Has anybody changed their mind on "mandatory" health insurance?

[CTyankee]

Now I hear that Obama is considering the mandatory thing when he didn't in the primary (sorry no link cuz I can't recall where I saw/heard this today - senior moment).

So, how are we feeling about this now?

Remember when this was the number one issue on this board? Some DUers were flat outraged at the thought of paying for mandatory health care insurance -- it was single payer only. I wonder if anybody who was adamant one way or the other has "evolved" along with Obama on this...

[redqueen]

1. HR 676 - Medicare for all

That's what I want.

[laconicsax]

2. Agree

[dflprincess]

8. I'm with you

And I am opposed to any plan that will keep shoveling money into the pockets of the crooks that are screwing us now. The idea should be to increase access to health care, not health insurance.

[napi21]

9. Which COULD be construed as mandatory health ins. Medicare is NOT FREE!

Medicare for all would mean that everyone would be forced to pay $$ per month. I'm not objecting, just saying that it equates to the same thing.

[Cleita]

12. You already pay for Medicare. It's part of your SS deduction.

Wouldn't it be nice to be also to partake in it since you pay for it? In order to make it universal the caps will have to be lifted so that all income gets that deduction not just the first hundred thousand in earnings.

[napi21]

19. You're partly right. I've worked since I was 16 in 1959, and I've paid into medicare since it was

established. I'm now retired,and I still have to pay $97 a mo. for Medicare, plus the extra for a supplement & the Part D coverage.

My only point here is that people need to understand that "universal HC" still has a monthly premium.

[Cleita]

23. Yes, you are right.

The idea is that we share the cost according to our ability to do so. So you get that deduction from your paycheck or in our case our Social Security, but you are able to partake of the program when you need it. The way the Republicans try to present it is that it's socialism because it's free to deadbeats. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there will be people who don't pay, like children, and the handicapped but how small-minded and penurious do you have to be to resent that?

[napi21]

56. The other thing few are recognizing is that it's VERY EXPENSIVE

for all those who are insured to have to pay for the uninsured NOW! All the people who just show up at the ER must be treated, and since they can't pay, someone has to cover those costs. That's the biggest reason all our premiums are as high as they are. If EVERYONE shared in a common premium payment, the overall cost of those premiums would come down. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

[Cleita]

58. The reason is because the for profit industry has

their publicists and lobbyists in place to make sure the ordinary person doesn't get the correct information.

[Thothmes]

60. Would it not be almost

as expensive for those that pay the medicare taxes to support those that are unable or unwilling to pay medicare taxes.

[CTyankee]

50. And that is what I hear people say they want! Especially those over the age of 50

but not yet 65. So many of these people are the ones eased out of their jobs and they find themselves needing health care but at an age where some health problems have kicked in. This age group is a ripe place for Dems to pick up support for a healthplan that covers them, as well as their grandkids!

[dflprincess]

14. No it's not the same.

Medicare is not for profit. Part of the premium you're paying won't be going to pay the bonuses of crooks like William McGuire (fomerly) of United Health Group and Medicare won't deny you coverage or jack up the premium because of a prexisting condition. If we're all in the same pool, it will help keep all our costs down and give more equal access to health care.

Mandatory insurance, purchacsed from private companies, means some people will wind up with cheaper, high deductible policies that won't give them access to prevenative care and will still cause them financial problems.

[ikojo]

22. Medicare has always been

administered by FOR PROFIT insurance companies. These companies, especially after the introduction of Medicare Pt C (the portion that allows for Medicare HMOs) make a handsome sum off the government.

[Cleita]

29. Yep, these have to be stopped.

They are bleeding the program and it's going to Wall Street profits not health care.

[dflprincess]

16. The caps on medicare have already been lifted

the cap is only on Social Security taxes.

[Cleita]

28. I didn't get the memo.

Do you have a link? Medicare is really underfunded right now. I know because I have to deal with it for my health care. If people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are paying to the maximum of their income, where is the money going? Well, I do know a lot of it is being bled away from the program by privatized Medicare plans like Secure Horizons. Those would have to stop with a universal plan, but where is the rest of the extra money going?

[dflprincess]

46. I think this happened back when Reagan was president

part of the "bipartisan plan" to save the system. Way back then I used to do payroll for a small company and at that time I had to go from one line for the deduction to two; one for SS and one for Medicare. I only needed to concern myself with stopping the FICA deduction when an employee hit the income cap (which was much lower then).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

For 2008, the employee's share of the Social Security portion of the tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $102,000 of compensation (resulting in a maximum of $6,324 in total tax amount). This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The employee's share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages with no limit.

[Cleita]

47. Thanks I didn't know that.

I think the rate could be raised though for the Medicare part.

[Two Americas]

41. not at all

The government represents the people. Corporations represent their investors. All the difference in the world right there.

Your argument could be used with equal effect against public education, and every other public program of any kind. "Privatize all education. Why not? We pay either way."

Taking care of people doesn't "cost" anything. As Democrats, we stand for the principle that investments in human beings - for the benefit of all - bring far greater returns than investment in paper - for the benefit of the few. In fact, what else is there to being a Democrat?

[redqueen]

43. "The government represents the people. Corporations represent their investors."

At least that's how it should be.

With this election, we're getting closer, I hope.

[Cleita]

10. The Bushistas have been effing up Medicare by cost cutting

so that doctors aren't being reimbursed to keep up with inflation, nor are the payments timely, but months behind. I think a new bill covering this is going to have to be introduced in place of HR676, an improved HR676.

[Cleita]

3. If it's mandatory like in Massachusetts it has already proven not to work.

Do we need to follow failed policies like the Republicans?

[Warpy]

13. You can't expect people earning less than subsistence

to fork over money for health insurance when they need new shoes, or food, or a repair on the jalopy they depend on to get to work.

Universal health insurance is not the same as mandatory health insurance purchase. Universal health insurance is paid for by premiums deducted from income, less for low income earners and more for high income earners.

The rich hate it because it means they get the same care as everybody else does even if they pay a little more for it. However, they'll howl no matter what we do, so we might as well go ahead and do it.

[Cleita]

21. Yes, but do we have to do it like in Massachusetts?

One of the plans offered by John Edwards was to make Medicare available to employers to purchase for their employees to compete with private insurers. It could be a start. The government then could make sure children, the elderly, the handicapped and the unemployed are covered as well for what is affordable to them meaning that many in that category wouldn't pay premiums at all. It's not perfect but it could be a start on the road to achieving real single payer universal health care. The Insurance, HMO and PHRMA are not going to give up easily so it's a matter of convincing them that health care will no longer be a profitable venue for them.

[Warpy]

24. The first step should be to make it unprofitable, then,

by removing their ability to cherrypick healthy subscribers and deny coverage to people who might actually need care and to provide enormous fines for any plan that denies the standard of care to a subscriber for any reason.

[Cleita]

31. I'm all for that.

Now how do we get Obama to pick Howard Dean instead of Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Resources Secretary? I have more confidence in Howard Dean to rein in the profiteers than I do Daschle.

[Warpy]

34. Dean knows every rotten trick the insurance industry has been pulling

Daschle is totally out of his field.

I keep hoping that Dr. Dean is leaving the party chair because he's already been tapped for HHS.

[Cleita]

36. Me too. I'm praying every day. n/t

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. They can shove any attempt at propping up...

The rapacious cause of our health crisis, the insurance industry and its greed(helped of course by Big Pharma) up their wishy-washy asses.

Clear enough?

Max Baucus can blow me till I bleed.

[nichomachus]

5. Nope -- single-payer, universal

The mandatory plan is still like auto insurance -- unless the government require standardized plans and regulates the fees. It will still eat up too much money in administrative costs -- that's what's killing us. 35% of your health care dollar goes to administrative costs.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Didn't President-elect Obama promise to oppose government-run health care?

:shrug:

[nichomachus]

38. I don't think any of the top-tier candidates had an acceptable solution

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Apperently most voters didn't share that sentiment

[nichomachus]

49. The voters decided what the corporate media let them decide

Their choices were limited. Any candidate with a good health plan was pushed to the margin before voters even knew they were there.

[dflprincess]

54. Single payer is not necessarily government run

Medicare is an example of a single payer system. The VA is an example of a government run health care system.

[gateley]

6. I read somewhere today (maybe the same place you did) that Obama wasn't

necessarily opposed to it as a policy, but felt it wasn't politically advantageous during his campaign.

HOWEVER, I believe someone was giving their opinion on the topic, it didn't come from Obama or 'his people', so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

[uppityperson]

27. Yup. Will watch and see for true news.

This may be true, but I'm waiting for info from the source.

[bluestateguy]

7. I'm for a mandate, but only if it's a public universal program

None of this Mitt Romney private insurance nonsense.

[Cleita]

32. If it's a public universal program, you don't need a mandate.

All you need is to issue everyone a plastic card that says they are covered. The funding can be worked out from various sources that won't put poor people and those needing health care at a disadvantage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. As long as the private insurers are calling the shots

it doesn't make any difference if it's mandatory or not - it will STILL fail.

Taxpayer supported single-payer universal healthCARE is the goal we should be shooting for.

[CTyankee]

51. I totally agree, but we are stuck, in a way, with this private health insurance industry.

I have no doubts that they will not give up without a fight (why would they?). So we have a war on our hands. How do we fight it?

1)incrementally by offering people both public and private health care options; or,

2)trying to get a single payer health care plan thru Congress.

I think the first option is prolly the best one but honestly, with the way things are going, it second might just win the day!

People are disgusted!!!

[xchrom]

15. nope -- it's fucked up -- but it's what we're gonna get. nt

[progressive_realist]

17. In a word? No.

The government forcing people to purchase a privately provided service is wrong. Single-payer is still the only ethical option that will actually drive health-care prices down for (most) consumers.

[JVS]

18. All this will lead to is shit like 1-800-safe-medo

[ikojo]

20. Mandatoey auto insurance

does not cover all drivers because not all drivers can afford it.

[Fovea]

30. Not to mention the fact

that not everyone drives a car.

Everyone eventually needs medical care.

[hfojvt]

25. I still don't like the idea, any more than I like mandatory auto insurance

I still think the Massachusetts plan sucks. For one think I am sure I will fall in the donut hole. I will make too much money to get assistance and end up being forced to buy something I really cannot afford. Consider the 15 years I didn't have insurance. My medical bills (other than dental) were

$80 one pair of glasses
$800 one emergency room visit (including $500 for X-rays I did not need)
$120 one doctor visit (including about $60 for testing I didn't really need)
$60 one urgent care visit to the emergency room

total - less than $1200.

compare that to my health insurance costs for 2008

$486.05 per month or $5832.60 per year. Times 15 years = $87,489!!

That looks like a better deal for the insurance company. $85,000 in profits guaranteed by the state!!

[CTyankee]

53. Well, you'll see as you age. It gets worse.

What I want to know is "If our health care system is so good, why wouldn't western European nations want it?"

The fact is: They don't. Not one western European country has said they want our system.

What is the matter with America???

[uppityperson]

26. Link before getting outraged, please.

I'd like more than "I heard somewhere". I'll be watching to see what happens though. But not getting emotional yet.

[CTyankee]

55. I'm sorry. I am a big link person but I just don't remember where I saw/heard this.

My apologies. But when I heard/read this I thought that it made a certain amount of sense. I have always believed that we cannot have universal health care without everyone's participation. So when I saw that Obama had come round on the issue I was happy and relieved.

I just wondered if anyone else felt this way...

[uppityperson]

57. I'd like to know, am very interested as both an almost senior and as a health care provider.

Very interested in the insurance, universal health care issue. Thanks, I'll keep my ears open the next bit and if I hear anything I'll post it.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[dkofos]

37. We don't need insurance, we need HEALTHCARE.

HR676 is what we need.
DEMAND IT!!

[annabanana]

39. This is actually a step closer to Single Payer than Obama's

initial plan. This is what Hillary was proposing during her run and was, imho..better than Barack's.

[Two Americas]

40. health care

We need health care, not insurance.

Yes, I think rights should be "mandatory" - and people have a right to health care. Health care should be "mandatory" if that means access for all to health care, guaranteed and universal with equal access to the same quality and availability.

People should not, however, be forced to be customers of private insurance companies.

[frebrd]

42. We'll never have decent health care in this country.......

until the insurance industry is banned completely from any involvement in it. That's always been my opinion - hasn't changed a bit.

[Bucky]

44. Has it been changed to "mandatory Malloy health insurance" on your forms too?

Or am I just reading DU too much

[geomon666]

48. Is that where you walk into a doctor's office...

and he asks, "What the hell is wrong with you?"

[ContinentalOp]

52. I was opposed to this aspect of Clinton's plan, not because it was a bad idea...

but because I thought it was a politically stupid move. So if Obama can actually pass something like that now with the help of a Democratic controlled Congress, then I'm fine with that. I don't really care one way or another. I just thought it would have given the anti-UHC people a ridiculously easy target during the election. "Hillary is going to FORCE you to buy health caer!!1111 OMG, this is hueg!", etc.

[CTyankee]

59. This shows how things have changed politically over the past 15 years.

I don't know if the old "Harry and Louise" type ads would even work today. This whole threat of "socialized medicine" has worn bare with lots of people who now lack adequate, or any, health care.

The holdouts are people who are in denial with their situation, people who get their political information from a closed group of RWingers. They don't do much reading and have never travelled to any Western European countries where people have government health care. They've never actually talked to a Canadian but believe it when someone says "I have a friend who knows someone in Canada who doesn't like their socialized medicine." I always say to these people, "But when Canadians are polled on whether they would prefer American style health to their own they overwhelmingly reject our health care system."