Plan to tax people without health insurance in America, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 8-9-2009 @ 04:43 PM by vonholland
So assanine I cant even say anything. People and families don't insure because they are poor. Still being poor means they still cannot afford health insurance. Or maybe just don't want it!


I hate US government. I want out, I want to make US dollars and leave the country . that is, if the US dollar holds strong. If not, passport and ticket to Brazil please....

here is your news
Associated PressAll Associated Press news

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.

In advance of what Obama hopes will be a game-changing speech to lawmakers, the one idea that most appeals to the Democrats' liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate 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 government insurance plan.

Democratic 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 bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker.

Baucus, meeting with a small group of fellow senators, promoted a plan that would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans at a cost to taxpayers of under $900 billion over 10 years.

Some experts consider that 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 most states, Baucus would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance 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.

edit, forgot your source:

news.moneycentral.msn.com...

[edit on 8-9-2009 by vonholland]


reply posted on 8-9-2009 @ 04:50 PM by jam321
reply to post by vonholland



So assanine I cant even say anything. People and families don't insure because they are poor.


Actually, your poor people are being provided free insurance. I seriously doubt the poor will ever be effected by the tax.

This bill is also about one of the only compromised bills there is.

Furthermore, your debating only a portion of the bill. Would you not deem it wise to look at the bill in its entirety before condemning it.

It might end up being better than it sounds.


reply posted on 8-9-2009 @ 09:43 PM by ashnomadonte
reply to post by Grayelf2009



I don't want you to think that I am attacking you here because that is not the case. With that said we here at ATS sit and talk about a take over well a revolution for lack of a better word. I think that is bunk and I will tell you why it is one thing to talk about it, it is another to actually do it and be involved in it and I for one am guilty for thinking that am what the country needs. what we need to do is get involved in a viable third party build it from the ground up fill it with patriots people that will follow the constitution and the bill of rights. We should imo after forming such a party conduct a general strike country wide send the message to D.C. that we will no longer tolerate there shenanigans. Elect the third party to congress, it is just an idea I do not have a clue on how this could or would be accomplished but if we could make it happen I believe that we could turn this buss around and save our country.



reply posted on 8-9-2009 @ 10:31 PM by Oreyeon
Originally posted by ashnomadonte
reply to
post by Grayelf2009



I don't want you to think that I am attacking you here because that is not the case. With that said we here at ATS sit and talk about a take over well a revolution for lack of a better word. I think that is bunk and I will tell you why it is one thing to talk about it, it is another to actually do it and be involved in it and I for one am guilty for thinking that am what the country needs. what we need to do is get involved in a viable third party build it from the ground up fill it with patriots people that will follow the constitution and the bill of rights. We should imo after forming such a party conduct a general strike country wide send the message to D.C. that we will no longer tolerate there shenanigans. Elect the third party to congress, it is just an idea I do not have a clue on how this could or would be accomplished but if we could make it happen I believe that we could turn this buss around and save our country.


I like this plan. There are enough Constitutionalists in this country that we could do this easily. I say out with the dirty and stained laundry and in with the new and clean stuff. Sick and tired of these dirtbags.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^