The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: DixieBelle on January 03, 2008, 11:53:43 AM
-
The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.
When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.
Individuals who failed to sign up for health insurance by the end of 2007 faced only a one-time loss of their $219 personal income tax exemption.
The fines are part of an increasingly aggressive approach written into the health care law designed to pressure Massachusetts residents into getting insurance. The law, intended to create near-universal coverage in the state, was approved by lawmakers and signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006.
It remains unclear how many Massachusetts residents still don't have insurance, but the number could be in the hundreds of thousands.
The penalties, which vary with age and income, are based on half the lowest cost plans available through the Health Care Connector. They accrue each month an individual remains uninsured and will be due as part of tax returns filed early in 2009.
The penalties apply only to adults deemed able to afford health insurance by the Health Insurance Connector Authority, which oversees the health care law. People can apply for hardship appeals.
The highest fine of $76 a month -- or $912 a year -- will be levied against those over the age of 27 making more than three times the federal poverty level of $30,636 for an individual.
Married couples who are both uninsured will have to pay fines individually. A couple earning more than $41,076 would have to pay $1,824 in penalties for the year.
The fines drop for younger adults and fall even lower for those making less than three times the poverty level. There are no fines for individuals earning less than $15,325 a year.
Revenue Commissioner Henry Dormitzer said the department worked to come up with penalties that were fair and easy to understand.
John McDonough, executive director of the advocacy group Health Care for All, said the penalties were a good compromise. The way the law was written, 59 year olds could have faced penalties five or six times higher than younger adults in their 20s because their insurance plans typically cost more, McDonough said.
"Some will say these are too high. Some will say these are too low. There is plenty of room for argument on both sides," he said. "We are in such uncharted territory."
No one knows for sure how many taxpayers will face the fines.
Those overseeing the law say the state has added about 300,000 Massachusetts residents to the ranks of the insured this year -- largely as a result of the law.
Leslie Kirwan, Gov. Deval Patrick's top budget chief and chairwoman of the Connector board, said estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts before the law took effect ranged from 370,000 to more than half a million.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8TSLG1O0.htm
And what will they do with the collected fines? Does it go into the insurance fund?
-
What the ****?!?!
I'm sure Health Insurance doesn't even cost that much... :banghead:
-
Only in the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts.
-
What the ****?!?!
I'm sure Health Insurance doesn't even cost that much... :banghead:
You seriously don't think private health insurance costs $1,400 a year do you?????????????????
-
I don't like this at all.... :shame:
-
I don't like this at all.... :shame:
It is communistic, period. You are now taxed for EXISTING.
-
This is Romney's plan? :censored: He better not get the nomination.
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
-
OK... Lemme get this straight...
If you can't afford health insurance, you are fined because you don't have it? :mental:
If they don't have the money to buy health insurance, what in the hell makes them think they'll have the money to pay the fine? Now that they have even less money to buy health insurance which means they are going to be fined again!
WOW! Talk about a vicious circle! :banghead:
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
:ohsnap: Huge Difference
With that reasoning, why not just back Hillary's plan, give the gov't money and let them be responsible for appropriating those funds and setting up the programs.
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
-
OK... Lemme get this straight...
If you can't afford health insurance, you are fined because you don't have it? :mental:
If they don't have the money to buy health insurance, what in the hell makes them think they'll have the money to pay the fine? Now that they have even less money to buy health insurance which means they are going to be fined again!
WOW! Talk about a vicious circle! :banghead:
If they can't afford the insurance or the fine how are they going to be able to afford a random trip to emergency room?
All you neo-con hive members want to do is have you're big jewish haliburton no-bid insurance be paid for by the brown-shirt cheney deathsquad hilarycare policies. Go Ron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:popcorn:
-
:agree:
:not:
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
-
I think it's pretty funny, actually. They can tax themselves to death, pretty literally. They now live in their own little socialistic utopia. Let them do this and serve an example to the rest of the DUmmies what a failure this will be.
Taxatwoshits is in for a taste of their own medicine :rotf:
-
supposedly, the system is set up to exempt those too poor to pay the fines.
Personally, the govt needs to stay the heck out of our healthcare.
-
supposedly, the system is set up to exempt those too poor to pay the fines.
Personally, the govt needs to stay the heck out of our healthcare.
So I would get punished for not being a vagrant? WTF? Shit like this is going to make me support Ron Paul. :evillaugh:
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
Your new analogy doesn't rehabilitate your first one. If you want socialized medicine, it is available. It is just slow and not very good. Insurance is a good idea, but to have it forced on you because you exist is just bad policy and probably unconstitutional.
-
supposedly, the system is set up to exempt those too poor to pay the fines.
Personally, the govt needs to stay the heck out of our healthcare.
So I would get punished for not being a vagrant? WTF? Shit like this is going to make me support Ron Paul. :evillaugh:
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
Your new analogy doesn't rehabilitate your first one. If you want socialized medicine, it is available. It is just slow and not very good. Insurance is a good idea, but to have it forced on you because you exist is just bad policy and probably unconstitutional.
That is a great point you make :not: But, who is going to pay the medical bills?
-
supposedly, the system is set up to exempt those too poor to pay the fines.
Personally, the govt needs to stay the heck out of our healthcare.
Here is another example of how the motivation to be an earner is shot.
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
Your new analogy doesn't rehabilitate your first one. If you want socialized medicine, it is available. It is just slow and not very good. Insurance is a good idea, but to have it forced on you because you exist is just bad policy and probably unconstitutional.
That is a great point you make :not: But, who is going to pay the medical bills?
Your employer...partially subsidized by you with co-pays.
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
Crap! I'm lost :)
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
Your new analogy doesn't rehabilitate your first one. If you want socialized medicine, it is available. It is just slow and not very good. Insurance is a good idea, but to have it forced on you because you exist is just bad policy and probably unconstitutional.
That is a great point you make :not: But, who is going to pay the medical bills?
Your employer...partially subsidized by you with co-pays.
But if the employer does not offer coverage?
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
Crap! I'm lost :)
Been There Did That And Did It Again
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
Crap! I'm lost :)
Been There Did That And Did It Again
Ah. And got the t-shirt. :)
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
Crap! I'm lost :)
Been there, done that, ain't doing it again. :-)
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
Your new analogy doesn't rehabilitate your first one. If you want socialized medicine, it is available. It is just slow and not very good. Insurance is a good idea, but to have it forced on you because you exist is just bad policy and probably unconstitutional.
That is a great point you make :not: But, who is going to pay the medical bills?
Your employer...partially subsidized by you with co-pays.
But if the employer does not offer coverage?
Even small business should provide healthcare for their workers. The gov't needs to assist these businesses in some way, whether my direct tax write-offs or developing affordable group plans through cooperative efforts with the big companies offering the health coverage. Something needs to be done to help even the small businesses get coverage for their employees. Even small business unions would be better as they can negotiate with businesses to set up these group plans.
A majority of small business owners believe health care coverage can help attract and retain good employees. Congress has to step up to the plate to help them out to ensure all people are covered.
As for the people who just want to sponge off the economy, then I suggest Giuliani's plan, Workfare as opposed to Welfare.
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
Crap! I'm lost :)
That was right on the tip of my tongue.
Been There Did That And Did It Again
-
LOL!!! I know a few websites that you can visit....
BTDTADIA. Figure that one out. :-)
Crap! I'm lost :)
Been there, done that, ain't doing it again. :-)
Now that's funny.
-
It's neither free nor subsidized health care, it is responsible. It also takes away one of the libs main arguments ie: 1,111,111,111 uninsured so WE have to pay for it.
I'm sure that it has some faults but what's the difference with being required to have car insurance??
Bad, bad BAD analogy. Owning and driving a car is an option and accepting the rules that go with it is what someone can choose.
EXISTING OTOH, is not usually a choice.
This is bad law and starts the slippery slope to Socialism/Communism
I don't think it is a bad analogy at all. If you where living paycheck to paycheck today, and fell down some steps tomorrow resulting in a broken arm, but you had no insurance, who is going to pay the medical bills?
But that being said at least Romney did something - agree or disagree with the result he took action. That is what leaders do, Hilary tried and failed (thank god). How many others running today have made any type of difference AT ALL in their respective decades of public service?
Your new analogy doesn't rehabilitate your first one. If you want socialized medicine, it is available. It is just slow and not very good. Insurance is a good idea, but to have it forced on you because you exist is just bad policy and probably unconstitutional.
That is a great point you make :not: But, who is going to pay the medical bills?
Your employer...partially subsidized by you with co-pays.
But if the employer does not offer coverage?
Even small business should provide healthcare for their workers. The gov't needs to assist these businesses in some way, whether my direct tax write-offs or developing affordable group plans through cooperative efforts with the big companies offering the health coverage. Something needs to be done to help even the small businesses get coverage for their employees. Even small business unions would be better as they can negotiate with businesses to set up these group plans.
A majority of small business owners believe health care coverage can help attract and retain good employees. Congress has to step up to the plate to help them out to ensure all people are covered.
As for the people who just want to sponge off the economy, then I suggest Giuliani's plan, Workfare as opposed to Welfare.
That's exactly what Romney's plan does.
-
Then where does this fine come into play if he's endorsing a plan that's paid by your employer? :confused:
-
Then where does this fine come into play if he's endorsing a plan that's paid by your employer? :confused:
I was saying that it is the government stepping to to make sure everyone is covered, from what I hear a lot of companies that didn't offer insurance before started to. And those that can't afford it - small shops and resturants now their employees have to get it through the state managed system. If they don't get they get the fine. Again I'm not saying it is a perfect answer or even a good answer - but it is a try, it is action, it is for better or worse at least movement from the government to address a real concern.
And the answer to my above question is the government pays the bill if you don't have insurance, or they force the hospital to eat the cost associated with the medical care (which then gets returned to the hospital by the governmnet as grants or stipends) so in the end Joe & Jane taxpayer foot the bill for the person who works construction w/o insurance.
-
I think it's pretty funny, actually. They can tax themselves to death, pretty literally. They now live in their own little socialistic utopia. Let them do this and serve an example to the rest of the DUmmies what a failure this will be.
Taxatwoshits is in for a taste of their own medicine :rotf:
I was going to say the same thing.
The idiots earned their misery. I hope they're happy now.
-
This is Romney's plan? :censored: He better not get the nomination.
Mitt Romney is a socialist. He is no better than the f*cking dems.
-
Mitt Romney is a socialist. He is no better than the f*cking dems.
We need to use that term sparingly and appropriately lest it become as worthless as the dreaded "neocon" label.
I might call Romney a susceptible to welfare-ism but I seriously doubt he has any intentions nationalizing the entire US economy. Alas welfare-ism facilitates efforts by real socialists. Still, if the Paulistinian uprising at CU taught us anything it is that we must govern our choice of words more closely.
-
What the ****?!?!
I'm sure Health Insurance doesn't even cost that much... :banghead:
You seriously don't think private health insurance costs $1,400 a year do you?????????????????
I don't know how much it costs. I've been under military healthcare since the day I was born. But the story said that fine was MONTHLY. That could equal up to more then 15k a year. I DO KNOW private health insurance doesn't cost that.
-
What the ****?!?!
I'm sure Health Insurance doesn't even cost that much... :banghead:
You seriously don't think private health insurance costs $1,400 a year do you?????????????????
I don't know how much it costs. I've been under military healthcare since the day I was born. But the story said that fine was MONTHLY. That could equal up to more then 15k a year. I DO KNOW private health insurance doesn't cost that.
The highest fine of $76 a month -- or $912 a year -- will be levied against those over the age of 27 making more than three times the federal poverty level of $30,636 for an individual.
Married couples who are both uninsured will have to pay fines individually. A couple earning more than $41,076 would have to pay $1,824 in penalties for the year.
Maybe you just didn't read closely enough.
-
When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008
Thats what I was basing it off of. It read to me like the monthly totals could get that high by the end of the year. But your right, I went back and reread it.
-
When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008
Thats what I was basing it off of. It read to me like the monthly totals could get that high by the end of the year. But your right, I went back and reread it.
For comparrison through my employer I pay $580 A MONTH for health insurance for healthy me and my healthy family.
-
Mitt Romney is a socialist. He is no better than the f*cking dems.
We need to use that term sparingly and appropriately lest it become as worthless as the dreaded "neocon" label.
I might call Romney a susceptible to welfare-ism but I seriously doubt he has any intentions nationalizing the entire US economy. Alas welfare-ism facilitates efforts by real socialists. Still, if the Paulistinian uprising at CU taught us anything it is that we must govern our choice of words more closely.
Well I did not mean to sound like gator. Whatever the case, He is a gun-grabbing, flip-flopping RINO and Romneycare and Hillarycare are two sides of the same coin.