US Government set to fine individuals who have inadequate health cover

Run_to_da_hills

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

I thought Obama was all about shaking up and socialising the US medical system and not forcing more and more people into private health care. Hardship cases would be exempt from the above.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/02/ap6615472.html

Overheal

.......?!

"Pay for this! Or you'll pay!"

I'm at a loss.

Sully

Well, everyone should have health care. Its a burdon on the state if you dont. Car insurance is required by law (I assume it is in the states anyway), why not health care?

Manic Moran

The whole argument was not over whether or not people should have, or want healthcare. The issue is that private healthcare can be fairly expensive, and people couldn't afford it. Ergo, some form of socialised system would be required, either fully provided by the State, or private healthcare subsidised by the State.

I'm not sure how the policy addresses either issue. I guess it revolves around 'who defines what is affordable', and what measures are taken to make it so.

NTM

Overheal

Sully wrote: »

Well, everyone should have health care. Its a burdon on the state if you dont. Car insurance is required by law (I assume it is in the states anyway), why not health care?

car insurance is an obvious one. the lowest tier of insurance as ya know is 3rd party: it protects everyone else in a crash but you. Its required by law because your actions dictate life and death for others. I just dont see the same argument applying to healthcare. Particularly for the individual.

ChocolateSauce

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I thought Obama was all about shaking up and socialising the US medical system and not forcing more and more people into private health care. Hardship cases would be exempt from the above.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/02/ap6615472.html

Sadly no, he's what might be called a "right wing SOB". He's just better than Bush. I've got more change in my pocket.

the_dark_side

Overheal wrote: »

car insurance is an obvious one. the lowest tier of insurance as ya know is 3rd party: it protects everyone else in a crash but you. Its required by law because your actions dictate life and death for others. I just dont see the same argument applying to healthcare. Particularly for the individual.

Car insurance is optional in New Zealand

Overheal

Well good for NZ :rolleyes:

Reindeer

Sully wrote: »

Well, everyone should have health care. Its a burdon on the state if you dont. Car insurance is required by law (I assume it is in the states anyway), why not health care?

This is exactly the point many conservatives try and make, yet made so perfectly clear by a socialist. If the government requires A, why not B? And where does it ever end? It doesn't. So, you must fight it all the way and at least keep whatever freedoms you do have for as long as you can.

giveth

the_dark_side wrote: »

Car insurance is optional in New Zealand

3rd party car insurance is included in the duties/tax on petrol.