Romney eyes penalties for those lacking insurance

The Boston Globe ^ | 6-22-05 | Scott S. Greenberger

[inquest]

Massachusetts residents who choose not to obtain health insurance would face tax penalties and even the garnishing of their wages under a proposal Governor Mitt Romney unveiled yesterday.

-snip-

Under Romney's proposal, uninsured Massachusetts residents would be asked to enroll in a plan when they seek care.

If they refuse, the state could recoup the medical costs in several ways, Romney said yesterday: The state might cancel the personal tax exemption on their state income taxes, which is worth about $175. It could withhold some or all of their state income tax refund and deposit it in what Romney called a ''personal healthcare spending account." Or, it might take money out of the person's paycheck, as it does now to collect child support.

[Final Authority]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Mitt is running for President so he has to tread lightly on the criminal alien issue but if one takes his plan to include all that seek free health care but earn a living, the alien element will be featured in a major way. Finally, someone in government is looking for a way to recoup that which honest taxpayers and the financially responsible have been paying for years now.

Since nearly everyone seeks health care over the course of a year then Mitt's plan would be a way for government to identify the criminal alien element among us. It is too good an idea not to consider.

[little jeremiah]

I just clicked your profile page, and see that you live in NH. I figured you must be from Mass or nearby. What do you personally think of Romney, regarding his conservative philosophy and practice? It's hard to imagine a real conservative winning in Mass.

I don't have anything against him, I'm just used to some real RINOS on the west coast and loathe them. For instance, Gordon Smith.

Of course, no matter what kind of R Romney is, he's lightyears better than Hillary. My cat would be better than Hillary.

[MRMEAN]

Well, the harm comes when otherwise healthy, uninsured people become injured or unexpectedly ill, and cannot afford the health resources they then require.

Healthy uninsured people are often making a rational decision in not buying insurance--because of regulation of the insurance policies the healthy and low risk policyholders are forced to subsidize the unheatlhy, and policies are often larded with mandated coverages that the consumer would at the price forgo.

Then the rest of us are harmed by having to pay for what the uninsured individual cannot.

This logic is why the Nanny State is out of control. There is no limit to the degree of government intervention in people's lives that cannot be approved based on cost to society argument; including mandatory medical exams, mandated diet and exercise, prohibition of tobacco and alcohol.

If the uninsured were willing to sign irrevocable statements assuring that they will not request medical treatment that they cannot pay for in advance of treatment, even under pain of lingering, exruciating, painful death, then you'd be right, there would be no harm to us.

Why not respect the private property rights of hospitals and repeal the "emergency" (which has been expanded to include just about anything) mandate to treat without regard to payment. If you can't pay, you might just have to go to a cheap charity hospital.

[atlanta67]

he just lost my vote for Prez

[sitetest]

Dear MRMEAN,

"Why not respect the private property rights of hospitals and repeal the "emergency" (which has been expanded to include just about anything) mandate to treat without regard to payment."

I have already suggested that the law could be written that those who refuse to insure themselves could alternatively sign express waivers to any medical treatment for which they are unable to pay upfront, no matter how painful, deadly, or lingering their health condition.

That would seem a reasonable solution for those who want to avoid an individual mandate.


sitetest

[Final Authority]

Mitt has to tone down his conservatism in order to survive. He is a practitioner of LDS. He does not smoke, drink, drink caffeinated beverages, swear, or get old looking. He is a self made billionaire or there abouts (Bain Capital). He vacations the summer at Lake Winnipesauke NH. He fills in for Jay Severin on the most listened to talk radio show in Boston often and does it better than most TSHs.

He believes that government has certain responsibilities. One, is to be frugal and spend wisely. He also believes that the chief executive must enforce the law. That is what got him in trouble with abortion, he said he would enforce the law allowing a women to chose to have an abortion but he was adamant about the minor consent issue and he will not ever allow a minor not to obtain consent before an abortion. He is a little weak on gun control but less so than many politicians, after all, he needs to get elected and is a politician first when elections matter.

Overall, he is a good and decent man. He will use his experience with the winter games in Utah to help him along, his good looks, his ability to speak and think on his feet (about time we might have a President that can speak in clear and complete sentences), and his vision for a more responsible populace and less corrupt government to make his candidacy prosper.

I wanted him to beat fat Teddy in '94 for the Senate. He was not ready then but now he is ready and training.

[Final Authority]

If you get to a library, pick up the June 20 copy of National Review. Mitt is on the cover and there is a long but very good portrayal of his potential candidacy.

[shellshocked]

As Rush would point out:

"First, they recommend. Then they force employers. Then they force you!"

[inquest]

If one does not have health insurance, ie, hasn't paid a premium. then ones poor health impacts people other than the patient.

Exactly as I predicted: you just repeated the arguments that others have made, and that I've dealt with. That's why I asked you to read the replies to #19, and my replies to them. The answer to your objection lies there.

My argument is sound, in NH where people by and large, are responsible, government has not had to step in, but with respect to the health payment crisis in the USA, that is not the case. Large groups of people seek free care believing it is their right to get it. They are irresponsible and it is time for government to cause them to either be responsible or pay in advance.

You're talking about collective punishment. Whatever that is, it's not conservative.

What is your solution to the health care payment crisis in the USA? Is it Hillary care, aka, nationalized medical care? No care for the poor?

We're not talking about the poor, that is, people who can't afford insurance at all. We're talking about those who can pay for it, but don't, and then get medical bills they can't pay off. It's a simple matter of making them face consequences for incurring expenses they can't pay off, just as is done with other types of expenses. Just as I explained at #80.

WRT 93, it seems but I might be wrong that the problem you have with Mitt's plan is that if one reads very closely it will eventually cause criminal aliens to actually pay for all of the free care they have gotten over the years.

If you think this will affect illegal aliens, you're dreaming. It would be the only upside of the proposal if it will, but it's not going to happen.

What do you mean, can afford insurance but can't afford the bill? If they had insurance the bill may be inconsequential.

Being able to afford insurance is not the same as actually having it. Did you read the article?

I still think you like the status quo because so many get over on the financially responsible and then send their cash back south over the border.

Get help.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the info. If Romney is going to be running for Pres, I certainly want to know more about him.

I wonder if his religious beliefs will be a handicap. I don't believe a lot of the LDS theology/history, but their moral standards, when followed, are of the highest. And it sounds as though he's definitely a practitioner. I have LDS neighbors and they are honorable, kind people.

I'll check out the mag.

[Final Authority]

The OBL and the pro Mexican lobby hate the idea of personal responsibility. That is what this idea of Mitt's addresses in the end. What the hell is "collective punishment"? Your interpretation of personal responsibility gives you away.

So you agree those who have income should pay. That is good and the best way to pay is through an insurance pool where risk is shared. Who decides if one has money to buy insurance? If left up to the irresponsible they will never buy it. That is what Mitt's plan is all about. To force responsibility on those who disdain it. It is high time to get the criminal alien element and the OBL types and the Pro Mexican types to buy into the White, Western, Northern European culture and ethics that has distinguished the USA from all nations in the world and is exactly what attracts those who want to "live" in America but do not want to "be" American.

The big issue of this idea is that it will cause those who seek medical care to be identified as either a freeloader or a financially responsible person. I think that is a great idea. Have you ever walked into a car dealership and asked to have a car prepped for delivery before they ever ask for payment?

[inquest]

The OBL and the pro Mexican lobby hate the idea of personal responsibility. That is what this idea of Mitt's addresses in the end.

In your dreams. This proposal is going to apply to people who have over a certain level of income (those who don't qualify for Medicaid). Officially, many illegals have no income, because they get paid under the table. Almost all the rest have very little, and would qualify for Medicaid. They don't pay much in the way of income taxes to begin with, so there isn't going to be much of anything to withhold from them. The state's still going to keep playing the cutesy little "don't ask/don't tell" game with them.

So you agree those who have income should pay.

They should be required to pay for the care they actually receive, yes. Doesn't mean they should be preemptively required by law to pay for the care they might receive. It'd be smart for them to do so, so as to avoid the consequences of receiving a bill that's over their head financially and having all their assets taken away in order to pay for it, but that's their choice.

[Final Authority]

Wouldn't it be just great though to make the criminal alien at least be required to show they have no income? The next question would be, how do you earn a living? The next question would be, whom do you work for? The next thing would be either to deport the alien, deny them free care, or force them to begin the process of paying taxes and then becoming a responsible person in his newly civilized world, by paying into an insurance pool.

See, Mitt has it figured out I think. The criminal alien problem cuts across all political boundaries and it would be too bold for him to say, just throw them all out. But for him to tackle a problem while putting the aliens on notice that they must participate as an American would and not a Mexican then he gets a twofer. He cuts the cost of medical care to the taxpayer and forces responsibility and at the same time, identifies the alien element.

[inquest]

Wouldn't it be just great though to make the criminal alien at least be required to show they have no income?

It wouldn't make a difference if he does show it. "Don't ask/don't tell". If Romney's afraid to take a public stand on illegal immigration, then he'll also be afraid to implement a proposal that would significantly inconvenience illegals. Otherwise, how is it that illegals constantly qualify for Medicaid and other welfare benefits?

The indulgency that this country, and especially liberal states like Massachusetts, show towards illegals is very deeply entrenched in the political culture. A proposal like this isn't going to turn around and change all that through the back door.

[Final Authority]

Don't ask/don't tell will be a thing of the past after the next election cycle. Mitt's plan is to incrementalize the movement towards turning back the impact of the criminal alien element. Americans are sick of the inaction by GWB and congress up to now.

[inquest]

Mitt's plan is to incrementalize the movement towards turning back the impact of the criminal alien element.

I'm curious how you know this. And if he plans to do it incrementally (i.e., unnoticeably), then how is he going to get any political mileage out of it?

I do know that, from the article, Ted Kennedy, co-sponsor of the latest amnesty proposal in Congress, considers Romney's proposal a "healthy step forward". How likely is it going to be, then, that it'll impinge on Kennedy's values?

[Final Authority]

Who knows exactly what Kennedy's values are with respect to Mitt's plan in that right now Mitt is not necessarily targeting criminal aliens. Kennedy must defuse the plan by Mitt because it goes against everything Democrat and if fat Ted made a stink out of it everybody would know it must be good for the country.

Mitt's plan is a shot across the bow, a preemptive strike, a sucker punch to Hillary's campaign plans to announce Hillary care.

[inquest]

If you have any hard evidence to back that up, let me know. Because I'm not about to just trust him. Right now, I see his plan for what it's showing itself to be: a big step toward mandatory health insurance for all, which is just a form of socialized medicine.

[Final Authority]

You might consider it socialized medicine but I see it as personal responsibility. In the end, one way or the other, we all pay. Under the present system, those who pay, either directly or through insurance pay for more service than they receive because we subsidize those who do not with increases in taxes and higher insurance premiums because in the end the docs and hospitals must pay their bills.

If there was no practical difference between socialized and private medicine then it wouldn't matter but we know that the private system of health care delivery is the best in the world and Mitt and any right think person should work to keep it that way.

[Advil]

The problem isn't that people can not afford health insurance then rack up hundreds of thousands in health care bills...

The problem is that it's even POSSIBLE to rack up hundreds of thousands in health care bills. It's easy, and the type of care doesn't even have to be all that extraordinary.

We need to reform the system that makes a bandage $100 or an injection $250, or a day in a hospital bed $1500. If the prices were what they should be, insurace would be cheap.