Obama Health Care Penalty

[Thump553]

McCain-at least twice talked about the small employer having to pay a fine under Obama's plan if they didn't provide health insurance. He even cided Obama for not stating the amount of the "fine."

Every fact checking site I've seen says there is no such employer fine. Apparently it exists only in McCain's mind and I'm a bit surprised Obama didn''t call him on it. Then again, the time period for responses was way too short (as they both demonstrated over and over) and Obama may have made a strategical decision not to get bogged down in a yes / no bickering during the debate.

 

[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.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Any info on the government insurance plan he intends to offer as an alternative? How much would it be expected to cost and how's the coverage?

Unless I am mistaken, there are only estimates and speculation going around about the costs. The details concerning coverage are very vague as well. If I am mistaken and more info is actually out there (especially about the coverage) then I would like to know it as well because I have not found much that is solid.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: xenolith
I read Obama's HC plan and all it says in reference to the OP's question is:

(5) REQUIRE COVERAGE OF CHILDREN. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that all children have health care coverage. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents? plans..

Hypothetically, what if the parent(s) earn $250,000 in annual income and choose not to carry health insurance for their child(ren)?

Will they be fined? What will the amount of the fine be?

Obama would not answer those questions.

Who makes $250k and doesn't insure their children?

Who knows? Are you implying there aren't any?

It's not a moral question. It's a pragmatic legislative question.

Of course he's not implying there aren't "any." He's asking a rhetorical question indicating that he thinks the number is negligible and therefore not worth discussing in a hypothetical.

Course I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that's what I see, and can't really argue with.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: xenolith
Who knows? Are you implying there aren't any?

It's not a moral question. It's a pragmatic legislative question.

Of course he's not implying there aren't "any." He's asking a rhetorical question indicating that he thinks the number is negligible and therefore not worth discussing in a hypothetical.

Course I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that's what I see, and can't really argue with.

...and he would be correct if that is the case.

Yes, I am assuming that the number is negligible. However, I doubt many would challenge such an assumption.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Thump553
McCain-at least twice talked about the small employer having to pay a fine under Obama's plan if they didn't provide health insurance. He even cided Obama for not stating the amount of the "fine."

Every fact checking site I've seen says there is no such employer fine. Apparently it exists only in McCain's mind and I'm a bit surprised Obama didn''t call him on it. Then again, the time period for responses was way too short (as they both demonstrated over and over) and Obama may have made a strategical decision not to get bogged down in a yes / no bickering during the debate.

If Obama didn't have a fine he would have said it, he doesn't want to talk specifics.

 

[CanOWorms]

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.

I already addressed car insurance in my post. It's a completely different scenario.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Thump553
McCain-at least twice talked about the small employer having to pay a fine under Obama's plan if they didn't provide health insurance. He even cided Obama for not stating the amount of the "fine."

Every fact checking site I've seen says there is no such employer fine. Apparently it exists only in McCain's mind and I'm a bit surprised Obama didn''t call him on it. Then again, the time period for responses was way too short (as they both demonstrated over and over) and Obama may have made a strategical decision not to get bogged down in a yes / no bickering during the debate.

If Obama didn't have a fine he would have said it, he doesn't want to talk specifics.

I was tempted to ask about that statement too. I do think that Obama didn't want/need to waste his name on a response to that. If you ask me, it's a far stretch for McCain to bring that up if it's information that can't be really proven, anywhere.

IMHO both sides (in particular McCain/Palin) need to stop giving comments that are either misleading(or half-truths), or flat our lies. We don't need that right now. We need just straight facts related to their own plans, not someone else's. Does that make sense?

 

[thirtythree]

Obama's plan does state that small businesses will be exempt from the employer fine. He will also offer a tax credit to help small businesses that provide health insurance. Text - search for "More Health Care Misleads".

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

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.

I already addressed car insurance in my post. It's a completely different scenario.

Yea I didn't read the end of your post, my bad, but you didn't really address it. You asked how it could be constitutional - it's already constitutional to require insurance.

Regardless, you're right, it's a different scenario - but tell me, how is it fair for children to die because their parents are bums? Those kids can't help it. You can throw the "personal responsibility" crap out the window for this one.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

When you say it should be a right, what other rights should we have?

I assume when you say right you mean it should be government (tax payer funded), am I correct?

Does the right to bear arms make the government buy me a gun?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

When you say it should be a right, what other rights should we have?

I assume when you say right you mean it should be government (tax payer funded), am I correct?

Does the right to bear arms make the government buy me a gun?

Well said.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The numbers I do not have, but what I can tell you is that hospitals and doctors in general will very often charge health insurance companies a lot more money than they will charge patients without health insurance. Much more than a 10% difference too. This was proven to me with a recent situation concerning my wife only a few months ago. Without going into unnecessary detail, the price if she had insurance would have been something like $6500 and she would have had to pay about $3500 out of her own pocket after you do all the math. Without it would have been between $2500-$3000 out of her own pocket.

My experience is the exact opposite. The insurance company usually pays about half of what the hospital/clinic charges. The insurance company calls the amount that they pay the 'allowable amount' and the rest is ignored.
In several cases the hospital/clinic started off by billing me directly so I am pretty sure that there was no discount by going directly to me.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

When you say it should be a right, what other rights should we have?

I assume when you say right you mean it should be government (tax payer funded), am I correct?

Does the right to bear arms make the government buy me a gun?

:thumbsup:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
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.

I would be very interested to know the average number of employees for those businesses and how that 40% number was arrived at.

According to the US Census data, there are 25,409,525 firms in the US, of which only 5,885,784 have employees (the other 19,523,741 firms are "nonemployer firms" which means they have no employees, these are usually single-person operations where the owner is the only worker, such as a one-man photography studio, and are almost never a primary source of income).

Using those numbers, well over 75% of all businesses offer no health care to their employees since over 75% of all businesses have no employees.

Even if we assume that the 40% applies only to employer firms, 2,777,680 of the 5,885,784 employer firms have 4 or fewer employees. That means that over 47% of all businesses that have any employees at all have 4 employees or fewer! There are an additional 1,043,448 firms that have 5 to 9 employees. That means that 3,821,128 firms have under 10 employees; this is nearly 70%!

So, even if every only companies with fewer than 5 employees offered no health benefits, it would mean that 47% of companies offered no health care. Note that this is higher than the quoted rate. Obviously, even some very, very small companies are offering health benefits.

When people talk about how 40% of all companies fail to provide health care they don't realise that the majority of "companies" are, in fact, small-town operations where the owner isn't making millions, but rather is, at best, maintaining a middle-class life on the earnings from his business.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: xenolith
I read Obama's HC plan and all it says in reference to the OP's question is:

(5) REQUIRE COVERAGE OF CHILDREN. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that all children have health care coverage. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents? plans..

Hypothetically, what if the parent(s) earn $250,000 in annual income and choose not to carry health insurance for their child(ren)?

Will they be fined? What will the amount of the fine be?

Obama would not answer those questions.

Who makes $250k and doesn't insure their children?

The same sort of people who put $100,000 in a bonded account and therefore don't have to carry auto insurance. Most (all?) states allow for a person to be "self-insured" provided that they have proof of sufficient funds available.

ZV

 

[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.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

What does the CHIPS program do then?

The current number of uninsured and under-insured people, especially children, suggests the answer to your question is, not enough.

Which is why Bush put double the money into the program that Clinton did.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Budmantom

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.

When you say it should be a right, what other rights should we have?

I assume when you say right you mean it should be government (tax payer funded), am I correct?

Does the right to bear arms make the government buy me a gun?

Does the right to representation make the government provide polling stations and protection from intimidation?

Does the right to life and liberty make the government fund a military to protect you?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: winnar111
Does the right to bear arms make the government buy me a gun?

Does the right to representation make the government provide polling stations and protection from intimidation?

Does the right to life and liberty make the government fund a military to protect you?

No those were done by the 24th amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and Article I, respectively.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
Obama's plan does state that small businesses will be exempt from the employer fine. He will also offer a tax credit to help small businesses that provide health insurance. Text - search for "More Health Care Misleads".

I figured as much. Considering how skewed McCain's definition of "rich" is, I wouldn't be surprised if "small business" is anything smaller than a Fortune 500 company.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

not if you're 8

 

[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.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Does the right to bear arms make the government buy me a gun?

Does not being able to afford to buy a gun mean you could die from simply not having one? :roll:

If you need urgent health care, and you don't have health insurance or any ability to pay for it, you could die or become disabled. If you managed to get care at an emergency facility, it would be unnecessarily expensive and possibly too late to save you.

 

[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.