Die, Pay Taxes, and Get Health
Insurance
My mother taught me there are
only two things you have to do. Die and pay taxes. I guess now there are three. Die, pay
taxes, and get health insurance.
I am Without Party Affiliation.
I don’t go to either party. But I do pay attention to what our government is
doing. And what they’re doing these days is downright disturbing. I refer, of
course, to the newest mandate, uh, sorry, tax, that is being assessed.
According to a USA Today article
(http://usat.ly/KVkuEL) this morning...
“...White House chief of staff
Jack Lew said the mandate would affect only 1% of Americans, the people who can
afford to buy health insurance but don't...”
Here’s the thing...I have a
friend who is a hairdresser. Lovely woman, would give the shirt off of her back
for anyone in need, although, she is usually the one most in need. She has
three jobs (cleaning houses for the elderly are her other two jobs) and barely makes it above the poverty level.
But, she is above the poverty level, according to the US government standards.
She does not have health
insurance. She can not afford both health insurance and her nominal daily
living. But, according to the US government, she is a one-percenter.
Recently, she was hospitalized
with pneumonia. Admitted for six days, she is only just now receiving her
medical bills. So far, she’s into it for $12,000.00. She hasn’t gotten the
doctors bills yet. While there, they reviewed her financial status to discern
if she qualified for any of the myriad of support services out there.
She didn’t. She’s a
one-percenter. She’ll be paying that $695.00 ‘tax’ and still be into it for 12K
plus.
Ron Pollack, director of
Families USA said...The $695 fee is less than what most people pay now because
of the uninsured. Health providers don't turn away people who need but can't
pay for it. Providers must then swallow the cost of paying for that care, and
those costs are passed to other consumers.
Ack! Wait! What? Can you repeat
that for me? I must have blinked. Does that mean my friend doesn’t owe the 12K?
“...The $695 fee is less than
what most people pay now because of the uninsured...Providers must then swallow the cost of paying for that care, and
those costs are passed to other consumers...”
Bwahahahaha! Oh, stop! You’re
killing me! (gasp) Bwahahahaha!
OK. No, I’m alright. Woo! That
was funny. Wait’ll I tell my friend.
Ooo! Mr. Pollack! Over here! I
have a question! Does this mean, that with the passage of the mandate, we WON’T
be paying additional fees anymore? Will our premiums (those costs that are
passed on to ‘other consumers’) be going down?
Oh. Not according to this
lady...
“...Alissa Fox, senior vice
president for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association of health insurers,
said a Joint Committee on Taxation study said premiums for families would
increase $350 to $400 a year because of a health insurers' tax...”
So much for that. Insurance will
now be even further from my friend's reach. She receives the bills from the
hospital in the mail. She pays however much she can ($5 to $25 a month). But
the bill/debt is still hers. As long as she has an address to send them to, she
still has to pay. So, if she lives in a tent, (read: homeless) with no mailing
address, will she qualify for this 'assistance' then?
And on a final note for this
eye-opening article...
“...average premiums for a
27-year-old are much lower now than they are for a 64-year-old. The law removes
age discriminatory language, so everyone will pay more comparable rates...”
Now class, here’s the question;
Do you think the 64-year-old will pay less, or, (keeping in mind the track
record that the government and insurance industry has set) do you think the
27-year-old will pay more? What? You believe the 27-year-old will be charged the
same as the 64-year-old is now?
You are a smart class.
And now, on a more somber note;
another article in USA Today (http://usat.ly/QTflgg) reads...
“...Jan Crawford of CBS News,
citing "two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations,"
reports that Roberts indeed switched his vote after siding with four other
conservative justices who supported striking down the law.
Roberts then withstood a
month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the
sources said," reports Crawford....”
Which leaves me with only one
question. That would be for Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.
Whose check was it that cleared
a month ago? I mean, if someone can afford a Supreme Court Judge, they should
be allowed to advertise the fact.
