As usual- a liie about health care
By Opalina143
@opalina143 (1240)
Morristown, New Jersey
October 13, 2009 6:12pm CST
You may have seen people talking about how, under the Baucus bill, people will be charged a high fine for not buying health care coverage. The Republicans, including many on mylot, have been saying things like "If they can't afford health care, how can they afford a fine? What if they don't have the money? What if they don't want to spend their money on health care?"
Well, as usual, critical details were left out of these posts and the accusations. The government is going to GIVE a subsidy to people to buy health care. The subsidy is earmarked to buy insurance. If people MISUSE the money THE GOVERMENT GIVES THEM to buy health care, such as spend it on a trip to Paris instead, THEN they can be fined or put in jail.
NO ONE will be fined because they can't afford health care. I assume that if they don't want health care, they can refuse the government's handout. The law is against wasting the government's money- you can still do whatever the hell you want with YOUR money. Just that if the goverment gives you money for health care, and you accept it, you can't spend it on a new car.
What's wrong with that?
3 people like this
9 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
14 Oct 09
The law is against wasting the government's money
Someone needs to tell the senate and congress that law....they waste it daily. Oh and it's not the government's money....it's the tax payers.
1 person likes this
@missliss08 (766)
• United States
13 Oct 09
Yes, you will be fined if you refuse to be insured. It will be assessed at the end of the year on your tax return, and automatically taken. For a lot of young people with no, dependants, they will probably end up owing money, or getting hardly anything back at all. This, I think should be very effective in getting people to get themselves insured.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
14 Oct 09
What if those young people don't WANT to spend money on insurance? Why should they be punished and have money stolen from them? I went for about 5 years with no insurance in my 20s because I never got sick and never got hurt. I saved plenty of money that way but under this plan I would be punished for it and that's wrong.
Do you realize that the reason this is in the bill is that Baucus and others like him are in the insurance companies' pockets? This is to help make more money for the insurance companies who subsequently give money to the political campaigns of such politicians.
Outside of that, nice avatar. I'm a big Bills fan. I just wish they could pull a winning season. We just lost to two winless teams in a row and the Browns... good lord that game was like watching two lepers arm-wrestle.
@missliss08 (766)
• United States
14 Oct 09
I didn't say I agreed with it, I said it should be effective. Way different things. I am very disappointed so far in my Bills. I thought for sure this would be the year they got it together. I think I need a new team.
@deebomb (15304)
• United States
14 Oct 09
It isn't even a bill year. they still have to work out a bill. check out what congressman Rogers from Michigan has to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
This what the government gets for health care.. check it out an
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5382782n&tag=related;photovideo
When government get involved things just go from bad to worse. They got involved with banking forcing the banks to work with Acorn given mortgages to people that have bad credit and look where that got us.
We really can't afford to have government in our health care business.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
16 Oct 09
The thing that gets me is that for the most part the same people who are opposed to a public option because they'd rather have an insurance bureaucrat deciding if they should live or die than the government and they're worried about the insurers going out of business are also opposed to it being mandatory to buy insurance even if it is with government subsidies to give the insurance companies corporate welfare. As it turns out these insurance companies they were so protective of WANT more mandates and higher fines for those who don't buy their insurance!
I guess they care about the insurance companies a he11 of a lot more than the insurance companies care about them!
Annie
@cortjo73 (6498)
• United States
14 Oct 09
Thank you for being one the people who tries to clear things up instead of spreading misinformation! It is amazing to me how one person chooses to use a phrase and tries to explain something one way and suddenly it is gospel. Being informed should be our top priority. Spreading misinformation only leads to discord and makes things a lot harder than they should be. Thank you again for being a voice of reason and accuracy!
@jodylee_04530 (1097)
• United States
13 Oct 09
It is amazing how the details are left out of politics and people jump so easily into party lines. I think there are many good things about the health care reform of the future and I am anxious to see where things end up. I appreciate you posting this discussion. It was very educational and I did not know that they were giving a subsidy. I am sure there are many more details to come from Washington that will be misused and misrepresented. :)
@Troublegum (641)
• United States
13 Oct 09
I am sure there are some good things in the current bill if you look at the details, the problem is that the main part of the bill will bankrupt our system as we know it, so those little good things will be washed away by the overall decline.
Consider this. Increased governmental involvement in the healthcare profession over the past 20+ years has lead to a steady decline in the incomes of doctors which conincides with a steady decline in the quality of doctor that is willing to go into the field. Top medical students are now choosing lifestyle positions like dermatology,radiology and plastic surgery rather than Internal Medicine or Neurosurgery. OB's are refusing to deliver babys because they can't afford to pay their employees and the legal costs of doing business.
For every $1 a hospital spends to treat a medicare patient they receive $0.80 from the government.
For every $1 a hospital spends to teat a medicaid patien they receive $0.60 from the government
This means that hospitals must over charge the private sector to account for their loses dealing with the government.
The Baccus bill represents a further increase of government in a profession that is already on the brink due to government involvement, and many doctors intend to retire or move if it passes.
@jodylee_04530 (1097)
• United States
14 Oct 09
Well I would agree, that sounds like it would be a problem. I don't really know any doctors personally so I can't really talk about that. I have wondered about the prospect though. I really just want to see a change because things really are not working the way they are now. It may not be any better and it may be far worse but I have heard stories from other countries with good reviews. Once of the greatest fears of people is change. It can be hard to accept and it can be scary to move through and navigate. I hope for nothing but the best for all of us and think that one day, they will get it right.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
13 Oct 09
First, I should point out that the government would be forcing Americans to buy a product. A violation of our rights? That isn't a lie.
You are stating a partial truth. What it comes down to is a matter of numbers. Is the higher premium costs of health care minus this "subsidy" going to be less than the fine or higher? Because if it is higher, than it stands to reason that those who can't afford the fines certainly can't afford health care.
Bottom line: The government is still forcing you to spend Your Money on Health Care whether you personally want it or not.
PS: The Government doesn't even know where its own money is going now, what makes you think that they can actually enforce this little rule?
@Troublegum (641)
• United States
13 Oct 09
What is wrong with that is that "The Government" doesn't give them the money. We the people give them the money.
So if the Government gives someone $1000 to spend on health care that $1000 has to be taken away from someone else. Typically it is taken away from "The Rich" who tend to be employers. To compensate for increased cost of doing business these "Rich" will cut back on their numbers of employees, the benefits that the offer their employees and the increase the cost of their goods and services.
The net effect of this is that there are more people with less resources which means that the government has to give out more money to those in need. Now remember that the can't just give it away they must also take it from someone and typically they take it from "the rich".....
On the other hand if instead of giving away money they offer tax incentives to employers to offer healthcare benefits to their employees, business will be more likely to give healthcare benefits and be able to hire more employees. This means that more people will have coverage and the government will have less people that it has to support with its medicare and medicaid programs. In this environment, people and business thrive, more people are employed, more people have health insurance, and the government collects more tax revenue because more people are making money and giving a portion to the government.
