Skip to comments.Penalties to rise for shunning insurance
Posted on 01/01/2008 4:04:16 AM PST by tiger-one
Home / Business Penalties to rise for shunning insurance State healthcare levy could exceed $900 Email|Print| Text size + By Jeffrey Krasner Globe Staff / January 1, 2008 Penalties for Massachusetts residents who can afford health insurance but do not purchase it in 2008 could quadruple compared with the maximum penalty in 2007, according to draft regulations released by the Department of Revenue yesterday.
more stories like thisThe maximum penalty for those who flout the law and do not buy health insurance would be $912 a year, compared to $219 in 2007.
The higher penalty is intended to get those who are on the fence to buy health insurance. For those wavering, it could make more sense to pay for insurance than to pay the penalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It sounds like leaving Massachusetts could save you at least $912.
"A law" which was never sent to the residents to approve, a screwing by the Romney administration.
At this moment it could, but as RomneyCare progress the price will increase.
This is Socialism.
This is your brain on Socialism.
And he is running as a REPUBLICAN?
John E. McDonough, executive director of Health Care for All, an advocacy group that helped craft the health insurance law, said he was pleased with the proposed penalties. The department "really listened, and we see a lot of our concerns reflected in this schedule," said McDonough. "It's fair, simple, and sensitive to the needs of residents."
At least the $912 a YEAR gets you health insurance. I (me, only) pay well over $1,200 PER MONTH for premium, co-pays and drugs.
If I could convince myself that waking up every morning knowing Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are my senators isn't a bad thing, I'd move to MA. That will never happen though!
Kennedy: "Cut the crap and sign the bill, Mitt! It's almost happy hour!"
“I (me, only) pay well over $1,200 PER MONTH for premium, co-pays and drugs. “
Shhhh! You don't want them raising the "fine" to $1,201 a month!
I’m going to say something contrarian here and probably get flamed, but hey, do we have free speech here, or don’t we?
I’m not defending the bureaucrats who came up with this scheme and I’m not defending Romney, but I can’t help thinking this:
This whole scheme was developed in the context of a society that does not believe hospitals have the right to turn away patients who need care. Although we do not yet have socialized medicine (which I am 100% against) we certainly have MANDATED medicine. Anybody and his brother can show up at a city hospital emergency room, demand treatment and get it.
And this is not true just in Massachusetts, but everywhere in America. And I don’t see that this is going to change. I don’t see anyone saying, “If you can’t pay, stay away.”
So faced with the absolute establishment of the principle of MANDATED HEALTH CARE, what are state and local governments, who are footing the bill for city hospitals, supposed to do?
I don’t know. I don’t have the answer. Massachusetts came up with this MANDATED health insurance plan. Is it a good plan? I don’t like it. I don’t like the MANDATED part at all, though I am thankful that at least they’re sticking with private insurance companies and not taking the whole system over as a state enterprise.
What should they be doing, or what should any state do, faced with the rising costs of MANDATED health care?
I don’t know. I wish I did know.
Again, I’m not defending Massachusetts or Romney. I’m voting for Fred, donating to Fred and campaigning for Fred.
But I just thought that given the political reality, that NOBODY is talking about ending the system of MANDATED health care that we now have in every locality in America, it’s a lot easier to criticize solutions than it is to come up with viable alternatives.
Go ahead. Flame away.
As much as I hate to admit it, only solution is to socialize it. We can't get over 70 million people currently receiving taxpayer paid medicare, medicaid and federal workers health insurance programs to give it up with a promise that private would better.
If socialized medicine is good enough for people aged 65 and over, the handicap, the poor, federal government workers and our military veterans ... it's good enough for ME!
We have a socialized police force, school system, fire department, city/town government, library, water and sewer department, etc, but, somehow, people have a cow when talking about socialized medical services.
We can pick and choose, buffet style, from 37 other industrialized nations which types of health service will suit us the best. The only thing I know for sure is, everyone needs to pay an out-of-pocket deductable ($35.00 for example) and allow those who want to have private care can do so at their own expense.
get rid of the illegal parasites and a great deal of this healthcare problem goes away!!!!
Well if its all that < /s>.
Sarcasm aside, I work in the family business....around 12 employees, it varies, with part time. I carry my own insurance with a high deductible and a HSA. My premium is only $ 83.00 a month and $25.00 for dental.
It's basically major medical with 3 preventative visits a year , and its Blue Cross. So for less than $115.00 a month I'm protected, I don't run to the doctor, I never have, I take care of myself. I like it just the way it is.
You say you agree, and then you say you want socialist medicine. I don’t know who you’re agreeing with, but you’re not agreeing with me.
Private sector is the ONLY way to solve problems with the health care system.
The question is, how to get the private sector more involved and the government less involved.
I don’t have the answers. Maybe mandating the purchase of PRIVATE insurance is part of a grand solution, maybe it isn’t.
As for SOCIALIST medicine, you only have to look at SOCIALIST countries, like Canada and England, to see what a TOTAL MISERABLE FAILURE it is.
You want to end all new drug development? You want to wait 10 years in line for “elective” surgery (with the SOCIALISTS defining “elective”)?
Then vote for SOCIALIST medicine.
All of these are managed at the local level, which I think is what makes these services function fairly well in most localities. Local accountability.
My fear is that socialized medicine in the hands of this monster federal government will be managed as poorly as most of the other functions which the federal government was never intended to manage (e.g. social security, welfare, Medicaid).
The rise of non-governmental organizations is one of the most frightening developments, whether they have “good intentions” or not. News reports almost never quote government agencies these days, it always some “policy group” or “center for the edification of mom, dad, apple pie and chevrolet”. Typically their actions are in direct opposition to their stated name. Americans are being robbed right in front of their eyes, and they don’t have a clue as to how or why.
There, fixed it for you.
Socialized medicine (RomneyCARE1 = HillaryCARE) will drive up costs,
delays, availability, governmental controls and ofuscations,
PC-control of medicine (nurses making all beds face Mecca five times a day in the SICU),
and drive down choice, informed consent and freedom.
Was that not the plan all along (along with Romney's personal need to coverup
all of the hoards of illegal aliens he invited for free health care)?
nurses making all beds face Mecca five times a day in the SICUIs that really true? What is SICU?