PFRDA - This was on yahoo new. Whats your opinion?

This was on yahoo new. Whats your opinion?

What does everyone think about this? This is on yahoo news. 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 at 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 spe http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul I do not have any insurance for myself or my family, and heres why. Since I am self employed it will cost me $900 per month to cover my family. If by chance a member of my family needs a doctor then I pay for the services right then. I have a tear in my abdominal muscle just above my belly. Now here's my complaint. I went to the Dr. and he said it will cost me $1500. just for him but since i'm uninsured he will do it for $500. Since i'm uninsured I had to contact each person myself to set things up. The hospital told me it will cost me $25,000. to rent a hospital room, nurse and the tools the Dr. will need, but since i'm uninsured they will rent me everything for $11,000. Then the same for the anesthesiologist, $3000 but he'll cut it to $1500. for his service. Now this $29,500 surgery will cost me $13,000 out of my pocket. Now if they could do it for less then half since i'm uninsured, why couldn't it be that price to begin with? Then insurance would be affordable.

Public Comments

More nannying, protecting the citizens from themselves.
Sounds good to me.
Great idea. The uninsured received approximately $56 billion in uncompensated care in 2008 alone. Competition will reduce prices for insurance. If people who CAN pay for insurance simply refuse to do so while racking up billions of dollars in medical write offs and bankruptcies that WE the taxpayers have to pay for, it makes complete sense to recoup some of that money.
Where is the link to prove this? Your logic is flawed that Americans will get fined for not having health insurance. Your wrong, comapnies not affering health care insurance to employees when they should will get fined.
Disgusting. Does this apply to all the illegal immigrants that mooch off tax payers for their health care, or are they exempt like on everything else....
The bill is a work in progress. It is far from complete. I would like to reserve judgment until it at least get to the House of Representatives for a vote.
This is a failed policy in the making. So far from what I've seen, it appears that the intent here is to basically break the backs of Americans who will pay (1) higher taxes anyways (2) be forced to buy insurance that they probably will not want because it won't do what they want; (3) there will be subsidies for people who will freeload, with jobs under the table; and (4) there will be people who will simply refuse to pay that $1000 a year. So what are we going to do then? Fill the prisons? I still question the constitutionality of this law. I do not believe that the U.S. Government can mandate that someone purchase anything. To do so constitutes tyranny and abuse.
Proof that nothing ever changes in Washington...and it will never pass and unemployment keeps rising.
July 2 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_o... Our Senate Democrats are looking out for us. Obama, Dodd and Kennedy have come up with a plan : 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 fines would be collected through the income tax system. This is like Obama's idea of making wounded military have their medical costs paid for by their own private insurance. This is being rushed thru by the usual suspects, Kennedy and Dodd, and Obama, who will agree with anything that he can use to say he solved health care, will approve!! I got angry when I read the story. And now, with Franken winning his senate seat, something as outrageous as this has a chance of passing! And, I think the people who will get hurt the most are the people who can't afford decent coverage or any at all ! ! ! Think about the gall of all this. If you don't like our plan, we will fine you at least $1,000 dollars!
I did see that article. My thoughts: Come quickly, 2012!
The whole idea of a universal health care is that everyone pays. So how does it make any sense if people don't? They all need to suck it up and they will be thanking Obama when they get ill and can actually get the treatement they need. God forbid any of these idiots lost their jobs etc and fell into hardship or got a disease and knew what it was like to be discriminated against and denied help or given inflated prices for their healthcare. A basic human right surely
Your point is right on I know I do the same thing for myself But this is share the cost plan by Mr Obama with the exception of the unions as he owes them or they own him however you would like to look at it
I think that it is great. Look at what has happened with Holland. First of all, too many people do not know that Obama is not going to bring in universal healthcare. He wants to make insurance more available to all. Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well. FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet. FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage. That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.