~> > Then she may not like having a new law passed that will fine her for not 
~> > being insured.
 
~> It wouldn't happen because they would provide her insurance she could 
~> afford.  She would be fined if she didn't get any insurance, but not if she 
~> couldn't afford it.  That's one of the misconceptions that is consistently 
~> being popularized by the conservative movement that is trying to get this 
~> discredited.  I thought you'd be better than that.

The retired couple in Massachusetts that I mentioned have an income of
about $300 a month, and they spend 10% of that ($300) on a minimal
insurance policy.  The state increased its required coverage, and they will
have to pay $800 a month for insurance or else pay a fine of $1000 a year.

All of the versions of the federal bill that I have heard discussed have
the same sort of individual mandate.  She would have to buy insurance or
pay a fine.  There are various provisions to give people a part of the cost
if the policy would be more than 10% of their income, but I haven't seen
any serious proposals to make the insurance free (i.e., to reimburse 100%
of the cost).

If you are looking for free medical care, or free insurance policies, or
increased welfare or disability payments, or more Medicaid coverage, then
you will be disappointed in all of the leading contenders for the final
bill.  Under the Baucus bill, for example, a 20 year old and a 60 year old
would both have to get a policy, even if the policy for the 60 year old
would cost five times as much.  The "public option" is not a welfare
program to give free insurance out.  Public insurance is supposed to
compete with private insurers, not to take intentional losses.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a