Baucus Plan Allows for Fines Up to $3,800 for Failing to Get Health Insurance

Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top Senate negotiator.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is leading talks among the "Gang of Six" senators to hammer out a bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a "framework" and not a "final product."

But the detailed proposal comes just days ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 15 deadline for such a deal. Baucus is pushing his committee members hard to hammer out a bill, and those details come as strong suggestions.

The plan would provide tax credits to help small employers and help cover the cost for households making up to three times the federal poverty level. That's about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

Those who still don't sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families -- for those making up to three times the poverty level.

For those who make more than that, the penalty on individuals would jump to $950 and the penalty on families would jump to $3,800.



giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

It's not how we do things in this country. We provide should provide incentives to get insurance if you do not have it. If people could afford the fines, they could afford the insurance. There's a reason people don't have health insurance: they can't afford it. If you are going to require it, you have got to make it affordable to people. During the campaign, Obama said he was opposed to fines. I hope he sticks to that position.


Bullseye

It is a bad idea but then again, what is a good one?

I am tired of paying high premiums for those that don't pay into the system and expect the gov to pay for them.

The costs are there and it is the working people that are paying them. I can guarantee that the government involvement is only going to make it worse.

I'll be the first to admit that healthcare in this country does need some sort of reform, but its how they are going about it that is so scary. You will always have a small select group of people who refuse to work, refuse to have health insurance, refuse to obey laws....etc. Punishing the majority of this country for the sake of the minority is like cutting your nose off to spite your face!

Well, I don't make enough money to warrant the $3,800 fine. The question is only relevant to the wealthy...

I dunno... Health care costs are thru the roof and something must be done.

The key goals should be accessibility, affordability, and portability. I don't think you need a gov't run option to get there: just some common sense rules of the road to lower premiums, increase availablity, eliminate health exclusions, and prevent loss of coverage if you move or change jobs.

Of course, with folks shouting down old ladies in wheelchairs and biting fingers off, no one ever talks about real solutions: just a bunch of hot air from the far-left hammering for big gov't programs and "Medicare for all" and hot air from the far-right with scare tactics of a commie take-over and death panels...

Put together a "blue ribbion commission" of some of the best minds in a room (not politicians) and let 'em develop a plan/proposal. The politicians can then either vote it up or down without putting their twisted little fingers into the mix.

"There would be a few exemptions, including for Native Americans and for those making incomes below the federal poverty level."

The federal poverty level is $11,000 for an individual. If you make less than 11k you can receive assistance (at least you would receive assistance in past plans, I'm not sure about the Baucus plan). Someone making 11k a year would face the lower end of the spectrum.. a $750 fine per year.

I DO feel you should have insurance. As it is now, a lot of my tax money is going toward state assistance programs paying for uninsured people's medical bills. That $750 fine sounds more fair to me than me (being insured) having to pay for the uninsured.

__________________
- The Federalist #46 -

Someone posted earlier about if you make more than 66,000 then you would be classified as "wealthy" by the Gov't standards.....thats insane, I'm a police officer and I make that in a year and its mainly because I work my tail off working extra jobs and spend a bunch of my days off sitting in court. My wife is a secratary and makes about 30,000.....trust me, we're not living too high on the hog I assure you. By the time we pay taxes, put money away in IRA's, 401K's, pay the mortgage and the rest of the bills......we're struggling every month too.....ha

Two people making $90,000 a year total... struggling every month? Hmm sounds like someone has expensive tastes!

__________________
- The Federalist #46 -

So true. Inflation has skyrocketed over the past few decades while wages have remained pretty flat. It is harder and harder for working folks to make ends meet and provide for their families.

Small businesses and the low/middle class workers need a break.... We're living paycheck to paycheck.... One broken transmission or broken leg from being on the down and out....

My wife and I together don't come close to making $96k/yr - especially in this economy where my income has been cut in half over the past 3 years. We are blessed, but we still struggle. The dream of home ownerships slips farther and farther away...

Even for those that may make decent dollars, with the outragous cost of living in some places, $96k today doesn't get you very far. Housing, health care, transportation, education, fuel, etc... have all gone up drastically over the past few decades ...

That's about where I am. I am not lacking anything I need, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself "wealthy".

Fines + taxes + Fed control = Gov't alternative to tort reform.

So is this a plan with no co-ops or public option?

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Just take a look at Lasik. The process has improved and the costs have gone down without any gov interference.

What has me wondering are the offsets in costs versus the net benefit.

The commitee has defined the amount of the fines, but hasn't estimated what the costs are for carrying the insurance. Anyone read anything that says how much this would cost the individual or family?

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

OK, they are continuing to update the story as it develops...

This just in ~

Late update: Just a few more details on Baucus' plan. It is expected to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $850 and $900 billion, to be paid for with efficiencies wrung from Medicare and Medicaid, along with a tax on insurance companies aimed at their high-end health care policies.
According to the Times, "[t]he hope is that employers would buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing the overuse of medical services."

It would also provide some protection for people with incomes from 300 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level (up to $88,200 for a family of four), so they would generally not have to pay more than 13 percent of their income in premiums.... To compare health plans, experts often focus on the percentage of medical expenses paid by insurance, on average, for a given population. This figure ranges from 70 percent to 95 percent under the House bill's options, but it would be less than 70 percent under Mr. Baucus's proposal.

Thirteen percent of $88,200 is just a hair under $11,500 a year--a ceiling of sorts on the vulnerability of the 2.7 million uninsured people, between 300 and 400 percent of the poverty line, who would be mandated to buy private health care with no subsidies.
Later update: An earlier version of this post reported that the Baucus plan would create neither a public option nor private health care co-ops, but, according to CNN, it would allow for the creation of private health care co-ops.

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Forum member 29er has assured me he'll pay my fine.

__________________
Sure you did

USAF385...


I never said we're hurting, but yes, things are tight each month. No, not because we live lavishly, but mainly because about 40% of our money go into savings....I don't feel like I owe you an explanation, but just to help you understand I will. I also don't have any children yet, but I plan on having 2 of them and for the past 5 years have been funding a ESA (educational savings account) for these 2 children I don't yet have. before you start accusing someone of living the life of luxury and mismanaging money realize that different people spend money different ways. So yes, after things are TIGHT within a budget every month.......

RightWinger.. sorry. I didn't actually mean it as criticism, but as a remark on how 90ish k a year is basically middle class these days.

It didn't come across that way though, and I apologize

__________________
- The Federalist #46 -

OK, so can somebody help me decifer this....?
Are they saying that for your $11,500 dollar premium that family of four making 88.2 grand would only get coverage for 70% of their claim under this plan?

Quote:

"It would also provide some protection for people with incomes from 300 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level (up to $88,200 for a family of four), so they would generally not have to pay more than 13 percent of their income in premiums.... To compare health plans, experts often focus on the percentage of medical expenses paid by insurance, on average, for a given population. This figure ranges from 70 percent to 95 percent under the House bill's options, but it would be less than 70 percent under Mr. Baucus's proposal."


giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Just put me on the same plan as my Senators and Congressmen. If we are going to have National Healthcare it should be good enough for every American.


btw: Our office got our annual policy renewal today, along with an 11% increase.

__________________
Dum spiramus tuebimur

Very interesting ... I can't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. I'm 63, retired due to health reasons and can't get Medicare for another 17 months. If it wasn't for the VA Clinic in Prescott AZ, I'd have no health care at all.
If the health care police show up at my front door asking for $3,800, they're going to be in for a surprise. Believe you me!

No link so who knows who wrote that gem. It makes it sounds as if people who can't afford health insurance are somehow going come up with several thousand dollars which is a joke. It looks like the health insurance industry is going to come out of this one smelling like a rose again.

Back in '93 they promised there was a better way to do away with pre-existing conditions. Sixteen years later they haven't done squat except to kick more people out of the system and raise everyone else's premiums. Now it looks like 45 million uninsured may be required to add to insurance company's profits while getting the same runaround.

They're like the Mafia without any of the Mafia's integrity.

__________________
wtb 329 / 325 ti cylinder

BINGO!!! Correct. There may be exceptions but, for the most part, it's the one's that make too much money to qualify for welfare but not enough to buy insurance. Why not just push more people towards welfare? It's another get penalized if you work policy.

More proof that the bungling gov't is either out of touch or doesn't know what it's doing or BOTH.

__________________
Sure you did

Page 114 of Obamacare. All congresskritters, the apologizer-in-chief, and their families are exempt from the peasant healthcare proposal.

__________________
Freedom above all else.

So is everyone else who already has insurance. But they seem to be the ones making the most noise.

__________________
wtb 329 / 325 ti cylinder

No....that can't be. Did Sarah say that?

__________________
Sure you did

What's Really in Obama's Health Care Reform Bill - A Plain English Translation by Mike Adams the Health Ranger

Pay particular attention to pages 16,29,72, and 84.




• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll

__________________
Freedom above all else.

Aww, that's just "noise". They wouldn't force anyone into a failed gov't plan. They wouldn't withhold treatments because of cost. No, according to the kool-aid drinkers, we're getting the same plan as Congress.

__________________
Sure you did

Mike Adams didnt write that list. It was borrowed from an "interpreter" at Free Republic, "The Premier Conservative Site on the Net", which is predictably against any reform that might cut into the profits of the insurance industry.

Wikipedia says, "Drudge dropped the link to Free Republic by February 1999, "because they were doing racist stuff over the (imaginary) [Clinton love child]..."

__________________
wtb 329 / 325 ti cylinder

I have been paying a fine every month for the last three + years (since my wife retired and my coverage disappeared like a virgin on prom night). My current "fine" is $402 a month. This is my reward for being 57 and in good health. This gets me a decent amount of disaster coverage (that I probably won't ever need), but I have to eat the first $3,500 per calender year before they pay much more than 40%.

I will continue paying my fine, which will continue to go up (as it has over the past three years), until at age 65 Medicare kicks in. At this point my fine fee structure will be adjusted but it is too early to tell if it will go up or down...put your money on up folks! I am lucky enough to be able to "afford" this coverage but it represents the single largest expense I have on this planet.

Does anyone know where that ignore button went?

__________________
Sure you did

Giz, you got some pretty scary responses. First, those that "admit" something needs to be done about health care in America. Why? 85% of all Americans have insured coverage. Of these, more than 90% are happy with the health care they receive. Of the uninsured, a significant number can afford coverage but CHOSE to spend their money on something else.

Second, is just the whole notion of usurped liberty - how can any liberty lover support the notion of fining a citizen for not purchasing insurance? The idea here is to increase the size of the insured pool and to decrease the cost of service provided on a per citizen basis. This has been tried with auto insurance in Texas and its been a complete failure. Premiums have risen every year. And despite fines, the number of unisured drivers is estimated to be over 40%. I can see a justification of manditory auto insurance. If you damage my car, you should have to pay for the repair. But, how does another person's health injure anyone else? And don't say its a drag on the system today as persons without coverage create additional costs for everyone else - I thought the unisured could not get treatment, right?

Finally, there is the issue of cost. We are told it will cost more than $1.7T to implement the plan. The average American uses less than $1000 per year in health care services. How in the world can it cost so much to cover the remaining 15% of the population? Does it cost more to cover someone who would otherwise chose not to be insured?

Out West

The "plan" is to have everyone, except the politicians, on gov't mandated insurance. That's where the 1.7 T to start come from.
With Obummer, one needs to read between the lines.

__________________
Sure you did

I predict you will like Medicare as much as the people already on it who couldn't be separated from it with a team of Clydesdales.

__________________
wtb 329 / 325 ti cylinder

The plan is an attempt to squeeze private enterprise (insurance co's, drug companies) for money and divert that money to the gov't programs public system and then fine people that cannot afford insurance. Call this fine what it really is ~ another tax. The fines go to the gov't health care system.

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Maybe a forum member knows the answer to this question. If the government enacts some form of health care reform, will the 10,0000,0000 Federal employeees in the U.S be required to participate?

Insurance company profit margins are very low by Wall Street standards today and always have been. The uninformed in Washington also make the mistake of assuming that because premiums are skyrocketing insurance companies are making huge profits. They are not. They are being forced to take on costs shifted from government programs that under pay(primarily Medicare) and people who don't pay at all.

If you further limit the insurance companies with taxes and/or fines, or take them out of the equation all together, you get to rationed care real quick. There is no possible other result. That's why it's perfectly reasonable to say the current proposals by the uber liberals in Washington are rationed care even when that's not specifically mentioned in the plans.

Bob

The whole idea of the Obama plan is to lock every single American citizen into the plan by law and then change it into a far more socialized program over time! If this passes, it will look exactly like some of the European national health care plans in ten years, and they are far more draconian than what is being proposed now.

And of course, nobody but nobody wants to talk about what it will cost and who will pay for it.

The Senate Plan, as so far leaked, is as pointed out above, a loser. This is only what has leaked; I can assure you that the details will be worse. They leak what they consider to be the best parts.
Then comes the “compromises” with the house. Folks whatever your position this is not the way to make improvements on what is basically a good system.

More government will not reduce costs or improve results.

Federal Employees (not the military), the Judicial, Executive, and Congress will have different plans, theirs Gold, ours Brass. We will be told that ours is the same as theirs but different: “see how it shines!”

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

I know the answer - nobody has read the proposed law, it will be changed in ways you will not know until it has been passed, and you should trust the government (which right now is a bunch of Democrats whose health care will not be affected by the bill).

Why is anyone even discussing this in detail? Any accusation against the proposed bill is justified, and any defense is baseless.

The conclusion should be obvious.

I guess I had too many 0's. Should be 10,000,000.