Posted on 07/02/2009 3:18:48 PM PDT by Libloather
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 58 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
The excerpt below taken from:http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content20009.aspx
Car Insurance Question Do all states require car insurance?
No, all states do not require car insurance but they do require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway. While not all states require drivers to buy liability insurance to show financial responsibility, 48 states (plus Washing DC) do. These states do not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws:
1. New Hampshire
2. Wisconsin
All 50 states have different requirements when it comes to auto insurance and the minimum insurance requirements. Almost every state requires you to have Bodily Injury Liability insurance and every states has financial responsibility laws that require you be able to have sufficient assets to pay for any liability you cause in an incident.
In some states, drivers can’t register a car without showing proof that they have liability insurance, while other states only need proof of insurance when a driver has an accident or gets tickets. If you visit this free car insurance quote page and select your state, you can see the Minimum Requirements.
Every state requires insurance or that you meet financial responsibility requirements through a bond or some other way which shows you are able to pay if you cause damages to another person or property in an automobile accident. Each state changes and/or renews their laws annually, so some states that had no insurance requirements in the past now do. New Hampshire probably has the least amount of requirements.
Otherwise known as Democrats...
Many people don’t drive cars. They are not mandated to have auto insurance. No state has a mandatory car insurance law.
Many people don’t drive cars. They are not mandated to have auto insurance. No state has a mandatory car insurance law.
That’s why Obama’s and Romney’s mandates are so insidious. They are requrining this of everyone. Unlike auto insurance that is required only for people who choose to participate in driving.
That was my point also, from the beginning. In addition, though we are required to have car insurance, we are not required to use/buy government run auto insurance.
A point that is usually omitted by the advocates of NHS, if it is so great, why must the government threaten us with financial (and other) penalties to coerce us to use it?
Apparently they expect lots of folks to pay this fine...
He was self-employed much of his adult life and passed away days before his 64th birthday.
He never saw a dime of his SSI monies...and he had to pay in DOUBLE because he was self-employed.
Mandatory my hindfoot.......
It doesn’t matter if we already have car insurance mandates.
Yes, people don’t need to have cars, but it is absurd to force people to pay for what they might do on the road. If you want to be safe buy insurance for yourself. If you cannot afford insurance for yourself then you couldn’t anyway.
People can be sued for crashing into you or at least should be able to. But if they are too poor to be sued, they are probably too poor to buy insurance, however that doesn’t mean that it should be illegal for them to own a cheap car that they once in a while use to buy FOOD.
Car insurance is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Risks similar in measure to crashing into someone exist in many vocations and simply in everyday life. We should not be presumed to be ticking time bombs who have to pay for the privilege of going about our daily lives.
If you think driving on the road is unsafe. DON’T DRIVE. DON’T FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO PREPAY INTO A FUND IN CASE THEY HIT YOU.
Also, make murder committed while drunk equal to first degree premeditated murder as it should be because it is.
And you and your family (presumed inheritors of your dad's "estate") are that much the poorer for it. Your dad was smart enough to run his own business; he certainly was smart enough to have gotten a better return on his lifetime "investment" than the 'guvocrats' did -- especially when they were 'spreading his wealth around' to the 'less fortunate' (read, "lazy"). And, since they stole his entire principal and "interest"...
Socialized medicine will be far worse -- just look at any emergency room in an area that is already infested with wetbacks...
~~~~~~~~~~~
Enough -- gotta watch my blood pressure! ;-) Have a great Fourth!
There is a line/charge on my car insurance called "uninsured motorist". It is a significant charge. It is there because the state somehow can send me a threatening letter within weeks if I let my insurance lapse, but somehow can't find the 20%-30% of the drivers without insurance & so must make me pay for the problems they cause.
In FL it was 1 in 3, I don't know the numbers here in KY.
I find it interesting that in all these ways that the "state" tracks us, it seems only capable of keeping tabs on the law abiding citizens. Criminal, illegals etc don't seem affected.
“If this were to become law then any pretense of America still being a free country is out the window. When you have to pay taxes for being alive, you are not free. I never thought I’d live to see the day that being a US citizen is tantamount to being a slave.”
I agree with you and in fact a couple of weeks ago I was talking to a co-worker. I told her that I will never join any government health insurance program. As soon as one joins, they have given up any freedome over their own bodies to the federal government. I am willing to make the news over taking a stand. She looked at me in amazement. However, after further consideration and this article, I am even more angry and motivated to take that stand!
(Sorry for being so late on this thread, but I had a week off...)
If Obamacare is not affordable, then we have a right to refuse it, right?
also heard this morning on KSEV radio, Houston - there
would be a 4% sales tax on all home sales..... can anyone verify this ?! As of now, i have not heard any other confirmation on this. State Senator Dan Patrick stated this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.