Health Care Fines Create a New Criminal Class?

I have been watching the various versions of the bills coming out, and one version sounds ok, but really has some aspects to it that are very troublesome.

This version would have within it the demand that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the U.S. be forced to pay insurance premiums, and that there would be find levied if those persons did not pay. $750 per year for a single person who refused or could not afford to pay for the insurance, $3500 per year for a family if they could not afford to pay.

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS

All bills bar discrimination based on gender or pre-existing medical conditions, guarantee coverage and seal in benefits with no annual or lifetime caps.

The Senate Health Committee and Finance Committee versions would allow variable premiums, while the House bill would eliminate co-pays for preventive care.

COVERAGE

The Senate Health Committee bill would require individuals to obtain coverage, with government help if necessary, or pay a penalty of up to $750 per year. Employers with more than 25 employees would have to pay 60 percent of coverage for workers or pay $750 per year penalty.

The House bill also has both individual and employer requirements, while the Senate Finance Committee bill is likely to include a mandate for individuals to obtain coverage but not for employers to help pay for it.

Now, from doing some quick research, I have found out that those people would be imprisoned for non-payment! Basically this would allow the federal government to punish the poorest in the country, and there are some states where the “3 strikes” laws would effect this too.

So, what would be the possible outcomes? A single person who is, perhaps, homeless or barely getting by would be fined $750. If they could not pay or refused to pay for insurance, then those people would be off to prison. The federal government is basically becoming a vicious bully here. Do not pay for insurance and you become liable for imprisonment, do that 3 times and that poor person literally gets a LIFE SENTENCE? That is truly vicious. Where does the idea of the “American Dream” fit in here?

If a family, like those of someone like Dolly Parton, Loretta Lynn, or many others who happen to be born into poverty, could not afford those insurance premiums, then their fathers, who were doing the best they could, would end up in prison!

The insurance companies love this idea! Force families to go without, force people to pay premiums, force every single person to get CORPORATE insurance or go to prison. That is truly a scheme worthy of Machievelli! It is well known that the insurance corporations DEMAND that they get every single person into their pockets, and, if you refuse or cannot pay, then the federal or state government will be in the position of putting the poor into prison for non-payment.

Remember, this is FEDERAL law, so the penalties could be nasty indeed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limits on incarceration for nonpayment of fines. In Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 2018, 26 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1970), the defendant, Willie E. Williams, was convicted of petty theft and sentenced to one year in prison and a $500 fine, the maximum sentence allowed under the applicable statute. When Williams was unable to pay the fine upon completing his year in jail, he was kept incarcerated to “work off” the fine at a rate of $5 a day. Williams appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may increase the sentence of a defendant beyond the maximum period specified by statute for failure to pay a fine.

Shortly after the Williams case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not convert a fine into incarceration if the conviction warrants only a fine. In Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S. Ct. 668, 28 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1971), the defendant, Preston A. Tate, was unable to pay $425 in fines for traffic offenses and was committed to prison to work off his fine at a rate of $5 a day. The Supreme Court ruled that a state may not “impos[e] a fine as a sentence and then automatically conver[t] it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.”

Neither the Williams ruling nor the Tate ruling prevents a court from imprisoning a defendant who is able, but refuses, to pay a fine. The court may do so after finding that the defendant was somehow responsible for the failure to pay and that alternative forms of punishment would be inadequate to meet the state’s interest in punishment and deterrence (Beardenv. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S. Ct. 2064, 76 L. Ed. 2d 221 [1983]).

In a case of willful nonpayment, the court may order incarceration for a period of time specified under statute. In Kentucky, a prison term of up to six months may be ordered if the unpaid fine was imposed for the conviction of a felony. Nonpayment of a misdemeanor fine may result in a prison term of up to one-third the maximum authorized term for the offense committed. For a violation, the maximum term is ten days. This amount can be cumulative. For example, if a person refuses to pay the fines for ten violations, that person can be incarcerated for one hundred days (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 534.060).

Now, I do realize that this is a PROPOSED version of the bill, and the fines have not been defined as misdemeanor or a higher form, but the law is there to put people who refuse (which means they are likely to face much the same penalties as fathers who refuse child support, or those who would be deemed as criminals) to pay health insurance premiums.

Even if the fines did not put people in prison, the state or federal statutes do provide for liens, garnishment, or other means that penalize the people.

If this law version goes through, then basically the federal government becomes a tool, a puppet, of the insurance industry. That same industry apparently has no qualms about cutting people down when they are already at the bottom rung in society. The insurance companies have put literally millions into lobbying for the federal demand that every person BUY private insurance, instead of putting those same millions into affordable health care clinics, cutting down on the profits payable to Wall Street investors, or even doing something as simple as donating those same millions to non-profit organizations overseas.

Nope, the insurance companies are trying very hard to turn the federal government into puppets, using the Senate Health and Finance Committee members.

So much for a compassionate, caring and decent society.

What Does NOT Happen In Countries With Universal Health Care

There are so many stories, so many ways that people are made to suffer because of financial limitations that it has become almost acceptable to live this way.

This video has one of the many stories of insurance companies denying coverage to pay for ONE person’s income. Personally this story is unbelievable to me, but apparently this story is common too.

CEO is paid millions while people are denied service and health care by the company.

O.K. so what is the solution here? There have been debates over private versus public health care, profit over the social need to care for each and every person, and certainly debates over the way health care is seen as either a corporate business versus the responsibility of the society and government to see health as a necessary service.

There are videos playing as advertisements on the media that have spotlighted horror stories about health care in countries where the health care systems are seen as “socialism” or even as some kind of horror in and of itself. What is missing are the videos of the people who are dumped on the sidewalk outside of hospitals because those people are old, need health services and either they or the families cannot afford the medicines, the support, the care necessary.

People living in countries with Universal Health Care are horrified when they see this inhumane treatment of people who have lived a long life. These people have raised families, probably worked hard, yet this is the treatment they get when they get ill or need care? THIS is totally unacceptable in a civilized society.

Get something straight, here. Grandparents, the elderly, are NOT dumped in countries where there is universal health care. Yes, some people wait for surgery that is ELECTIVE, meaning non-life threatening, but if there is any indication of a life-threatening condition, then the surgery or other care is immediately done.

No system is perfect, given that human beings are not perfect, not machines who can just make precognitive decisions that are all-knowing, all-seeing, but from what is currently happening in the U.S. there is obvious room for improvement. Children are literally dying from lack of care, and people are literally dying because of the lack of money. Even those WITH insurance are dying because of a truly bizarre practice of reneging on coverage post-surgery.

In those countries where there is universal health care, medications are given that are generic first, unless the doctor specifies otherwise by stating “no substitutions” on the prescriptions. The generic versions of the medications MUST be as effective as the brand-name by law. The companies that produce the brand-name medications are saying they put far too much money into research and development, but the reality is that the percentage of the money spent is very low. Profit is the main goal with these companies too, and generic medications are less profitable.

Universal health care also gives the patient the power of choice. If one doctor is not satisfactory, then the patient can easily find and see another doctor. The care is there, for the patient to choose, and the doctors are certainly NOT suffering from lack of income.

The lies that are out there about the idea of universal health care are totally bizarre, and for some people, a form of fear mongering that echoes the Bush claims of WMD’s.

Some countries even have care and private nursing for the elderly, the house-bound, those who have no means to get to medical services, and some countries even pay for housing and care for those same people. Imagine having a nurse and a doctor go to the patient in a place where there are people who care daily for the patients. Imagine the patient paying $6 for a medication instead of $80, and no charge for going to a clinic or diagnostic lab for treatment!

Bottom line here? Patients are the ones who have the power of choice, and patients are the ones who are the beneficiaries of heath services. Doctors are quite well paid, and there are no bureaucrats “rationing” care. Yes, there are limits on some things like using highly expensive treatments when less expensive treatments are just as effective, if not MORE effective. But if those treatments are not quite the ego boost that some people need, they are quite welcome to find those very expensive treatments as long as the patient is willing to pay the difference.  The basic cost IS covered, however.

Ambulances go to the scene of accidents and pick up patients and take them to the nearest hospital without charge. Even air ambulances will do that, and not charge the patients. Yes, there is NO cost to the patient for an ambulance! No-one is asked for their wallet before anyone cares for a seriously injured person, and that would be considered bizarre if that happened.

Get the facts straight before you decide that “socialized” medical services are, somehow, evil.

There have been literally decades to debate, to research, to find facts, to get information, yet somehow some people are demanding more time. Why?

The only answer I can see is that those people demanding MORE time are either very glad to keep the status quo, or they have a vested interest in keeping the companies profitable, or they are fearful that the change means that every single citizen is, in fact, equal to them!

Enough already, there has been plenty of time to find the facts, GET ON WITH IT!