You will have health insurance…or else
ByIn the new reality of Barack Obama and Democratic control of our government, health insurance will not be an option: It will be the law.
Whatever bill emerges from Congress will almost certainly include a require that all Americans have health insurance — whether they want it or not.
In theory, those who can’t afford health insurance will get government help obtaining it.
In theory.
In reality, the theory of legislation doesn’t always translate easily to actuality.
But a government-run health care system will require health insurance…or else.
Don’t have health insurance? Don’t want to pay for it? Too bad.
It’s looking like President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are going to require you to pick up the bill.
In Washington-speak, it’s called an individual mandate – or a requirement that people who don’t already have health insurance to purchase it, much like most states require drivers to have automobile insurance.
Obama long has been wary of the idea, arguing that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can’t afford it. His plan during the presidential primary didn’t require all adults to have coverage, only children. He and then-rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who backed a universal requirement, sparred repeatedly over the issue.
Now in the White House, Obama has set in motion steps toward his broad goal of making health care more affordable, improving quality of care and expanding coverage. Says Obama: "We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children."
He largely has left it to the House and Senate to work it out.
But in recent weeks, Congress signaled that legislation overhauling health care was all but certain to require that people have insurance. Of course, details about how to implement such a mandate must be worked out – and there are many – but the overall concept increasingly seems on track to be included in any sweeping health care overhaul that makes its way to Obama’s desk.
Email This Story
What is it you mean by “or else”? Or else what? Does the plan have an actual “or else” consequence spelled out or are you just being inflammatory? It seems to me that the only “or else” is “get insurance or else we will help you get insurance”. Correct me if I am wrong.
Adam:
I don’t know of any specifics that have been spelled out in acutal legislative language as of yet. I have talked with some friends who work on the Hill and they tell me that there will be a punishment section of the final legislation, which is standard for any bill that requires actions.
Based on what I have been told, these could include withholding tax refunds for those who don’t comply, mandatory wage deductions or actual attachment of bank accounts, property, etc. (which is what the IRS does with back taxes and the federal government has the power to do with deadbeat dads and those who owe federal fines).
When I worked on the Hill, any legislation that mandated actions also included punishments for those who failed to comply.
(Edited at 10:03 p.m. because the earlier response was over the top.)
Let’s imagine you have sudden chest pains, you call a taxi and pay them ten bucks to take you to the hospital. They check you out and say your heart is in bad shape, you need a couple of stents, that will cost $87,000, will that be cash or check. You don’t have it. Now what?
Unless your answer is that they send you home to die, you’ve already committed to mandatory insurance, you’re just arguing about what to call it.
NOTE TO READERS:
Earlier today, I lashed out at two posters whose only action was to ask for additional information. My response was angry, threatening and out of line.
I apologize to Adam Russel and Kent Shaw for the tone of my response. Shortly before responding to their posts, I received a phone call informing me that someone I once loved very deeply — and still care for very much — took her own life over the weekend.
I was angry at myself for not being there when she needed me and not recognizing the depths of the depression that drove her to suicide. I lashed out in anger at others. I was wrong and I am sorry.
Again, my apologies to Adam, Kent and the readers of Capitol Hill Blue. I have removed my responses that were out of line and the angry discussion that followed in the hope that this thread can return to the issues.
–Doug
Doug, I’m sincerely sorry for your loss.
And, my own response was just a bit thin-skinned as well. I’ll try to do better, too.
Kent Shaw
Or else the government will add it to your tax bill and let the IRS convince you to pay it… with interest and penalty.
All this total honesty just may be enough to push the Democrats into the same ditch with the republicans..HECK!
Have an ice cold Heineken or Prunes,
either one works for me;
But by all means keep it coming.