Congressional Democrats have a damn good reason to fine those who refuse to get health insurance

[Freddie Stubbs]

Under current law, hospitals are required to provide emergency care to anyone who shows up to the ER. Even those who have no insurance.

Before you start to rant about the greedy corporations who own hospitals, please be aware that most hospitals are non-profits.

The cost of treating these uninsured persons is going to be shifted to those with insurance one way or another. You will either pay more for insurance, or perhaps the hospital will skimp a little bin on your care in order to make up for the care of the freeloaders.

[ejpoeta]

1. people without insurance are not freeloaders!!!

most who don't have it don't have it because they can't afford it. or they don't even have access to it. but let's just make it all about how people who don't have insurance must just be freeloaders. I wouldn't be against mandates if there was a true public option and if people had a choice. but they don't. right now, the insurance costs so much and the insurance companies take your money but when it comes time to deliver will deny coverage or drop you. but let's force people into a system that is BROKEN!!!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. I was referring to those who would refuse to get insurance once the government starts offering it

[rubberducky]

5. somehow I find it hard to believe that you actually think people would "refuse" to get health ins.

What part of having NO money don`t you get? Do you honestly think people enjoy not having health ins? Do you think that people with NO ins just can`t wait to go to emergency to rip you off?? Walk a day in my shoes, Mr. blue dog, then tell me how wonderful it is to be without insurance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Are you suggesting that everyone eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP are enrolled in those programs?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. There are posters *here* who will refuse to get healthcare.

... because they make more than 400% of FPL and are pretty sure they can't afford it because of car payments n' stuff.

[Hugabear]

17. There are people who can get insurance who refuse to do so

Some people just don't want insurance, they think they can handle it on themselves. And they might be able to do that for routine visits and minor procedures. But what happens when one of these "independent" types comes down with a catastrophic problem - cardiac arrest, cancer, etc?

[rubberducky]

20. Never, never scratch the surface to find out what lays beneath the reasons for lack of med ins.

You may find yourself, one day, or your loved ones have been demoted to useless eaters. Who the hell needs them?

[MadHound]

22. Yet while you focus on that minority of people,

You're refusing to look at the vast majority of people who can't get insurance because for whatever reason, they can't afford it.

Let's look at this, you're working a couple of minimum wage jobs, making a car payment so you can get to work, paying rent, car insurance, and oh, let's say child support. Whoops, there they go, slipping through that crack, making too much money to qualify for a free public option, but paying out so much that they can't afford private insurance.

There are millions like myself who go through their twenties, perhaps even their thirties who can't afford insurance and don't get a decent job that provides insurance. Yet they will make to much money to qualify for the public option.

Yet you want to penalize these people for not making enough money by slapping them with thousands in fines. Like that's going to help matters.

[Statistical]

21. I heard today that almost 1/3 of the middle class uninsured as people who simply choose not too.

Employer provides health insurance.

They tend to be young and healthy and see the health insurance as an unneeded cost.
Compared to other financial priorities insurance is seen as a burden.

Something like 13 million people. I heard it on CNN this morning driving to work (XM Radio). Sorry I don't have a link.

[rubberducky]

23. Prove it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Read DU much?

If so, proof should be easy to come by.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6151364&mesg_id=6151364

[Gormy Cuss]

30. Odd if employer provides insurance -- I've never been able to opt out

unless I could prove that I had insurance from another source (spousal plan, for example.)

[ejpoeta]

13. i think that once there are options in place, then yes, a mandate would be in order.

there ARE people who don't get insurance.... like young people who think they are invincible. but for the most part people want it but can't get it. i am sorry, i just hear so many try to blame people without insurance as if somehow they are ALL just not getting insurance because they don't want to. We all end up paying for it in the end. I wish people who are against single payer or even a public option would realize it.

[rubberducky]

2. I`m finding it hard to believe you had the nerve to post this on DU.

Perhaps, you forgot the sarcasm tag? I guess all of us deadbeats just need to go find a quiet place to go and just die? Oops, wrong word. You actually said "freeloaders". Seems like you would be more comfortable at FR, being that you seem so proud to be a blue dog (I`m just going by your pic of a blue dog). Are you really this afraid that a hospital would "skimp" on your care to perhaps save the life of someone not in an equal class as you seem to see yourself? In the end, Freddie, we are all just inhabitants of this planet earth, trying to do the best that we can with what we have.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. You seem to forget that this provision of mandating insurance is the concensus of Democrats in

Congress. I do not think that the folks at FR are very much in alignment with that plan.

[rubberducky]

12. Right! They (on FR) would just prefer the survival of the fittest.

You have been a member here for a long time. Can you not see something wrong with this argument? To hell with the people who cannot afford health care! I got mine, screw you. Are you truely saying,if you can`t afford an insurance policy, you are not worth saving (because you are a useless eaters). If you happen to become useful in this life, then maybe you will be worthy of the bargain basement of health care. Thin the heard and all that kind of thinking. I guess that it is true that "blue dogs" only heel for thier corporate masters. IMHO, you need to search your soul. Is this who you truely want to be? My heart aches to see this kind of post on DU.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Mandating that people have health insurance is the opposite of survival of the fittest

If everyone had insurance, they would be less likely to allow medical problems get worse until they were acute, keeping them healthier. It would also ensure that they will receive emergency care even if Congress were to eliminate the requirement that hospitals provide care to the uninsured.

[raccoon]

44. Do you know anything about individual health insurance? I bet you don't.

They may refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, EVER.

I have an individual policy that won't cover 2 pre-existing conditions.

I have a $5000 deductible so I avoid going to the Dr. if I can.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Have you read anything about HR3200?

Preexisting conditions will be a thing of the past
... but only if HR3200 passes.

[raccoon]

48. Will look into it. nt

[Autumn]

4. un-rec

because it's bullshit. That is not their reason. It is all payback to the insurance companies who give them money, LOTS of money.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Oh dear God! My thread ahd been unrecommended!

It wouldn't effect the insurance companies one way or another is hospitals turned away uninsured patients. This proposal is for the benefit of hospitals which provide emergency care.

[mmonk]

6. That is the corporate way to look at it. I understand the logic

but never call this country free because it is not. If we had a system in our favor, it would be single payer. Otherwise, we are run by corporations right down to our health without choice as to our fate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Most hospitals are non-profits, despite your attempt to tie this issue to corporations

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. ERs are only required to provide treatment to the critically ill

and if it is a private hospital that doesn't get any federal funding, they don't have to treat you at all.

This is one of the most ill-informed OPs I have ever seen on DU. And I have been here a long time. Congratulations.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Virtually every hospital in the US (private and public) recieves federal funding and is required by

the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Ever hear of Medicare? Ever hear of a hospital that doesn't take medicare?

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Yes I have

My elderly mother was limited to a few area hospitals for health care while on Medicare.

Yes most hospitals receive federal funding, but not all. And if you show up at one and want care, they can and do send you away.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Yes, and I recently talked to an emergency room nurse

who told me that Hennepin County General (Minneapolis) is routinely turning people away now simply because they are full to capacity. More people are in the queue than they can actually treat during the day.

One day, they reached the saturation point at 3PM.

That's REALITY.

Under single-payer, such people would go to a regular clinic instead of to the emergency room.

[Kingofalldems]

15. Oh I get it--another sneaky attack on Democrats

You cannot fool everyone here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. How is an arguement supporting the Democratic position an attack on Democrats?

:shrug:

[bvar22]

18. Exactly the same as.....

....fining the homeless for not buying houses.

"It ain't against the law to be poor, but it might as well be."---Will Rogers(?)

The Democrats are going to change all that.
It will now be against the Law to be poor.

You conservatives are a RIOT!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Kinda like fining a hungry person for not eating.

Catch-22 exemplified.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. No, more like arresting a hungry person for refusing to pay the bill at a restaurant when

there is a soup kitchen down the street.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. No, more like saying that the solution to homelessness

is to require everyone to buy a house.

[Individualist]

27. Damn the DLC

:puke:

[juno jones]

28. The only damn freeloaders I see are the owners and management

of buisnesses that do not pay their employees enough to afford heath care. These freeloaders are exploiting the labor of their workers to make profits that are independent of and do not guarantee the welfare of said workers.

If you work in this country you deserve health care. Period.


Freeloaders my ass.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. That is a disgusting remark calling people who don't have money for medical care "freeloaders"

What do you want them to do, drop dead in front of your well-heeled heels?

I do not want to be fined for not purchasing insurance that I cannot afford and I don't want to be a freeloader and in fact, haven't been to a doctor in years. I also don't want to be classified for medicaid.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Freddie Stubbs seriously needs a reality check

What if the only private insurance you can afford at your income level is crappy and doesn't cover anything?

Given a decent option with no deductibles (maybe modest co-pays), no exclusions, and a limit on premiums to a certain percentage of income, most people would sign up in a heartbeat.

Given only private options with high deductibles plus co-pays, enough exclusions to fill an encyclopedia, and premiums amounting to 20% of a person's monthly income, of course people don't want that.

That's the trouble with the Massachusetts plan. People refuse to be insured because the options are lousy.

Or even in Minnesota, which is supposed to be a "good" state for insurance. I have a $5000 deductible plus 20% co-pays after that. With my variable income as a self-employed person, that is what I can reasonably afford, but my premiums just went up 13%. At this rate, I will be uninsured in two years but still too young for Medicare, and the much-vaunted "public option" in Obama's pathetically compromised and overly complex plan also has a $5000 deductible for my usual annual income level.

In the letter that announced the higher premiums, my "non-profit" insurance company included a chart showing what each age group would be paying from now on.

The premium for people under 30 with a $5000 deductible with 20% co-pays after that went from $66 a month to $99 a month. That's a 50% increase.

Do you think that a young person just out of college, unable to get a job that pays more than $10-12 an hour ($1600-1920 a month before taxes), and burdened with student loans (another screwed-up Milton Friedmanite feature of our society) is going to think that $99 a month for a policy that doesn't cover anything is a good deal?

Right-wingers and their allies in the Democratic Party point to young people who have cell phones and iPods, asking snidely why they don't buy insurance. Well, aside from the fact that iPods are a one-time purchase available for as little as $49 and many young people have only a cell phone and no landline, who can tell by looking at a given young person whether or not he or she has health insurance?

Step back slowly from the DLC playbook and look at REALITY.

[backscatter712]

33. I'm gonna get flamed, but I agree with Freddie Stubbs.

Just so long as the subsidies are in place so people who aren't making a lot of money get their premiums & co-pays capped at an affordable level. And so long as there's a public option in place so we don't have to give our money to private insurers.

The gripe is with those who do have the means, or do have the help required so they can afford it, and still say "Fuck no, I won't pay!"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. And this is how many people?

Probably about the same number as welfare recipients who drive Cadillacs.

[raccoon]

45. Thank you! nt

[backscatter712]

49. Isn't the point of the reforms to drive the number of people who genuinely can't afford it to zero?

With the reform proposals in place, either you have decent means, can afford to pay in, thus should be required to pay in, or you don't have the means, in which case, you get some help on a sliding scale, and will therefore be able to afford to pay in, and should be required to pay in.

In the end, just about everybody will have the means to get in, and should get in.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. You have defied the gods by refusing to...

bow to the common wisdom and admit the the only problems we have are with insurance companies and for-profit corporations, even worse if they are the same. For this, you shall surely be punished.

Insurance and profits, once eliminated, will lead us to the Promised Land of good health for all. So saith the DU.

[ipaint]

38. Reagan - Welfare Queens

Obama - Health Insurance Deadbeats

Both are/will be used to marginalize and punish people for being a symptom of a rotten system the enables hoarding of wealth at the top.

The new underclass, insurance deadbeats, are already being held responsible for the future collapse of scam health reform. Give the upper classes a working class scapegoat and they will blindly shred it to pieces if it means they can continue to remain selfish and ignorant.

Mandating folks by law to pay for profit private businesses, that are responsible for the death and suffering of hundreds of thousand of citizens, for an over priced, under performing product is stupid. People who can and can't afford it will not pay and I don't blame them.

Put in place a canadian style system where everyone is taxed, fine, I'll be the first to write my check but not this proposed gov. mandated extortion scam that feeds the for profit vultures.

The for profit insurance and health care industry is responsible for shifting enormous unnecessary costs onto all americans. The day people start pointing fingers at the hoarders in control at the top of the economic ladder instead of dumping their scorn on the victims lower than them will be when things change.

Until then continue on being a tool.

[Laelth]

42. Hear, hear! n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

39. I thought most hospitals were NOT required to take patients without insurance.

Very few hospitals, afaik, are required to take people without insurance ... even in the ER.

Ultimately, nearly everyone wants all Americans to have health care. The only questions are who will profit from it and who will pay for it. Many Americans would rather that the uninsured die than for them to have to pay extra taxes to cover the uninsured. Tragic but true.

So, instead, Congress intends to pass a law that forces the uninsured (most of them, anyway) to pick up part of the tab themselves. Looks good on paper. Insane in practice. For most of the uninsured, a new tax of between 1.5% and 11.5% of gross income will be crippling if not impossible. The bills currently being considered will create a lot of new criminals if they become law. The uninsured (most of whom, if they could afford insurance, would have bought it already) will deeply resent this new economic burden, levied on them during the deepest recession since the Great Depression. They will be driven away from the Democratic Party in droves.

Ignore this warning at your political peril.

:dem:

-Laelth

[raccoon]

40. You sure you belong here? "the freeloaders" !!!!!

Betcha if you lost your insurance or some family member of your who had no insurance went to an ER, you wouldn't use the term "Freeloader."

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Exactly right Freddie.

Call 'em taxes, call 'em premiums. I don't care.

But everyone should be mandated to participate, even if you're 23 and invincible.

Thanks for having the guts to say this.

[Romulox]

46. There is NO societal need to provide profits to private insurers.

The OP is based on a bizarre premise (i.e. that it is more economical for the insured pay for the insurance premiums of the uninsured than to pay for their medical care.)

This premise makes no sense because there is no indication whatever that an insurance middle-man's profits would reduce the cost of caring for the uninsured in the first place. :shrug: