• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama Health Care Penalty

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,628
5,928
126
when did medical insurance become synonymous with health care?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Can the government really force you to directly pay a penalty for not paying a private company some money? Is that even constitutional? They want to fine you for not giving a private company your money. This isn't like car insurance where insurance is required for the privilege of using the roads. This is just for existing.
You know that you're REQUIRED to have car insurance in order to drive a car, right? The idea of requiring insurance is nothing new. I've been in an accident with an uninsured driver before, I know what a hassle it causes. What about when someone without health insurance (who can't afford the care) gets shot? Do you think the ER turns them away?

However, unlike car insurance, if you can't afford health insurance due to a low income level, there are typically state programs that will give you free or reduced cost insurance for your kids. If you aren't eligible for those programs because you make too much money, and you still won't get your kids insurance, well, you're a deadbeat who IMO should have their kids taken away.....but I guess a fine does the job, too.
Without a lien, you're only required to carry liability in most states. That's coverage against hitting others. So, if your kid gets hurt in your car because you hit someone, your liability insurance will not cover it.
Thanks for the lesson there sport, I never said it would cover your kid getting hurt in the car, nor did I imply it. Again - I made the analogy to car insurance because COW asked if requiring insurance would even be constitutional.

As I've also already pointed out - the case for requiring insurance for children is actually quite simple. Kids can't help themselves. Kids can't follow the conservative/libertarian "personal responsibility" mantra. Some parents are cheap and/or just plain stupid/unfit parents. That's who this is targeting.

If you really want to bring up liability coverage, that actually makes a case for ALL people being covered (which I personally am against), as it refers to the gunshot analogy I already made. If someone comes in with an emergency and can't pay for it, who does? Everyone having insurance would help defer that. However, I only even bring that up because you talk about required car insurance as acceptable.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
That may be, but it's ridiculous to penalize someone over it.
Why? We require all children attend school and penalize you for breaking that. It's the same idea. In fact, this makes even MORE sense than required education.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Unless they have to make the choice between other necessities like food and such I agree. At the end of the day, Obama just wants to make health care much more affordable and accessible for everyone. As it stands, an estimated 40% of all businesses out there do not offer their employees a health care program of any kind let alone a plan which is both affordable and of decent quality for both the business and the employees. Health care has been shot down to a lower priority for too long now. To me, some things are simply worth more than money and quality health care is one of them. I agree with Obama. It should be a right.

Also keep in mind that McCain voted against support for the kinds of programs such as Florida Kid Care which provides many children in many families health care that is affordable.
I think your heart is in the right place but I don't see how its even remotely feasible. We are damn close to being bankrupted by our current entitlement programs (SSI, Medicare/caid). We have increased our debt by what 15% in the last few weeks? We simply can't afford to vastly expand those programs and you can't raise taxes enough to cover whats on the books already.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?

Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
I would think it to be to put money in his pockets. Obama voted to kill a child even if it survives an abortion, what makes you think he cares about them when they are older?
Keep trying to make that crap stick :roll:
I read that... the conclusion is that it depends on your point of view. While Obama may not have been TRYING to legalize infanticide, the effect of his vote was to do just that. Maybe not his intentions... but definitely the results.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Can the government really force you to directly pay a penalty for not paying a private company some money? Is that even constitutional? They want to fine you for not giving a private company your money. This isn't like car insurance where insurance is required for the privilege of using the roads. This is just for existing.
You know that you're REQUIRED to have car insurance in order to drive a car, right? The idea of requiring insurance is nothing new. I've been in an accident with an uninsured driver before, I know what a hassle it causes. What about when someone without health insurance (who can't afford the care) gets shot? Do you think the ER turns them away?

However, unlike car insurance, if you can't afford health insurance due to a low income level, there are typically state programs that will give you free or reduced cost insurance for your kids. If you aren't eligible for those programs because you make too much money, and you still won't get your kids insurance, well, you're a deadbeat who IMO should have their kids taken away.....but I guess a fine does the job, too.
Without a lien, you're only required to carry liability in most states. That's coverage against hitting others. So, if your kid gets hurt in your car because you hit someone, your liability insurance will not cover it.
Thanks for the lesson there sport, I never said it would cover your kid getting hurt in the car, nor did I imply it. Again - I made the analogy to car insurance because COW asked if requiring insurance would even be constitutional.

As I've also already pointed out - the case for requiring insurance for children is actually quite simple. Kids can't help themselves. Kids can't follow the conservative/libertarian "personal responsibility" mantra. Some parents are cheap and/or just plain stupid/unfit parents. That's who this is targeting.

If you really want to bring up liability coverage, that actually makes a case for ALL people being covered (which I personally am against), as it refers to the gunshot analogy I already made. If someone comes in with an emergency and can't pay for it, who does? Everyone having insurance would help defer that. However, I only even bring that up because you talk about required car insurance as acceptable.
Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Genx87

What does the CHIPS program do then?
The current number of uninsured and under-insured working people, including and especially their children, suggests the answer to your question is, not enough.
Underinsured... I really have never understood that term. Underinsured for what? Definte underinsured for me. Insurance isnt supposed to be a substitute for paying the bill. It is a net. If stuff hits the fan, then there is insurance. Insurance isnt for physicals, doctors checkups, colds, etc. People USED to get scars... before insurance was as expanded as it is.

I have a HDHP. I am betting I qualify as underinsured. I did find this:

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...show.htm?doc_id=280812

The extent of the underinsured problem has not been assessed since a 1995 study, partly due to the lack of a working definition. Using a 2003 Commonwealth Fund survey of 3,293 adults, ages 19 to 64, Schoen and colleagues estimated the number of underinsured adults. They define an underinsured person as one who has insurance all year but has inadequate financial protection, as indicated by one of three conditions: 1) annual out-of-pocket medical expenses amount to 10 percent or more of income; 2) among low-income adults (incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level), out-of-pocket medical expenses amount to 5 percent or more of income; or 3) health plan deductibles equal or exceed 5 percent of income.
Well no shit... if you make $30k a year and your max out of pocket is $5k, then you are underinsured? You might have the SAME insurance policy as someone making $100k, but your INCOME level makes you underinsured? Horse shit. I dont buy that definition. The study also doesnt take into account what people view as their insurance status. I might fit the definition of uninsured according to you, but my insurance is working great and I am happy where I am at. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

Thus the problem with socialism. People have a tendancy to want to make their own decisions.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Underinsured... I really have never understood that term. Underinsured for what? Definte underinsured for me.
An example of being underinsured is having a policy that covers up to $10,000 for a given condition when the rising cost of health care makes the actual cost of treating the covered condition closer to $50,000. Another example would be having a policy you were told would cover a range of conditions only to find that the insurer is scouring your records looking any excuse to avoid paying for the treatment you've already received.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,373
42
91
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?

Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
You can get healthcare without having healthcare insurance. People seem to forget this fact.
No, no, no! It's immoral and illegal to get medical treatment and *not* have an insurance company make obscene amounts of money!
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?

Point being, it is not the government's responsibility nor concern how I raise my kids or how I provide for them. That is why we have this silly little thing called freedom. Freedom to be stupid... maybe... but freedom none-the-less.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?
Yet another pathetic, meaningless reply. :thumbsdown:
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
I keep hearing mention of this, but it's not really stated anywhere what McCain (or other critics) is talking about. I keep hearing mention about a "penalty" that's possible under Obama's health care plan. Is it for those who don't insure their children???


I am neither for Obama/McCain on this subject, just wanted to check the "facts". Anyone know?
How dare you is the penalty.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?

Point being, it is not the government's responsibility nor concern how I raise my kids or how I provide for them. That is why we have this silly little thing called freedom. Freedom to be stupid... maybe... but freedom none-the-less.
Ok - so you choose not to get insurance for your kid. Your kid needs surgery and you can't afford it. Your kid dies. That's your choice, huh? I'm glad you have that freedom to let your child DIE. I bet you're pro life too. Fucking hypocrites.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?

Point being, it is not the government's responsibility nor concern how I raise my kids or how I provide for them. That is why we have this silly little thing called freedom. Freedom to be stupid... maybe... but freedom none-the-less.
Ok - so you choose not to get insurance for your kid. Your kid needs surgery and you can't afford it. Your kid dies. That's your choice, huh? I'm glad you have that freedom to let your child DIE. I bet you're pro life too. Fucking hypocrites.
Blow me. You dont like freedom? Move to Russia. I hear they even control when you shit over there.

Yes, I am pro-life... arent you? You are making a big enough stink about making sure MY kids have healthcare... sound like you want them to live... so I guess you ARE pro-life. Oh did you mean abortion? Yeah, I hate abortion... dont you? Or are you one of those sick puppies that pulls up a chair in the abortion room with a bag of popcorn and watches the doctors crush the babies' skulls with a shit-eating grin on your face? Yeah... my point is, everyone is pro-life, and damn near everyone hates abortion. What the fuck is your point here? Eh... let's get back to you lecturing me about the well being of MY kids.

So, while we are mandating what my children's healthcare looks like, let's see what else we can mandate. I mean you know best right? Let's see what else you can teach me.

-How much water can I put in the bathtub before drowning becomes a serious risk?
-What is the correct water heater setting as to prevent scalding?
-Should I cut electricity to the house to prevent electrical fires or my kids sticking something in the wall sockets?
-Should I get rid of all my sharp knives so my kids dont cut/kill themselves with them?
-I hear stoves can cause nasty burns. Should I get rid of my stove?
-How high should I let my kids swing on the swingset so they dont accidentally fall off and break their necks?
-Should I let them climb up the ladder on the slide? Again they could break their necks if they fall.
-Speaking of broken necks, horse riding is out of the question right? I mean it killed Superman... my kids dont have a chance right?

No... I dont really want your opinion. Someone as sufficiently ignorant and, well lets face it, you were lucky to have survived this long. No, I dont think I need your fucking advice on how to raise my kids. Thanks anwyay.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Keep your damn hands off my kids. Thanks.
LOL what a sad response. It's doctors that are touching their kids. If a bum ass parents can afford insurance/healthcare for their kids, and don't provide it, they shouldn't be fined - social services should take their fucking kids away from their unfit asses.
Because government knows best. Shit, why dont we just let the government play catcher in the delivery room?
Yet another pathetic, meaningless reply. :thumbsdown:
You should know. You pioneered pathetic, meaningless replies.

Actually there is meaning behind my post. The meaning is pretty simple:

Leave me and my family alone. You and/or any government entity DONT know best. Dont tell me what I should and shouldnt do with my family. 200 years ago there wasnt health insurance or health care as we know it today... yet people survived and flourished. The decisions I make for my family are for me (and my wife) to make. They arent for you or some government agency to make. That is called freedom.

I can see where you didnt pick up on that. Sorry, I expected too much of you. I must have known that I expected too much from you, because my edit to clarify crossed with your pathetic, meaningless response.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
hahahaha wow, you dish out so much manufactured bullshit, it's great. You are truly clueless, kid. It's really cute how you take my desire to see kids have healthcare and turn it into my being lucky to survive this far. So tell me - my education comparison above - is that damn dirty gub'ment destroying your freedom and liberty by making your kids go to school, too?
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
hahahaha wow, you dish out so much manufactured bullshit, it's great. You are truly clueless, kid. It's really cute how you take my desire to see kids have healthcare and turn it into my being lucky to survive this far. So tell me - my education comparison above - is that damn dirty gub'ment destroying your freedom and liberty by making your kids go to school, too?
Does that mean that you dont want to try to mandate how me and my family live our lives? Shit... what will I ever do now? Oh well, I guess I will just have to rely on my judgement and experience to guide my own decisions.

I desire to see kids have healthcare too. I just dont desire that you or the government tell me what decisions to make regarding MY kids. MINE. NOT YOURS. NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. That doesnt seem unreasonable. Do you have kids? I am betting no... but then again I lost a thousand bucks on "Which hand is the money in?" I used to feel more like you did... then I had kids of my own. Your perspective changes.

Yes, your were quite adept at picking out the personal insult towards you and COMPLETELY ignoring the substance of the disagreement we have. Good job. Way to support your socialist tendencies with an actual reasoned arguement.

Why is it when someone stands up for freedom, they are assumed to be anti-government radicals? Freedom is really not a complex concept.

1) I am an individual with rights and freedoms.
2) One of these freedoms is the freedom to make decisions on my children's behalf
3) Because I have these freedoms, stay the hell out of my life.

What's so hard about that? Go worry about yourself. Dont worry about me or mine. Beleive me, I wont be wasting my energy worrying about you. I have my own shit to deal with.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Underinsured... I really have never understood that term. Underinsured for what? Definte underinsured for me.
An example of being underinsured is having a policy that covers up to $10,000 for a given condition when the rising cost of health care makes the actual cost of treating the covered condition closer to $50,000. Another example would be having a policy you were told would cover a range of conditions only to find that the insurer is scouring your records looking any excuse to avoid paying for the treatment you've already received.
Then that is of course the problem of the policy holder and their fault for not taking or supplementing their insurance properly. The government should not be involved with fixing peoples stupidity.

If anybody is "underinsured" it is their own freaking fault and nobody else. I really don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
351Cleveland, answer the question about the comparison to education.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I have no problem at all with plans that subsidize coverage for all children up to the age of 17 yrs, 364 days. My problem is with the expensive tax-paid plans that go beyond their 18th birthdays.

In fact, this single issue is the biggest problem I have with Obama. He still has my vote, but I sincerely hope that he does not screw up MY family's healthcare for the sake of others... the minute that MY family receives lesser services due to some shoddy government-run system is the minute I become militantly opposed to said government.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
351Cleveland, answer the question about the comparison to education.
Its called home schooling. But these days the k-12 education is more like babysitting that most parents are OK with because it is after all just "babysitting".
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?

Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
You can get healthcare without having healthcare insurance. People seem to forget this fact.
No, no, no! It's immoral and illegal to get medical treatment and *not* have an insurance company make obscene amounts of money!
Our "break your leg and you're bankrupt" system of healthcare is absolutely broken to the point where everyone needs insurance if they're not rich. I dont think theres any disputing that with any reasonable retort.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,373
42
91
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe a little OT but anyone who would have a child and not insure them is crazy.
Kinda On-Topic actually. That's a valid point, and maybe that's the justification for the penalty under Obama's plan?

Children s lives are very important, and I do believe they NEED healthcare throughout their childhood.
You can get healthcare without having healthcare insurance. People seem to forget this fact.
No, no, no! It's immoral and illegal to get medical treatment and *not* have an insurance company make obscene amounts of money!
Our "break your leg and you're bankrupt" system of healthcare is absolutely broken to the point where everyone needs insurance if they're not rich. I dont think theres any disputing that with any reasonable retort.
I'll give you two guesses as to what entity created this predicament.

And if it's broken, how about we make strides to fix it, rather than continue to pay the extortion fees?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Deeko
351Cleveland, answer the question about the comparison to education.
Its called home schooling. But these days the k-12 education is more like babysitting that most parents are OK with because it is after all just "babysitting".
They are still required to be educated, they still have to take the standardized tests to make sure they're progressing (at least in PA I know they do). Up to a certain point, there is compulsory education in the country. Plus, you're still paying the taxes for the local schools anyway - so it's kinda like the government saying you have to provide health insurance, but then you being allowed to provide care how you see fit. It's a very similar situation, and other than the staunchest libertarians I don't see many people complaining about it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY