Wannabe TV Reality Stars Crash Obama Dinner

[SyberBitch]

Read the passage again, it states that no 'individual', company, business, etc... will have a penalty or fine imposed for not participating in the govt plan. Perhaps that was different in an earlier version of the bill, but if so, it appears to have changed now.

(Hopefully!) I said it may have changed in the Senate bill which I linked but I KNOW It was there in the House bill. I'm pretty sure it's still in the Senate bill somewhere but I'm not 100%.

I've done more digging and I think I found what you're talking about.

18 ‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF
19 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
20 ‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ES21
SENTIAL COVERAGE.

There is a clause stating that beginning in 2013, everyone will be required to carry some sort of minimal health care coverage, whether it's through a govt program or a private provider, or else face fines.

Exemptions are given to people who are living below the poverty line, who have had a financial crisis or who have a religious exemption. The penalty appears to be about $62.50/month of not being covered (although the next paragraph says that the penalty shall not 'exceed' 300% of the amount being used - which in this case would be $187.50).

While that makes me uncomfortable, it also makes sense to a degree. It will depend a lot on the actual cost of the govt provided health care plan, whether or not it's pro-rated according to income, etc.

The fact is, if we implemented a truly govt subsidized health care system (such as what is available in the UK and Canada), people would be screaming about the huge tax increases - no doubt even larger than whatever will come along with this bill.

On one level, I believe that every adult should make their own decision on whether or not to carry health insurance. However, along with that goes the understanding that those who chose NOT to have health coverage of any type, would simply have to pay out of pocket (at the time of service no less) for any emergency care they needed. It would mean an end to people being able to walk into ER, with no money and no insurance, and be taken care of only to be 'billed' later (which of course they rarely pay). It would mean looking into the frightened, desperate eyes of a close friend or family member without coverage, and telling them 'no, I'm sorry you can't be treated for the heart attack you're having right now'. I'm not sure the trade off is worth it.

Nice. I haven't seen any mention of that in the bill, but I did see a lot of proactive stuff in there about disease prevention. Weight loss, stop smoking programs, diabetes management and such. It didn't say whether those programs would be 'mandatory' or simply 'optional', but either way, I think it's a good direction to be going in. I also saw stuff about facilities being rewarded for higher ratios of healthy patients, which is also a good thing I think.

This kind of thing is a double edged knife. What if they do make things like that mandatory?
They've made mention that it could be. I don't think having good health and encouraged for it is a bad thing but having it forced upon you or having to pay higher rates if you're unhealthy is not very good either. It's a new way of 'stacking the odds' if you ask me.

Well, it would suck for a lot of us lazy unhealthy bastards who don't want to be bothered with someone monitoring our weight or whatever... on the other hand, I can understand charging people more for unhealthy habits and lifestyles they have chosen and which will, in turn, end up costing the rest of us more for their care.