Mass. Lawmakers OK Mandatory Health Bill

[rlg94086]

That is fair and balanced, Mike! You should go to work for Fox (Sky) I agree 100.5%.

MikeWM:

It’s no more true to say that liberals, who want government to do more in some certain areas, want the government to do everything in a totalitarian way, than it is to say that conservatives, who want smaller government, actually want government abolished altogether and a kind of feudal anarchy to develop. If I said the latter I would be both wrong and, rightly, corrected by many here. So we shouldn’t have the same kind of blanket statement about ‘liberals’ that we see here.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

That is fair and balanced, Mike! You should go to work for Fox (Sky)

I don’t find that Fox all that appealing a prospect, and I doubt they’d have me in any event Sky are better in the balance stakes, though they are a bit sensationalist (as you’d expect from Mr. Murdoch).

Mike

 

[maryjk]

If we use our dental plan at the dentist, our co-pay is $98. If we pay cash and forget to use the insurance, we pay $65. It is getting to the same point with the health insurance.

A little off topic, but I find it appalling that your dentist charges more if you have insurance.

Most, if not all dental insurance covers at a percentage, after a deductible. Like 80%, after the first $50. Or 50%, after the first $100. Or with an HMO, there is a scale that is set. This scale is less then the normal charge, because with an HMO, you sign up with a dentist and that dentist gets paid for every month you are with them. Example: Dentist A gets $5 per month for every person on his list. He then charges based on the scale because he is getting money just to have you on his list.

After working with insurance companies, I have never seen a bill that would be less with out the insurance, unless the provider charges different rates for those with or without insurance.

 

[Geldain]

maryjk:

A little off topic, but I find it appalling that your dentist charges more if you have insurance.

Makes sense to me that it would cost more with insurance. It costs the doctor’s office in manhours filling out their end of the insurance forms.

We pay as we go for health care. It works well for us. If there ever comes a time, Heaven forbid, that our state decides to force people to buy health insurance, we will begin looking at moving ASAP.

Assuming the state hasn’t determined it knows better than we do about where we live, of course

 

[Ghostgirl]

Wow. Making sure people can get adequate health care is totalitarianism? Just wow.

Let the poor die or you’re a filthy communist! shakes head You know, for the rest of the world the cold war ended years ago. Some people are still thinking they can turn people in to McCarthy.

 

[gelsbern]

Ghostgirl:

Wow. Making sure people can get adequate health care is totalitarianism? Just wow.

Let the poor die or you’re a filthy communist! shakes head You know, for the rest of the world the cold war ended years ago. Some people are still thinking they can turn people in to McCarthy.

LOL, how about this, make doctors run their business like a business instead of price gouging people who walk in through the door. Make them charge the SAME prices no matter if you have insurance or not. If you own a car, you shop around to find the cheapest place to get it repaired. If you are in a fender bender, it is ILLEGAL for body shops to charge more just because you car insurance is paying for it, but Doctors do it all the time. Doctors need to be treated like what they truly are, professionals in the business of reparing bodies.

If you want poor people to have health insurance, start that way. Don’t take money away from people who work hard for it. If people want to donate that’s one thing, but having the state take away your money and giving it out to whomever they choose, that’s another.

 

[Geldain]

Ghostgirl:

Wow. Making sure people can get adequate health care is totalitarianism? Just wow.

Forcing people to buy health insurance is another step on the road to totalitarianism. Mischaracterizing someone’s post is "just wow

Let the poor die or you’re a filthy communist! shakes head You know, for the rest of the world the cold war ended years ago. Some people are still thinking they can turn people in to McCarthy.

Will you please share with us how this logical fallacy you’ve written relates to the the discussion of the OP?

 

[koda]

How about this - if you don’t want to opt in for the insurance you don’t have to - with the stipulation that if you need medical care you are 100% responsible for the cost - if you have to lose your house, car, savings, etc… to pay the bills, have your check garnished, that’s too bad. You had the choice of insurance but you said no. That sounds fair to me.

 

[Isidore_AK]

koda:

How about this - if you don’t want to opt in for the insurance you don’t have to - with the stipulation that if you need medical care you are 100% responsible for the cost - if you have to lose your house, car, savings, etc… to pay the bills, have your check garnished, that’s too bad. You had the choice of insurance but you said no. That sounds fair to me.

That is all we ask. Not to be forced in to a program…but I would add that since we wouldn’t benefit from the program, that we not pay taxes for it.

I truly don’t understand how you liberals think…why would you give up your freedom voluntarily? Why do you want the state to turn into a nanny…? Do you not believe that people can do right by themselves? I don’t need the gov’t to hold my hand…or my checkbook. In fact, I want their darn hands out of my wallet!

 

[rlg94086]

Isn’t that the status quo?

koda:

How about this - if you don’t want to opt in for the insurance you don’t have to - with the stipulation that if you need medical care you are 100% responsible for the cost - if you have to lose your house, car, savings, etc… to pay the bills, have your check garnished, that’s too bad. You had the choice of insurance but you said no. That sounds fair to me.

 

[koda]

rlg94086:

Isn’t that the status quo?

No. This bill will provide insurance for those who can’t afford it - the ones that currently do not have it. So we can keep that part in and let the ones that chose to fend for themselves do just that.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I truly don’t understand how you liberals think…why would you give up your freedom voluntarily? Why do you want the state to turn into a nanny…? Do you not believe that people can do right by themselves? I don’t need the gov’t to hold my hand…or my checkbook. In fact, I want their darn hands out of my wallet!

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.​

 

[Geldain]

koda:

How about this - if you don’t want to opt in for the insurance you don’t have to - with the stipulation that if you need medical care you are 100% responsible for the cost - if you have to lose your house, car, savings, etc… to pay the bills, have your check garnished, that’s too bad. You had the choice of insurance but you said no. That sounds fair to me.

It’s how we’ve lived for years

 

[koda]

Geldain:

It’s how we’ve lived for years

Not exacly - this bill will provide insurance for those who can’t afford it.

 

[Geldain]

koda:

Not exacly - this bill will provide insurance for those who can’t afford it.

You’re privy to my fiscal status and know what I can and can’t afford?

Actually, this bill forces people to buy something, taking yet another freedom away from a portion of the nation.

 

[rlg94086]

koda:

No. This bill will provide insurance for those who can’t afford it - the ones that currently do not have it. So we can keep that part in and let the ones that chose to fend for themselves do just that.

Got it! I didn’t read the article, just the back-and-forths . So, the employer would still get taxed the $295/head if they don’t offer health coverage, but no mandate to individuals.

Does anybody know the time period of the $295 assessment? Per year? Per month? Per minute? It makes a big difference to the effect on the employer.

Also, when the article refers to penalizing those employers who “do not offer” health insurance, what does that mean? The amount a company pays toward an employee’s coverage varies wildly.

It seems to me the author of the article didn’t take the time to either get the detail or didn’t word things well. (I’m sure that’s why I didn’t read it right away )

 

[Isidore_AK]

rlg94086:

Got it! I didn’t read the article, just the back-and-forths . So, the employer would still get taxed the $295/head if they don’t offer health coverage, but no mandate to individuals.

Does anybody know the time period of the $295 assessment? Per year? Per month? Per minute? It makes a big difference to the effect on the employer.

Also, when the article refers to penalizing those employers who “do not offer” health insurance, what does that mean? The amount a company pays toward an employee’s coverage varies wildly.

It seems to me the author of the article didn’t take the time to either get the detail or didn’t word things well. (I’m sure that’s why I didn’t read it right away )

Umm…I think you missed this section regarding “individuals”

Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don’t get insurance.

This would apply to households who make more than $48,000/year…

 

[Isidore_AK]

# It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

I was asking a question. Who the heck are you? A rule nanny?!?

 

[rlg94086]

I didn’t miss anything…you have to keep up

koda said,

Originally Posted by koda
How about this - if you don’t want to opt in for the insurance you don’t have to - with the stipulation that if you need medical care you are 100% responsible for the cost - if you have to lose your house, car, savings, etc… to pay the bills, have your check garnished, that’s too bad. You had the choice of insurance but you said no. That sounds fair to me.

I said

Originally Posted by rlg94086
Isn’t that the status quo?

koda said

Originally Posted by koda
No. This bill will provide insurance for those who can’t afford it - the ones that currently do not have it. So we can keep that part in and let the ones that chose to fend for themselves do just that.

I said

Originally Posted by rlg94086
Got it! I didn’t read the article, just the back-and-forths . So, the employer would still get taxed the $295/head if they don’t offer health coverage, but no mandate to individuals.

*Does anybody know the time period of the $295 assessment? Per year? Per month? Per minute? It makes a big difference to the effect on the employer. *

*Also, when the article refers to penalizing those employers who “do not offer” health insurance, what does that mean? The amount a company pays toward an employee’s coverage varies wildly. *

It seems to me the author of the article didn’t take the time to either get the detail or didn’t word things well. (I’m sure that’s why I didn’t read it right away )

Now, do you have any answers to my questions?

Isidore_AK:

Umm…I think you missed this section regarding “individuals”

This would apply to households who make more than $48,000/year…

 

[Isidore_AK]

rlg94086:

I didn’t miss anything…you have to keep up

Now, do you have any answers to my questions?

What Koda was referring to was a hypothetical situation. The actual bill does require individuals who have a family income of greater than $48,000 to purchase their own health insurance or pay a fine that starts at $1000/year.

You are correct on the portion regarding private businesses.