Obama Forced Healthcare Insurance Coverage: Penalizing the Public For Their Own Good
Think the government can’t mandate to the public that they have to purchase a prohibitively priced, at times defective product with no “money back guarantee”? Then penalize the public if they don’t comply, by way of fines or garnishment of wages? Think again as President Obama has, according to the LA Times, signaled a potential flip-flop on his election promise to not force Americans to “buy” health insurance “he or she cannot afford”.
The LA Times is reporting that President Obama is “signaling a new openness” requiring all Americans to have health insurance.
Obama is couching his health care proposal as Americans having a choice of plans from either private insurers or the government. While the Times is reporting a potential signal that Obama is willing to mandate all Americans get insurance coverage–which means buying it out their own pocket–what the Times isn’t reporting is what the consequences will be if someone doesn’t get health insurance once it’s been mandated by the Obama administration.
“In Massachusetts, scofflaws who do not buy health insurance this year face a penalty of as much as $912, imposed on their 2008 state tax return.”
–Washington Post
The state of Massachusetts already requires residents to get health insurance or be penalized if they fail to do so. It was then-Governor Mitt Romney who signed the bill into law. Which goes to show even Republicans are willing to shirk such conservative values such as freedom of choice and the steadfast resolve against an intrusive government willing to penalize those who fail to comply for “their own good”.
Under the plan, those who live in Massachusetts and can’t afford health insurance, are faced with having to pay a government fine. Which, ironically, Obama, as a candidate, opposed.
From the Washington Post:
Obama disputed that millions would be left out, saying his plan emphasizes reducing costs so more people can afford insurance. He noted that the requirement in Massachusetts has not meant coverage for all; in fact, state officials had to exempt tens of thousands of people on the grounds that it would be unfair to require them to buy a policy if they could not afford one.
“In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were,” Obama said. “They don’t have health insurance, and they’re paying a fine. . . . But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there.”
The push is on in the liberal Democrat Congress and the Obama administration requiring universal healthcare coverage for all Americans. Congress, as well as Obama, are operating in the same manner as the 5.3 trillion Stimulus package. The bill was fast-tracked through legislation while Obama warned of incipient doom and even called Americans who didn’t support it “unpatriotic” if they didn’t fall in line and support the bill. There’s no doubt the same tact will be applied regarding the government getting involved in the business of universal healthcare coverage.
Those who won’t be required to pay: the estimated 15 million illegal immigrants whose health care costs have forced many hospitals and counties to the brink of financial disaster to the tune of billions in unpaid costs.
Another idea being floated on how to penalize those who don’t buy healthcare coverage: garnishment of wages. The government already garnishes the wages of those who fail to pay their taxes or those who fall behind in child support.
As for the guarantee that the Obama administration will “fix” the healthcare industry, including healthcare insurance costs, the public might want to know that the administration is currently seeking to cut an estimated $500 billion in services to Medicaid and Medicare recipients in order to pay for expanded healthcare coverage. What this means: less healthcare services being provided while attempting to expand coverage. What it doesn’t guarantee: reigning in the prohibitive cost of healthcare coverage, a kind of a robbing “Peter to pay Paul” scenario.
Americans need to demand that before Congress passes a law mandating that the public will be penalized by way of fines or garnishment of wages for not buying a product- in this case healthcare coverage-that it’s Congress’ duty to ensure that the cost of the product is not prohibitive as well as defective. In short, prove to us, the public, that you can fix it, before we’re forced to buy it.
By LBG
Image – IRS Logo
The first year of this plan in Ma. I had 68$ a week withheld from my pay for healthcare.My employer refused to ad me to the plan because Ma. then offered healthcare to people who couldn’t get it from employer.I tried to get it from the state ,they said I had to take my employers plan.Even though i had tried to get insurance from both the state and my employer [even paid for it through withholding by employer]I was fined 900$.And the state told my employer to either add us employees or reduce workforce.The next day a van with 9 non english speaking hispanics replaced 9 Legal residents bringing the company below the level required by law for insurance.The next year I was fined 900 for not having cobraed my employer healthcare when the state refused to add me to Ma.health.2600$ so far and STILL REFUSED Ma.HEALTH.
Reply
jim Reply:
January 18th, 2010 at 23:54
dont pay, dont submit, stand on your own ground regardless of what they decide. nobody has the power to make laws for anyone
Reply
jamalogist Reply:
November 30th, 2010 at 04:07
It’s enlightening to hear first-hand accounts of what is to come for the rest of us. Now, some part of me does agree that universal access to health care is a basic human right. However, if the government is not prepared to pay for providing this to all citizens at this time (due to the worst economy since the great depression), legislating and mandating is not the next best thing. While it’s not creating “death panels”, it is squeezing the costs from individuals, small business, insurers, doctors. Those existing players could only afford to shoulder such added strain, if an economic recovery occurs. That it precedes the rollout of most provisions by 2014, is a dangerous gamble.
Reply
Jefferson,
Your plight is exactly what will occur if Obama rescinds his promise. You can’t be the only one suffering under MA’s insidious heathcare coverage law, there’s probably hundreds of thousands facing the same situation. I truly believe that the majority of Americans are unaware of what is occurring in Massachusetts.
The MA law was supposed to “fix” the problem of people not having healthcare coverage. Instead, it’s rife with problems, problems which should have been fixed before the public was caught up in the middle then made to pay fines.
Drop me a line, I’d like to hear more.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Reply
Welcome to the new America. But believe me, this is only the fun part. The good old days.
Reply
The solution is simple. Refuse to pay the fine. Eventually, you will be incarcerated. Prisoners are guaranteed health care.
Our boys who died for this country in WWII must be cursing their willing sacrifice.
Watch as your world ends.
Reply
It is just wrong to require insurance for those who are unemployed or employed without benefits. Private health insurance is very expensive and COBRA is even more expensive. I am a person who cannot get coverage because of my ‘build’ and existing health issues – high blood pressure. I am on the road to correct those things, but in the meantime private insurance is not even an option for me. I am sure there are thousands of Americans in the same situation….I think they need to pause and take a reality check to develop a more viable solution for everyone. Garnishing the fine from wages from those who still have a job is counterproductive – there are too many without any income to garnish…what about that?
Reply
Weather it passes this Sunday or not, it’s destined to fail. I shouldn’t need to tell anybody that it’s their civil and patriotic duty to refuse the care and to refuse the fines. You are not being honestly represented. If your representatives won’t hear your voice then force them to heed your actions.
This bill is a package deal which includes a bribe for every senate vote it receives. If a bill can not pass on it’s own, without all of the pork / bribes, then it shouldn’t pass.
This coming up election (2010) I encourage everyone to cast against the incumbent and send a very loud and clear message of our displeasure and dissatisfaction with our government.
Reply