Is it true?Is there a proposal to fine people without health insurance?

On my wait out this morning I heard something about a proposal to fine persons without health insurance?
I heard only this partial claim as I was leaving this morning with more after these commercials but was unable to hear the rest.
Who is proposing?
How can it be implemented?
What if you are out of work?
I don't understand because I do not have all the facts and I have not heard anything since.
DO YOU ALL KNOW ANYTHING about this????
I need enlightenment please.

Yes this is not a lie. It's going to be effective as off 2014. And the penalty is almost $700.

Yes. But there are a zillion exemptions, so unemployed people and those below other income threshholds, or many other reasons will not have to pay the $700 fee.

You can read a lot of facts online starting at FactCheck.org, and AARP.

Sorry, it's not a proposal any more. It's part of the Health Reform Act, sometimes called ObamaCare. You are REQUIRED to buy health insurance by 2014 (talk of moving the date up), and if you don't, you get fined.

So, it passed the senate, and the congress, and Obama signed it. The IRS will be enforcing it. And if you are out of work, you STILL have to buy it.

In 2014, there is a federal requirement that everyone have health insurance. If you qualify there will be a subsidy, otherwise you get a tax credit on your return. But if you don't buy insurance, there is a tax liability which is set by the IRS. If you are unemployed in 4 years, I am sorry about that. If you have parents you can get on their policy to age 26 now. If you are under 21 you can get Medicaid if you are low income.

hello ,

If you have to get really cheap health insurance , here is what you have to do:

Go to: this web site http://FreeQuotesForYou.Info

signup really free

Get 30% discount!!!

Hope I'll help you

It is a tax, not a fine. It will be a percentage of your income. If you are out of work and have no income, then it would be zero. Also, if insurance would cost more than a (different) percentage of your income, then you will be exempt. So, again, if you are out of work and your income is zero, then it will not apply to you. Finally, when it takes affect, if you are out of work and have no income, then the government will pay for health insurance for you, so you will be able to have health insurance without paying (until you get a job or income).

Up to $3,800 fine for failure get health insurance
Senate proposal calls for steep fines for failure to get health insurance

* On Tuesday September 8, 2009, 1:23 pm EDT

o
Buzz up! 300
o Print

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A top senator is calling for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after a health care overhaul goes into effect.

The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage. It would provide tax credits to help cover the cost for people making up to three times the federal poverty level. That's about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

But those who still don't sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. The maximum penalty on individuals would be $950.

Baucus is hoping his plan can win bipartisan support. A copy of his proposal was obtained by The Associated Press.

No, that is not true. There is no longer a proposal since it became law a few months ago.

Proposal? It is the law effective 2014.

Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income.

The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.

Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individualâ€™s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

Fines proposed for going without health insurance
Email this Story

Sep 8, 5:20 PM (ET)

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

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.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

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.

The fast-moving developments 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.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.144
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Saturday, February 11, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy