IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

P a g e | 1
Senate Finance Committee
Expanding Health Care Coverage:

Proposals to Provide Affordable Coverage to All Americans
The U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee health coverage for all its citizens, with 46 million uninsured and another 25 million underinsured.

Today, the cost of caring for the uninsured is largely borne by those with insurance; providers charge higher prices to patients with private coverage to make up for uncompensated care, and these costs are passed on to consumers in the form of increased premiums. A high-performing health system would guarantee all Americans affordable, quality coverage regardless of age, health status, or medical history. This document outlines policy options for providing affordable health care coverage for all Americans.

Proposals included in this document would ensure that the insurance market functions effectively. Reforms proposed for the individual and small group markets would ensure a competitive insurance market in which plans compete on price and quality rather than on their ability to segment risk and discriminate against individuals with pre-existing health conditions. Proposals contemplated in this document would also make purchasing health insurance coverage easier and more understandable by establishing a gateway or marketplace where American consumers could easily compare and purchase the coverage that best fits their needs.

To ensure that coverage is affordable, this document outlines a proposal for targeted tax credits for low-income individuals and small businesses. And for the most vulnerable populations, policy options described here would improve public programs by covering those at the lowest end of the income scale who are least likely to have private coverage through an employer.

Once affordable, high-quality, and meaningful health insurance options are available to all Americans through their employer or the new gateway, individuals would have a personal responsibility to have health coverage. This step is necessary for insurance market reforms to function properly and to end the cost shifting that occurs within the system. It is expected that
the vast majority of American employers would continue to provide coverage as a competitive benefit to attract employees.

freeduck, do you also hate a mandated car insurance in order to drive? If you don't, then you are not very consistant in your hates.

Consequences of Non-Coverage. In order to ensure compliance, taxpayers would be required to report the months for which they have the required minimum coverage for themselves and family members on their federal income tax returns. In addition, the insurer would be required to
report months of qualified health coverage to the individual covered and to the Internal Revenue Service. A similar reporting requirement would apply to employers with respect to individuals enrolled in group health plans if the reporting is not provided by the insurer (for example in the case of self-insured plans).

The consequence for not being insured would be an excise tax equal to a percentage of the premium for the lowest cost option available through the Health Insurance Exchange for the area where the individual resides. The excise tax would be phased-in and would equal 25 percent of the premium for the first year that the requirement is in effect; 50 percent of the premium for the second year; and 75 percent of the premium for the third year and subsequent years. The penalty would apply for any period for which the individual is not covered by a health insurance plan with the minimum required benefit but would be prorated for partial years of noncompliance.

Individuals could apply for an exemption from the penalty in three circumstances: (1) where the lowest cost option available to an individual exceeds 10 percent of income; (2) where an individual is below 100 percent of poverty; and (3) hardship.

I thought the objection was government taking away your choices?

You can't drive if you don't have at least enough insurance to take care of the other person's expenses in the event of an accident. That is taking away your choice of whether you get to drive or not.

Consequences of Non-Coverage. In order to ensure compliance, taxpayers would be required to report the months for which they have the required minimum coverage for themselves and family members on their federal income tax returns. In addition, the insurer would be required to
report months of qualified health coverage to the individual covered and to the Internal Revenue Service. A similar reporting requirement would apply to employers with respect to individuals enrolled in group health plans if the reporting is not provided by the insurer (for example in the case of self-insured plans).

I am not pushing this idea, to tell the truth, I am not smart enough to figure it all out and whether it would work or not. But I just thought it kind of ironic to moan about mandated insurance when we have been required to have some kind of insurance in order to drive for years and no one talked about loss of individual freedoms.

I don't have to drive to live, though I realize it is extremely difficult in this country to make a living if you don't.

If I choose to not have insurance, it hurts nobody.

I think you could probably make a compelling argument that it's probably cheaper to own a car, and live outside of some of the cities where this type of car-less living would even be possible, than it would be to live inside those cities.

I live near Chicago, and if I lived in the city I KNOW that I could go car-less and not have any problem getting to/from work, etc.

However, to live in Chicago would cost me at least $800 more/month than I currently pay (when I count in higher taxes, fees for public transportation, higher rent/mortgage, etc). Obviously you can own a car for much cheaper.

Perhaps your right the two are not totally alike because you don't have to drive to live. As far as I am aware no one is proposing to deny anyone health care if they don't comply with the mandate. I think the punishment (if you will) is financial through taxes or something. Also if you go to the hospital emergency room without insurance and you can't afford to pay the bill, what happens is that insurance premiums goes up for those who do have insurance coverage, so yes, if you don't have health insurance it does affect others other than yourself.

I don't really think the mandate is the way to go, but I do think attention needs to be paid to what happens to all these unpaid hospital and other health care related bills and how it affect others with insurance coverage.

You are fortunate that either you have a very nice living or you haven't had really high maintenance health problems which exceeded your income or financial situation.