
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Cupertino, California US
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by siriusbliss »

braincell wrote:We vote for candidates based on their platform. We don't vote for issues on the national level and very few at the state level.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Xite rig - ADK laptop - i7 975 3.33 GHz Quad w/HT 8meg cache /MDR3-4G/1066SODIMM / VD-GGTX280M nVidia GeForce GTX 280M w/1GB DDR3
User avatar
next to nothing
Posts: 2521
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by next to nothing »

"So now when you go to the Emergency Room and you have no insurance, the medical staff is compelled by law to help you,and while you're in a little curtained off space the cops come by and write a ticket."

For comparisons sake, what happens now (before the mandatory health thing goes into practise) if you go to the emergency room and have no insurance?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by dawman »

That's a good point.
You get free health care already and tax payers are footin' the bill.
Nobody likes mentioning that as it is a big waste of money and lawyers froth to get a lawsuit there as the medical help in the emergency room is basically Interns being ispired to go into private practice.
This is where Health Care should be addressed. Those coming without insurnace should be educated and forced into a Governmant run health care program, because they need it,and deserve it as I am sure many have paid their dues to society before they hit hard times.
The crux of the issue is that the Insurnace companies make so much money from these hard cases by charging the Government. Naturally the Government hates seeing somebody making such extreme premiums, so they are taking over that show.
I really do wish this was the Utopian Society Braincell speaks of, but when DC lawyers and politicians get in bed together with tax payers money it is an unecessary growth of Government. These clowns can't even count the citizens votes, much less tax payer money.
Hopefully before this becomes a reality, these clowns get voted out, and the politicians re work the plan to cover the uninsured millions without taking away the choice of hardworking Americans who pay for their insurance and pick thier doctors.
Everyone knows that the Private sector is where the money is, Government Doctors such as we have at the Veterans Hospitals are the worst and least experienced.
I already have that free option but have chosen to use more experienced and professional doctors.
Unfortunately this is just another power grab, and of course with the high unemployment rates many Americans would be happy for the free health care plan, I actually think they are holding on to the Stimulus money and forcing higher unemployment rates so their ranks will swell.
Once you get a free ride from Uncle Sam the motivation to be self sufficient diminishes.
But Government will have more employees to continue growing until they are guaranteed a re election win every 4 years.
To vote no means no more Breast Feeding................
To quote Rahm Emanual again...............Take advantage of every crisis.......

If this program was so good why do thousands of people come from Mexico, Canada and other countries where everything is free just to get help in the USA....?
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7680
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by valis »

next to nothing wrote:For comparisons sake, what happens now (before the mandatory health thing goes into practise) if you go to the emergency room and have no insurance?
The hospital eats the bill, at least if you believe the hype in our media. In reality a lot of the 'uninsured' costs wind up being picked up by someone, medicaid or the state-level insurance (assuming your state offers this.) If you're truly homeless or just never bother to deal with any of the offers for coverage (and medicaid doesn't step in and make the hospital a reduced offer) then you'll get the bill sent to collections, which the hospital uses as a writeoff on taxes at the 'original' inflated costs.

As for nationalized health care, the way the US was initially structured (in theory) things are supposed to be dealt with at the local level first, then the state, and then finally the national level (when all else fails.) The way things are phrased when discussing 'national health care' yuo would think that there's a complete lack of social care here but the reality is that it just varies state by state. Since most of the insurance companies these days are national entities (with state branches) there's been a few decades of their side of the game becoming 'homogenized'. Imo this has led to them gaming the system and even manipulating legislation, in an effort to push people into their side of the health care system.

I'll explain that last part a bit further. Now, I have several friends who are doctors. In the music world if I have a need and a friend can fill that need I just go hit him up and we work out some amicable relationship. Yet that seems to be a very rare thing in the medical world, outside of a GP-general practitioner-who may do generalized 'family care'. In my experience though the GP does a lot less 'overall' than they used to, they typically don't go beyond minor immediate care, writing prescriptions for simple things and otherwise deal largely in referrals. If you're insured, at the lower levels of care referrals tend to need to be done within your provider network. For the 'uninsured', here's where the problem begins.

In the last 10-20 years, when I've been to the emergency room or doctor under insurance I've always seen 2 costs on the bill I sign. The initial cost and then a rebated 'insured' cost quoted after that, from which my copay is deducted (if any). It's actually been several years since I've needed any real medical care, and I didn't think much about it then. Of course there are VERY few private practices that will handle emergency-level care these days, so you're pretty much stuck on that count too. The emergency care facilities I've been to *always* start the billing process by asking who your insurance provider is.

Put all that together and a picture begins to appear in my eyes: dealing with the health care 'system' (regardless of where you live) is a streamlined process when you have insurance. When you don't you're left to contracting service on a case by case basis, assuming the office you're talking to even deals with patients outside of the provider networks they participate in.

I might be wrong on this count as I'm not really that old, but you go back 30 years or so and I think that this picture was...easier for those uninsured. Dealing with doctors on a case by basis was the norm at one point, especially before we had the highly specialized & tech-centric system we have today, so that seems almost a given.

Toss in big pharma that constantly pushes legislation to remove or inflate the costs sends oodles of info to doctors on their products, markets to the consumer and propagandizes homeopathic & 'natural' remedies (vitamins, minerals) and also constantly supports legislation in an effort to remove them from being over-the-counter or inflate their costs (Canada did that about 7-8 years ago if I recall) and imo we have a highly 'engineered' corporate system built around the bankers (insurance) and petrochemical industry (pharmaceutical companies).

The "reality" (assuming such a thing exists) is that our system really does need some changes. But I'll sit on the porch with Jimmy and watch, let's see if the politicians and their corporate backing really do much 'fixing' at all.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by garyb »

this is CRIME!

40 years ago, one could pay for one's medical biulls WITHOUT insurance. what a boondoggle.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by garyb »

next to nothing wrote:"So now when you go to the Emergency Room and you have no insurance, the medical staff is compelled by law to help you,and while you're in a little curtained off space the cops come by and write a ticket."

For comparisons sake, what happens now (before the mandatory health thing goes into practise) if you go to the emergency room and have no insurance?
they charge $300 for ibuprophen and $1200 a day to lie in the bed and then bill you.
dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by dawman »

When little ( big Now ) Scope4live Jr. was born, I did my gig and then came and watched him being born. I had tears in my eyes, and thanked the doctors.
Then I got the bill..................... :o
I paid for my own Pre Natal care while X-Mrs. Scope4live was pregnant and paid dearly for that as my insurance wasn't so good.
But the hospital charged me 5.00 dollars for a local phone call, 10 dollars for Tylenol.......
Being grateful for my sons birth I naturally took care of business as I enjoy my credit rating, but we can only thank the Trial Lawyers and Politicians for this as they have had decades to fix this, but preffered taking money from all sides to keep the bull shit going.......
They are only taking everyone elses cut of the pie now,......nothing more and nothing less.
To think of this as a " great society " program shows how well the brainwashing has worked.
If this guy below wouldn't have been caught cheating the IRS like so many other DC elitists do, he would have been sinking it in deeper than the current " Czar."
At this rate of Government growth, we will have half of the country voting for a living, instead of working for a living.
tomdaschle.jpg
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by garyb »

yeah, it's pretty moronic to think of these guys doing ANYTHING for people's benefit....
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7680
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by valis »

Actually I think that it's fairly easy to agree that the Senate doesn't represent the 'common man' much at all, the British naming for their version of the Senate communicates the meaning more directly: House of Lords.

However there are people in Washington D.C. who have at least as much impact as our representatives (be they Senator or a House rep.), and while some of these might stay in the lobbying arena for a while many of them hold non-elected 'offices' in our national capitol without ever being elected, and work for decades for a small number of entities and goals. Even career politicians on the side of 'good' will amass enough skeletons to have to give way in some degree, and give enough inches over time and the mile has been taken.

Great examples of this are people like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Not to bring Iraq into this health care discussion too much, but Kissinger often represents Rockefeller's interests and participates in the Council of Foreign Relations, and was in fact named 'special ambassador' to Afghanistan in the initial months of the US's post-911 involvement there at the SAME TIME he was put on the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, a council that represents the Chinese oil conglomerates. Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" outlines things we've been doing in that region before even 911 (if anyone has bothered to keep an eye on Turkmenistan for example) and in fact everything up to (but not including) Iraq. He became known again recently for his opposition to Iraq, though one can only guess that the interests he represents are more interested in the resources found in & above Afghanistan and how to use that to "control the vassal nations of Eur-Asia" (his wording) than they were in Iraq. Though since he is partially credited with forming the foundation of the Taliban and al Qaeda both, one can only wonder if he was just acting in a slightly different public role but still having the same goals behind the scenes.

Back to the health care issue, I'm sure there are figures that are similar to these fellows in D.C. acting in the 'best interests' of their corporate masters. In fact I think these people (and through them the families & corporations they act for) probably have a lot more power than most politicians do, their hands aren't tied by the public spectacle or the need to be elected. That isn't to say I don't think some politicians aren't directly Players themselves, but even when offered up on the chopping block it's no real wonder that things tend to stay the same anyway...
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by garyb »

that's pretty much the size of it.


as to being fined for not having coverage, if the idea is for everyone to have access to healthcare, then it's simple. anyone who needs care gets it, period. nothing should need signing up for. the only people who should be able to decide if someone needs healthcare, is the person him/herself or the person's gaurdian. if the person is unconscious, then care should be given until that person regains health or consciousness and requests the care to end. why make it complicated if the intention is aid?

it's obvious that aid is not the true intention because of the implimentation. these programs proposed will be excellent for controlling people. people are better with the private and no insurance with state and federal indigent care that already exists, than to lose control over their own lives.

there's a reason all the rhetoric is about service these days. servants spend their days serving. servitude for wage is bad enough. at least one can be independant in one's free time. the powers that be would like to return to the time when servants NEVER had an independant moment. if some would like to go into involuntary bondage for the master's protection, let them. don't include me in that group.
dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by dawman »

Gary you must learn the new wording..................
The Penalty or Fines are called " Shared Responsibility Payments. " As if we signed some contract.
You know I wouldn't be so angry if the people passing these laws actually paid their taxes.
The hipocracy we live under is just shameful.
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7680
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by valis »

It's ok though really, we still have great minds who can solve age-old intractable problems such as how to deal with old books where "the content is fixed and, therefore, has not been adapted to modern marketing" by inserting ads into our literary classics.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by garyb »

“A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.”
-Shepherd Book
User avatar
braincell
Posts: 5943
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by braincell »

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:That's a good point.
You get free health care already and tax payers are footin' the bill.

Let me try to explain this for a third time. It is not free unless you a broke and homeless. They will bleed you until you are living on the street. Medicaid is only for people who have nothing. Until all your money runs out and they take your home away from you, there is no free health care. Perhaps one day you will find this out. You might think you are insured but they can drop you for any reason. If you are costing them too much, they can drop you and it's all legal also what is the point of insurance if they only take healthy people or they charge sick people so much they can't afford it? Insurance companies only care about their stock holders and that is evil. That is the republican way.
dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Re: Mandatory Health Insurance Required By Senate Democrats

Post by dawman »

You don't need to speak condescendingly to me like an elite know it all.
You only know what you read from blogs, and don't try to come back here with some sob story you copy and pasted from your anti whatever club you belong to.
Bottom line is, all politicians and lawyers have ruined the process as usual. It benefits those passed the laws, not us.
I might have to live with that, but I sure don't need your " lessons. "
I have a rather large family and most of them are elderly and stand on their own 2 feet just fine without wanting anything other than what they were promised after years of being taxed.
Most of them are veterans and have pride, and not one of them takes treatments from the VA or any " free " Government program.
I work for a living and usually pay for the insurances of my band members thanks to the lawyers and Utopian elitists who know what's best for me.
Last edited by dawman on Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply