It was bad enough a few months ago when Princeton sociology professor Paul Starr wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the advocacy for a public option was "ideological." Of course, he did not mention the actual, non-ideological budget of a person on a working class income faced with having to pay the rising costs of private insurance.
Here is his latest brainchild, presented in his op-ed in the NYT at this moment, to deal with people who don't pay mandated health care premiums under the proposed Senate and House bills. It shows the degree to which even a sociologist can be light years from understanding the plight of working class people. The following is plan for dealing with people who don't pay the mandated premiums:
Beginning of quote from Starr's text:
"There is another way, however, to accomplish the same purpose: let individuals opt out of the new insurance system, without a penalty, by signing a form on their tax return acknowledging that they would then be ineligible for federal health insurance subsidies for a fixed period — say, five years.
During that time, if they had second thoughts and decided to buy health insurance, they would have no guarantee that they could find a policy or that it would cover pre-existing conditions. In other words, they would face a market much like the one that exists now. And while that’s hardly a desirable position to be in, they would have made the decision themselves, and the option to step outside the system would relieve Republican concerns about government mandates.
If this provision were added to the legislation, people without coverage through a group or Medicaid would have three basic choices in 2014, when the law goes into effect. They could use the new insurance exchanges to buy guaranteed coverage, receiving subsidies if their incomes were within four times the poverty level. They could take the five-year opt-out. Or they could refuse to do either and pay the annual penalties under the bill. (The legislation exempts them from penalties if the lowest-cost plan in the exchange exceeds 8 percent of their income or their income falls below the threshold for filing taxes.)
...
The more sensible approach would be to provide a five-year opt-out without penalties and, after a transitional period, to set stiffer annual fines for those who want to keep open the alternative of buying guaranteed coverage at any time.
Personally, I would not recommend that anyone take the five-year opt-out. But I would also rather see people figure out for themselves that they are better off in the new insurance system than outside of it."
End of Starr quote.
So let me get this right Professor Starr. A person can't pay the premium, so remove all ability of that person to have access to the health care plan for the next five years. If a person has a financial problem, your plan, Professor Starr, will really help such people sleep better at night. Yes, your plan really helps achieve universal coverage. And the New York Times didn't dare open up a comment section on this one. I hope nobody in Congress is actually taking this seriously.