"Forcing" us to buy insurance? Are we that crazy to believe this?

[Javaman]

Call me crazy, but other than asshole baucus saying this, this reads to me as colossal fear mongering bullshit.

Honestly, this is right up there with the death panels for propaganda worth.

other than that failed congressman's fear tactic, where does it say that the "government will force you to buy health care!"

Take a step back and see this for what it is, a colossal pile of bullshit.

Nothing more than the right taking us for a ride and laughing at us.

christ, are we really that gullible and that stupid?

>shakes head in amazement<

[One_Life_To_Give]

1. Didn't search the Bill for it, however

It is the Law in Massachusetts that you must have Healthcare either private or thru the state.

[Laelth]

4. There is no "public option" in Massachusetts.

The law there is that you must buy private insurance.

:dem:

-Laelth

[graywarrior]

7. At $6.00 plus change per month, depending on your income.

I pay nothing right now.

[Laelth]

16. It's heavily subsidized, indeed.

That's why the system is projected to collapse. The state government can't afford to keep paying the health insurance companies' outrageous bills for inadequate coverage.

But the insurance companies love it. Their profits have skyrocketed.

:dem:

-Laelth

[graywarrior]

41. I have my first doctor appt in October

It will be interesting to see what I actually get for my $0.00 monthly premiums.

[Laelth]

43. I suspect your doctor will be just fine.

I have no problem with the doctors (except for their practice of ripping off Medicare and the insurance companies by ordering a lot of redundant testing just because they know those bills will get paid). Ultimately, the doctors are not the problem.

You'll know how good your "free" insurance is only when you get really sick and need a lot of expensive medical treatment. Here's hoping you never have to find out.

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[graywarrior]

49. No kidding.

I'm living with a bad gallbladder, getting through, holding out on surgery. I feel ok, not 100% but who does at my age.

[Generic Other]

91. My mom's gallbladder bill was $250,000

I guess if mine goes bad, I will just have to rip it out with my teeth.

[KansDem]

109. Hope you have good dental coverage...

;)

[graywarrior]

111. Get the fuck out!!!

Shit, start take ursodial now to dissolve whatever stones you might have.

[Laelth]

2. Crazy? No. That's absolutely true.

All five of the bills that are currently under serious consideration in Congress include the individual mandate. That's the law that says "if you don't buy insurance you will be a criminal and will be fined."

Obama claimed to oppose this mandate in the primaries last year. In fact, he ran this ad. against Hillary:



Many of us voted for Obama over Hillary because he said he opposed the individual mandate, yet now he is in a situation where every bill seriously being considered in Congress contains it. He has not objected to it. He has given every indication that he will sign a law that forces every American to buy health insurance. This, for once, is not a Republican lie. It is the truth.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LibDemAlways]

8. Enforcing such a mandate and collecting fines would

require a huge bureaucracy set up for the task. Just what we need - the health insurance police! I suspect that making expensive private insurance mandatory isn't going to be too popular with anybody.

[lilwunder]

12. Enforcement would be handled by the IRS...

Scary, it's the IRS that woul mandate and collect, Look at the Title this falls under:
TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A--Shared Responsibility
Part 1--Individual Responsibility

49
Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

[LibDemAlways]

15. Since most people shake in their boots at the mere mention of an

audit, I'd say using the IRS for enforcement is genious - and quite diabolical.

[lilwunder]

38. *shaking head*

I'm sorry, but no... it is not genius. I suppose you have never had an issue with the IRS. And you must be under the belief that the only people that have issues with the IRS deserve it? Do you have any idea how many innocent people get ruined by the IRS? Or people that can't afford CPA's to handle their taxes, or find their loopholes?

[LibDemAlways]

44. Maybe I should have used the sarcasm smilie. I don't think it's

genius in a good way at all. It's pure evil. Note the use of the word "diabolical."

[Hello_Kitty]

62. Oh yeah. Brilliant.

I'm sure it will go over really well with voters.

[LibDemAlways]

84. See post 44.

[Laelth]

17. HR 3200 is set up to automatically fine you through the IRS.

They'll take it out of your income tax refund (if any), or will collect it in the same way the IRS pursues tax evaders.

:dem:

-Laelth

[LibDemAlways]

18. The IRS is both hated and feared. Using it as a the enforcer of

mandatory expensive private insurance is sure to lead to a huge outcry. I'm beginning to think crap like this is being stuffed into these bills to prevent anything from passing.

[Laelth]

22. I fully agree.

The individual mandate will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves. It is a disaster waiting to happen, and I have sent several letters to various politicians asking them to vote against any bill that contains the individual mandate.

:dem:

-Laelth

[n2doc]

31. +1 n/t

[blue_onyx]

108. The mandate will hurt the Democratic party

Obama will lose my vote in 2012 if he signs a bill that includes one.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Yep. It's like they are deliberately trying to make it fail.

Of course, it's also possible that living in the Beltway bubble has made them actually that tonedeaf.

[PVnRT]

21. Not really

You won't be found out until you go to the doctor, kind of like how no one knows you don't have car insurance until the police need to see it for some reason.

[LibDemAlways]

35. I don't think so. If the IRS is overseeing this thing, you'll

most likely have to provide some sort of proof on your tax return.

[Kat45]

95. In MA, you have to provide proof when yo file your taxes.

Your insurance company sends you a document proving you had its insurance from x month to y month. I forget how many months of the year you have to have it. I believe there are hardship exceptions in which you won't get fined but I don't know what they are.

[lilwunder]

39. oh, well then

I guess that makes this a great idea!

[PVnRT]

58. Yep. That's exactly what I said.

How are those strawmen working out for you? Good, I hope, since you just got here and you're deploying them already.

[Statistical]

131. Pretty simple they will use IRS

1) Insurance companies will provide rosters to IRS near end of the year
2) Based on roster, and filings from previous year IRS determines who is non compliant.
3) IRS will send you a letter advising you that your tax return will be held.
4) You file taxes and $950 will be taken from your return
5a) If your return was $950+ before the fine then you are done
5b) If not no refused and the debt rolls forward to next year.

Rinse & Repeat.

Fuck fines but the govt already has the system in place.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. You want to maybe wait until AFTER his speech tonite to condemn

him?

His not speaking to the issue, his opinion of which as you just said is well known, does not mean he has abandoned it.

He WILL address it tonite, one way or another. Save your outrage until AFTER the speech.

[Laelth]

50. If, tonight, he comes out AGAINST the individual mandate, I will publicly apologize.

Do you really think that's going to happen? I don't.

If he doesn't come out AGAINST the individual mandate, he has been a massive hypocrite on this issue--attacking Hillary for a proposal that he actually supports.

:dem:

-Laelth

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Agreed. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

64. He's already reversed his position on the mandate.

In a recent interview he explained how he used to be against the mandates until he was "persuaded" that they are necessary.

So he's for the mandates now.

[KoKo]

74. What is wrong with Obama....Why isn't he controlling the message? Where are his spokespersons

putting out these fires. He and those in his "inner circle" have to know this is causing a huge backlash. I don't know what's happened to the "team" around him. :shrug: It's about MESSAGE CONTROL.

[karynnj]

103. One thing that did change was that the Business Council came out in favor of them

I actually thought his position before was better - bring costs down first, then introduce mandates. It is a tough question as without mandates, there will be, beyond those who absolutely can't afford it, many people, - especially young, healthy people who opt to take the risk not to have insurance. The problem is that if they have the misfortune to contract a bad disease or have a bad accident, the bulk of their medical costs will be "eaten" by the hospital - which then loads those costs onto everyone else's cost.

That was the argument in the primaries - with Obama asking how Edwards and Clinton were give the mandate teeth - and Edwards and Clinton asking what the cost would be to someone not getting insurance until they were in the hospital.

It really is a tough decision.

[Hello_Kitty]

106. But I agree with Obama (back then) about how there have to be the teeth before there's a mandate

Of COURSE the Business Council loves the idea of forcing people to buy a product from private company. Why wouldn't they?

And actually, I disagree with the assertion that young, healthy people will forego insurance unless they are forced to have it. The myth that young people skip out on insurance because they are selfish and irresponsible, and really have the money to pay for it but choose to spend it on frivolous things has really taken hold in a lot of people's minds. There's no mandate now and 70% of people 30 and under have insurance. IMHO the uninsured have become the new Welfare Queens, which was necessary to do to them for people to support the idea of a mandate. But as far as I'm concerned, if insurance companies want to destroy the public option so they don't have to compete with it, then let them compete for the business of those coveted young healthy people. They should not be handed millions of new customers and subsidies when they spent millions of dollars (money that was not being used to treat people's illnesses) to thwart the will of the American people on health care reform. If they can't attract the new business and go bankrupt covering all the sick and older people, so be it.

[karynnj]

112. The business council was for it for a different reason

It is made up of big companies that do provide insurance for their employees. Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon's CEO headed it late last year when he spoke of this before the Senate Finance Committee. Their vested interest is that their costs are inflated to pay some of the cost of the uninsured.

I was not saying that young people will all not obtain insurance. The fact is that many will get it via their employees or purchase it through their colleges (or if in college, still get it through their parents.) I have 3 kids, 19 - 24, all with insurance. There are some young people who do make the economic decision not to get insurance if their employer does not provide it.

I agree with you the public option is needed.

[Laelth]

138. I note, after the speech, that Obama expressed support FOR the individual mandate.

As I predicted. The early criticism I expressed was fully warranted.

:dem:

-Laelth

[inna]

88. good post. +1, nt

[lilwunder]

3. What? fear tactics???

what are you talking about? Are you calling us 'gullible and stupid' because we actually read the bill? It's covered in Section 401 of HR3200. Title 4, Subtitle A, Part 1:

TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A--Shared Responsibility
Part 1--Individual Responsibility

49
Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.



That is direct FROM the bill! What makes it even scarier is that title amends the IRS code to be the enforcer of this rule.

[Laelth]

5. Welcome to DU.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DeadEyeDyck]

6. I might be missing the sarcasm here or just

don't understand the OP. I thought that one form or another health insurance would be mandatory.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as President Barack Obama met Democratic leaders to search for ways to salvage his health care overhaul.


Isn't that the only way it would work? While you are young and healthy, you will be paying for the health care of those who are older and less healthy. When you get older, others will be paying for you.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090908/D9AJCL500.html

[Laelth]

14. There are lots of ways to improve the system without the individual mandate.

I refuse to agree that "this is the only way it will work."

What happened was this. Giving the insurance companies the individual mandate was the only way Congress could get the health insurance companies to "agree" to reform their practices. They agreed to "play along" only if we gave them 40+ million new customers who would be compelled to buy their awful products or become criminals.

Personally, I don't think we need their agreement or support. Last time I checked, this was a Republic, and our government could pass any law it wanted, with ot without our oligarchs' consent and approval. Guess I was just confused about what kind of government we really have. The fact that we have to "negotiate" with big business shows me that the corporations are now running the show, not the people, and not our elected representatives.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lilwunder]

20. Laelth is win

This is my first day here, but I like you.

[Laelth]

24. Smile. Nice to have you here, and thanks for the kind words. n/t

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[TorchTheWitch]

37. They've been running the government for decades

That's nothing new. That is exactly why for a very long time we've desperately needed to reform campaign financing. As long as politicians need to get campaign money from businesses, they are going to be beholden to what those businesses want in the form of laws. Businesses - NOT politicians - have been actually writing our laws for decades.

If anything, this health care fuck up only makes it absolutely clear just how MUCH our government is beholden to businesses, although the bank bailout disaster should have done it.

[Romulox]

9. Perhaps the OP is not familiar with the word "mandate"?

Mandatory for-profit insurance is precisely what is being discussed. :hi:

[AlGore-08.com]

10. Many states have mandatory auto insurance. And health insurance is mandatory in MA

A national law making health insurance mandatory isn't unimaginable.

[Laelth]

28. There's a big difference.

You don't have to drive. You don't have to buy a car. Thus, you don't have to buy auto insurance.

The health insurance mandate will be completely different. You will have to have it if you are alive in the United States. Never before has our Federal Government or any of our State Government passed a tax that must be paid just because a person is alive. This is unprecedented and probably unconstitutional. What's worse, taxes are paid to the state. Without a public option, we will be forced to buy insurance from a private company. That has never, never, never been mandated before (except recently in Massachusetts, the pilot program state, and it has been a disaster there).

:dem:

-Laelth

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

34. +1

[Nederland]

52. Not true

Yes, you do have to pay taxes just for being alive. It works like this. We need food to survive. Food costs money. Unless you were born rich (I assume that's not the class you're worried about), you have to work for that money. If you work, you pay taxes.

I'd also point out what FDR said about taxes:

"Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society."

[Laelth]

56. But you don't have to work.

No Federal law forces all people to work. All taxes are conditional on things you can choose to do or not do ... except this proposed individual mandate. If you're alive, you must buy insurance. I suppose you could argue that being alive is a choice, i.e. you could choose to kill yourself, but I don't think that argument will get you very far. Most people do not consider being alive a choice.

As I said above, the individual mandate is unprecedented, and probably unconstitutional.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Nederland]

57. You are right

The law doesn't force you to work. The rules of the universe force you to work. Being alive requires food, clothing and shelter. These things do not magically appear--they are products of work.

[dysfunctional press]

65. not true, yourself.

it is possible to survive by growing/hunting/foraging for your own food.
or- you could also choose to panhandle for the money to buy it.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. Also, you have time to weigh all your options on how you will feed yourself

When you are in the middle of a heart attack you really aren't in a position to compare all the alternatives.

[Nederland]

113. Yeah...

...and the percent of the American population that forages for their food is...?

Can we please stick to realistic examples of life?

[dysfunctional press]

136. you chose the red herring...

i just added the sauce.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. We're not talking about taxes here.

We're talking about forcing people to enter into a private contract with a corporation where they have no power to dictate the terms. Big fat difference.

[Nederland]

114. The poster called it a tax (nt)

[Matariki]

76. It's not even a tax. The Federal Government is acting as a revenue collector for private business.

It's unprecedented and very, very wrong. Universal coverage needs to be by way of a single payer system. Period.

The argument that people with low income will receive help is useless. There is no way to account for individual situations - people who make above the cut off point for assistance may very well be unable to buy insurance for countless reasons.

[Laelth]

77. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Nederland]

115. Exactly

And you know what? The federal government acts as a revenue collector for private business all the time. It does it when it builds roads. It does it when it cleans up the environment. It does it when is buys ships and tanks for the military. Is this actually news to you? The government collects money and then spends it in the private sector all the time. This is no different.

Asking people to pay for a service they are receiving is not unconstitutional or unprecedented, it is common sense. The whole idea behind insurance is to mitigate risk among a large pool of people, and the larger the group of people, the better. Mandating that the pool include everybody just makes sense.

The idea that you can have universal coverage without universal payment is ludicris.

[Matariki]

124. The government would be acting as a sort of TAX COLLECTOR for private business

Seriously, you can't see the difference between that and private contracts for public works? Mandated for every single person born and living in the US? Even taxes are only paid on labor or possessions, not simply for breathing.

I can't believe anyone would be foolish enough to not be horrified by this precedent.

[Nederland]

125. It is not everyone

If you can't afford it, you will get assistence to buy the insurance.

Read the fucking bill!!!

[Matariki]

127. Right. And if you make over a certain amount and STILL can't afford it you get fined.

For the benefit of a private industry.

You - use your damn head.

[Nederland]

126. Just like it would in a single payer system

In a single payer system, government would be acting as a revenue collector for private business too. It would collect taxes and then give money to private companies that provide health care. So why all the grief about 'unprecedented' actions?

[Matariki]

128. Are you a paid shill for the insurance industry?

Because they are the only one's that will benefit from a mandated purchase of what they're selling.

[Nederland]

129. No

It just occurred to me that despite all this blather about the "government acting as a tax collector for private business", your real beef is with insurance companies. Fair enough, I hate them too. They add no value to the process.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. For the zillionth time - Health insurance =/= car insurance

I know they're both called "insurance" but beyond the pooling of risk, the similarities end there. For one thing, you are only required by law to have liability coverage as a driver. That is, you need to prove you can cover any damage you cause to OTHER people. For another, even if you have full coverage, auto insurance is catastrophic. It only comes into play when there is some damage to your car or you as the result of an accident. You can't use it for routine maintenance or to correct flaws in the design of your vehicle. That's why auto insurance is relatively inexpensive for most people. The chances that you will have a major catastrophe requiring a large payout are slim. Also, as your car gets older it declines in value so your coverage and premiums decline with it. The opposite is true with health insurance. Health insurance is really more like a warranty because you do use it for routine "maintenance" and to fix "flaws" in your design. Unlike car insurance, which you only use in the event of an accident, you will probably use your health insurance fairly regularly under the best of circumstances.

[Nederland]

116. The bottom line

...is you want something for free. You want great health care, but you don't think you should have to pay for it. Sorry, that's not how the universe works.

[Hello_Kitty]

133. Where did I say I didn't want to pay for health care?

I don't want to pay protection money to the private health insurance racket. Hell, I don't even need it to be single payer. Ban profits by insurance companies.

[DeadEyeDyck]

81. that may be true but you are never required to insure

yourself. Only the other guy. I.e. liability. And you can choose not to drive.

Now if you have a lien on your car, the lender may require you to purchase insurance but that is to protect their collateral. And that is simply a contract between you and the lender.

[librechik]

11. yes indeed, a fine of about $3000 per family for no insurance

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/more-on-the-max-tax/



this is an analysis of the plan Baucus released to his health industry owners last night--be sure to find the other posts at emptywheel about the release. here's another good one:


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/incenting-shit-plans/

[subcomhd]

13. as long as it is affordable, I have no problem with that

it prevents local counties and whatnot from getting stuck with emergency room care for poor people (like me.) My three months of indigent county coverage runs out at the end of this month and if I don't have a job I'll have to sign up for medicaid. But I wouldn't be upset about being forced to buy coverage if it were about 10 bucks.

[Laelth]

19. Who gets to define "affordable."

I lack health insurance because I can not afford it. Congress plans to tell me that I can afford it and that I must, or I will be a criminal.

I am not OK with that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[subcomhd]

23. Like I said, I could come up with 10 bucks.

Affordable would be what I can afford.

[Laelth]

26. LOL. I could come up with $10 too.

But you and I will not get to decide what we consider "affordable." Congress plans to tell us what we can afford, and it intends to bill us on that basis.

But for $10, I'm in. :)

:dem:

-Laelth

[subcomhd]

30. I can't give them what I don't have

if they say it's over ten buck for me, in my current situation, they might as well be King Canute ordering the tide not to come in. They would be irrelevant. But as a general matter of principal, I can imagine a system in which people are required to buy in - and it is based on what they can afford. In my case it would be a big ol' Thomas Jefferson.

[Nederland]

117. Fair enough

Find a doctor that is willing to treat you for $10 and you shouldn't have to worry about anything.

Good luck with that.

[DeadEyeDyck]

83. $10 how often? n/t

[lewiston]

101. Ten Bucks

Your looking for FREE health care...It ain't going to happen.

[garybeck]

25. That's what they're already doing in Massachusettes. just like auto insurance n/t

[Laelth]

29. It's NOT just like auto insurance.

Please see post #28, above.

:dem:

-Laelth

[garybeck]

36. well it's pretty close...

for the people who have a car and rely on it to get to work, or the grocery store, there's little difference.


On a slightly different tangent, has anyone considered that a 'public' option doesn't mean free? I would assume that if someone chooses the public option and they have the financial capacity to contribute, they will be doing so. I assume it will be free or very cheap for low income people.

Even with a public option, if there is a goal of having everyone in the country covered, it seems like it's going to be mandatory to pick one of the plans, public or otherwise. So you can buy private insurance, or go for the public plan (and contribute financially to it), but I don't see it being very easy to have no coverage when all is said and done. I think the only difference here is whether or not the public option is one of the choices. Maybe I'm wrong but it's still going to be mandatory. I don't really have a problem with that, but I do wonder how much they will force us to contribute based on income.

[Schema Thing]

27. C'mon folks - every other country we've been comparing has mandates

in one form or another. Of course this all has to come out of taxes.


The galling and unacceptable thing is not being forced to pay, it's being forced to pay to benefit a for-profit corporation instead of helping my government, myself, and my fellow citizens directly.

[Neecy]

42. Exactly - out of taxes

A single payer plan that comes out of your taxes = an easy mandate, no huge corporate profits, no forcing people to write checks to our insurance industry overlords to pay for their huge executive salaries or give big dividends to their shareholders.

The mandate that's proposed will be an invitation to civil disobedience. It's handing the Rethugs a campaign issue that they'll club us with for years.

[inna]

97. the problem is that they are doing this in the most regressive way possible -

instead of progressive taxation (which would be the best way to pay for it), they put the most of the financial burden on those who are less able to absorb it.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. Exactly. eom

[Blasphemer]

72. Right! Tax me for non-profit governement run insurance and everything is kosher

A mandate for for-profit insurance which would line the coffers of those who have left millions sick, dying and bankrupt? I'll pass on that one.

[Joanne98]

32. This is BULL SHIT!

[Nederland]

54. Why?

Do expect your health care to be free?

[subcomhd]

71. I know. I'm shocked that people are shocked. nt

[Matariki]

78. Taxed for non-profit universal health care is one thing. A good thing.

Forced to buy insurance from a private for-profit business, enforced by the Federal Government, is A WHOLE OTHER THING.

IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. This was actually part of Hillary's health reform platform that Obama differed from.

BTW...they'll have to send me to jail.

[canoeist52]

40. How it works in Mass.

You send a proof of health insurance letter along with your state tax forms.

My 20-yo.'s daughter's situation? just got a job last week. The offer "insurance" at $86. per mo.. With a $2000. deductible and a $50,000. cap, at Mass minimum wage I can't blame her for forgoing this plan. She'd be the first to sign up for the public plan if it's better than this.
Needless to say she'll be watching Obama's speech tonight!

[madmom]

45. My daughter is a 25 year old college student. She lives in the dorm during

school year and at home during summer when she isn't taking classes. Her sole support is financial aid and us (when she's home). How does this "mandate" affect her?


She is studying archeology so lots of her "studying" is during the warm months where they can go on digs.

[lilwunder]

48. Mandate

Not sure what her subsidy would be, but she would still have to have it.

[rucky]

99. In the form of a tax credit, is my understanding.

which is not helpful to folks living paycheck to paycheck.

[madmom]

104. That's been my argument all along with tax credits for everything. If you have no money

to buy/pay in the first place, how is a tax credit going to help you?

[rucky]

105. And everybody in the lower bracket know exactly what that April check is for.

Car & home repair that's been put off all year.

[karynnj]

60. I think all colleges require insurance

I know that in three very diverse colleges we had to provide insurance information to get a "waver" from buying their insurance, which was on the bill until the waver was processed.

[madmom]

79. The one she goes to "encourages" but does not require. The policy they offer is worse than

useless. If you go to the doctor and you are not "really sick" they do not cover. They do not over accidents whether on school business of other wise. Basically if you are half dead or bleeding out they will cover you nothing less.

[karynnj]

100. Wow, that is bad

As I said, we've given our girls the insurance info and waived the plan, so we never looked closely at the plans. That plan does sound useless. I hope a good plan for young people is included in the reform.

[hughee99]

46. About damn time! It's a great system we have in MA

the people who already have insurance have it anyway. Some people who couldn't afford it before can't afford it now, but the penalty (something like $8-900, I think) comes out of your tax return. If you're not getting that much back, then they've got to track you down. Even if you are getting that much back, you're other option is to pay about $2000 to get a letter that says you have insurance. And that's about all you get for your $2000 because the policy only covers you if you break your left leg when a blimp crashes into you on a Tuesday morning.

Insurance companies like it because there's a decent number of 20-somethings who don't have insurance but could probably afford it and now have an incentive to get it. Also, the government is subsidizing it for those making under $35K a year (families under $60K) so that money flows right to the private insurance companies as there is no "public option".

But shit, if they're going to just mandate that people have insurance (regardless of their ability to actually get it), why don't they just go all the way and mandate that people stay healthy? Then we won't need insurance and we can all save a ton of money.

[KoKo]

75. Are you being sarcastic or do you really like the MA plan?

From what you describe it sounds pretty bad...but sometimes sarcasm or advocacy doesn't translate well over the internet. :shrug:

[hughee99]

121. It was sarcasm.

For the people who already had insurance, it's no problem, but for many who don't, they just get screwed.

[WillowTree]

53. Are you in favor of abolishing pre-existing conditions restrictions?

'Cause if you do, mandating that everyone be covered and paying into that coverage is the ONLY way any plan, public or private, without such restrictions can be sustainable. Otherwise, people, lots and lots of them, would just do without insurance until they get sick. I suppose people could be given the opportunity to opt out with the proviso that once they do, they can never opt back in and no medical provider could be sued for refusing treatment (assuming they encountered one with no conscience or ethics), and even that wouldn't work because when the EMTs scoop them up off the road with massive internal injuries and deposit them in the ER, they're going to be treated no matter what and then who's going to pay the bill?

Those are just facts. Like them.......don't like them. Either everyone's paying into the health care system one way or the other and everyone gets covered or not. Like lunch, there's no free health care coverage.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. Sigh. I'm so tired of this meme about the uninsured. It's bullshit.

Otherwise, people, lots and lots of them, would just do without insurance until they get sick.


The vast majority of people without insurance - even those young healthy ones people like to disparage as "free riders" and "deadbeats" - want it and would get it if they could afford it and the coverage were decent. The problem with private health insurance is not that people aren’t being forced to buy it. It’s that it’s expensive and it sucks. While people under 30 are more likely to be uninsured, about 70% of them actually have insurance, according to Census estimates. Most of them get it through work (with some still on their parents policies if they’re in college or in the military). So with no one forcing young adults to get insurance, most of them still have it. And the reason they have it, for the ones who get it through work, is that it’s affordable (employer picking up part of the tab) and usually the coverage is good. If it were really true that we have to force people to get insurance otherwise they will wait until they are sick, then why aren’t the majority of young adults with coverage through work eschewing it, since they could pocket the portion of the premium they are expected to pay? In all my years working I’ve seen many young people opt out of 401k or stock participation, but never saw one give up the health insurance. Of course, I've been lucky to work at good companies with good insurance.

[WillowTree]

110. Believe that if you want, but it's just not so.

It's obvious that you're convinced that you have all the answers on this subject so I'm not going to argue with you other than to say that you're just plain wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. Well, here are some real numbers for you on young uninsured people

When I got my renewal, I learned that the premium for a policy with a $5000 deductible and 20% co-pays after that is $99 a month if you're under thirty. That is UP from $66 a month last year. A 33% increase in one year.

Now try to work those kinds of premiums (for a policy that won't give you squat unless you're really, really sick or injured) into wages of $8 ($1280 a month before taxes) to $10 ($1600 a month).

Yeah, those deadbeat youth, preferring to spend their money on food and rent instead of on a worthless insurance policy.

[WillowTree]

130. Who said anything about "youth", deadbeat or otherwise?

I don't care what age a person is or how much money they're making, a prohibitive number of people would just say "Screw it. I'm not going to pay for insurance when I don't need it. Since they have to take me no matter what, I'll wait until I do need it."

Some would say that's actually the fiscally smart thing to do. Would you buy a winter coat when you lived at the equator just on the off-chance that you may go to Moscow in January some day, or would you wait until you were actually making travel plans?

[Llewlladdwr]

120. How do you figure?

If you could drop your existing health insurance and just re-enroll once you need it why wouldn't you? It makes no sense whatsoever to pay premiums when you don't need to.

[WillowTree]

137. OK, Smart Guy. Here's an example from right here on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6508744

Do pay particular attention to this line:

"If something catastrophic did happen, then we could move into the other plan Obama spoke of tonight."

Going for cheap until "something catastrophic" happens and then I'll buy into good coverage after the fact.

Please don't try to tell me that there aren't hoards of people who think that way.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

55. Mandates come down harder on people who aren't so wealthy

Even if you take the subsidies into account, the mandate
is a loss for a lot of lower-middle-income people.
It also hurts people who are in the "Medically Underserved Areas,"
who have to pay for what they don't get so much of.

Particularly unpleasant is the way it forces the less wealthy
to pay for a highly overpriced system.

And what are they doing to improve public health?
I liked Obama's speech to the kids, his encouraging them
to stay in school. What about more encouragement
to get exercise, keep the weight down?
What about promoting health education among adults
(do you know what your blood pressure is, etc)?
What about making better use of nurse practitioners?

The house bill, unfortunately, is mainly a gift to
the special interests.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. Every version of the plans has a mandate. Didn't you know that? eom

[Junkdrawer]

70. Those crazy Healthcare Troofers....

Anyone who thinks that there's an Individual Mandate in any Democratic plan is a Conspiracy Theorist who barks at the moooon....


















:sarcasm:

[madville]

73. Mandate and they can charge you more as you get older

The Senate version is going to allow higher premiums for smokers and allow premiums to increase as you get older, for instance a 60 year old might have to pay 5 times more than a 20 year old. They'll have to take people with pre-existing conditions though but if you are older you'll still be paying more than younger healthier person.

We'll see if any of that survives, but that is where the Senate is at right now, nobody knows what will come of it when it merges with the House version.

[Romulox]

82. That's what I was discussing with my mom...they can't deny her insurance because of preexisting

conditions, but they can sure as hell charge a lot more for it! This is not a solution for people like her!

[DeadEyeDyck]

87. I have a long way to go

and I make pretty good money and have excellent insurance right now. But at 60 I will probably not make nearly as much money and you say my insurance will be five times more!! That is just when I need a break.

Also, I am concerned that I may get less for my insurance because of my age but I am paying more. Won't there be schedules where the (I can't remember the term) benefit of tratment is not considered to be worth it after you reach a certain age?

[PHIMG]

80. Fine = force, yes...you are forced to buy insurance

This was an issue back in the primary campaign dufus. Hillary had an invidual mandate for everyone. Obama had IM only for children.

It does mean the government is forcing you to buy a defective product (private health insurance)

[Rex]

85. Why not? They force us to have car insurance, this is just the next step.

Ain't all bullshit, fear tactic MOST DEF.

[DeadEyeDyck]

89. but I don't have to drive!

and I am only required to buy insurance to protect the other guy. Wouldn't that be like me haven't to buy health insurance in case I give someone else swine flu?

[Rex]

92. Yes it would be. And you still have to have some form of ID issued

by your state. If they can make it mandatory, they will. Bottom line.

[Hello_Kitty]

98. WTF does ID have to do with auto insurance?

If you don't drive, you may need an ID, but you don't need car insurance.

[Rex]

107. Nothing just pointing out something, that is all.

Making a point, no you don't need car insurance if you don't have a car, duh. It was an analogy, get it now? You WILL need to have health insurance at all times, like your ID or drivers license - or get fined. That was the point, sorry if you missed it.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. If you call being able to read 'crazy' then sure.

But the intention is to force people to buy insurance. Under bigoted laws that treat one family as a family and another as strangers to each other.
It says in every version that this purchase is mandated and will be enforced with fines.

[Hello_Kitty]

90. Good point.

Same sex couples will be discriminated against.

[DeadEyeDyck]

93. not following you...

would insurance be purchased as a family block? That would be unfair to single people.

[TheKentuckian]

94. I can't really grasp a way to cover preexisting conditions without some form of mandate

Even single payer would be a mandate with the IRS collecting the premiums. It starts to seem that no one actually wants to bite any bullets but everyone at least claims they want reforms. I get the distinct impression that a sizable group wants FREE health care and that is patently impossible while we live under a monetary system.

Americans of all political stripes are just ill prepared to deal with anything that hasn't utterly broken. A wiser and more cynical politician would have just let this ride until it is impossible to continue because it appears short of that we won't make any tough choices.

We all need health care-no exceptions. All we are doing now is figuring some way that is palatable enough for the majority to swallow but no matter what method it will require mandates of some sort to really work and somebody, somewhere is going to be forced to do something they don't want to do like pay more taxes or write a check to a company.

[Matariki]

96. Single payer paid out of taxes for NON PROFIT coverage WHEN YOU ARE WORKING

not FINED for not paying a private, for-profit industry just because you are alive and a citizen, even if you happen to find yourself unemployed.

Why is that hard to 'grasp'?

[anigbrowl]

102. Exactly. Mandates are stupid.

They're unconstitutional IMHO (effectively acting as a form of capitation), create a heap of pointless bureaucracy, and generally a free gift to insurance companies. Taxes are simpler, fairer, and less expensive to administrate.

[TheKentuckian]

123. Probably because I don't care so much about where the money goes but about affordability and access

The non-profit thing is secondary. I don't care if the insurance companies profit or cease to exist entirely. I'm a coverage agnostic. As far as being unemployed, you'd either be eligible for medicaid or a subsidy depending on your unemployment amount.

There will be about as many opposed to the tax under a single payer plan as there are that are opposed to fines, as long as the coverage is up to snuff (which it won't be under this Baucus debacle).

My focus is on coverage, cost, and access not which pot the money goes into. If it takes killing these leeches then so be it, if they can be made to be responsible citizens then they can profit. I don't get why anyone cares beyond that on either end of the spectrum.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. I would be just fine with universal enrollment in a single-payer system

but when it comes to my crappy private health insurance policy, I'm coming to the point where I'd rather drop it and pay for medical care instead of premiums. I can't afford both.

[blindpig]

122. That's what I did.

I told my doctor that I didn't have insurance and he cut me a 40% discount. Not having to pay premiums to those parasites left me well ahead of the game. We bank the money that would be going to the insurance vampires and pay as we go. If anything serious comes down the hospital must treat us, in that case we will negotiate a fair payment else tell them to go fuck themselves. They can have my tax refund, I'll just change the deduction to where the refund would be minimal anyway.

[JVS]

132. If it has mandates and no public option, I hope it isn't able to pass.

[Vidar]

134. Highly recommended. We've had enough bait & switch.

[Romulox]

135. Believe it now? :P nt

[yurbud]

139. without a decent public option, forcing people to buy would be political suicide for Dems