| "You had betta comply or you will suffer zee most severe consequences." Sad that we've come to that.  U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 12/31/2007 3:40:22 PM PST by Reagan Man
Massachusetts residents who remain uninsured in 2008 will begin facing monthly fines based on their age and income, according to new regulations unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.
Here are how much different people may have to pay:
— The highest fines are leveled at those earning three times the annual federal poverty level, or $30,636 for an individual. Individuals aged 27 or older who are over that income threshold will pay the top fine of $76 a month, or $912 a year.
— Married couples earning more than $41,076 would each have to pay the top fine for a combined penalty of $1,824 if they are both uninsured for the entire year.
— Those aged 18-26 earning more than $30,636 will pay $56 a month or $672 a year.
— Individuals earning between $20,425 and $25,536 face a $420 fine for the year. Those earning between $15,325 and $20,424 face a $210 fine.
— There are no fines for individuals earning less than $15,325.
| "You had betta comply or you will suffer zee most severe consequences." Sad that we've come to that. U.S. Army Retired |
It's about ending the free ride on taxpayers' dollars. It's about personal responsibility and free markets. Both, very conservative principles.
Certainly you are joking.
What you are proposing was one of the ideas Ronald Reagan exposed as a fraud when he engineered the demise of the United Soviet SOCIALIST Union.
Nobody is “guilty” until they are sick or hurt and can’t/won’t pay for care.
Unless society is willing to deny them that care at that point, there will be “socialized medicine” paid for by the taxpayer.
Quote and cite, please.
That’s why I pointed out that the only time to identify such people as “guilty” is after they become “sick or hurt and can’t/won’t pay for care”.
And Bay Buchanan?
Another reason we don’t want Romney as president.
Yuck!
I understand The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is having a hard time keeping taxpayers in the State. They seem to be moving down South to warmer a climate. Maybe this socialist health care system and one of the highest tax rates in America will stop the exodus of taxpayers. I could be wrong.
Anyhow, have a Great New Year and God Bless
Same deal. If she hasn't got the sense to support a real conservative, then she's not as great as everyone (er, rather Romney supporters) has always thought (um, at least since last week) she is.
Oh, and hey, that's another issue I have with Romney supporters. Everytime someone challenges the liberal record of their candidate, points out the ON THE RECORD left-wing positions he's taken on everything from abortion to illegal immigration to state-mandated health insurance, the Mittbots don't ever bother to actually try to defend the undefendable record of their candidate. They just point to some endorsement he's gotten like Bay Buchanan or Robert Bork or the NRO editorial staff. As if having Bork endorse him negates his actual record or something.
Would Bork, Bay, and NRO endorse a liberal? Apparently, they would.
Non sequitur.
No it isn't. It is about forcing people that only want limited coverage to pay for other peoples health care bills.
Try comparing him to Hillary.
Since we here in MA already had universal healthcare, de facto (hospital emergency rooms were required to take all comers), this mandatory insurance plan could represent an improvement over the status quo. It should be a more efficient system.
And if the alternatives for the US are universal gov't provided healthcare versus universal mandatory insurance, I'll take the latter.
The downside of all of this is, with free food, lodging and healthcare, there's little reason for some people to get out of bed in the morning.
Yeah, and the “shining city on the hill” doesn’t have millions and millions of more illegal aliens running around receiving free medical care (among other things) since the last granting of amnesty either. This is the real world though. Real problems call for real world solutions.
That’s what we do now. You’ve got it backwards.
Freedom isn't for those not willing to be a part of guaranteeing it, it's for those willing to work to maintain it.
They're different for sure.
Hitlery's ankles are thicker.
If you really think that Hillary is not further to the Left than any of the Republicans running, then you have deluded yourself with your own ‘primary’ bigotry.
Any of the Republicans would be better than Hillary even a liberal Republican.
Vote for anyone to keep Hillary out. She is a communist and will push this country so far to the left, when the pendulum swings back, we’ll be glad that our country looks more like Cuba under Fidel than what it was under Hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.