Mandated Health Insurance is a necessity.

[johnaries]

It's just like Social Security. It only works if we are "all in", if everyone participates. For one thing, people who do not have health insurance is one of the things driving health care costs up.

Obama was against it during the primaries, while Edwards, Clinton, and others saw the necessity. Eventually, Obama also saw the need and came around.

I'm sorry, but it's just plain stupid not to have some kind of health insurance. If you refuse to buy health insurance then you are just a deadbeat. And when you do need some kind of emergency health care, who is going to pay for it? Those of us who have health insurance. Is that fair to responsible citizens who pay for health insurance?

As far as the increased taxes that some are calling "fines", those taxes are going to help pay for the health care costs that you will eventually need.

Those who are decrying mandated health insurance are simply part of the "I've got mine" crowd and need to open their eyes to reality.

[closeupready]

1. How can someone get the counterarguments as wrong as you have?

It boggles my mind.

[johnaries]

9. Please elucidate. Show me where I am wrong.

Or can you?

[closeupready]

26. For starters, calling those without health insurance deadbeats.

n/t

[johnaries]

37. OK, poor choice of words on my part, perhaps. But anything of substance?

[closeupready]

44. I've addressed a post of yours downthread.

n/t

[johnaries]

49. And I responded to it. You have been misinformed &/or are

jumping to conclusions.

To put it simply, those who can afford health insurance will have to buy it. For those who cannot afford the full cost, they will get subsidies to help them afford it. For those who cannot even afford that, they will be eligible for Medicaid.

And by having both a Public Option and having everyone participating, that will help keep the costs of insurance affordable.

Tell me that isn't a better option than what we have now.

[closeupready]

67. I'm in favor of a public option to control costs, among other reasons.

I thought you were suggesting that you were in favor of Clintonian health insurance mandates WITHOUT a public option? Did I misread you? If so, I apologize.

[johnaries]

79. Obviously, I didn't make that clear since several seem to have

made the same conclusion. I'm trying to clarify that in single posts.

I do not support mandates without a Public Option. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

As a matter of fact, I don't support anything without a Public Option. It may be a small piece of reform, but as another DUer said it is the keystone. The rest won't work without it.

Sorry again for the confusion.
:hi:

[closeupready]

88. Oh, I see - well I'm with you then.

:)

[johnaries]

95. Sorry again for the confusion. I'm glad we are on the same page now.

:fistbump:

[shimmergal]

70. I can.

Name any other time when citizens have been FORCED BY LAW to contribute to the profits of a private
industry.

This is corporate fascism, pure and simple.

Yes, I know about "Everybody in, nobody out." And it would work if there were a government-run, or indeed, and non-profit option for anyone who might be affected.

The way it is, we'll be making a fair number of Americans SLAVES to the health insurance industry. In fact, all of us will be, if they're given taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Forced payments to insurance companies are---something altogether different.

[johnaries]

83. I should have made myself clear - I do not support mandates

without a Public Option.

IMHO no reform will work without a Public Option.

So, when I think of "everybody in" I'm thinking of them contributing to the Public Option not the coffers of private insurers. In fact, that is what the additional taxes are for, to help support the PO.

[Romulox]

2. Not just "mandated"--mandated FOR-PROFIT, private insurance...

Insurance company profits are not required to provide healthcare to all. :hi:

[johnaries]

6. Not if we have a public option. nt

[Romulox]

8. LULz. nt

[damntexdem]

36. The mandate without a public option WOULD BE a giveaway to private companies.

But then, a 'reform' without a public option would likewise be a giveaway that would just make things worse. So, we need (1) a public option accessible to all, and (2) a mandate.

[johnaries]

40. EXACTLY! Thank you!

[Echo In Light]

54. Pretty fuckin cool, eh? Typical All American "reform."

[mike_c]

3. no it's not-- single payer unversal health care for all ELIMINATES the need...

...for insurance companies altogether, and utterly undermines any need for mandated private insurance. Mandating insurance is a massive step backward, entrenching the worst aspects of our current health care delivery system.

We do NOT need mandated health insurance.

We need single payer universal health care for all Americans!

[kpominville]

13. Wish I could Rec a response

Your great response deserves a rec!

[johnaries]

15. True. single-payer is the best option. But how would we pass it?

If we are having this much trouble simply passing a Public Option, how could we ever get single-payer passed? And it would still be "mandated" because it would have to be paid for by mandated taxes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. By strong-arming the Blue Dogs, ignoring (or preferably making fun of) the Republicans,

and conducting a massive information campaign with the public (perhaps a speaking tour with real Canadians).

Within five years, the Republicans would be trying to make everyone think that national health care was their idea.

[TransitJohn]

90. Wish I could rec this post of your Lydia.

thanks!

[inna]

25. worth repeating.

"Mandating insurance is a massive step backward, entrenching the worst aspects of our current health care delivery system.

We do NOT need mandated health insurance.

We need universal health care for all Americans!"


could not agree with you more.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. How is that less compulsory?

Last I heard, I get more than a fine if I refuse to pay my taxes.

[mike_c]

92. that's hardly the issue in my mind....

Are you suggesting that nothing should be funded by taxes to avoid the "compulsory-ness" of paying for social services? What are you saying, with respect to health care reform?

I do not want to be required to further enrich private corporations whose business model essentially boils down to "if someone walks away from medical expenses satisfied with the money left in their pocket, we have failed to maximize profits for our executives and shareholders."

It's not the mandate in a general sense that I object to. It is the specific mandate that everyone must buy private medical insurance. I loath the notion that corporations exist to profit from illness and injury. Taking care of our citizens should be a national, social imperative, not just another means to squeeze income from the working class.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. No, I'm saying that there's a big helping of cognitive dissonance on display here.

If a public option is part of the mandate to obtain coverage, then I see little to differentiate it from medicare... except the range of alternatives offered.

I don't think a government mandated captive market for private insurance is appropriate, but since I think universal is a good thing, I don't have a problem with mandatory, provided that government is in the marketplace guaranteeing lowest possible cost.

Essentially, I agree with you.

[abelenkpe2]

4. If one cannot afford to purchase health care

mandating it won't change that fact. Single payer would take care of having everyone covered though.

[johnaries]

10. The bills provide for subsidies for those who cannot afford it. nt

[kpominville]

16. They give a $3500 subsidy for a $12,000 policy

Where are people supposed to come up with the other $8,500.00?

[closeupready]

21. I note his silence in response to your very excellent point. $3,500 won't pay for shit.

n/t

[johnaries]

30. Silence? Hey, give me a chance to respond.

"Those already living close to the federal poverty level would likely qualify for care paid for by taxpayers. Most of the health care reform drafts in Congress propose expanding or tweaking Medicaid. One draft proposal would open Medicaid to those who make up to 150% of the federal poverty level: $33,075 for a family of four."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/12/news/economy/health_reform_mandates/index.htm

[closeupready]

42. okay, but $8,500 (post-tax) is $13,000 out of someone's gross salary.

So beginning at $34,000, nearly half your salary is going to pay for health insurance???

Seriously, at what point does $13,000 off someone's salary not hurt? At $34k, $13,000 is going to strangle you. Maybe at $80k it's doable - what about all the millions of people between $34 and $80k?

[johnaries]

51. You mean like me? I fall in that category. I have health insurance.

Through my employer as part of my total compensation, although if something doesn't happen soon my employer won't be able to continue providing it because of the soaring costs.

[abelenkpe2]

73. Mandating health insurance won't bring those costs down nt

It will actually serve to send them higher. Free money always leads to higher prices. Look at what happened during the easy credit and loose lending standards of the past decade. It's a handout to corporations. It's not in the best interests of anyone but insurance companies.

Why do you want to reward them with more business after screwing things up so badly? Do you work for an insurance company?

[johnaries]

87. It will if we have a Public Option. It's true that w/o a PO the

companies will just keep the additional profits brought in like they always have. But by spreading the liability around it will make the Public Option more affordable. The Insurance companies will have to lower their rates in order to compete. If not, who cares? I'll just go with the Public Option.

[abelenkpe2]

78. Even at 80 thousand

That amount would strangle a family. 80,000 doesn't mean shit if you live somewhere like DC, NY or LA.

[inna]

28. where do the numbers come from? (just a question, i don't disagree with you,

i'm just not familiar with these numbers. what are they based on?

thanks.

[NuttyFluffers]

119. $8.5K / 12 mo. = $708 a month. twice as expensive as the Kaiser plan i couldn't afford.

nope, too much. moving to another country is cheaper.

too bad, more brain drain for USA.

wish we had a real health care plan.

[mike_c]

39. not nearly enough....

Who decides who can afford insurance? I make considerably more money than the cutoff for subsidies-- the current legislation has decided that I can afford to buy private insurance without any assistance. But doing so would probably make me homeless unless the cost was SUBSTANTIALLY lower, like less than $50/month.

A full coverage employer mandate would help, but it would be devastating for small businesses, probably even many large corporations-- mandating private insurance will be just as devastating to the middle class, who mostly will not receive enough subsidy to offset the cost of buying insurance.

I presently pay NOTHING for insurance-- my employer provides it free of cost to me (it's not a great plan but it's not the worst out there, either). So if employers continue to provide insurance, and extend that coverage to everyone, then mandated insurance won't be any real problem, but it likewise won't be any real reform of the current system. On the other hand, if government enacts legislation requiring people to obtain private insurance no matter what, many employers will let us carry that ball for ourselves, because they can, and doing so will increase their profits. I mean, would you really expect them to do otherwise?

[closeupready]

45. Exactly. This is what I pointed out above - the difference between the subsidy and the cost of the

policy is about $8,500, or if you count it in pre-tax gross pay, $13,000 from your annual income. Not affordable at all. Worse, in fact, than John McCain's $5,000 subsidy. Pretty sad that the Republican candidate came up with a more generous subsidy.

[abelenkpe2]

59. So you want a handout to insurance companies

That will not cover all the costs for the individuals and families needing such a subsidy. Such subsidies will also not do anything to bring down costs. It's a cop out designed to benefit insurance companies and will still leave many without coverage.
A public option and/or single payer is the only way to reduce costs and cover all.

[yodoobo]

17. Its a matter rearranging our priorities

The fact is that those who refuse to purchase insurance, only serve to deny health care funding to others.

We *ALL* deserve health insurance, and we are all going to have to participate in providing it to each other.

[Arkansas Granny]

43. It's not always a matter of refusal or priorities.

I would buy insurance, but I simply can't afford to pay 15% of my gross income (more like 25% of net) in premiums and still come up with a $5,000.00 deductible every year. Barring a catastrophic illness or injury, that's like having no coverage at all.

[yodoobo]

48. I know. There will be folks who truly cannot afford it

and for those folks, it should be covered either through a voucher system, or tax credits etc.

When this is implemented, folks will fall into 1 of 3 groups

1) They can afford it. If they refuse to purchase it they are fined and the IRS enforces the fines and collection.

2) They can afford it, but claim they cannot. In truth its matter of rearranging their priorities. If they refuse to purchase it they are fined and the IRS enforces the fines and collection.

3) They cannot afford it, their coverage is covered by some sort of credit system (perhaps funded by fines paid by group #1 and #2). A means testing system will define this group.


For folks in group #2, the argument will be similar to those who refuse to pay taxes. They can afford to pay their taxes, they just don't want to.

[juno jones]

103. self delete.

[Morning Dew]

5. The only mandate should be on the government.

Unless that "fine" goes with coverage for care, it's unconscionable.

There should be universal single payer health care.

[leftstreet]

7. You forgot your sarcasm thingy

"If you refuse to buy health insurance then you are just a deadbeat."

:rofl:

Good one!

[kpominville]

11. Mandates are harmful unless we have universal coverage

Mandates without single payer insurance are just a handout to for-profit insurance companies.
History has shown us over and over that no savings to the companies ever gets passed down to consumers, it goes to shareholders instead in the form of dividends and bonuses to executives. Our costs won't go down one cent.

[johnaries]

19. But we can't have universal coverage without a mandate.

And a Public Option will help keep costs of private insurance down, which is why it is so important. I would like to see single-payer, but I don't think it stands a chance against the Insurance lobbyists.

[BlueDemKev]

107. Exactly.

The only problem is, a public option doesn't look like it can pass in either house at this time. :-(

Assuming we are unable to get the P.O. now, I really think we should establish patient-run, non-profit co-ops AND include a "trigger" to initiate a public option a few years from now (which, by then, I'm certain will have more support then as people realize how needed it really is).

We should not trash the entire bill just because we can't get an active public option right now.

[inna]

35. we live in a plutocracy/kleptocracy, it's becoming more and more painfully clear.

:banghead:

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Chickens are bad without eggs.

Mandatory=Universal.

[yodoobo]

12. Its an unfortunate truth really

But the fact is that those that refuse to purchase health insurance and join the risk pool, only serve to deny the civil rights of others to enjoy health insurance.

Health care is a civil right for everyone, but its also an obligation to everyone. When the young and healthy purchase insurance, it makes it possible for the old and/or unhealthy to purchase insurance. Conversely, when the young and health refuse to purchase insurance, it drives up the cost for the unhealthy folks unfairly.

Its probably best to not really even think of it as purchasing insurance for yourself, but rather providing health care dollars to your fellow citizens.

I don't like it really, and its taken me awhile to come around to this, but its really the only way that we can fulfill our obligation and civil rights to each other.

[johnaries]

75. I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement:

"Health care is a civil right for everyone, but its also an obligation to everyone."

So true.

[TransitJohn]

101. I'm confused.

Do you consider health insurance or health care a civil right? There's a HUGE DIFFERENCE if you didn't know.

[yodoobo]

105. Of course they are different

Its like saying that I have the right to publish a newsletter.

Technically that's not accurate. There is a huge difference between free speech and newspapers.

I have the right to free speech and one of the ways to exercise that right is to publish a newsletter. In casual conversation (and a web forum is very casual) saying I have the civil right to publish a newsletter becomes shorthand for the actual legally defined right.

[Hannah Bell]

14. there's no comparison between mandatory private health insurance & social security.

social security is public, & not for profit. administrative costs run about 1-2%.

versus 30% for private insurers.

furthermore, if you're unemployed you don't pay SS tax, & you don't get fined.

[johnaries]

22. First of all, there are provisions for subsidies for those who

can't afford health insurance to make it available to them. Those who are unemployed won't get "fined". And this also is why a Public Option is so important. It is almost EXACTLY like SS. It is a saftey net.

[Hannah Bell]

33. it's nothing like it, first & foremost, insurance companies are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT

corporations.

Second, SS doesn't provide "subsidies" to unemployed people so they can pay into SS. Unemployed people don't pay.

[johnaries]

65. Same basic concept - it only works if everyone participates.

And once again you are forgetting the Public Option. If the Public Option is cheaper, then that's what they will be paying into. They can either buy into it or pay for it with taxes.

And Unemployed people won't pay under the mandate, either. They will get Medicaid, which is public.

[Hannah Bell]

76. private insurers, "public option" & medicare system isn't anything like SS.

& yes, people WOULD be paying private insurers under gov't mandate.

[johnaries]

93. The concept of "everyone in" is the same, even if there are other

differences. I am not arguing those other differences, that is a straw man argument.

True, some of those people may choose to go with private insurers, but in order to compete with a Public Option they would have to make their rates more affordable. Otherwise, everyone will buy into the Public Option - which is just fine with me. I hope they can't compete with the Public Option and they all go out of business so we are left with a de facto single-payer.

[Hannah Bell]

99. the "differences" are what makes it "different" from SS.

the concept of "everyone" could apply to the ussr's universal health care too.

the concept of "everyone" is the straw you're using to sell this bs.

[shimmergal]

80. What are you going to do if

a public option doesn't get passed, and a mandate does? That's the real danger.

[Swamp Rat]

18. Ok, how do you force millions of unemployed and homeless to pay?

And if they can't, what happens to them?

[johnaries]

32. They would get Medicaid under the current proposals.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/12/news/economy/health_reform_mandates/index.htm

[Feron]

20. health insurance != health care access

All too often health insurance companies drop policyholders or refuse to pay claims if they are expensive. So people who thought that they were covered are now holding the bag for an expensive medical bill. It happened to me.

And then there are those that get a serious injury and/or illness and find themselves with mounting debt from co-insurance, deductibles, and co-pays.

Most medical bankruptcies are from people who have insurance. A California study showed that most Californians with medical debt have insurance and are twice as likely to avoid medical care.

Single payer is the only cost efficient way out of this mess.

[JDPriestly]

23. I know a friend who teaches in a private school.

Her employer does not provide health insurance, not for her. not for her family. She is in her late 50s. Her husband is in her early 60s and they have two children in high school. They can afford insurance for the children, but they cannot afford it for themselves -- not on her salary. He is unemployed at the moment. Should they buy insurance or food? That is their choice. They live in a rented apartment that is cramped and depressing. They share an old car. They are typical of the silent America right now.

People will buy into health insurance when they can afford it. They cannot afford it at today's prices.

And I assure you, the government cannot afford to subsidize health care for all the people who need it, not as long as the insurance companies are allowed to take a fourth of the premium money to spend as they wish.

Mandated health insurance works if you have a mechanism to control costs. It will not work if private insurance companies are setting the rates. Besides, where in the Constitution does it say that the government can force individual Americans to buy anything from any private individual, corporation or company?

Car insurance is another issue because you have a choice to go without a car. To require every individual in America to pay a premium to a private insurance company is simply unconstitutional. Congress does not have the authority to do that. It could tax Americans and contract with private insurance companies to provide medical services with the tax money, but it cannot force Americans to buy the insurance. What if someone who is self-employed refuses to pay the fine? They cannot be placed in prison for that. We do not permit a debtors' prison. And if you are self-employed, you pay quarterly taxes. Some person will get mad enough to take to to the Supreme Court. I won't do it, but someone will.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Her employer will be required to provide her insurance. n/t

[abelenkpe2]

74. No they won't

Depends on the amount of employees as always.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Few schools would fall under the threshold. nt

[JDPriestly]

118. Many private schools pay very low salaries.

In fact, a lot of public post-secondary schools pay non-tenured teachers salaries too low to cover private health insurance. I know. I have a lot of friends and family who teach in public and private schools.

[JDPriestly]

117. abelenpe2, Thanks for correcting that misconception that this mandates

employer provision of insurance. To the contrary, the employer mandate applies only to very large firms. This is going to trigger the end of a lot of small employer's insurance plans. Why should they pay? It is really a problem for companies. And, unless the age discrimination provisions in the bill are really strong, requiring employers to pay for health insurance for employees results in a lot of age discrimination in employment. Providing health care insurance for older employees is so expensive that hiring them is not worth it especially for small employers.

[abelenkpe2]

66. Teacher at my son's school lives in similar circumstances

Both husband and wife work hard long hours at jobs that do not provide health care. They have little money left over each month but had the "option" of purchasing a striped down version of kaiser's plan for 400 a month. They could not afford that, so when she developed medical problems last year they actually moved out of the country in order to get care. How sad is that?

[johnaries]

77. Which is why we need the Public Option. I won't support a mandate

without a Public Option to go with it. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear in the OP.

[JDPriestly]

116. Thanks. No mandated purchase without a robust public option.

And the idea of non-profits running a public option is ridiculous. I have worked in the non-profit sector. No, no, no. That is not what non-profits are for. They just are too subject to the whole donor, tax exempt, wealth influenced paradigm. They are far more corrupt than people realize.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Then why are we even discussing any reform at all then?

If we can't get single payer, which we have nowhere near the votes for, and if there is a general refusal to deal with mandates then this entire exercise has been a huge waste of energy and I don't get why the fuck we'd be bothering.

Minus single payer what can be done here without mandates? The whole exercise has been a huge waste. If this was the crossroads then we have been tilting at windmills the entire way. Very little can be accomplished with this many divergent wishes in the country. We can't do single payer, public option, or even much on regulations without forcing someone, somewhere to do something they hate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. I would sign up for public health insurance in a heartbeat

Right now I have crappy private insurance with a high deductible that is at the limit of affordability for me. If I ever got a serious illness, I would be bankrupt with or without it.

I reserve the right to drop such insurance if the company raises the premiums any further.

Mandated health insurance ONLY with a public option that is open to all Americans regardless of age, income, or physical condition!

Or better yet, single payer or national health that is funded partly by taxes and partly by premiums and just plain available to all.

[damntexdem]

31. We cannot afford free riders.

Especially when they get sick or injured and receive healthcare they can't pay for and aren't covered for.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. So let's have universal public insurance for everyone

Problem solved.

I REFUSE to be forced to buy crappy policies (which would bankrupt me if I ever used them) from a private company that is obliged to do nothing for me in return. That is corporate welfare.

[johnaries]

46. Well, again, the mandates would be for those who can afford it.

For those where the full cost of Health Insurance would be a hardship they would get subsidies. For those who can't even afford that they would be eligible for Medicaid.

[TCJ70]

34. So...because I lost my job, and am currently looking for a new one,

but can't afford health insurance, I'm a deadbeat?

[johnaries]

41. No. I'm only talking about the ones who can afford Insurance

but because they believe they're invunerable don't think they need it. And this would actually be a boon for you. Right now your only option is COBRA which is too expensive even for people who have jobs. Under the current mandate proposals you would be eligible for Medicaid.

[ipaint]

47. I won't be buying private ins.

I'm not interested in their shitty product as they have never been interested in my health.

I will pay into a government run public plan through my taxes that covers everyone.

[ljm2002]

50. If it's mandated...

...then it is much simpler, more efficient and more cost-effective to collect the money through taxes and insure EVERYONE.

I do not want a mandate, it is ridiculous. It is more of the "personal responsibility" mantra, making life more complicated for everyone because the lunatic fringe on the right -- not to mention the corporate enablers in both parties -- would rather make sure their buds in the industry get exactly what they want.

If the bill passes in that form, there will definitely be a backlash from this quarter: I'll not vote for any of them and I'll let them know why. No I won't vote Republican, I'll sit it out though if it comes to that, or support a third-party candidate, or a progressive in a primary. But I will not vote for any Democrat who votes to further criminalize the population while stopping well short of providing a health care solution for this country.

[bain_sidhe]

52. Thank you!

I haven't read the rest of the comments yet, but I just wanted to thank you for saying this.

I've always used the illustration that universal insurance is like having 10 people paying $10.00 each to cover a $100.00 bill when one of them gets sick. But if you have only 5 of the people paying to cover the whole $100 bill, they each have to pay $20.00. But it's even worse than that - if the one who gets sick is one of the five who *aren't* paying into the kitty, chances are the bill will be $200.00 (emergency room care), and the other five will have to pay $40.00 each.

[johnaries]

61. Exactly! Excellent analogy.

[Faryn Balyncd]

53. Medicare-for-All: GOOD - - - Mandated Corporate Welfare: BAD - - - (As different as day & night..: :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6498666&mesg_id=6498666

[johnaries]

57. Which is why a Public Option is so important.

Yes, Medicare for all would be better. But will it pass? We need a viable back-up plan.

[Faryn Balyncd]

63. I agree with you 100%, and . . . .

. . . I support a public option because it appears to be the only way we will ever get there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6498666&mesg_id=6498666



(just as Baucus's no-public-option plan appears to pave the way to an entirely opposite outcome.)




Thanks for your comment. (I did not suppose that my comment favoring Medicare-for-All might be interpreted as anti-public option, because, iin my opinion, Medicare-for-All and public option supporters are (or should be) on the same side.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Exactly. Universal coverage is good because it's universal.

That said, it's important that people have the option of bypassing private insurance companies to get that coverage.

[Neecy]

62. Good start in helping us lose in 2010

If words like "deadbeat" are thrown around to people who have had hours cut, wages cut, or have lost jobs entirely and are struggling just to put food on the table you're doing the GOP's job for them.

A mandate without a public option is just legalized extortion, the biggest transfer of wealth to private corporations in our history. And in return, those who can't afford gold-plated or even silver-plated plans will end up with the junk insurance, with huge co-pays and massive deductables. And they'll be forced to buy this just to "say" they have insurance just so the IRS won't seize their assets. They'll still go into bankrupcy if they have an illness, of course.

And it's only "like" Social Security in that we're all required to participate. UNLIKE Social Security, we'll be paying a 30% profit margin not only on our mandatory insurance but on the subsidies that our tax dollars will pay for.

So, FUCK YOU for your "I've got mine" bullshit. This is about corporate control of our very existence and a corrupt political system that's doing nothing other than making the very rich much, much richer while the rest of us swirl down the drain.

[johnaries]

71. You are misinformed. First of all, I support a mandate ONLY

in conjunction with a Public Option. Secondly, I am only referencing the "deadbeats" who can afford health insurance but choose not to.

For those who have lost their jobs currently, the only option is COBRA which is too expensive even for those who have jobs. Under the mandate, those people will be covered by Medicaid. Which do you think is better? For those who cannot afford the full cost, they will get subsidies. And with a Public Option and a mandate the costs will be lowered to begin with.

[harun]

64. Good grief, if people on DU are still this stupid no wonder we are losing

the debate to the public.

[yodoobo]

114. Who says we are losing?

The public overwhelming wants reform.

[harun]

115. I agree we are set on support but when you hear people talk about

the options and what we are trying to reform they don't have a clue. I am talking in terms of getting the truth of the situation and the truth of the real alternatives available to people. I still see very few people who understand what H.R. 676 is. What expanding medicare would mean. Also why making people purchase insurance has nothing to do with covering more people and everything to do with corporate welfare for the insurance companies. It brings them more revenue and some politicians have admitted this. They admit this is a giveaway to the for-profits so they won't fight reform.

Just because someone has insurance doesn't mean their insurance company will pay for any coverage whatsoever. They can deny payment at any time.

[dysfunctional press]

68. mandated insurance, WITHOUT a 'public option' will be the downfall and destruction of the democrats-

and the democratic party.

they'd better not go there.

[johnaries]

72. I fully agree. A mandate should only be implemented if we have

a Public Option as well.

[Cleita]

69. It only works if in exchange for your payment you actually get health care.

Mandating supporting a system that only delivers profits to Wall Street is criminal and immoral IMHO. The only health insurance mandated should be non-profit and run by Medicare.

[BOG PERSON]

81. Make them individual mandates, while you're at it!

It can be just like car insurance!

[TransitJohn]

82. Yeah, corporations can only pay out profits

if dupes give them money for no reason.

On edit:
How about if we're allowed to post our own bond to show financial responsibility for ourselves and dependents, like my state lets me do in lieu of paying for auto insurance? Or would that still make me a deadbeat for not feeding corporate profits, like you stated in your OP?

[johnaries]

84. The taxes would go to help support the Public Option.

I should have made myself more clear, I only support a mandate in conjunction with a Public Option.

[TransitJohn]

85. Public option makes it a bit more palatable

but I'm still not sold. Insurance is nothing but extortion and racketeering to me. Please see my edit.

[Romulox]

113. You're wrong there. The President says it would be "unfair" to subsidize the Public Option

with tax monies.

[roamer65]

86. Social Security is a government run, old age, income supplement program.

Mandated private insurance is not. I fail to see the comparison. I am not in favor of Romneycare.

[Sebastian Doyle]

89. Anybody on this board who posts in favor of mandatory corporatist insurance

had better be willing to disclose which insurance company signs their paycheck.

[johnaries]

94. I see now I should have made myself clear - ONLY if we have

a Public Option.

I do not support mandates without a Public Option. In fact, I don't think any kind of reform will be effective without a PO.

[Sebastian Doyle]

97. Yeah, I posted that before I read the entire thread

Sorry about jumping to the conclusion. You might say the word "mandated" sort of triggers that response. :evilgrin:

However, there are some others on this board whom the point definitely applies to, as they truly ARE advocating a RomneyHillaryCare corporatist mandate as a viable solution. Which it definitely is not.

[johnaries]

100. It's obviously my fault, judging by so many reactions similar to yours.

And I am beginning to believe that I have misunderstood all the anti-mandate threads and posts I've read that triggered my OP. I jumped to the conclusion that they were against mandates even with a Public Option. I just couldn't even conceive of someone here supporting mandates w/o the PO. Shows how naive I am.

:fistbump:

[TransitJohn]

102. What do you think the mandate is all about?

The fact that it's being pushed by blue dog traitors in the pockets of insurance and pharma companies should tell you something. Their plan is to enforce a personal mandate WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION. Do you watch the news or follow politics?

[johnaries]

108. The mandate goes all the way back to the primaries, and further.

Here, this OP actually explains it much better than I did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6500906

[ddeclue]

96. PUBLIC OPTION FIRST - MANDATES LATER.

Otherwise it is just a windfall and payoff to insurance companies.

Personally it ALL sucks - the ONLY solution is single payer or national health - public option apparently will cover practically no one and mandates in the absence of real competition is just a big screw you from Congress and the insurance companies.


Doug D.

[rug]

98. If it's an option it's not a mandate.

If the mandate is to buy any kind of insurance or to be fined, it is not a public option.

The only one to mandate everyone in is a single payer.

Stop the bullshit, universal medicare now.

[BlueDemKev]

104. My Mother-In-Law Would Hate You....

...but I'm with you all the way. Everyone should have health insurance--PERIOD.

People not having it is one of the reasons we're where we are right now.

[Sebastian Doyle]

111. So you support medicare for all then?

Because that's not the impression I got from your previous posts on the subject.

[MadHound]

106. Only if there is a strong public option

If there isn't a strong public option, then all Obama has created is a mandated monopoly for the insurance industry, who can then crank up the prices on all of us. That is the nightmare scenario we're facing right now. If there is no strong public option, on the mandate, then Obama and the rest of the Democrats have failed badly and they are worse than useless, they will have shown themselves to be corporate enablers on par with the 'Pugs.

[johnaries]

109. I agree with you. Sorry I didn't make that clear. As this other OP

explains much better than I did, it is a 3-legged stool. 1- Public Option. 2- mandate that insurance companies cannot refuse coverage. 3- mandate that everyone have insurance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6500906

[generous ginger]

112. I agree with you 100%. I remember the debate between Obama and Hillary

and when he mentioned it being a choice, she said that it wouldn't work like that. I wonder if she was actually leaning towards public option but didn't want to stir things up...