Proposition C

by Nathan on Jul.31, 2010, under Politics

I was going to tell you all about Villa Borghese and the ancient Roman ruins today, but who wants to hear about that? Instead, we can talk about politics, everyone loves politics. I made the mistake of listening to the radio the other day, and they were talking about something called Prop C. According to the voices on my radio, a vote for Prop C will save freedom, strengthen families, and prevent the impending socialist take over of our country. Awesome! I’ll take two.

Being slightly more serious for a second, you can read a good summary of Prop C at Ballotpedia.org here. Make sure you read the opposition section. I know it’s all the way at the bottom, but you can do it. Basically Prop C bans the government from mandating that individuals purchase health care or penalize individuals for not purchasing health care. Prop C is mainly a protest vote against the recently passed federal healthcare reform bill, and since federal law trumps state law, Prop C will accomplish little, if it passes.

If the Prop C supporters want to make it more interesting, they should propose a law that forces employers to reimburse employees who opt out of their employer provided group health care. I get great health insurance through my employer, and I feel very fortunate to have it. According to my employer, my health insurance cost around $450 a month. I pay none of that. I could opt out of the coverage, but I would not get to keep any of the $450. So basically my employer mandates that I either accept their group health care plan or I am essentially fined $450. Prop C aims to prevent the government from doing this to you, but if Prop C supporters were truly sincere in their intentions, they would also ban employers from mandating health care.

I know what you are thinking, you can choose your employer, so it’s not the same thing. I can see that point, but I highly doubt I could find comparable employment with a company that didn’t also effectively mandate health care coverage. Companies do this, because it’s a good plan. It provides excellent affordable health care to all employees and their families regardless of medical history or preexisting conditions. Is there anybody out there that doesn’t want this? Would you rather have an extra few hundred dollars in your paycheck and tell your coworker’s kid with asthma to suck it? Because that is what you would be doing, and it’s exactly what Prop C attempts to do.

I absolutely believe that group health care plans in the United States offer the best health care in the World. Unfortunately, a lot of people can’t get into a group plan and are denied coverage or have to pay much more for much less. We need to ensure that every citizen of this country can benefit from the structure and protections of group health care plans, and the only way to do this is to mandate health insurance. I don’t like being told what to do by the “guvermint” any more than anybody else, but your “freedom” to not have health insurance is also your freedom to go into medical debt bankruptcy and pass your debt on to society, or your freedom prevent someone who really needs it from obtaining coverage. I don’t want these freedoms.

In summary, Prop C is dumb, vote against it.

11 Comments for this entry

Janice
July 31st, 2010 at 10:12 pm
The problem with mandates is, is that those who can afford to in essense “be their own insurance” can’t. You might also look into the fact that health insurance provided by your employer will be taxed as income under the new Health Care. Health care needs reform, what it doesn’t need is mandates or socialism.

Now get the hell back to Italy!! Politics, smolistics. I want Italy!
Nathan
July 31st, 2010 at 11:09 pm
I would argue that any group health care is socialism, it’s just that employer group health care is socialism within your company instead of the country as a whole. Socialism is basically just spreading the cost and benefits of something (like education or health care) over a group of people. With regards to health care, I can think of no way to provide health care to people with preexisting conditions without spreading the cost over a larger group of people. If you let people opt out of health care, it increases the cost for everyone else to the point where insurance companies have to drop those with higher risk in order to provide insurance at competitive prices. It’s a sort of catch 22, if you know some magic way out of it, please let the world know.

As far as people who can afford to be their own insurers, the same argument applies, but there are not very many people in this situation. I could easily afford to pay my typical health care cost, but if I got in an accident or had a major illness, I’d go bankrupt, and then most of that debt would be passed on to society one way or another. I had a young very healthy friend who was in an accident a few years ago, and thankfully he is fine today, but his health care expenses were over half a million dollars. There is no way he could have paid that back without insurance. We all pay the cost for people who are uninsured. The only way to prevent that is to mandate coverage or draw a hard line and say that nobody get’s treatment if they can’t pay. Even if they show up bleeding to death in the ER.

I don’t like the words “mandate” or “socialism” either, but we are all connected in this system, and I can think of no realistic and meaningful health care reform that doesn’t mandate coverage.
Matthew Hunt
August 1st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
NO ON C! Remember People over insurance companies! even if it passes nothing will happen! THE LAW IS THE LAW!

Matthew Hunt
Creator of VOTE NO ON C FB PAGE
Nathan
August 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I appreciate the support Matt, but I would like to point out that mandated health insurance coverage is good for insurance companies. Insurance companies don’t deny people coverage because they are evil, they do it because they exist in a system that won’t let them be competitive any other way. Mandating health insurance is a big step towards fixing this system. You can’t require insurance companies to cover everyone, if you don’t also require everyone to buy insurance.
Janice
August 1st, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Nathan, who will pay for those who can’t afford insurance? The fine for not having insurance is considerably lower than the yearly cost of insurance and since no one can be denied coverage for preexisting conditions why not just forgo getting insurance, pay the fine, and then if you need an operation take out insurance. And don’t worry about an accident because if you can’t afford it they will patch you up, then you can take out insurance to cover the after costs.

Also, under the plan as I understand it, companies will pay a fine if they decide not to provide health insurance. The fine is lower than their cost to provide insurance. How does this make sense?

Well enough! Io voglio l’Italia
Nathan
August 1st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
In reality, you pay a lot of the cost of providing health care to the uninsured right now in terms of higher premiums. I think the ideal situation would be to require individuals to spend a certain percentage of their income on health insurance up to some maximum amount, and then fine them that amount if they don’t buy insurance. Hopefully those who can’t afford insurance could get some type of subsidy to make up the remainder and get at least a basic level of care. The fine in the current health care bill is inadequate, but it is my understanding that this is what they had to do to get the bill to pass. If so, that was probably the right decision. As far as companies go, currently companies aren’t fined anything for not providing health care, so I doubt you will see many companies drop coverage. For individuals, the fine should be more, but I believe that it does increase over time, and it is probably a good idea to slowly phase this in, so that people have time to adjust.

Health care is a complex issue, and every decision has pros and cons. It might not be perfect, but I am convinced this health care bill is the absolute best we were going to get in today’s political climate, and this bill is infinitely better than nothing at all. All I really meant to talk about here was the issue of mandating insurance coverage though, and what it comes down to is, you either support health insurance mandates, or you support denying coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions. Given that decision, I have to go with mandated health insurance.
Janice
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 am
Currently companies don’t drop health care because that’s a perk to get and keep employees (although companies have been cutting back on what’s covered and upping deductibles). However, with the economy the way it is, I wouldn’t put it past some to drop coverage. Not all mind you, but I think you’ll find more than expected. I hope I’m wrong. Also, you will be taxed on the benefit amount as income which you aren’t now. I’m not against “mandated” insurance but I’m questionable about this health care bill they passed with no one in congress or senate who actually read the whole thing before passing it. What was the big hurry. Couldn’t they have done things in phases so everyone understood what was being passed? With all the give aways lately this country will be in debt forever and that’s not good.

Now didn’t I tell you enough of this and get back to Italy!!
Nathan
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:02 pm
As far as I understand it, health care benefits will not be taxed as income under the health reform bill. Initially that was a part of McCain’s plan, along with tax subsidies to make up the difference, but I don’t believe it was ever a part of the current plan. It seemed to me that the health care debate took waaaaay to long, and I am pretty sure that if it didn’t pass this time, it wouldn’t have even been brought up again for a very long time. So all in all, I’m happy we got what we got, and I’m hopeful that it will lead to even better reform in the future.
Janice
August 4th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Quali sono le Cadillac brughiera politiche? Ciò non è stato specificato, diversi da quelli piani che costano molto di più rispetto alla media. Quindi sì, le prestazioni di assistenza sanitaria sarà tassato e non credo che non saranno più basso che medio se la necessità di.

“3. Un requisito che le imprese comprendono il valore dei benefici sanitari che forniscono ai dipendenti in W-2s, cominciando con W-2 per il 2011. Dell’importo indicato non è considerato soggetto passivo enfasi [reddito aggiunto]“.

Quindi, se non siamo di imposizione per le nostre prestazioni versate dal datore di lavoro, perché comprende il valore del nostro W-2 moduli? PolitiFact.com, il vincitore del Premio Pulitzer progetto nonpartisan del St. Petersburg Times, racconta il perché:

A partire dal 2014, le persone che non ricevono l’assicurazione sanitaria sarà multato. Il requisito W-2 reporting aiuterà l’Internal Revenue Service verificare che le persone hanno una copertura per se stessi e ai loro familiari. Il requisito aiuterà anche l’IRS più facilmente riscuotere una tassa sulle cosiddette “politiche per la salute” assicurazione di Cadillac, quelli che costano molto di più della media nazionale. L’imposta Cadillac entrerà in vigore nel 2018.

Questo, però, sarà il mio ultimo su questo argomento perché non avete pubblicato in più per l’Italia.
Nathan
August 4th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
From http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018
*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.

So basically, there is a tax on your benefits, if you have very pricey insurance. The limit is $10,200 for an individual. My health insurance cost around $5400 a year, and it’s very good insurance. You are only taxed on the amount over the limit. I could spend twice as much on insurance and I’d still only be taxed on $600 of it. Also vision and dental plans are non included in this tax.
Janice
August 5th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Non sto parlando a voi più fino a quando non iniziare a bloggare per l’Italia.