Do you support forced insurance premiums on Americans like car insurance? As Pres Obama just said?

[Divine Discontent]

as a way to make it right for those who are paying to not be responsible for those who are unwilling to have health insurance?

[sharp_stick]

1. Depends

until I know how much it costs and how it's set up I can't really say.

[treestar]

10. Yes. The Swiss have that

There would be protections there.

There are people dumb enough to spend the $$ on something else. This puts that first.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Ditto. Depends...it's an ins. co./Republican feature. So there needs to be a Progressive feature

in return for it.

I'm afraid the public option will get cut, but the mandatory provision will get left in. So the ins. cos. win on that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. If we're not going to have actual national health coverage, then I'll go with it.

But I'm more disappointed that there isn't a national healthcare being offered.

[Bluzmann57]

3. delete.

Wrong place to post this.

[markbark]

4. There's a big difference

I don't have to drive.

[Doctor_J]

5. Absolutely not

This is a disaster. The Repukes must have written that part of the speech

[stray cat]

6. No money or insurance - no health care

is that better?

[LiberalFighter]

7. I support the elimination of insurance premiums totally.

Of course, they would be replaced with an insurance tax that in all likelihood would be less than the premiums that employees and employers currently pay.

[Divine Discontent]

25. I like that idea a helluva lot better! His saying that Insurance companies serve a purpose made a

lot of progressive thinkers CRINGE. They serve nothing but to make profit off the removal of care to make more money through keeping their customers from getting care, than the amount of money they bring in from premiums.

They corruptable, and have no morals. So, whereas President Obama truly must feel they serve some purpose, I differ with his opinion on that. They're the death panels that keep people from getting care because they don't have morals about telling patients in need of necessity care - "NO!"

[EmilyAnne]

8. Depends on the terms, on the hardship exemptions, etc. nt

[DrToast]

9. Which question am I answering?

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Where's the FUCK NO option?

I will not be FORCED to pay criminals.

[GreenArrow]

20. Yes, you will.

It's the "uniquely American" way.

[Kitsune]

12. Who the hell is voting yes on this?

[Engineer4Obama]

13. Do you support push polling?

[calmblueocean]

14. If there are fair hardship exemptions and it means health care reform finally passes? Yes.

As long as the poorest of the poor aren't unfairly penalized, it's definitely worth it if it means an end to people who need insurance being denied it for the most outlandish of reasons.

[hollowdweller]

15. I support it 100%

I have lots of friends who make more money than I but who choose to spend it on traveling or other stuff.

Several of those friends have gotten seriously ill, lost their jobs and then either got on medicaid or just didn't pay the bill.

Here I am have been paying for insurance since I was 25 while they have been using their money to go have fun.

Why should the people who work and pay insurance have to pay higher premiums to offset injuries and illnesses that are pushed onto the gov't or onto policyholders??

[Lars39]

19. But you know what sucks?

Knowing I won't have the extra 5-6 thousand in our bank account so that we can go have fun vacations like those in other industrialized countries because they're paying less with single payer than we are for health care.

[msallied]

24. I agree.

[bigwillq]

16. No (nt)

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Yes, I do

We pay for the uninsured in a thousand different ways. If they make cheap insurance available, it will save everybody money and save a lot of people their lives.

Do you support endlessly rising health care costs, hidden subsidies for the uninsured, and death?

[GreenArrow]

18. no

It's wrongheaded and punitive. Insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.

[johnaries]

21. Whoa, way to totally spin and misrepresent what he said.

You should get a job at Fox Noise.

[Divine Discontent]

22. details... explain what you think he said. I heard making it mandatory for everyone to get ins.

please inform where I'm wrong so I can go forward. And thanks for offering, but I'm too good for Faux Noise, I don't breathe outta my mouth. ;)

[msallied]

23. He absolutely did NOT say it woudl be mandatory for everyone to get insurance.

He said that until the health insurance exchange was open in 4 years, for the younger people who are not choosing coverage and are running up taxes on emergency care visits, they would need to purchase an affordable health care plan. That isn't "everyone."

[Divine Discontent]

29. and he absolutely did NOT say that he meant only young people, the text says ----

"PARTICULARLY the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage." "The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and PEOPLE still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits."

He is referring to everyone imho. To read that as he only means young & healthy is not paying attention to the full text.

Thanks

[Sparkly]

33. Right -- this is the only way a single payer would work, too.

People freaked out at the term "mandate" during the primaries, but the only way it can be affordable for all is if we pay in when young, too. Otherwise, it's all sick people in a program, which makes costs sky high. It's one of those things you sort of buy, hoping you'll never actually need it.

[Divine Discontent]

35. now that's SPOT on! We all should be encouraged and told why it's important to get involved & why

it will work. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to buy coverage (even if it's not a lot if you're poor, and I'm referring to the credits that will be given). Point being, if you have very little and they tell you, that $50 a month is required from you for health care, but you work full time and cannot get by on that as it is - how is forcing you to spend $50 you need for gas to get work, moral?

[Sparkly]

36. I don't think that'll happen.

They'll scale it, like taxes, I'm sure. He said something about waivers (?) for hardship... I think a lot of details are yet to come.

[Sparkly]

26. If it comes to that, yes.

I don't think it's the best way to go overall -- if everyone's paying anyway, it might as well be done via taxes -- but IF we're hanging onto insurance companies then yes, I suppose so. Everyone should pay in (as they are able) and everyone should be covered (as they may need).

[Divine Discontent]

30. thanks Sparkly! eom

[RobinA]

28. Yes

If the insurance companies aren't going to be able to cut off and not do business with sick people, it is fair that everyone have insurance. What's to stop me from waiting until I get sick to buy insurance? Plus, having everybody insured will help bring prices down for those who are insured. Do you realize what percentage of medical bills actually get paid? SOMEbody ends up paying the cost, just not the uninsured person.

[ProudDad]

31. With single-payer - 4% from your check

with a matching 4% from your employer...

And if you're currently paying for insurance (or your employer is) -- you get that back...

it would pay for everything for EVERYBODY...

But that's just too fucking intelligent and compassionate.

You won't find compassion in a dominate world Empire...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Divine Discontent]

34. you are a joke. you don't follow rules, just like Rep. Wilson. You need to be reprimanded

by DU for telling me to go to another site, that's shameful. Where's your post about his speech??? Oh, big surprise - you don't have one, you're only yelling at people with thoughts about what he said in the speech. Please contribute by stating why you disagree, or what you understood his comments to be about, or do not attack others who are discussing the speech, please, okay? Thanks

Pres. Obama's comments were -
"PARTICULARLY the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage." "The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and PEOPLE still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits."

[BootinUp]

37. yes. nt

[LWolf]

38. Hell no. nt

[Vidar]

39. Hell no!

[RoadRage]

40. For those who CAN afford it, but choose not to? YES.

And that's who will be forced to have it. Those who can't afford it, get tax breaks and help (AS HE SAID CLEARLY TONIGHT).

How the hell does this plan work if people can wander around without insurance so they can buy bigger big screen TV's, only to come down with cancer at age 32 and stumble into a hospital, and now the tax payer (who already IS paying for their own health insurance) gets to pay for it instead.

Yes.. if you make a certain amount of money per year, you should be legally requiered to have medical insurance. It should just be deducted from your paycheck if you have a job.

If you don't have a job, it should be in your unemployment or government assistance checks.

Yes - that's how this plan works.

[kath]

41. But their definition of what you can "afford" and the common person's definition of affordable are

MILES apart.

RomneyCare thinks it is "affordable" for a family of 3 making $70 K/yr to pay ***$1700 per month*** in premiums, with deductibles and co-pays ON TOP of that.
I don't know WTF planet they're living on, but That. Is. Not. "Affordable".

[RoadRage]

44. I agree. "affordable" needs to be clearly defined.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lamp_shade]

43. Yes... 100%