Do I have t right? Basically the HC bill mandates the uninsured to purchase insurance?

[notadmblnd]

This is the solution to the problem? Make it illegal for people not to have it?

[Daphne08]

1. Sounds like...

[edhopper]

2. You left out the part

about doing nothing to make it affordable.

[AndrewP]

3. edit.

[MNDemNY]

6. That is already on page 456.

[AndrewP]

4. In the next session of congress, they will make having cancer illegal

See? Problem solved!

[MNDemNY]

5. That is the bill, in a nut shell.

Reform!!!! that's change we can believe in!!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. It also provides financial assistance to lower income Americans to do so

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. I can afford $20 a month, as long as I can slide every now and then

What kind of insurance can I buy with that?

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Medicaid

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. lol, I wish!

Maybe I need to look into it, but I don't think self-employed people can get that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Depends on your income/assets

[Andy823]

8. That's what I understand.

Now that they have taken out the public option, and the medicare buy in, those who don't have insurance will be "mandated" to purchase it from the private insurance companies, and while that is great for them, it stinks for those who don't have insurance! Way to many members of congress are in the pockets of the insurance companies, and other big corporations. It's obvious that in order to get any real change we need to get rid of the vast majority congress! Of course the problem is that as long as lobbyists and corporations are allowed to give donations to members of congress, things will never change. No matter what happens the corporations seem to always win wile the people of this country lose!

[babylonsister]

10. Well, there's this...

The Best Argument
Josh Marshall | December 15, 2009, 2:48PM

The best argument I've heard from people who say the emerging bill isn't just insufficient but just bad law is this: If you're going to force people to buy coverage (mandates), you need to provide them an alternative to buying private sector health insurance to prevent them from getting gouged by the insurance companies. In the abstract that makes a lot of sense. And it even makes a decent amount of sense in the non-abstract, real world.

Here's the problem though. The fantasy Public Option would have served this role and put a lot of downward pressure on private sector insurance premiums. And at the beginning of this debate I thought that's what was being discussed. In fact, though, none of the Public Options that had any support in Congress really accomplished this. They were all designed to keep most people from being able to buy in. That's why the scoring from the CBO showed very few people actually buying into it (2 million for the senate bill and 6 for House bill, if memory serves) and relatively little downward pressure on premiums. Why they were so feeble-ized is a good question -- for which I've heard some good and some bad answers.

My point though is that if you are worried about mandates now (and I think that's a very legitimate worry) you should have been worried about them with a Public Option too.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/the_best_argument.php?ref=fpblg

[DrDan]

11. the difference, of course, is that medicare has overhead of around 3% - where the insurance company'

overhead is about 30%.

So costs of the mandates are SIGNIFICANTLY different. The current bill will promote the current obscene profits - with the probability that they will just continue to grow.

[notadmblnd]

13. I was worried about mandates with the public option too

I hope some group challenges this law if it passes. It has to be unconstitutional.

[Mari333]

14. It will be challenged in court

It has to be. it is completely unconstitutional.
the insurance companies are being represented by our elected officials.
that is all.

[leftstreet]

23. Did you see this?

Not sure what to make of it.
The comments section is interesting, too.

In recent months, several commentators have suggested that a major element of the health care legislation before Congress is unconstitutional. Under the House and Senate bills, access to health care would be increased by imposing a mandate on individuals to purchase health care coverage. But, say some experts, the federal government does not have the power to require people to buy an insurance policy.

While there may be a germ of truth to this argument, there are no constitutional barriers to the kind of insurance mandate contemplated by Congress. To be sure, if Congress passed a law whose only provision entailed a mandate for individuals to purchase a product, and violators of the law were automatically subject to incarceration, constitutional concerns would arise. Imagine a criminal law that required people to buy an American-made automobile to bolster the domestic car industry. But that is not the kind of mandate Congress is contemplating. Rather, the House and Senate approach will readily fall within their taxing and commerce clause authority.

Critics of a mandate correctly observe that the federal government is a government of limited powers. While state governments have broad powers to regulate on behalf of the general welfare, the federal government can only act under a power enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, even though states can require people to purchase automobile insurance, it is not necessarily the case that Congress can require people to purchase health care insurance.

Nevertheless, a mandate to purchase insurance can be justified by the Constitution's grant to Congress of a taxing power and a commerce clause power. The taxing power is a well-established basis for enacting an individual mandate. Indeed, this country has had a tax-based mandate to purchase health care insurance for nearly 45 years. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-orentlicher/an-individual-mandate-to_b_391810.html

[Mari333]

26. wait...did I just allow myself to have hope again?

what is wrong with me. silly girl.

yes, we are (*&ed.

[laughingliberal]

17. I was worried about the mandates from the jump and more worried as it became obvious the best PO in

any plan voted out of committee was insufficient to provide vigorous competition.

[BzaDem]

16. I'm so sick of these idiotic posts

that mention the mandate, without mentioning that the bill provides large subsidies for the uninsured to purchase insurance. The mandate only applies to people for whom insurance costs less than 8% of one's income and still chooses not to get it.

[notadmblnd]

18. You've been here for just over a year

if the place is so detrimental to your health, you might want to pass up these idiotic threads before your insurer decides you suffer from a pre-existing condition and denies your claims?:shrug:

I stated what I see is the gist of the bill and asked my fellow DU'ers if that's how they see it too. So come here and call me an idiot cause that is what will change my mind and believe that this bill is something good. And I'm the idiot:crazy:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. The bill should be considered a crime against humanity

Not that that's illegal anymore...

[wiggs]

20. Isn't there also a provision that 85-90% of the premium MUST be spent on

health care? Is this watertight or is it a loophole? Wouldn't this have downward pressure on premiums?

[valerief]

22. There's probably a loophole that says they can spend 25% on exec pay as long as they

spend 30% on the war industry.

[valerief]

21. But our tax dollars with still LOAD the insurance industry with billions every year.

And drug costs will still be astronomical.

It's the Republican Plan. Die quickly.

[RT Atlanta]

25. $ for wars abroad, but nothing for us at home

Kucinich summed that up nicely a few weeks ago.

What happens if I dont purchase? Do we go back to insurance/debtors prisons? You know the prison industry would love to further increase rates of incarceration. Funny thing about prison is that you get 3 squares a day and "universal" healthcare.