Mandatory Insurance

[harun]

Do you think Congress has the right to mandate you buy yourself Health Insurance?

[liberal N proud]

1. Can they get blood from a turnip?

[Autumn]

2. No they do not

but like idiots we will let them do what their masters want them to do.

[Avalux]

3. Should be MANDATORY HEALTHCARE.

When it comes to healthcare - the words "mandatory" and "insurance" don't belong together. Imagine what a boon that would be for insurance companies. x(

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. And it should be like MediCare, only better

[Avalux]

9. Agreed!

Expanding Medicare and improving it seems like the logical way to go. Insurance Co's have too much power tho - they win.

[harun]

11. This is what I think people miss with this.

If you look at this article it says as much:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32078679/ns/politics-washington_post/

Hospitals, insurers and drug manufacturers — salivating at the prospect of up to 50 million newly insured customers — have lobbied ferociously for the federal provision.

[Avalux]

17. "bringing everyone into the insurance pool"

Yep. Lots of $$ to be made by these companies at the expense of the American people. A public option MUST be made avaialable, otherwise, the Ins. Cos. call all the shots.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Push poll much?

Congress is mandating employers offer insurance to employees, and pay most of the cost.
Congress is ordering medicaid to expand coverage to people who earn less than 133% of FPL - for free to the subscriber.
Congress is going to increase taxes on the rich to provide a subsidy for people who can't afford coverage.

If you're well-to do and self employed or independently wealthy then, Yes. I think congress has the RESPONSIBILITY to mandate that you buy yourself health insurance.

[timeforpeace]

5. That's likely to be the result of all this. Never bet against the insurance companies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Only if they continue to mandate hospital ERs to treat uninsured patients

[Sparkly]

7. Like mandatory Social Security, ya mean?

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

12. That's what my initial reaction was. A system that only works if costs are spread among everybody...

Not sure why that bugs everybody.

[ipaint]

23. I don't get a vote on who is going to represent me in the insurance

corporations or on their boards. If I am going to be mandated to pay into a system it best be one where I have a vote and representation.

Funny how some are so willing to give up whatever bit of power and responsibility they have as citizens in a democracy to for profit private institutions with a record of abuse 100,000's of thousands of dead americans long.

[BlooInBloo]

27. I don't get a vote how my SS is invested, either.

[ipaint]

34. Oh, that make sense.

Great point. :sarcasm:

[Romulox]

32. Insurance profits are not a necessary cost of healthcare. nt

[havocmom]

13. Which only applies to paid workers

the idle rich duck that one, don't they?

[Sparkly]

22. The idle rich don't have to worry about healthcare, either.

[havocmom]

24. also don't worry about paying much in taxes

tho they get most of the society's goodies

[dflprincess]

15. No. Social Security payments are not made to a private company

I'd have no objection to an additional payroll tax to pay for a single payer system (I'd bet most single payer supporters would not object to that). I do object to being told I have to continue to contribute to the profits of a bunch of crooks like those who run United Heath Group or Cigna - or any of the for profits.

[Sparkly]

16. Which is why there has to be a public option, if not single payer. nt

[dflprincess]

30. But it has to be a real option

not the crap Congress is coming up with.

[harun]

18. If you have no income you don't pay in to SS. Forcing people to buy

insurance is not at all like SS. If they were to have an additional income tax that would be paid in to a government plan for Health Coverage that would be entirely different but that is not what is being proposed.

So no, not like SS.

[Sparkly]

21. That is NOT what is under discussion.

Nobody's saying people should purchase private insurance they can't afford. Please.

[harun]

26. I mentioned neither Private Insurance nor buying something people

can't afford in my post.

[Sparkly]

28. "If you have no income" and "forcing people to buy"

Perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

[harun]

29. I was just trying to say if it was like SS and everyone making wages

paid in to it that would be fine by me. But that is not what is being proposed. This would be a much different model than SS. Not advocating so much is it good or bad just trying to say people should notice this model is written by the Insurance companies as to make a lot more money. Not to actually provide a needed service that wasn't being provided before. It isn't like a bunch of healthy unemployed 25 years olds are lobbying the government to make them all buy Health Insurance, so they lawmakers listened to them and through that in there.

[harun]

25. deleted

[havocmom]

10. Not until there is manditory LIVING WAGE

tied to real cost of living. Workers have been losing real wages since the 60s. No more unpaid mandates on workers!

[Orsino]

14. No more unfunded mandates. n/t

[dflprincess]

19. No more unfunded wars!

How about a mandatory surcharge on the companies that have made money off Iraq & Afghanistan? Why is healthcare the only thing that has to be "deficit neutral"?

[dflprincess]

20. Whoops - self delete post duplicated

[Romulox]

31. I have serious doubts about the Constitutionality of such a move.

What is the Constitutional basis for the Congressional power to force a private citizen to purchase a product from a private, for-profit company, on pains of fines (imprisonment?)

I am aware of no clause of the US Constitution that grants the Congress such power, unless we simply choose to throw more crap on the dung-heap that is our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. :eyes:

[Echo In Light]

33. Constitutionality doesn't matter here. Corporate power owns and runs this oligarchy.

[mdmc]

35. k