Fayanora - Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc! - Fines proposed for going without health insurance

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

Comments

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

Comments

Profile

Latest Month

Links

Tags

Page Summary

Tags:

Sep. 10th, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

GAAAAAHHH! Jit... fuck... grr... ARGH!!!

Must. resist. temptation... to kill. MUST. RESIST. TEMPTATION. TO... KILL! AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!! *headdesk*

EDIT: I am so utterly PISSED at this, that the people who proposed this are goddamn lucky I'm a pacifist, because if I weren't I would hunt them down, vivisect them, and wear their fucking face as a mask.

Mood: enraged
Music:Imaginary sounds of Republicans being hacked to death with dull blades

( 13 playing — Let's play! )

norokrex wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 03:37 pm (UTC)

But the reason so many people are uninsured is... never mind ARG

Link | Reply | Thread

elven_ranger wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 04:35 pm (UTC)

er... as far as my understanding goes, people in the States not having health insurance is because they can afford it. Theyre not going therefore to be able to afford a fine EITHER, so how fuckwitted is this idea.

Link | Reply | Thread

shadowsculptor wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 07:34 pm (UTC)

I had a feeling it was coming to this. elven_ranger is exactly right... those who don't have health insurance, almost always, don't have it because they can't afford it.

Seems to me more like someone wants a monopoly.

This is not socialized medicine. It's forced capitalism.

Link | Reply | Thread

christinathena wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 09:29 pm (UTC)

Well, in all honesty, it's not as bad as it sounds. That's basically what a government-run health care system is. It's just that instead of "buying insurance" it's "paying taxes".

I think that is a reasonable idea, provided that reforms are also put into place to make insurance affordable, including limitations on profits, rates not allowed to vary based on factors out of one's control, and so forth, and perhaps a sliding scale as well. Insurance works best and least expensively when you have a large varied pool of payers, especially including healthy people. The problem is that when healthy people don't buy insurance (and many people who can afford insurance don't get it), it increases the cost for those who do buy it, because you don't have healthy people to subsidize the cost for those who need it.

(But, yes, I definitely do agree that the public option or a single-payer system is far preferable)

Edited at 2009-09-10 09:31 pm (UTC)

Link | Reply | Thread

kengr wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 11:55 pm (UTC)

Thing is insurance *can't* be affordable for some people. There are a lot of folks who just plain don't have the money.

If you only have enough income to (barely) cover food, housing and utilities, then *no* price is "affordable" because there's no extra money.

And then there are the folks who can't afford *housing*. Like they are going to be able to afford health insurance.

People compare it to the mandatory insurance drivers have to carry. The thing is, you can avoid that by not driving (and even then there are folks whop go without because their budget doesn't have the extra and they'll lose their job without their car).

But with this there's no provision for folks who just plain can't afford the insurance.

The only *affordable* insurance for some folks would be *free*. And if you have that, then there's no need for the fines, is there?

It's a completely and totally wrongheaded idea based on complete lack of understanding of the situation.

Yes, they want it to avoid the problem of "must accept anyone" insurance rules where there'd be folks who wouldn't get it until they *needed* it.

But it ignores the fact that there are folks who can't afford insurance at any price above free.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

fayanora wrote:

Sep. 11th, 2009 12:48 am (UTC)

If you only have enough income to (barely) cover food, housing and utilities, then *no* price is "affordable" because there's no extra money.

Exactly. Even $10 a month for insurance would be a strain on my finances right now.

I agree with everything you say here.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

christinathena wrote:

Sep. 11th, 2009 01:57 am (UTC)

That is true. I would hope that the proposal would include subsidies for low-income individuals

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

fayanora wrote:

Sep. 11th, 2009 02:00 am (UTC)

Nice icon!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

christinathena wrote:

Sep. 11th, 2009 02:03 am (UTC)

Thanks! ^_^

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

simim23 wrote:

Sep. 11th, 2009 06:06 am (UTC)

"Well, in all honesty, it's not as bad as it sounds. That's basically what a government-run health care system is. It's just that instead of "buying insurance" it's "paying taxes"."

But I already have to pay taxes. I'm getting taxed more than I'm supposed to pay out, so I get money back.

So if they just increased that tax, I wouldn't get as much money back. But I'm already budgeted for NOT having that money; my income tax reimbursement is like a present, basically.

However, asking me to pay in extra in addition to my taxes means I don't have any money. If they lowered the amount I'm getting taxed from my paychecks, it may work, but if they don't, I do not have the extra money to throw in for getting insurance. It's why I don't have it right now.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

acrolinz wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 11:43 pm (UTC)

Yeah! Especially since in that proposal, although insurance companies couldn't deny anyone coverage, they still could charge 5 times as much if say, you're old or a smoker. Some one who is poor, but has health problems is going to have to endure a serious financial hardship if legislation like that passes.

An interesting tangent about charging extra for smokers...they did a study over in Europe in one of those countries that has universal coverage. They compared the lifetime health costs of three groups: smokers, obese people, and healthy people. It turned out that the smokers were actually the least costly because they died earlier. Healthy people, who lived the longest were actually the most expensive to the system long term. Interesting, huh?

Link | Reply | Thread

kengr wrote:

Sep. 10th, 2009 11:59 pm (UTC)

Currently, I have *several* pre-existing conditions and I'll be 55 in a few months. And I don't qualify for assistance on a lot of things because (in theory) I still have stuff I can sell (never mind that most of it won't sell at anything close to book value unless I'm willing to wait months to years for a buyer. And that if you ignore book value (which agencies won't) it's essentially worthless)

I have trouble paying for *food*. I had health insurance until my savings ran out. And I'm supposed to get *fined* for not getting insurance I don't have the money for?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

fayanora wrote:

Sep. 11th, 2009 12:50 am (UTC)

Exactly! And what are homeless people to do, eh?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

( 13 playing — Let's play! )

December 2009