That implies that the person in question would actually be capable of paying off the bills in the first place. If that's the case, then once they do, the state should have no further business with them at all.
An alternative reading is that the money will first be put in a health savings account for you, and then be used to pay the healthcare expenses you've already incurred (which may result in tax savings to the consumer).
And I find that rather convoluted. If you're making them pay the bill, there's no need to have the money stop over at a separate account; just have them pay the bill. The state can still write it off from their taxable income without setting up any type of account. All it requires is a line on the tax form: "How much did you pay on medical expenses this past year?"
However, I think it's fair to say that the thrust of the governor's actions is likely to force folks to either maintain health insurance, or force them to pay for at least some portion of the healthcare costs they incur. If that is what the governor is proposing, do you disagree with it?
I disagree with making them get insurance, because that's just a form of corporate welfare. The state should not be forcing people to do business with any private entity they don't want to do business with. But it can make life difficult for people who incur expenses (of any kind, not just health care expenses) that they're not able to pay. As far as I know, there are already consequences for doing just that, which people are shielded from when it comes to health care. Just remove that shielding from people who are able to afford insurance.
Dear inquest,
"The state can still write it off from their taxable income without setting up any type of account."
Yes, but that wouldn't apply to any federal tax advantages.
sitetest