Solution for those who do not want to purchase health care insurance...

[liberal N proud]

If you do not want insurance, do not expect care.

It is that simple, the ACA is there to help people get insurance against medical costs. For those who think that forcing people to buy insurance here is a simple solution. Not one that is humane or makes sense, but then not having insurance against the inevitable does not make sense either.

So if you are adamant about not being covered, sign and affidavit stating that you are turning down the option to purchase coverage and the either a) you can afford what ever medical bills come your way or; b) you simply do not want to be treated for any medical emergency or otherwise because you do not want to burden other with footing the bill for your medical costs. You should be required to wear a tag or ID that indicates that you turned down coverage.

It is that simple, get covered or don't complain that you can't pay the bill.

We fought for years to get everyone health-care, it is not the single payer we all hoped for but it is a way to keep everyone else from paying for your medical bills through higher bills of their own. Why should responsible people have to pay for those who are not?

[peace13]

1. I think one of the problems is that even with the new policies that are offered...

...the deductibles are still prohibitive. While the hospitals will get paid all but the first 6000.00 the patient will still have to deal with a huge bill, even after committing a portion of their very tight budget to this mandated policy's monthly premium.

Don't get me wrong, I agree insurance for all, but get the middle man out of the middle. Look at other civilized countries and see that these huge deductibles are not part of their plan. Get a lung transplant in Canada and pay zero after a year in hospital. I know this because my friend's son had this two years ago.

This is a stepping stone but we must not linger long or the moss will slip us down stream.

[Myrina]

5. ^ This ^

How is it considered 'insurance' when you can't afford to use it?

I had surgery 18 months ago for which the bill from the hospital was $11,800 (for a tubal and 3 hours in outpatient/recovery).
My CIGNA deductible was $3000, plus 20% of anything over that, so my 'responsibility' was close to $5k.
I JUST finished paying it off a couple months back, and I'm in what's considered a high paying job.

To expect someone making median income (or less) to do the same, but at $6000, is ludicrous.

[Pinkflamingo]

9. I see you point, but what we have is a great first step.

If there were no deductibles, people would be streaming into doctor's offices by the truck load. Many people have avoided having their conditions diagnosed for fear of having a pre-existing condition, and have hope to find a job with coverage, or save money, or whatever....so doctors expect pent up demand. (I'm a doctor.)

Hopefully the law can be improved on as time goes on.

[peace13]

46. Note to self. Low income folks are on Medicaid.

In Ohio they get points if they do go to wellness check ups. They are encouraged to GO to the doctor! Dental, eye glasses and transportation to appointments.

But if you have a job making 25 K you will get ACA and a huge deductible. No dental or eye care. How does that reward the low income worker?

[Ms. Toad]

52. Here are some real Ohio numbers.

In Ohio, a 35 year old with 25,000 in income can get a Silver plan, with a $3000 deductible & $3750 out of pocket max (before cost sharing subsidies) for $185.08/month.

Because that includes a premium subsidy, it will also include cost sharing subsidies which will lower at least the out of pocket maximum, and possibly the deductible, as well. And most people don't have $3,000 in medical expenses every year; most don't have more than the preventative care visits (covered at no charge before the deductible) and one or two more.

You can get a lower deductible by choosing a higher premium. A $1500 deductible (with vision and dental) is $253.02/month.

It isn't the best - and you can buy a worse plan - but the combination of premium subsidies and cost sharing (not available on the site I checked) make the cost manageable for all but the chronically ill.

[peace13]

60. Not aware of cost sharing subsidies for deductible and out of pocket. Sounds interesting.

The higher premiums with eye and dental would be pretty impossible on 25K unless they were living with someone and then again that would effect the subsidies.

All in all 3K is out of the reach of most Americans. It does limit loss in case of a one time accident or surgery but really is not helpful with folks on medication or chronic problems.

[Ms. Toad]

63. That is part of the ACA.

Most people who are eligible for subsidies are also eligible for subsidized cost sharing (it lowers out of pocket caps, which translates to a lower deductible if your deductible is lower than your subsidized out of pocket max, and it may also lower your co-pays and co-insurance). The CA site sets it out well, but most of the ones which don't allow you to buy the plan don't include that.

Here's a decent explanation: http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/How-The-Cost-sharing-Health-Insurance-Subsidy-Works.htm

And you're right about people on medication and chronic problems. Our health care expenses this year will be at least $8,900 (there is no cap on medication). Next year (when the cap includes medication) it will be capped at $6000. But that is an expense we bear each and every year. Most people hit that amount once in a blue moon.

[peace13]

67. Thanks so much for the link!

We have a small business and have been paying through the nose for the last eight years, just hanging on. At least the preexisting business is done. We are still saddled with high premiums and high deductible. I think we will try to make the ACA leap soon.

My best to you and yours, Kim

[Ms. Toad]

88. One thing you might look into

Is a high deductible plan, with a partial or full HRA.

The last place I worked (~15 employees) found it more cost effective to have a high deductible plan ($3000/individual, $6000/family) with 100% reimbursement of all out of pocket costs.

To make it work, you don't have to reimburse employees 100%, but premiums are often so much lower for catastrophic plans - that even in a group of 15 the amount reimbursed at 100% is likely to be lower than the added premium to buy down to a "reasonable" deductible. When we switched to this scheme, we actually got far better coverage for a lower cost.

[peace13]

90. Thanks for that! n/t

[CTyankee]

101. My husband and I are big advocates of seeing our PCP first and getting a referral from them if

it is warranted. We feel that it saves on the cost of health care and is the responsible thing to do. However, I do understand that some people either don't have a PCP or have one they are unhappy with. So I suppose my spouse and I are lucky. I would urge folks to find a really good PCP and discuss the health issue with her/him first. I know our 2 docs are cool with doing that.

[AndyA]

26. Agree completely--health costs are out of control

and protecting the insurance companies profits doesn't help keep costs down.

Dump the middle man (the insurance companies) and see how much lower costs are. Couple that with paying a minimum wage that's a living wage, and things turn around pretty fast for many Americans.

Enough of the corporate welfare and wealthy not paying any taxes--everybody should pull their fair share and corporations and individuals at the top have been getting a free ride on the backs of less fortunate Americans for too long!

[Jesus Malverde]

33. well said.

[JNinWB]

2. Those are interesting suggestions.

But, I think there are two, far more likely scenarios:

1. Those without health insurance, who show up at the ER, will go to the back of the waiting room. As soon as all patients with ins. are treated, the ER will assist the uninsured.

2. Hospitals, and other care providers, who can no longer depend on government subsidies or higher bills for the insured, will become relentless in collecting the money owed from the free-riders.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. Pay us or die!!!

Nice.

[liberal N proud]

16. Just those who are telling us it is wrong to require everyone to get covered.

If you want coverage, you should be covered.

[HockeyMom]

4. Pay for something you are not going to use?

I was fortunate that I just became eligible for FREE Medicare, but I did think about what I would have done if I was a year younger. I haven't had insurance for the past 3 years since I quit my job. My husband has been out of work in the past when we both didn't have insurance, or the money to pay for it. I probably would have just paid the fine.

I suppose you can say I am part of your b). Even something given for free doesn't mean you want to or will use it. They were on a Wellness kick where I used to work; all kinds of free "wellness" tests. Sorry, no thanks. Do you know they penalized me to the tune of $360 a month for not complying with their Wellness testing? Does Medicare penalize you for not using these tests? I have no intention of using any of Medicare's Wellness Tests or Physicals. But it's FREE! lol

Last year I was on a tour and hit my head on a tree. My hair was soaked in blood and running into my eyes. I did not have insurance. The Tour Operator told me that they had insurance and would drive me to the hospital and be covered under their insurance. I declined and stopped the bleeding myself. No, I did not want to go; insurance or NO insurance.

Maybe I need some kind of bracelet like you mentioned, even now that I HAVE insurance. Go away, and leave me alone on a bracelet? Or maybe I need to join a religion that doesn't believe in medical treatment. Maybe I need to research that one.

[dionysus]

17. "maybe I need to join a religion that doesn't believe in medical treatment" sounds like you already

have.

don't worry, herbs will fix it.

[HockeyMom]

51. The me's of the country

keep YOUR insurance down because we don't use our insurance. Insurance companies LOVE us. They don't like people putting in claims. That is what has caused health care to skyrocket. People running to doctors for every little thing.

Unfortunately, there are no incentives and money back (like auto insurance) for not putting in health claims. Anyway, my choice. Just don't penalize me for NOT using it: "wellness" crap.

[zipplewrath]

6. Keep fighting

"We fought for years to get everyone health-care..."

Keep fighting, because we aren't there yet. We don't have universal insurance, and we don't have universal care. Once the deductibles are included, you can still expect a fair number of people to be unable to afford the underlying care.

[liberal N proud]

18. I agree, we need to continue to push for universal coverage

[historylovr]

74. Exactly!

[sabrina 1]

7. Wow! 'If you do not WANT insurance', that is what Right Wingers have always

said, accusing people to whom $10.00 makes a difference in whether their family gets enough food to survive on, and CANNOT AFFORD even that much for HC, of NOT WANTING IT!

I am so disgusted by what all this has revealed about our side of the aisle.

Do you KNOW anyone at all who simply CAN'T afford even $20 a month?

Apparently you don't understand the problems families face when they are barely making it, then have even one extra bill to pay every month.

Thanks, but some of us do. And what we need in DC are people who are not so privileged they can ignore the individual problems faced by ordinary people and talk in percentages, or statistics.

So sick of the defenses and excuses for what is an egregious crime in this country, the lack of a HC system where NO ONE has to fear dying because they can't afford it, and where NO ONE is left behind.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. +1

I don't even know what to say here. Don't "want" insurance. This is beyond disgusting.

[liberal N proud]

15. I am saying to those who can afford but choose not to

Or claim not to, this is the answer.

Everyone who wants insurance should be able to get insurance even if it requires government assistance.

I am saying to answer all those who say it should not be a requirement to sign the affidavit that they refuse treatment at the cost of others.

[sabrina 1]

29. Well, I am against that also. I would never deny life saving treatment to ANYONE.

And how many people do you know who can afford HC and refuse to buy it? I have never met a single person who was without HC, who COULD afford it. Every person I know who did not have insurance, could NOT afford it.

I've had this argument for YEARS with Right Wingers.

Do you think that a dying person should be presented with their previously signed agreement 'Oops, sorry, here's your death warrant, which you signed several years ago, no life saving treatment for you'.

What a society this would be if every time someone needed life saving treatment, we checked their backgrounds to see if they deserve to live or die.

I feel sick to think that this is where we are as a society.

Money V Life. Even a not very good life?

I know where I stand on the issue.

Even someone who didn't buy an insurance policy deserves life saving treatment, in fact has a right to it in a civilized society, imho.

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Co-worker and I just discussing this

People do not have anything left to spare, not a single dollar. I work in SNAP and Medicaid, been a caseworker since 2009. I see it everyday.

[Jesus Malverde]

36. Thank you! ...nt

[historylovr]

75. +A Million.

People either don't understand or they don't care because they're more worried about The Brand.

[fadedrose]

10. Religious people who don't hold with doctors

might be able to pull it off, but when their children are critically ill, sometimes the government steps in and makes them get care....but the doctors only got this infomraton when the people took their kids to him in the first place.. Why? I can't figure, if they don't want a kid to get treated, keep him secret, oh, then, there's the teachers, or somebody.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. It's not that we don't want it,

it's that we can't afford the premiums, even with the subsidies AND the co-pays AND the deductibles. Maybe you people have lived in a bubble all your lives, I don't know. It's obvious you haven't been desperately poor.

There is nothing liberal about you. I'm ashamed for you, even if you aren't.

[PowerToThePeople]

20. Rec

There is nothing liberal about you. I'm ashamed for you, even if you aren't.

Thank you for this. I was more angered at the use of "liberal" in his handle, but have calmed down. I feel some sympathy for him in regards to his lack of sympathy for anyone who has been on the wrong end of capitalism's results.

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. I'd like to have them shadow me for a day.

SNAP and Medicaid.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Especially now that SNAP

has been reduced. Happy Holidays!

[lostincalifornia]

28. There are no premiums with expanded Medicare you know

[Le Taz Hot]

84. Yes. Yes I do.

But there are a whole lot of us that make JUST enough not to qualify for expanded Medicare. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[lostincalifornia]

85. I was just throwing out a suggestion. Some states refused to even expand that.

[Jesus Malverde]

39. It's not even desperately poor it's working class.

The people most affected are your small business owners like contractors, yoga instructors, coffee shop owners, etc.

These are people just getting by, not the rich fat cats who get their corporate health insurance plans.

[adirondacker]

12. .

[Fumesucker]

13. Indeed, responsible people have a good job and plenty of disposable income

The problem is all those lazy irresponsible poor lower middle class people.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. You said it right there

[Jesus Malverde]

14. The exemption is from the “individual shared responsibility payment” to qualify

The individual shared responsibility payment
If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee known as the individual shared responsibility payment.

The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher.

In 2014 the payment for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.

You make the payment when you file your 2014 taxes, which are due in April 2015.


Exemptions from the payment
Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”

You may qualify for an exemption if:

You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.

https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/

Not a single dollar from the shared responsibility payment is used to offset or subsidize the ACA. The penalty goes to general revenues for purposes like funding the military, paying bankers back the interest we owe, etc....

[Savannahmann]

23. Great fix for the problems the people have.

You know, those who can't afford it, or for whom the promises haven't exactly panned out. Just tell them to fuck off. Are you a Republican by any chance? Because with that plan I'm almost certain you can win the Republican Primary.

[liberal N proud]

24. Obviously you have not read the entire post or replies.

Calling me a republican is borderline on rules. Just saying.

[lostincalifornia]

30. Borderline, bullshit, it is against the rules.

[liberal N proud]

32. I am generous

[lostincalifornia]

34. Very

[Fumesucker]

48. Rules?

There aren't any rules, everything not locked for being off topic goes to a jury where community standards are the criteria used.

[PowerToThePeople]

35. except

Savannahmann didn't call you a Republican. They asked you if you were? That is a question, not a statement.

Probably not the most accurate to say Republican. A right wing and/or Libertarian idea is what I personally would view "buy insurance or get no medical care" to be.

[liberal N proud]

38. The real purpose of the idea is to shut down those who are bemoaning the requirement

The purpose of the requirement is to get more people covered, is it not?

I still think that until we have universal coverage, there will be no real solution but ACA is what we got, so we need to make it work.

[PowerToThePeople]

41. I do not know

The purpose of the requirement is to get more people covered, is it not?

Insurance coverage is not medical care. I want people to have medical care.

Personally I loathe insurance. Everything about it is a scam. But, so is banking and many others. Industries that only exist to service capital. It supports a corrupt power structure that I despise. I will not willingly choose to support it any more than I need to.

[Jesus Malverde]

43. The purpose of the requirement

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Is to force citizens to buy healthcare from a private for profit corporation. The law written by these corporations to expand their base of potential customers by many millions.

The sanction to not buying this private for profit insurance is to pay a penalty with the IRS.

[Ms. Toad]

91. The actual language of the law

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES. – In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by the section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalties with respect to such failure.

LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES. – The Secretary {read IRS} shall not – file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

26 USC § 5000A (g)(2)(A)- (B)

[Jesus Malverde]

92. So there is no enforcing it?

The penalties and interest just accumulate in a separate account from the taxpayers other taxpayer liabilities and the IRS leaves you alone?

Call me skeptical, but I see the word timely as a huge loophole. When does untimely become criminal?

We're told over and over the penalties of not participating... are you saying their are no financial repercussions to opting out of the ACA?

Thanks!

[Ms. Toad]

94. No liens or criminal penalties can be imposed.

You still owe the penalty. If you have a refund due, the fines and any accrued interest and penalty will be deducted from the refund. In addition, as long as it remains unpaid, you will continue to accrue interest and penalties on the unpaid amount.

The limitation is that liens against property and otherwise applicable criminal penalties cannot be used for enforcement of the fine and any accrued interest or penalties.

At least, in theory, you could avoid actually paying the penalty as long as you are never in a position to have the IRS owe you money.

[Jesus Malverde]

95. I removed the erroneous paragraph

[Ms. Toad]

98. Yay!!

I just get really aggravated when we shoot ourselves in the foot.

I know it isn't perfect - but we need to give it a chance, so more people understand the benefit of having better access to health care so we can move toward a better, more equitable and complete, solution. I've been waiting for 4 years for this implementation, which will help so many.

There are those who will be hurt by it - younger folks, to start, and because the out of pocket maxes are so high for the lower premiums, people with chronic illnesses will not be helped as much as I had hoped. Our costs go from ~ $22,000 a year (which has been paid by my employer) to $8900 (or more) this year out of pocket because prescriptions are uncapped due to the delayed implementation & $6000 for each and every year from now on (adjusted upward for inflation, I am sure) - because we are billed ~$65,000 a year every for care. Those high deductibles and out of pocket maxes are manageable (in the way an occasional car purchase is manageable) when they only happen once a year. But when they happen every year...Ugh.

[Jesus Malverde]

93. I found this reference that explains it well. thanks for your help..

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

[Ms. Toad]

96. The last sentence (update) is the second part of the code which I quoted earlier.

That provision removes the liens or criminal prosecution from the IRS enforcement toolbox for this particular tax (and accrued interest and penalties).

[sabrina 1]

79. Progressives opposed Mandated insurance long before this. So did Obama btw.

And for very good reasons. All you have to do to find a few of those reasons is to go google Obama's arguments AGAINST 'the requirement' during the campaign.

He sounded so Liberal that I chose him over Hillary based on his stand on this 'requirement' and a few other issues.

So did many others.

I opposed it because it was a Corporate idea that was bad for the people. And I still oppose it and always will because I agreed with Obama, he was correct to say that it wasn't that people didn't want Health Care, they couldn't afford it. And he made the point even more clear when he stated that 'if forcing people to buy homes would end homelessness, we would do it'.

I don't know where that person went, but I liked him enough to support him.

[lostincalifornia]

27. If they do not have insurance by march 2014, and they go into a hospital, it will be like it was

Before the ACA

They can have their wages garnished, or lose their property. Those that choose that don't care, most likely because they feel their possessions are not worth that much, and they can declare bankruptcy

An uninsured person going into an ER will be taken care of one way or another

[Jesus Malverde]

44. They will also have to pay a penalty on their taxes...nt

[Humanist_Activist]

31. Eh, I'll have insurance, I still won't have care, outside of a yearly checkup...

all I can hope for is that nothing shows up that is wrong with me, but if there is, it will go untreated, because I can't afford to use the insurance I'm buying.

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. I'm already in that boat.

and that's with insurance for Kentucky state employees.

[Humanist_Activist]

47. Mine will be employer provided, since my employer provides it, I get no subsidies...

or cost sharing. At this point, I'm not sure how good or bad the plan is going to be, just filled out the health questionnaire for next year and will see what my options are in December. Considering how tight my budget is now, I, quite literally, have nothing to spare. Oh well.

[Puzzledtraveller]

62. We completed our enrollment period here

Prior to this year we had passive enrollment, if you wanted to keep the same plan you did not need to do anything. This year we all had to select new plans. Every employee in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The new plans are a step back from what we had and cost significantly more, both for the employee contribution we pay each pay period and overall out of pockets costs within the plans.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. The plan that was available last year sucked, I decided not to enroll..

it paid for nothing until the deductible was met, and they fought paying for anything claimed after that, from what I heard from coworkers.

They are supposed to change it this year, and give us more choices, like I said, I'll see by the end of December.

[cbdo2007]

53. LOL

If you get life threatening cancer....you'll use it, and it will save your life, but that's ok you can act like a tough guy on the interwebs and keep your anonimity.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Considering that, in the past year, my grandmother and mother...

both died of cancer, and hospice is very expensive, I think I would opt to opt out of it. Even if I had an easily treatable cancer, what am I supposed to do to afford it?

Hell, I have had a pinched nerve in my left shoulder for going on 7 years now, and I frankly don't ever expect to get it fixed, I was in between jobs when it happened, and I was barely able to pay for the physical therapy I needed, it was a frozen shoulder for a while. While some days are good and some days are bad, sometimes really bad, I just endure, not even taking medication because that is too damn expensive too. I was told I need surgery, yeah, good luck in trying to afford that!

[cbdo2007]

59. If you ain't got nothin, you got nothin to lose.

To each their own I guess, but money isn't going to stop me from getting the treatment I need in the case of a life threatening emergency. Worst case scenario is they get everything I own, I file bankruptcy and start over.

[sabrina 1]

78. Some people don't own anything so they don't haave anything to sell or for anyone to take.

Nothing to file bankruptcy over either. And no money to do so even if they could.

So the dying from lack of health care will continue. Until the American people stop making excuses for their respective political teams and start caring about PEOPLE.

It is a National Emergency when tens of thousands of people are dying each year in a country that spends more than all other countries combined, throughout history, on its Death Machine but refuses to take the simple steps required to save the lives of over 40, 000 of its own citizens every year..

Which is why I laugh when they claim to be 'protecting national security' with their wars and their spying and their Patriot Acts etc. As if we are supposed to actually believe any of them cares one bit about anyone's security other than their own 'class', which doesn't include any of us.

They must love the enablers though, fighting against their own interests to protect THEIRS. I know if I were a soulless corporate con artist, I would.

[cbdo2007]

102. I appreciate your position....

in general but you're pretty far off the mark on the whole bankruptcy thing.

You don't need money to file bankruptcy, it just wipes out all your debts. You don't have to sell anything or have things for people to take, you just go to the hospital and get your treatments and then declare bankruptcy when you get the bill - it's the American way. Sure, it isn't a *good* way, but it is the only option millions of people have.

[former9thward]

37. You will have to get the federal law requiring ER rooms give treatment, insurance or not, changed.

A conservative's dream. No insurance -- die on the street.

[liberal N proud]

40. I think once you tell people they have to make that choice, they will opt for coverage

But make them choose! Then they can't bitch that they are being forced.

[former9thward]

45. Can I opt out of being defended?

Stop taking out the defense department portion of my taxes and I promise not to complain if we are invaded.

[Fumesucker]

49. That's what we have the Second Amendment for in the first place

National Defense via a Well Regulated Militia, as established by the Constitution.

[former9thward]

65. Exactly.

I'll take my chances. Maybe I will like the new overlords.

[Fumesucker]

50. The Final Solution, eh?

Exit, stage right.

[seveneyes]

54. "Why should responsible people have to pay for those who are not?"

There is something about that string of words that doesn't feel quite right.

[liberal N proud]

56. And you don't think you are now?

When the average uninsured Joe goes to the emergency room and can't pay, do you think the corporation pays?

Guess again, you and I who have insurance pay. We pay through higher bills at the doctor/hospital which are passed on through higher premiums and copays etc.

We pay for through higher cost and insurance, why pay through the nose both places?

[JNinWB]

57. As a responsible person, I have auto insurance, property insurance, liability insurance.

And, I always hope that I will not have to use any of them. As long as there are careless drivers, people who smoke in bed, and those who see slip and falls as a way to get money, I will have to buy coverage.

That's how insurance works.

[bunnies]

81. Right?

And while we're at it, those irresponsible poor people starving on the street? Fuck em. Why should we have to pay? Bootstraps and all that.

[rug]

58. Are you going to read the affidavits while they die before your eyes?

Or wait till later?

[adirondacker]

68. I'm reminded of this classic cartoon...

http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef013485dc2183970c-800wi

[rug]

69. Touche.

[NCTraveler]

61. Extremely poor idea.

There are so many in poverty without insurance. Many will still not have insurance under the ACA. Your whole "get covered or don't complain" is cruel and inhumane. There is nothing progressive about it. Actually, it seems to be an extreme right wing thought process. Healthcare for all. Health insurance is not healthcare.

"because you do not want to burden other with footing the bill for your medical costs."

Until we get a healthcare system that works for all, they are more than welcome to burden me and my progressive friends. It is one of the things you have to accept with the disaster that is healthcare in this country.

[Major Hogwash]

87. Hahaha, no kidding.

His rant sounds just like one of those rants they publish in the "Letters to the Editors" section of the newspaper here.

If the medicaid expansion that was offered to the several states would have been allowed in all of the states in this country, like it was supposed to be -- that's how the ACA was written -- we would have another 6 million people covered by health care insurance.

But, that didn't happen because many of the Rethuglican Governors in red states didn't want all of their citizens to have health care insurance of any kind.
Why?

They just might use it!!!

[Romulox]

64. Why, as Americans, can't we have what virtually every other civilized nation in the world has?

How is America great if it can't provide basic services that the majority of the people in the developed world take for granted? That is, public healthcare?

[Phentex]

71. I'd like to add to this...

Why can't we do this without requiring some sort of test to see how responsible people are? Why can't we do this simply because they exist and we have compassion for others?

[Fumesucker]

83. Because no Republicans would vote for the ACA

So it had to made more conservative and less liberal in order to get Democratic votes.

Or something..

[Yo_Mama]

70. Because the insurance is not affordable.

The law exempts individuals for whom coverage would cost more than 8% of household income from the shared responsibility payment (the individual tax for not having insurance).

The creators of this law KNEW that not everyone would be insured or have the chance to get affordable insurance.

The law that you can still get treated for an emergency at a hospital ER still stands, and it covers those who can't afford insurance, those who can't afford to pay the deductible to access medical care, and those who are not eligible (such as persons not legal residents).

I've got to say your attitude sucks - ACA is in many ways a step forward, but it does not solve everyone's problems, and this sort of attitude just grinds salt in the wounds of those for whom it does not. Callous disregard for the real problems of individuals is not a hallmark of liberal thinking.

ACA is not a bad law because it doesn't solve everyone's problems - the hope of ACA is that it will solve enough people's problems so that the whole issue will become manageable. Again, stuff like this does not help build support for ACA.

[solarhydrocan]

72. You've been reading the Heritage Foundation document that started this train wreck

haven't you.

When did "liberals" become such fans of insurance? This is absolutely disgusting.

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
By Stuart M. Butler, Heritage Foudation

2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness.

Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility.

Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different.

If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans".[21] This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation#Policy_influence

You know what? You can have your insurance, your drone strikes, your banker bailouts and your 24/7 surveillance. I'm leaving this country just as soon as possible. I've had it. I'm out. There's no "Liberal" here, there's not even "Middle". Everyone is a Heritage Foundation fan.

And you should prepare for hyperinflation, because printing $80 billion per month to bail out the fraudulent bankers hasn't even begun to come back around. I'll be reading about your $20 dollar loaves of bread between margaritas on a beach.

[Phentex]

73. I get your point but the last question is not liberal...

We care about people. We want to provide care for everyone. We could do this if people, like some Republicans, would understand that this benefits all of us as a whole.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

76. Neo-liberal and proud.

The hatred of the poor and working class on this website is out of control.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

77. Solution for homelessness? Buy a house!!!!

A wise man once compared insurance mandates to forcing homeless people to buy houses. I don't know what happened to that guy.

[zipplewrath]

80. Got elected

didn't need us anymore. Wanted to be "bipartisan". Hippies had to be punched. Had to run against the "drug addled" and the "sanctimonious" not to mention the "professional left". A self described "moderate republican" if it were a few decades back.

[bravenak]

82. Can't do it.

We're not republicans.

[TheKentuckian]

86. I haven't a clue what Republicans are even needed for, we've big tented ourselves

deep into their territory.

Die quickly indeed.

[ErikJ]

89. Same for relatives: Do NOT come running to me for cancer operation/treatment donation if you.../..

were to proud, ideological and stupid not to sign up for Obamacare.

[Sunlei]

97. I don't think that's necessary. When they file their IRS forms, they will 'pay' at that time.

[jrandom421]

99. The solution is what it always has been

Wait for them to incur a major illness or injury. Treat them, but stick them with the full bill for treatment. Have bill collectors hound them day and night, no matter what. Take their homes, cars, and other possessions. Drive them into bankruptcy and homelessness. Let them die.

Just as it has always been before the ACA.

[Autumn]

100. I am my brothers keeper. I have no problem with my money

going to help the less fortunate. Health insurance is not health care.

"You should be required to wear a tag or ID that indicates that you turned down coverage"

Rather sad statement there.