By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 41 mins ago

 

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

 

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, said he could no longer support the idea.

 

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

 

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

 

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

 

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

 

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Baucus, who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

 

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

 

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

 

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

 

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

 

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

 

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers. Upper middle-class households making between three and four times the poverty level would not have to pay more than 13 percent of their income for health insurance. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

 

Nonetheless, the fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

 

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

 

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

 

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

 

That left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

 

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

 

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

 

Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs. That approach is also being pushed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate whose support could be critical to any health legislation.

 

Snowe said Tuesday that Obama's been open to her fallback idea.

 

"He's been receptive, recognizing that there's difficulties with the public option," Snowe said. Republicans have cast it as a government take-over.

 

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

 

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

 

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

That'll teach those healthy young kids to not pay for my healthcare!!! Now get off my lawn! I have a pre-existing condition and a 'tude!

So they fine people who can't afford health insurance because they have too little money. Well that sure makes sense.:dozey:

So they fine people who can't afford health insurance because they have too little money. Well that sure makes sense.:dozey:

 

Louis CK did a bit on this :D -

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpaCQKJpE9k]YouTube - Louis CK #2[/ame]

This is going to drive the prices up even more.

 

We need to bring prices down, and this and the rest of the government plan will increase them. Also with the inflation they're causing, prices will go up too.

This is going to drive the prices up even more.

 

We need to bring prices down, and this and the rest of the government plan will increase them. Also with the inflation they're causing, prices will go up too.

 

So how would this work?

 

Man X struggles to make ends meet from month to month on a "subsistence wage" and therefore can't afford health insurance.

He is then fined for having none.

This makes things still worse so he ends up not bothering to work any more and winds up on the street in a cardboard box.

Great solution!!:dozey:

So how would this work?

 

Man X struggles to make ends meet from month to month on a "subsistence wage" and therefore can't afford health insurance.

He is then fined for having none.

This makes things still worse so he ends up not bothering to work any more and winds up on the street in a cardboard box.

Great solution!!:dozey:

 

From what I understand they would fine individuals. Also I heard talk tonight of fining companies that don't provide health insurance, but the fine in many cases would be lower than the cost of providing health insurance.

 

This is going to be a huge mess, and going to cause prices to go up even more.

 

The Democratic Party is owned by lawyers, that is why they don't want tort reform that would save possibly hundreds of billions.

 

Obama talked about competition being good for insurance, than remove the red tape by government that keeps people from buying insurance across state lines. Thus eliminating any monopoly!

 

Also the CBO and many others have said Obama's plan WILL add to the deficit. And in the next decade cost a lot more money than in the first decade.

From what I understand they would fine individuals.

 

So what's the point of that if somebody has no money to pay it??:dozey:

What's going to happen then?

They'd just end up even more unlikely to be able to afford the insurance?

It would simply end up as a vicious cycle.

So what's the point of that if somebody has no money to pay it??:dozey:

What's going to happen then?

They'd just end up even more unlikely to be able to afford the insurance?

It would simply end up as a vicious cycle.

 

I think they will than get the government option.....I think.

 

But not matter how you slice it waste is going to go up along with the prices.

 

Obama did not clear things up tonight.:thinking:

I think they will than get the government option.....I think.

 

But not matter how you slice it waste is going to go up along with the prices.

 

 

I'm in a position where I can't afford health insurance, so I totally understand.;)

I work as a freelancer, so the amount of money I have to spare from month to month depends on my income and outgoings (for example this month a sizeable chunk of money is needed to keep my car on the road, and without my car I can't work).

Health insurance does not take account of this, as you have to pay the same monthly amount whatever happens.

There is all sorts of insurance I could have if I could afford it, but I obviously choose not to have it, because I can't.:dozey:

I'm in a position where I can't afford health insurance, so I totally understand.;)

 

NO! Mark, don't go to the dark side.

 

 

Insurance is supposed to be for major problems. We could lower the cost of insurance if we let it go back to what it was supposed to be, something to prevent major expensive accidents. Bring down the cost of medicine so you won't need insurance for most medical problems.

 

On home insurance you don't make a claim if your window breaks, you pay for it yourself, health insurance wasn't supposed to be used for every sniffle. If we lower the cost of medicine, and get insurance back for the major ilnesses, people would be able to afford minor doctor visits, and have low cost insurance for the possibility of a major health problem like cancer.

 

Does that make sense?

So they fine people who can't afford health insurance because they have too little money. Well that sure makes sense.:dozey:

word.

 

You know, the whole paying for it all thing... beyond the where tos and the why fors and the whole big partisan mess, the one thing I don't get is, if a basic elementary school education is a basic human right, something that is provided to any American child no matter if they can pay for it or not, why is health care less important?

 

Because if I'm 12, I have cancer, and my parents have crappy low paying jobs and no insurance, all that school is kind of pointless without my life. The whole having life thing would matter far more to me 20 years down the road than the education thing.

 

Say what you want about Canadian health care, I know it has problems, and there are probably far better public systems out there. But when I was having an atypical migrane that masqueraded as a stroke (they do that apparently) I walked (or more accurately stumbled) into the emergency room with nothing but the clothes on my back- not a single cent or scrap of paper to my name. I had forgotten my purse at home that day and there was no time to go get it. I never even saw a waiting room. They stayed with me in triage looking after me until a bed was available. They gave me IV stuff, and a CAT scan, and a lumbar puncture and everything, with nothing to go by but what I claimed was my name and address. If it had been for real, I would have been dead under the US system.

There are many Canadians who would have died if not for the US system.

 

The average wait for treatment and test's is scary in Canada.

 

Than you have the economic angle of us not being able to afford it.

 

The best solution is lower the costs of medicine, get insurance back to what it was supposed to be so its affordable.

NO! Mark, don't go to the dark side.

 

 

Insurance is supposed to be for major problems. We could lower the cost of insurance if we let it go back to what it was supposed to be, something to prevent major expensive accidents. Bring down the cost of medicine so you won't need insurance for most medical problems.

 

I can afford the car insurance (which of course is compulsory) by making sure I have a small car and going for the lowest premium possible.

With health insurance that's impossible.;)

 

On home insurance you don't make a claim if your window breaks, you pay for it yourself,

 

Is home insurance compulsory?? And does it cost anywhere near as much as health insurance? I wouldn't know, because I rent.;)

With health insurance that's impossible

 

 

Competition is the key and getting insurance back to what it was meant to be, for major accidents or problems. That would reduce the price making it affordable.

 

My example with home insurance is that you don't use it for small problems. A leaky pipe, or broken window you pay yourself, a flood or tornado or fire, something major you use the insurance for. Thats how health insurance is supposed to be, for major things, not for cold's or ED. So we can lower the cost of insurance so more people can buy it.

Competition is the key and getting insurance back to what it was meant to be, for major accidents or problems. That would reduce the price making it affordable.

 

My example with home insurance is that you don't use it for small problems. A leaky pipe, or broken window you pay yourself, a flood or tornado or fire, something major you use the insurance for. Thats how health insurance is supposed to be, for major things, not for cold's or ED. So we can lower the cost of insurance so more people can buy it.

 

Well if it was actually affordable (as car insurance can be) I wouldn't have a problem with it - but it isn't.

And I don't see why I should be forced to do a job I don't want to do just to be able to pay for it, either.;)

Quite frankly, I would rather be unemployed.

Well if it was actually affordable (as car insurance can be) I wouldn't have a problem with it - but it isn't.

And I don't see why I should be forced to do a job I don't want to do just to be able to pay for it, either.;)

Quite frankly, I would rather be unemployed.

 

It would be affordable is used correctly and they had it working the way insurance is meant to work. Because it is not working the way it should, its broken and costs to much. We could make health insurance like car or home insurance.

 

I'm not agreeing with forcing people to have it, that'll make things worse. But what I'm saying to fix it and make it more affordable we should treat it like insurance is supposed to be.

It would be affordable is used correctly and they had it working the way insurance is meant to work. Because it is not working the way it should, its broken and costs to much. We could make health insurance like car or home insurance.

 

I'm not agreeing with forcing people to have it, that'll make things worse. But what I'm saying to fix it and make it more affordable we should treat it like insurance is supposed to be.

 

Well when you think about it, that's a no-brainer, really, isn't it...................... ;)

I enjoy what I do and the hours I do, I file my tax return and I don't live off the state. I don't see what's wrong in that.;)

There are many Canadians who would have died if not for the US system.

That's because Canadians like their heath care so much that they're terrified that even having a private option would destroy all health care. So they use the US as the second tier. Many countries with a public system have their own second tier.

 

There is also private schooling available in most countries with public schooling. Kids with learning difficulties can often find the private option more useful. That doesn't mean public school is a bad idea.

 

The average wait for treatment and test's is scary in Canada.

Not half as scary as the US propaganda machine says it is. Not even a quarter. And at least we can get those tests and treatments at all. If you let all the people in who needed it your wait times would probably go up too. You just solve it by leaving the poor out.

 

Then you have the economic angle of us not being able to afford it.

Probably because you've let hospitals pay exorbitant fees to steal other countries doctors away and drug companies sell you endless designer drugs... which leads to:

 

The best solution is lower the costs of medicine, get insurance back to what it was supposed to be so its affordable.

Yes. But then what about the people who still can't afford it. You're still making your system work by screwing the poor on a basic human right.

It would be affordable is used correctly and they had it working the way insurance is meant to work. Because it is not working the way it should, its broken and costs to much. We could make health insurance like car or home insurance.

 

I'm not agreeing with forcing people to have it, that'll make things worse. But what I'm saying to fix it and make it more affordable we should treat it like insurance is supposed to be.

"We're sorry, we can't cover your claim today, it's Tuesday and we cannot honor claims submitted on days starting with "T" or on which it rained."

 

"We're sorry, it doesn't matter if there were any complications, your policy only covers one day in the hospital after a birth, so you will have to leave".

 

Insurance working how insurance works, and what is best for the person and the general health of the public are often two very different things though...

Not half as scary as the US propaganda machine says it is. Not even a quarter. And at least we can get those tests and treatments at all. If you let all the people in who needed it your wait times would probably go up too. You just solve it by leaving the poor out.

 

I've seen the numbers, there may be cases that differ but on average the wait is long and that can be very deadly. The former head of the Canadian Medical Association has spoken out on the Canadian Medical system.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0oQ191Uc-Y]YouTube - Dr. Brian Day Gets Impatient with Waiting Lists[/ame]

 

Probably because you've let hospitals pay exorbitant fees to steal other countries doctors away and drug companies sell you endless designer drugs... which leads to:

 

Not being able to afford it is because we've spent trillions on being the world polices, wars, over sized government, and trillions on bailing out the oligarch's on wallstreet.

 

Yes. But then what about the people who still can't afford it. You're still making your system work by screwing the poor on a basic human right.

 

Very few people would be left out then. What good is helping a few to hurt many more? We could find a organ for everyone on the transplant list by killing people with healthy organs and giving it to them, we could save a lot of lives, but at what cost? You can't hurt the majority or the minority. More people will lose out from the system than it will help. Good intentions won't do any good if they make things worse.

 

Even if it was the only option, because of our extremely high debt, and other giant government programs there isn't a way to pay for it. Maybe if we didn't waste a few trillion and plan on wasting a few trillion more we could pay for it.

@space cadet- I completely agree with you that just as education is afforded all US children, so too should healthcare. I would love to see a system like Canada's adopted here.

 

@MrNick- I also agree that the best way to fix the problem would be to bring down the costs of healthcare. but with the pharamceutical, insurance, etc. lobbies being the way they are, HOW would this be accomplished?? Your analogy about home insurance made perfect sense to me, and in fact, that is how I've used it myself this year. However, I'm paying $80 WITH INSURANCE for my daughter's pediatrician for a WELL-CHECK (a 15 minute visit with the doctor and maybe an immunization or two). That doesn't even touch what the insurance company pays out. It's ridiculous. Our deductible was so high that my husband deferred treatment for his back pain... which resulted in a bulging disc turning into a herniated disc- ironically, this ended up costing the insurance company even more, as he then had to see several specialists and get an MRI. I do see your point, I just don't understand HOW the costs could/would be brought down.

"We're sorry, we can't cover your claim today, it's Tuesday and we cannot honor claims submitted on days starting with "T" or on which it rained."

 

"We're sorry, it doesn't matter if there were any complications, your policy only covers one day in the hospital after a birth, so you will have to leave".

 

Insurance working how insurance works, and what is best for the person and the general health of the public are often two very different things though...

 

"Sorry, you have to wait half a year to get life saving surgery. Hope you don't die becuase you're only expected to live a few weeks"

 

"Sorry, but at least your surgery is free!"

 

But is the funeral?

HOW would this be accomplished??

 

Tort reform and as Obama said "Competition". Allow people to buy insurance from anywhere in the US, thus making companies compete. Than get the government out, they put up laws and taxes and are in bed with these companies driving prices up.

 

Maybe lowering taxes in general, the more money you have in your pocket the more you could spend on small medical problems, or if you something else if you don't have any.

but would tort reform and competition really, REALLY solve the problem? Insurance companies (and doctors too, for that matter) are out to make a profit. And if you "get the government out" are you saying there should be no regulation? I don't think I trust corporations enough to let the free market work it all out. Especially not when the health of myself and my loved ones is involved.