Hottest topic among my low-info voting "centrist" friends this xmas--we're being FORCED to buy insr?

[rudy23]

People don't generally like or trust insurance companies. You don't have to be a pollster to know this.

My friends and reasonable family members who don't follow politics on a site like this are just waking up to the fact that our supposedly left-leaning president is about to force us all to buy shitty insurance without doing anything to really regulate or compete with private companies.

They were mostly in disbelief, like, "this isn't really going to pass though, is it?" I think once a bill is signed and it really sinks in what our government is trying to do, we're going to see palpable outrage from the center along with "the left" who follow politics closely.

[coti]

1. It's going to be a very serious problem in 2010 and 2012.

I have no idea what the Dems were thinking with this.

[grahamhgreen]

89. Oh no, all we have to do is become even more fascist-right, and we'll sweep!

:sarcasm:

[lastliberalintexas]

220. Heck, I don't know if I can force myself to vote Dem next year,

much less convince others to do so. I'm sure I'll come around eventually (I always do), but I think we'll get murdered at the polls anyway. :(

[sendero]

231. They are not thinking...

This bill:

The RIGHT HATES it.

The LEFT HATES it.

The CENTER is tepid, but wait until until they grok the mandates, they are going to HATE it.

Politically, it seems that Obama forgot, it's not about passing a reform bill, it's about passing a POPULAR reform bill.

This bill has as much a chance of being popular as a pink fart in a punchbowl.

[Zavulon]

254. I'll tell you what this Dem is thinking.

If this becomes final and I'm forced to buy insurance at gunpoint, I stay home on Election Day. A mandate to buy insurance with no public option? I would have expected this shit from Bush.

[wolfgangmo]

261. Don't stay home.

Vote for any party that is not bought and paid for by the corporations. That means don't vote for the dems or the repubs. And the libertarians are out because they would remove all regulation from the corps and hope that a sprinkling of magical libertarian fairy dust will make everything all right.

Pick green or independent or anything except the corporate candidate.

If you want to send a message then have the swing votes in the house and senate be green. That'll get their damn attention.

[Zavulon]

296. You make a good point.

You've given me a lot to think about, and I appreciate it. Happy New Year, friend. :) :hi:

[CoffeeCat]

288. And Obama campaigned AGAINST mandates!

He chided Hillary Clinton over her healthcare plan, BECAUSE it contained mandates.

And somehow--the Progressives are being made the enemy in all of this?

A politician doesn't keep his promises--and in fact does the opposite of what he says he will do--and the
people who point this out--are drug-addled, hippie malcontents?

Really?

[Zavulon]

297. I just read a post which said that

if we're not for this mandate plan, we're 100% in lockstep with Rush Limbaugh. THAT is how low we've sunk.

Sorry, but it IS possible to hate this plan for entirely different reasons than Limbaugh does. He doesn't want the government to help anyone, whereas I do - I just want it done right, and this current plan doesn't do that at all.

[TheEuclideanOne]

259. I am curious, where did the mandate come from?

Do you (or anybody here) happen to know which congressman actually started this mandate idea? Why was there never once talk about taking it out?

[donco6]

2. NO NO! They'll greet us with ROSES, dammit!

At least, that's what we've been told incessantly for several weeks.

[coti]

Those who cared about the party should have taken a stand and

tried to stop this from happening.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[CTyankee]

36. Hey, don't get personal, OK?

It is bad form. You can argue with Frenchie all you want on this board, but don't call her out in this thread where she is not even present...I don't think you'd want to be called out in that fashion.

[intheflow]

176. +1

This is a classy post, CTyankee. :thumbsup:

[Thickasabrick]

167. +1

[JVS]

27. They were told to shut up and get in line by people who demanded that a bill be passed

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. I did take a stand

for all the effect it had.

In the end, the corporations rule. I don't have the money to outbid them.

[phasma ex machina]

129. +1 "In the end, the corporations rule. I don't have the money to outbid them." nt

[Nikki Stone1]

151. .

.

[tsuki]

247. But you can hit them where it hurts. Close the Service Center.

I am going to vote. I will not give up my vote. But as for all those things we do for free, they will have to provide a job.

[Jamastiene]

8. And they'll topple the statues

of their oppressors!1!!!1 We are their LIBERATORS, I tell ya!'!!1!!!

[Sebastian Doyle]

88. And our children will sing songs about us in the future!!111!!!11

One of the Rahmbots actually said this last week, seriously. :puke:

[bobbolink]

166. Damn! I was hoping for choklits!

Those damned roses are so hard to swallow....

[unpossibles]

3. there's already outrage from the right and "center"

mainly from people who think Obama is giving away a lot to the insurance companies yet is also still somehow a Socialist. No, it doesn't make sense to me either.

[rudy23]

6. That's the other thing---most of them (left leaning centrists) considered the move Socialist.

To them, forcing people to buy insurance is Totalitarian, and Totalitarian governments are always Communists or Socialists.

The fact that I had to "defend" the President by saying it was really Fascist does not speak well for the political climate ahead in 2010. I think Obama wants Dems to lose in 2010, though, but that's for a different post.

[unpossibles]

55. well, the problem is that people like Glenn Beck and others

have obfuscated the line between Socialism and Fascism by pretending that they are the same simply because both are "big" government, despite them being fairly opposite in most other aspects. The right knows that the easiest way to get them - a minority - elected is to make more voters disenfranchised by constantly harping about how they are "all the same" - and despite some disturbing similarities, the two parties are still very different in my opinion.

Personally, I don't think Obama wants the Dems to lose in 2010, I think he's just fairly Centrist and also inherited a HUGE mess.

[rudy23]

62. I agree. He's tone-deaf though if he doesn't realize he's walking RIGHT INTO that trap.

My older, conservative family members still think Obama is passing government run healthcare. When I tried to tell them that actually he's giving PRIVATE companies unprecedented power, they claimed that the government was taking control of those companies by forcing customers onto them (I shit you not). To them, every fascist, DLC/corporate move Obama makes is to try and force Private companies under the thumb of big government. They have been riled up about Obama the Socialist for a solid year, and they're not going to give up on that meme no matter what he does.

My younger friends (mostly mid-30s) disengaged from the healthcare debate months ago. They still think we're just getting a smaller public option, something between single payer and what we have now. They tuned out after Obama's last speech where he seemed to support the public option, and they have faith that Obama's going to get that done. They have no idea what's happened to the bill over the last two months, and were utterly shocked about the mandates and the anti-abortion language.

Very few of them believed that the final bill would include mandates for barely regulated private insurance. They had the impression that Obama would be fighting against that, and the bill would sift out closer to something we were hoping for around August. They are in for a major, major shock.

[suzie]

104. So if you'd told all your family that they'd be required to sign up for single payer health care

and that their taxes would be escalating rapidly to pay for it, you think they'd be happy?

You think that young people who don't want to pay for insurance because they're never gonna need it would be equally happy to have their taxes raised to pay for a single payer system? After all, they don't need it or don't think they do.

Knowing how much people like higher taxes, and how much the very young hate to have SS and Medicare taxes taken out of their paychecks, I'm guessing not.

[rudy23]

114. We all gave up on single payer a LONG time ago.

I wonder what they would think if it did in fact make their taxes go up over what they'd be required to pay in premiums under the new plan. I wonder if to them, the idea of being off the for-profit health system would ultimately make it worthwhile. I guess we'll never know.

[TheBigotBasher]

169. They would escalate less rapidly than under Private Insurance.

National Insurance in the UK is 11%, it was 9% for years and in many ways would be if the Government had not held absolutely to the promise of not increasing income tax. (NI is not seen as a tax by politicians only those in work).

[clear eye]

184. Is that how you see single payer working? Really?

Firstly, since the wealthiest 5% are taxed at an unprecedentedly low rate if they don't defray all their taxes w/ loopholes, it would be fairly easy to offset most of the cost by restoring levels to, say, what they were in the Carter years. The taxes that struggling young people would pay would be much lower than expected premiums for private plans, and offer infinitely better coverage than the Medicaid that many young people will be offered instead of a subsidized private plan.

Please do a little research on the PNHP website, to have a better basis for speculating how much of a burden single payer would be for young people.

[Enthusiast]

234. +1 ! nt

[suzie]

293. I looked at the projected PHNP figures for taxation and

I don't see a need to change what I stated.

The taxation figures seem to be based on very unrealistic projections of a variety of taxes that seem unlikely to be enacted. In fact, it seems unlikely at this point that taxation on the wealthy would be restored to the Carter years, but a substantial payroll tax is envisioned.

Reading through the site you suggested, it all seems like fantasy land projections. If you don't have the votes for a public option at this time, I'm not sure how one rationalizes that the votes would be there for all kinds of new taxation--in the midst of a severe recession.

I'm not an anti-single payer person, but I'm not sure that simply repeating "single payer only" is how we get there from here. And I do think it's a problem that some of those who claim to want "single payer", want a completely socialized medical system a la the British Health model--as stated in one of the replies to my original statement.

I'm afraid there are even less votes for that.

[tsuki]

255. The Insurance Cartel is hated by All

people, young and old. And forcing the largest tax increase on the middle class in the name of corporatism will be the issue in 2010. I am sure that they already have that fat, sweating Fuck Luntz working on sound bites.

This will be a disaster for the House Reps.

[Enthusiast]

235. President Obama can't possibly

be this dumb. It can't be tone-deaf.

[Jackpine Radical]

185. Wingnuts love to point out that Nazis were "National Socialists."

Which is sorta like a country calling itself "the Democratic Republic of North Korea."

[unpossibles]

224. right - and in fact that is one of my counter arguments

along with things like East Germany being called a "Democratic Republic" - a name means little.

[Enthusiast]

233. Is it any wonder?

Every source of wingnut information has been pushing this notion for years. And now, after a solid year of Glenn Beck telling them this, reinforcing what Limbaugh has told them, they are thoroughly convinced that Nazism = socialism. It's all about the media and misinformation.

This is a result of the loss of the Fairness Doctrine and media consolidation. Before, this misinformation would at least have been countered somewhat. Now all these insane claims go unchallenged. We might as well tell them everything that comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth is true.

[GReedDiamond]

63. Are you saying that "left leaning centrists" are aka the "Teabaggers"?

Because, if you are, you are way off. The "Teabaggers" who disrupted healthcare town hall meetings last summer were far-right-of-center repug extremists and Randian-libertarian goofballs, with some LaRouchies thrown in, along with the usual gang of religious nuts and white supremacists. And the whole thing was paid for and coordinated by Dick Armey's astroturf group. These are the ones who accused Obama of being a "socialist" and a "fascist" simultaneously, not "left leaning centrists."

It seems to me that "left leaning centrists," whoever they are, would be happy to have a more socialized healthcare system than the privately owned, for profit system we are now all forced to prop up.

edited typo

[rudy23]

75. No, I'm saying lo-info centrists thought the mandates were Totalitarian

And it caused them to think, "gee, maybe Obama does have some Totalitarian tendencies." That was the general tone of their comments. Not that they agreed with Glen Beck's assessment. More like they were alarmed that Obama was actually living up to one of their crazy talking points. And to them, Socialist means the same as Totalitarian.

I told you they were lo-info! But yeah, most of them are in creative fields and strong Obama supporters. They don't have a great handle on the public/private debate, past the conventional wisdom out there that says that laissez-faire = more freedom, and government mandates = Totalitarianism/Communism/Socialism

[Nikki Stone1]

150. The word is "corporate feudalism"

..

[Enthusiast]

238. Gee, they sure are lo-info

as in 'living in a cave'.

[Enthusiast]

237. Thank you for saying this.

This is what I wanted to say.

[clear eye]

180. It would take the pressure off him, wouldn't it? n/t

[Enthusiast]

236. You're kidding, right?

Left leaning centrists think forcing citizens to buy insurance is socialist? And totalitarian government is always either Communist or Socialist? Where do you get this information, Limbaugh?

Left leaning centrists believe this? This left leaning centrist certainly doesn't believe any such nonsense.

[rudy23]

269. Left-leaning centirsts accept a lot of what the right wing bullies them into accepting.

They don't have the experience to counter some of their arguments the way we do.

Not making excuses for them, just saying to me, that's the way it is.

[Enthusiast]

282. I consider 'left leaning centrists'

the most informed group of citizens in America so I reject your analysis completely. I do not agree that left leaning centrists believe what you say they do.

And if you are not one of 'them', then what are you, a right leaning centrist?

[rudy23]

284. I'm a Democrat, remember those? Why would you think centrists were the most well informed?

I'm generalizing the opinions of a couple hundred people I saw at parties and various other events over the last couple of weeks. Most of them are Obama supporters who mostly consider themselves Democrats, but largely based on identity rather than a deep understanding of issues like the public vs. private debate.

I think "centrists" is a sloppy term for me to be using. I should say Obama voters who aren't policy driven so much as they like Obama b/c he speaks better than Bush and doesn't seem like an asshole.

[clear eye]

178. I hear you. n/t

[AllyCat]

274. and the "fringe" left

Seems the majority of groups hate this except the corporatists.

[unpossibles]

277. but for very different reasons

And honestly some of the corporatists hate it too simply because it did not come from a Republican.

[jgraz]

4. Yep. Most people have tuned out the HCR debate

Once they realize what's been done to them, it's gonna get ugly.

[dkf]

5. It's such a no brainer

Nobody likes a dictatorial government and people hate health insurance companies.

[rudy23]

15. It really is that simple. And no one thinks of it as a compromise, or centrist move.

It's seen as radical and scarily Authoritarian. Depending on your political view, you probably see it as radical "left" or "right", but certainly not bipartisan in any sense of the word.

You said it perfectly, and boiled it down to its essence. It's two evil tastes that taste terrifying together to the average citizen.

[grahamhgreen]

92. +1

[mdmc]

148. stolen for an OP

peace and low stress..

[earth mom]

228. Exactly and that's why all hell is going to break loose for the 2012 elections.

People aren't going to be happy that Obama & Congress threw them under the bus and it cost them 10% of their income too!

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Krugman today.

If you’re going to attempt near-universal coverage, you have to have community rating, so that people with preexisting conditions can get insurance. If you’re going to have community rating, you have to have an individual mandate, so that healthy people are in the risk pool and people don’t game the system. And if you’re going to have an individual mandate, you have to have substantial subsidies to make insurance affordable.

Link
No mandate, no universal coverage.

If you come back with 'single payer', I need the list of 60 senators who will vote for it. I'll settle for 50.

[mzmolly]

10. People don't understand the choices

we have to make, it seems? Well said. :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

25. What choices? It's a mandate to buy private insurance with no public option.

:wtf:

[mzmolly]

35. The choice between no mandates and mandates. If we drop the personal

mandate, then insurance companies can not be mandated to cover people with pre-existing conditions or they'd lack solvency. So do we drop both mandates and essentially have no reform simply because we don't have 60 Senators who support a public option?

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Who's making that choice? Who's "we"?

I don't recall this plan being put to a referendum.

[mzmolly]

52. If you're opposed to mandates

we can't mandate that insurance companies cover everyone (including those with pre-existing conditions). That's my point.

[grahamhgreen]

99. YES WE CAN! Hence a democracy. Your claim they will go under is laughable.

[mzmolly]

115. Do you understand the concept

of insurance? It's about spreading risk.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/08/history-of-insurance.asp

Granted they should give less lavish bonus's to their CEO's but there simply isn't a way we can say, cover everyone and we want you to do it for free, thanks!

[grahamhgreen]

135. The fact is that WHEN BIG INSURANCE FAILS, as with AIG, they come and steal money from

the public by buying our politicians.

See AIG, and now HCR.

Big insurance will never pay out when the pay-out exceeds the amount of money they want to steal.

It is a complex con-game, and Americans know it.

No one should be allowed to steal money from the pool set up to cover people who are sick in order to buy corporate jets and gold-plated china. It is unethical, and should be illegal, as it is in most countries.

[mzmolly]

146. I agree with you fully on this point.

We need tighter regulation in the "too big to fail" industries.

[noiretextatique]

154. that's the problem with for-profit insurance

and of course the politicians know this. medicare for all could also be a mandate, without having to protect a private company's bottom line. having said that, i understand that since so many politicians are in the insurance companies pockets, the 'reform' has to be incremental.

[bobbolink]

170. No, you are the only one who understands the concept, obviously.

Is this the demeaning way you speak to those whose votes you are trying to gain?

If not, then why do you speak to those on the same side in this way?

Sometimes I really think "progressives" want to be all alone....

[mzmolly]

200. What??

I'm not running for office Bobbolink. I'm speaking bluntly and honestly, like yourself.

[bobbolink]

289. Actually, you were being demeaning and speaking in a superior tone.

Some of us have quite tired of that.

You're not a politician? Then come down with us commoners.

[mzmolly]

295. Last month you were PM-ing

me to help you on poverty issues here, and today you're saying I "talk down" to others? Uhm ok...

All I will say is that my question was asked in good faith. You are free to believe that, or not. And, you're free to suggest that I'm the only DU-er with a supposed "tone" if you wish.

I'm not sure whose in the group that involves "some of us" but I'm guessing said group consists of those who are now opposed to Obama and or health care reform? Regardless, I wish you all well.

[Hannah Bell]

223. do you understand the concept of universal single payer? it's about spreading (socializing) risk &

cost.

[mzmolly]

270. I do, and I'd love such a system.

But the political reality is that it will not happen.

[Enthusiast]

241. And this is why

health care should always be a not for profit system. Single payer is the only way to improve the system and remain cost effective.

[mzmolly]

271. I'd prefer single

payer as well.

[eilen]

253. We can mandate that ins co. be non-profit

thus with no obligation to show growing profits every quarter for their shareholders.

[mzmolly]

272. We have language in the new bill that limits profits, much like in the Netherlands

ala the Rockefeller amendment. That said, the Netherlands allows for a 5% profit margin, the US 10-15%.

[grahamhgreen]

98. You drop the mandate and pass the insurance reform. If crapsurance fails, you set up single payer.

[mzmolly]

116. Sounds good in theory.

But I've not seen any practical plan for how that would work, exactly.

[grahamhgreen]

134. In reality - privite for profit insurance is failing. Has failed us. That is why they need this

mandate. That is why the most successful systems are non-profit or public. That is not theory it is actuality.

[mzmolly]

145. The Swiss and the Dutch utilize private insurance companies

and have done so effectively according to some.

I am pro single payer, but I find articles like this encouraging: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731 That said, I prefer a sliding fee based system vs. the swiss (everyone pays the same) model.

[grahamhgreen]

161. From your article, "Under Swiss law, insurers may not make a profit on the basic plan,

which is quite comprehensive."

So if you put that sentence as the first sentence in the bill an make it override any other clauses, I might agree. But that is not even up for discussion.

In fact, if you scuttle the Baucus Boondoggle and substitute the Swiss bill, even better!

[mzmolly]

203. I'd like to

head in that direction as well GG. :hi:

[Enthusiast]

243. I'll go for that.

Can we all at least agree that private insurance should not be exempt from anti-trust regulation? At the very least.

[clear eye]

186. What about no one pays specifically for health care

and it comes out of relatively prgressive income taxes?

[mzmolly]

202. Not true.

eom

[eridani]

225. The Dutch flat out DICTATE insurance prices

If I only had to pay 100 euros/month for EVERYTHING, no deductibles or copays, and no age rating, I could live with mandated private insurance. I think it's fascist to force older people to buy absolute shit for $450/month that only covers 60-70% of actual expenses.

[Enthusiast]

244. +1 nt

[mzmolly]

268. Yes and in the Netherlands the rich and poor pay the same, as they do in Switzerland.

And the penalty for non compliance is 130% of the premium the Netherlands. In some ways, our system is better.

BTW, 100 euros is about 145 dollars and that's far more than the poor in the US can afford.

[dysfunctional press]

183. so committing political suicide is the answer?

but then- it's not really suicidal for the individuals. for the people that are supposed to be our representatives, it's a win-win-win scenario- even if voter outrage causes them to lose their next round of insurance-money financed elections- they'll have a high-payed corporate lobbyist gig just waiting for them. life is good.

[mzmolly]

207. I don't think it is political suicide. And, I'm hopeful that the committee process

will make the bill more palatable to progressives.

[dysfunctional press]

211. what committee process...?

from what i understand, the house has pretty much been told take it or leave it as far as reconciling their bill with the senate bill, as ANY changes would endanger it's chances of passage in the senate.

as for the political suicide part- wait and watch. most americans haven't even started to pay attention, and mandates don't generally sit well with many of them.

[mzmolly]

212. That's not my understanding at all.

What I gather is that the P.O. is being down played in case we can't get it in the end. Further, I think Bill Clinton is right that when this bill passes, Dems and Obama will increase in the polls. We'll have our work cut out explaining the mandate, however.

[dysfunctional press]

213. time will tell.

but i think that you're being a little overly and unjustifiably optimistic- just because you're being handed a HUGH pile of shit- it doesn't necessarily mean that there's must be a pony in there somewhere.

[mzmolly]

218. I see the positives in this bill

for those with pre-existing conditions, regardless.

Peace

[dysfunctional press]

219. most americans may see things much differently.

like i said- time will tell.

but crappy coverage that you can't afford anyway isn't worth much.

one mistake i think that the dems made early on- ignorantly thinking that because people are happy to HAVE insurance, that it somehow means that they're happy WITH their insurance. most of the people who i talk to think that their insurance sucks- but that it's better than having no insurance at all. those people will be looking for something in this bill- and there won't be anything for them.
and there's a pretty good chunk of electorate in that boat.

[mzmolly]

222. We agree on this ~

time will tell. Peace :hi:

[eridani]

226. That's a big joke. They'll find lots of excuses for denying coverage

Bad credit records, for one thing.

[mzmolly]

267. That's the joke. Auto insurance

perhaps. Health insurance, no.

[Marr]

190. Bullshit.

They're making massive profits, and driving up the cost of care. Mandates are a handout to a bloated, broken industry-- nothing more. It might be acceptable to mandate coverage if you have a strong government option available, but without that, it's nothing but a handout.

Besides, if health insurance companies can't stay afloat without banning the sick, then the for-profit health insurance industry is inherently impractical and should go the way of the dinosaur. If they can't perform their basic function without having the government prop them up with mandates, then the government should just do their job for them. I don't see why insurance industry profits should even be a consideration.

[mzmolly]

208. I do hope we end up with a strong public option.

I wouldn't consider profits, if the insurance industry was not in the mix. But they are. We don't have a single payer system in the US. We may never have such a system.

[Enthusiast]

245. I agree about insurance industry profits.

Because the insurance 'industry' doesn't produce anything. They are wholly an ethereal construct designed to separate us from our money.

[austin78704]

229. That's why I'm all for single payer

Our insurance-based model is crap now and what it takes to make it functional is enormously expensive.

OTOH, single payer costs less overall, causes fewer headaches, doesn't need as much paperwork, and actually covers everyone. As a bonus we don't have to watch a hand full of asshole CEOs suck down million-dollar paychecks while the people who paid that money die of cancer.

The "reform" we have now is a very bad fix. We are all mandated to pay insurance companies, but insurance companies are not mandated to provide comprehensive care or control costs.

[CTyankee]

31. No, I think they DO understand it...they just don't understand WHY it is important.

However, you could point out to them that everybody pays into Social Security (barring some pension situation). We all go along with it because we know our parents and grandparents will benefit and later we will benefit. The privatization argument fell apart with the financial meltdown in the fall of 08 and throughout that disaster SS checks were still being deposited in peoples' bank accounts...

[mzmolly]

37. That's an excellent point.

I can't afford to pay into social security, but I do.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. 2.5% of your income goes to SS. Helluva lot less than this health insurance.

Even people barely above the poverty Medicaid limit will be paying 4% of their income for the premiums and will face at least some out of pockets.

[CTyankee]

80. They are two different programs. With SS, money comes in via taxes and goes

out with issuance of a benefit check. Maybe I'm wrong but I see the health care legislation as a lot more complicated, with lots of different payees and a web of insurance companies. It makes sense that the latter is more expensive. Which of course brings us back to the logical place we SHOULD be in: Single Payer!:banghead:

[Hello_Kitty]

84. I hear ya.

I support single payer for purely pragmatic reasons. It's not a pony for me. It's the fairest and most cost-effective way to achieve universal health care.

[Truth2Tell]

156. None of my Social Security withholding

is being diverted to the profits of private corporations.

[Enthusiast]

249. Until, that is, THEY

get started reforming SS.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Oh, cristalmighty

of course we do! The apologists' incessant meme of "you don't understand how it works" rings so hollow on a site such as this. Most DUers are extremely aware of "how it works" and can see perfectly well when they're getting scammed. Quit insulting us as being stupid just because we don't blindly follow anything with the "correct" letter next to it.

[mzmolly]

57. Actually, I advocated "no public option, no mandate" not long ago.

However, when I personally thought about how insurance companies are going to be mandated to cover people with pre-existing conditions and how they can't do that, unless we spread the risk pool I realized we can't have one mandate, without the other. That said, I'd prefer single payer, but that simply isn't happening anytime soon.

[grahamhgreen]

96. It's not a choice - it's a freaking mandate!

[mzmolly]

120. A mandate, or NO insurance reform

thus the "choice" notation.

[grahamhgreen]

136. Here is the choice - a public option or no mandate.

[mzmolly]

144. I'd love a public option, but we don't have 60 Senators

who will vote accordingly. So, if we want a public option, it may have to be added in via reconciliation?

That said, states can opt to create a public option with federal funding if they so choose. So, in essence we have a public option, but it's an opt in vs. an opt out.

[rudy23]

153. When did Bush need 60 votes to get anything done?

And don't tell me it's b/c Obama won't twist arms, b/c he's done plenty of that on the Progressive side.

[mzmolly]

160. I'm glad Obama is not

Bush. That said, the legislation is too massive to pass via reconciliation. Doing so would make it temporary. I do think we should expand on the bill, once it passes and add a public option via reconciliation.

[grahamhgreen]

168. Let's expand Medicare BEFORE we give big insurance our kids college fund.

[grahamhgreen]

162. If the House progressive caucus keeps their promise, we don't have the votes for a bill without

a public option.

So, which is easier, getting 2 senators to vote for the public's best interest, or getting 79 house members to vote to kill any chance of real reform in the USA for the rest of all time?

And then, if the bill fails, like you say, we can just expand Medicare in reconciliation!

[mzmolly]

199. I'm all for taking what we can get in the progressive sense via

reconciliation. I like your idea!

Ed Schultz had a guest on tonight from The Hill who suggested a similar strategy. He said we can threaten to cap drug prices or add the anti-trust provision to the final bill or we'll take the public option as a compromise. He stated big pharma/insurance feared the first two far more than the public option.

:hi:

[Lorien]

122. "The choices "we" have to make"?

The people already MADE their choice: they wanted Change, they overwhelmingly supported a strong Public Option, but their representatives didn't listen to them, they listened to the money.

[mzmolly]

128. I didn't vote for a public option, per se. I voted in favor of

universal health care. I knew it would have to be paid for. Granted I hoped the Obama plan would be adopted, but that's not how it played out in the Senate. We got a plan closer to the Clinton plan (sans the public option) but I would have supported her Presidency as well, so I can't complain too much.

[grahamhgreen]

137. Here is the plan you will get - we will be forced to buy insurance; big insurance will make trillion

trillions; they will use the money to create a system even worse than it is today; we will all be screwed in a major way. thanks a lot.

[mzmolly]

143. Gotta say,

I fully disagree.

Have you seen the calculator at the Kaiser Institute?

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[grahamhgreen]

163. Here's the calculation they don't want you to see

45 million new customers

x $375/month

= $202,500,000/year

= $ 1 Trillion, 100 Billion dollars every five years!


They will take their profits from this and crush any vestigial reform that is currently in the bill (buy buying more senators), then increase their profits and crush any chance of any future reform for all time.

It's a no-brainer if you look at it from their side!

[mzmolly]

204. Which should mean we have some leverage

regarding a public option.

[bread_and_roses]

275. You really think $4500 yr affordable for family 4 gross $56000 for instance?

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Actual annual plan premium: $9797
(age factor = ) (I put in age 42, just at random)
Cap on premium as % of income: 8.2%
Person/family premium payment: $4586
% of total premium paid by person/family: 47%
Person/family payment as % of income: 8.2%
Government subsidy: $5212

That's roughly $382 month. Right. Tell a family of four trying to make it on $56,000 yr gross that they have to come up with nearly $400 month in insurance premiums or face a fine. Right, that's going to be real popular.

Meanwhile, over $5000 will come from government subsidies - ie, "our tax $" as the RWingers like to say about everything they don't like. And in this case, progressives too are screaming, since some unknown but substantial % of that is going into insurance execs pockets as "profit."

This is insane. It's politically insane as well as corrupt.

[Enthusiast]

251. They will use their bloated

profit to further control the legislative process.

[coti]

13. Then you have to give people a public option.

Otherwise, you're digging yourself deeper into the already broken system.

That's the final point of logic in that line of reasoning.

[Davis_X_Machina]

26. The only passable public option would not be any cheaper, and if one set...

...of CBO numbers are to be taken at face value, slightly more expensive, than any private products offered on an exchange.

But because it's public, it will be acceptable to purchasers, and similarly-priced, or lower-priced private products will not?

[CTyankee]

34. Your question is spot on. People won't really differentiate between the two.

People like government only slightly more than they do health insurance companies, IMO. The folks we're talking about here will bitch about anything they are forced to do by anybody...

[clear eye]

188. For one it would be unlikely to declare an effective treatment

"experimental" or "elective" just when you need it to regain your quality of life, or to save your life. For another it won't threaten to hit you w/ 300% higher premiums b/c it won't cover what you need forcing you to have to change insurers while w/ a "pre-existing condition". So potentially, yes.

[highplainsdem]

16. As a number of people commenting on Krugman's blog pointed out, subsidizing premiums isn't enough

to provide real health care reform if the out of pocket expenses are still high enough that people won't be able to use that insurance.

It's a great way to subsidize the insurance companies, though.

[mzmolly]

51. Do you have a list of what the out of pocket expenses will be under the new plan?

To my understanding there will be different plans to choose from.

[Kermitt Gribble]

201. Does it matter?

If people can't afford insurance premiums now, how can you expect them to afford any out of pocket expenses?

I'm in this situation. My employer offers insurance at $220 - 250/month. I can't afford the premiums, but according to the Kaiser calculator, I am not eligible for subsidies. So my options are pay insurance premiums through my employer (and not be able to afford to use the insurance) and starve, or pay a fine. Great options, huh?

[mzmolly]

205. Same options I

have. I understand. I can't afford insurance, either. But I don't feel it's a choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Paul Krugman is a Villager who lives in a million dollar condo

He doesn't know jack squat about the day-to-day lives of ordinary working Americans. He knows as much about what is "affordable" to the average person as he does about the surface of the moon.

If you're going to mandate people get insurance you need to put the appropriate cost controls and regulations in place BEFORE you put the mandate in.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. That's right: as much as I like Paul Krugman, he is:

1. A Princeton University professor (excellent salary and benefits)

2. A Nobel prize winner (more money in his bank account)

3. A noted author and lecturer (still more money in his bank account)

A person like that is inevitably out of touch with the lives of average Americans unless he makes a special effort to be otherwise (He should get out among ordinary people as his colleague Bob Herbert does. Herbert has become my absolute favorite NYT columnist. He gets it).

[eilen]

258. What's a Villager?

I keep seeing that term around in different cases and can't get a handle on it. One place I saw it referred to someone being "village" as being like a bumpkin, not urban/cool, another I saw referred to actual villagers in regard to a school funding measure (the "villagers" ie people who live in the village, votes down a measure to close a school in the village as they wish their kids to continue to walk to school and not be bussed while the larger district (town in which the district resides) finds that population is greater in the outlying suburbs ad nauseum... ) and I saw in the the context of "The Villagers" in regard to those planned communities in Florida in which the population tends to be conservative and part-time residents but insist on imposing their political agenda on the locals.

None of which seem to apply in the case of Krugman. To me, he seems a cheerleader for the administration.

[HuckleB]

30. +1

Ain't it great that people are getting upset because they only have part of the story?

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Single Payer is not the actual question now

If mandate is essential, then profit must be forbidden. As it is in all of our peer nations that mandate insurance rather than have single payer. We would be the only to mandate for profit products.
Your argument works for the 'mandate' part, but it does not explain what the need is for profit from the delivery of basic health care.

[glitch]

53. Crucial point that proponents never acknowledge let alone address. nt

[CTyankee]

87. I wish we could have a debate on that question: what is the need for profit from the delivery

of basic health care?

I would like to see a RWinger debate that from the "free market" point of view.

[clear eye]

189. They'd say they need investors and investors demand profits.

Why they need investors when they have premiums and don't actually produce anything themselves escapes me. Maybe it's to be able to afford to buy Congress?

[Cronus Protagonist]

152. Ding Ding Ding - You hit it right on the nose

Why are the people being mandated to send our money to shareholders and corporate officers of a for-profit corporation? Is it so that we can all have affordable health care? That cannot be the intention because it will only be affordable if we remove the profit motive and corporation have only one motive, generate ever more increasing profits for their shareholders. It's the investor class sucking at the teat of the working class. The 21st century version of ROBBER BARONS.

[backscatter712]

33. Single payer has an individual mandate by definition.

It's called a "tax".

[Hello_Kitty]

39. And it's a lot less than premiums and out of pockets for most people. eom

[laughingliberal]

38. The political realities are of no concern to the average voter who follows not

the ins and outs of the debate. All they will see is a bill they hate. A lot of what gets passed is not noticed by the typical low information voter and the effects do damage in subtle ways that fly under the radar screen safely out of their sight. That will not be the case with this.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Yep. And the average voter has no idea who Paul Krugman is

And wouldn't give a shit what he thinks about it anyway..

[JVS]

47. The average voter is the political reality.

[rudy23]

65. The DLC has tried to tell us the avg voter likes the bill, when really, they don't know about it yet

Everyone I talked to was furious, and could not believe we would pass a bill in American that forced us to buy private insurance. They REALLY couldn't believe Obama would support something like this.

I think that until the day he signs the bill, the average voter isn't going to accept the reality of what's in this bill. They think we're just being pessimistic, and are in that first stage of denial that we started in on a few months ago.

[JVS]

71. The reason they can't believe it is because the president and the DLC are to the right of most...

Americans on health care. This conflicts with their idea that since they are at the center of the spectrum, the Democrats are supposed to be to their left.

[Davis_X_Machina]

110. Massachusetts has a mandate now.

Complete with penalties for non-compliance. It's popular now. Both houses on Beacon Hill have identical Democratic majorities, before and after passage -- the governorship did turn over, but from R to D. The jails aren't full of protesters. The state's population actually has increased slightly since passage.

But mandates are the end of the world.

[laughingliberal]

119. I have heard a lot of carping out of MA as this bill shaped up to be more like the MA model

The number one complaint I hear is people are paying monthly premiums to have policies with out of pocket costs so high the can't use them. That is the major concern I have for what I see shaping up here. Plans which will take a percentage of people's income every month and still leave them with (depending on what level of coverage they purchase) $5000-11,900 in out of pocket expenses if they get sick. I would imagine the MA plan is popular with some but a killer for the people who live paycheck to paycheck. I had a response to a post here a couple of weeks ago where the poster was shocked that I was so poor after years of working as an RN. She had a relative in MA who makes $100,000 per year as an RN. The average pay for RN's where I live is $60,000-70,000. Wages are low here but housing is expensive. And the subsidy qualifications are based on FPL which has never taken into account regional differences in the cost of living.

[rudy23]

126. As my friend understood it, it would be like the govt giving them $50 in food stamps, then mandating

they buy their monthly groceries at Whole Foods.

ETA--that's a pretty bad metaphor, b/c as you said, a lot of times the subsidies aren't even enough to make partial treatment worthwhile.

[Davis_X_Machina]

171. It's carping. Why does repeal poll so badly? Why aren't the antis...

...polling over 40%?

I've got two MA brothers (Plymouth, Rockland) with pre-existing conditions, one an independent contractor, and the other working for a tiny non-profit, who were unable to get anything at any price (back issues, diabetes) without the program. Both have families.

It's been a life-saver.

[laughingliberal]

232. I have said before one group who may see substantial benefit from this bill

is the group of people who can afford insurance but are denied due to preexisting conditions. And I did point out the wage difference between MA and where I live. The nurse's salary that was quoted to me by one of her relatives was $40,000 a year more than any of the 4 states I have lived in. So, 40% are against it in MA and many areas of the country are much poorer than MA. I don't think this will be popular.

[eridani]

227. It fucking well isn't popular among actual sick people of modest means

They are being killed off, and the healthy majority doesn't give a shit because it isn't happening to them.

[Lilith Velkor]

290. The Massachusetts plan has a public option. n/t

[quakerboy]

41. How about this:

Insurance companies have over the course of too many years, established their ability to thrive financially. The only system that needed a mandate for success was the public option. Which there seemed to be 51-58 senators for, depending on how hard the PTB were going to push for it.

No PO, no Mandate. Obama campaigned against a mandate. Now its on him to follow through.

[TheKentuckian]

76. There no universal coverage anyway

and then there is simply the structural issue of how this particular incarnation of a mandate will work. I won't sit here and claim that ANY mandate would be welcomed with open arms but one could pitch it if we weren't feeding our citizens into a predatory market oriented monopoly without individual choice.

Its not like we can point out an open exchange that covers one and all with serious price controls as a counter balance. We are telling most people they have to take whatever their work offers at about any price or pay a fine that still buys no coverage.

[grahamhgreen]

95. Davis - there is no universal coverage even with the crap mandate that crushes the working poor.PLUS

The way you get single-payer is Obama goes on the TV and out on the internet and says "I need a million people in DC next week for a march for single-payer". DONE.

[Fumesucker]

97. Now go and explain that to people who actively *avoid* political knowledge..

Practically everyone I know IRL utterly hates hearing about politics and goes out of their way to avoid it.

Go and explain your "inside baseball" point to every single one of them, I'm certainly not about to try.

These people just watched a black man with an Islamic sounding name get elected POTUS, trying to tell them how bad a politician Obama is does not meet the "huh?" test..

[grahamhgreen]

102. Big crapsurance is going to take the Trillions you give them and crush all the real reform in the

bill.

How naive do you have to be not to see that coming?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

107. Single Payer is a Mandate

Medicare and Medicaid are Single-Payer systems. I pay for that every two weeks out of my payroll taxes and I DON'T GET ANY FRIGGIN' CHOICE ON THE MATTER even though I don't qualify for either one and get no benefit from it.

So you can pay to the government for a government-administered plan or you can pay to a private company for a goverment-regulated plan.

You're going to pay either way. A Mandate is a Mandate is a Mandate.

[noiretextatique]

157. this bill is essentially mandating profits for private companies

that's nothing like the payroll taxes the government withholds from your check. last time i checked, neither social security or medicare exist solely to extract dollars from your pocket.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

175. Gasoline taxes....

Pay to build highways. Nearly all of them are built by private contractors (city and state road crews to minor repairs, but typically NOT the actual construction).

So you gasoline taxes create profits for private companies. Don't own a car? You pay for it every time you ride in a cab or have a pizza delivered.

[TheBigotBasher]

172. One is out of taxation based on how much you earn

the other is a charge, and while there are subsidies, those subsidies introduce new poverty traps. If your pay increases, the cost of your health care increases far beyond your pay increase.

[Kansas Wyatt]

113. Anyone with any spine would get 60 Senators.

I do not give a shit if they had to be pulled to the back room, have their arm twisted up around their pencil neck, and told, 'Look you wormy little fucking toad... The American People have already decided this in the last election and you will represent the American People on this. I will make it my personal fucking mission to crawl up your ass with a microscope and expose all your fucking secrets if you put up a fight. And if you manage to worm your way out of that spotlight, I will find someone to primary and/or run against you in your state. The fucking bullshit ends now or you will be remembered as a permanent stain on American History.'

Do not tell me those bastards cannot be put in their place, by the most powerful man in the world. After all, it worked very well for the Village Idiot in his American destruction project. It's only fair to use those powers for the American People for a "change."

A great speaker stood at a microphone and said 'ENOUGH' and received thunderous applause and cheers from the American People. The American People have been waiting for the reckoning behind 'ENOUGH,' but they've only seen more of the same.

[TheKentuckian]

197. While, I'm extremely bitter on profitcare I think you're wrong in the premise

that anyone with a spine could get 60 Senators, its far from that simple and even LBJ for all of his arm twisting prowess couldn't wrangle every Democrat. The Republican masquerading as Democrats don't care what the fuck Obama says because he has no pull in there areas and others are so far from elections that they'll take their chances and keep the corporate gravy train rolling.

My problem is more of not going all out and being willing to put any obstructionist on frontstreet so the people could be unleashed on them and a general defference to high rollers and their wants.
Fighting and losing is better than rolling over and losing but calling it a win.

[Kansas Wyatt]

266. He promised to change how business was done in Washington.

You cannot tell me that these self absorbed pricks do not have skeletons in their closets. I guarantee you that every single one of them can be brought to their knees... Even a few Republicans.

We watched Bush use dirty tactics against the American People for 8 years, so it is only right that what was fair for them then, is fair for the American People now.

[Raineyb]

133. But what was passed was the mandate without the public option

so it's forcing people to become "customers" of the insurance companies with little reign on what they're allowed to do; the worse of both worlds. This is a recipe for failure. It's one thing to have a mandate and pay for a single payer system by a tax that everyone pays (with said tax being a percentage of everyone's income) it's another to tell people you must pay for insurance to these companies whose job it is to deny you care. Meanwhile, you still allow insurance companies to weasel out of paying claims and there are co-pays and deductibles which will cost the people more on top of the insurance premiums. This is what's going on in Massachusetts and it's not working there. Why are we copying the proven failed system and ignoring systems that work in other countries and has for years?

[TheBigotBasher]

173. Fifty easily

60 no. And there rests the problem. The Bush Dog Democrats used every method of blackmail to strip the bill of the good, because they knew that they had 40 Republican votes to count on. They acted as political terrorists.

There should be a consequence for this.

[Odin2005]

215. Well fuck Krugman then. Shame on him for saying that ends justify the means

Mandating that I buy the product of a CORPORATION is Fascist Economics and is WRONG no matter what the reason for it is.

[sendero]

242. Krugman ..

... is absolutely correct here. Where he is NOT CORRECT is in claiming that this bill, with no public option and hence no real cost-containment solution, is a good bill.

IT DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKWIT'S DIFFERENCE IF THIS WAS THE "BEST BILL WE COULD PASS", IF IT IS NOT A NET POSITIVE IT IS A MISTAKE NOT ONLY FOR THE PARTY BUT FOR THE COUNTRY.

[CoffeeCat]

9. I am seeing the same thing among my "Obama friends"...

I was a precinct captain for Obama, and several of us became good friends. I went
to a lot of Obama parties and met so many Obama supporters. Most were Progressives, and
some Independents, but curiously--about 20 percent were people who had voted for Bush and were very
upset with the corruption and the endless wars.

So, they wanted "change" and were voting for Obama.

These people are on my Facebook. I've also spoke with many of them.

Every single one of these former Obama precinct captains--is beyond unhappy. They
feel betrayed, disgusted and totally baffled.

This is so screwed up. How in the world are we going to hold onto the White House in 2012
and not get creamed in 2010 with these dynamics playing out?

The Progressives are upset, Indies who could go either way are unhappy and disenfranchised
Republicans who went for Obama are totally lost.

I don't get, what in the hell Obama thinks he is doing. Sure, the corporations will strong-arm
you and intimidate you into giving them what they want--but how in the world do you ever expect
to be elected again?

We had it all...about a year ago, and now we're just frittering it away.

[billyoc]

22. You'll hold the White House in '12, but by that time Obama will wish he stayed out of politics.

'10 and '12 will be, shall we say, interesting for the DCCC/DSCC.

[DisgustedInMN]

29. Your post, in many ways..

... echos what I'm seeing. The stage is set for a Dem massacre in '10 and again in '12. I'm so disheartened I can hardly find the words to express how big of disappointment Obama has been for me.

I hold out a faint hope that perhaps he'll become the CHANGE he promised, but it fades more with each passing day and each of the policy CHANGES he has turned his back on.

[inna]

40. +1. You just described my feelings:

"betrayed, disgusted and totally baffled."

"I don't get, what in the hell Obama thinks he is doing."


Exactly. There is a certain element of disbelief and almost surreality to it.

I mean, I always knew that Obama was not a "progressive" and didn't have very high expectations, but I expected him to be a solid centrist, maybe like Clinton. These days, I almost wonder if someone kidnapped the real Obama, and if he is some body clone chanelling/possessed by Bush... :shrug: I'm exaggerating of course, but there is definitely a surreal element to it. I simply didn't expect this from Obama.

[eilen]

260. I just expected him to sane

and to fix the crazy shit, the surrealist stuff I usually encounter in dystopic science fiction novels. Instead, he continues the crazy shit and introduces more. WTF? It makes me wonder if those Agorists are on to something.

[Edweird]

78. +1 That about sums it up.

[krabigirl]

109. Same here...and these were the people who found it odd that I never supported him.

(except to vote in the election.) He always struck me as quite authoriarian and leaned too much to the right, but everyone loved him so apparently the problem was with me. I voted him in and will still never vote Republican....i mean Obama is right-leaning, but he's not INSANE like they are.

[CoffeeCat]

121. I voted for Obama because he was a Constitutional Scholar...

...and because he promised that one of the first things he would do--is restore Habeas Corpus.

Restoring Habeas was included in his "Blueprint For America."

I knew Obama wasn't a blazing liberal. I really didn't give a damn about any social issues--not even healthcare. My
feeling was--if we don't get our frickin democracy returned to "We The People" then we've got nothing. If the
entire foundation is crumbling, who cares how the kitchen is decorated?

Unfortunately, Obama went farther to the right on ensuring that Habeas was dead--farther than Bush.

He and his Justice Department fought reinstating Habeas in the courts. They really went to the mat to ensure
that it is DEAD.

Sad. Really sad.

[Enthusiast]

257. It is looking more and more

as if this was all part of some grand scheme. My question is, was this to designed to discredit the Democratic Party as thoroughly as the Republican Party has been? Or, was this designed to fill the coffers of the greedy? Both?

[CoffeeCat]

276. You bring up an interesting point...

...about what this means for the Democratic party.

Do you get the feeling that the parties don't matter anymore? Do you also get the feeling that the politicians
really don't care about party anymore--except when they need voters in those parties to get elected?

I think the politicians--both Dems and Reps--have their own "party" going on with the corporations. The
corporations donate to the politicians...the politicians craft legislation (and in some cases prevent
legislation) which is payback to the corporations. The corporations make billions off of this favorable
legislation, which is funneled back to the politicians...and so on and so on.

That is the game. You don't play by the rules--well, there goes your campaign funds and you lose power.

They're all playing this game. As time goes on, it's apparent that they no longer care that we know.
Their game is such a way of life, that when the mask starts slipping off--they no longer bother putting
it back on.

The Democratic party always fought against corruption. Our basic platform was helping the poor, the workers
and the disadvantaged. This corruption began with the Republicans--who favored corporations. However, it
has spread into the Democratic party and engulfed it. The DLC built the bridge from the Republican corruption
to the Democratic party.

So, I don't think they're trying to "destroy" the Dem party as you said. I think it's been destroyed for a while now.
I think they're just hiding the reality less and less.

[Enthusiast]

283. I cannot say I disagree. nt

[Mari333]

11. yes, my brothers who are both ron paulists but usually vote gop

are using this as their talking points to get people to vote against democrats.
and its working.
talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[OHdem10]

17. I hope the President and Congress think long and hard about

passing this bill.

Bill Clinton did not get HCR and went on to serve 2 terms.

What is a win if you lose large numbers in House and Senate.
It is an empty win.

[rudy23]

45. What's bad is that it's harder to argue against the Paulites nowadays.

I hate when Obama makes them think they're right about their anti-government talking points, when it's people who don't reflect our ideology at all who are sullying the government.

But it really is hard to defend this to people who think we should just scrap the government and start over. I cannot think of ANYONE who this bill would appeal to outside of Washington DC. It's an insider's bill, and they're not even TRYING to sell this to the people anymore.

[Tim01]

72. I wonder if the repubs will use this to take back control

and then just throw out health care reform all together.

[Kansas Wyatt]

117. The Republicans will KEEP the mandates...

But they will gut funding to anything in it that actually helps people.

That is the only thing this SHIT Bill is being set up for, and the Republicans are going to use it to make people hate anything to do with 'government help' over the free market.

[Tim01]

124. Oh, hell. You're right.

Govt. forcing people to purchase stuff from the corporations. There is no way the repubs would put a stop to that.

The company store of America. Pretty accurate actually.

[JVS]

248. Actually there is some rumbling about that issue among republicans

It seems that Gingrich and the Teabaggers want a firm commitment to scrap the entire thing. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=99448&mesg_id=99448

[Kansas Wyatt]

262. I've been saying for the last few years....

That the old Company Store has been transformed into our new Corporate Government Store, with the merger of Corporate America with the U.S. Government.

It's just like the old Company Store, but now it has the power of the U.S. Government behind it, because they turned around the New Deal against the American People and set up a regressive (add up all taxes together) tax system. Now they are mandating people to buy from the new Corporate Government Store or the U.S. Government is coming after you.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Well the supporters of the bill here have some excellent talking points you can use on them:

"Stop whining!"

"It's JUST like car insurance!"

"Sometimes we need to rearrange things in our lives in order for there to be a just society" - DUer to another DUer who said she faced a $700 a month premium if the bill passes.

"People can go out to eat and to the movies less and take fewer vacations. It's so irresponsible not to have health insurance!"

[rudy23]

19. LOL-for some reason my friends didn't respond when I called them Hamshirite, Kucinich worshippers.

They didn't know who either of those people were.

Then they started asking me if I was really serious when I said they'd all be forced to buy insurance (they didn't believe me--thought I was being overly cynical of Obama).

[court jester]

50. Just think how happy they'll be when you tell them they have to prove coverage to the IRS

You know, attach a handy little piece of certified paper to their
1040's. Or they'll face a fine. And IRS harassment. Yessir I kin
hear the sound of back slapping, lol. And don't forget to mention
that "help" = *credits*s on next years filing.

Oh, and when you explain that every single visit to a doctor
and every single detail about your personal health history like
what drugs you've been prescribed and how many heart attacks
you've had will be stored in various computers in DC and
available to anyone with a health password they'll
probably offer to wash your car or do your laundry or something

Whoo Hooo We gotta Win!! Go RahmItAgain Baby!


Hey Come on, It's Funny!

[rudy23]

54. What's more popular than insurance companies, the IRS, and Totalitarian governments?

Isn't it great how Obama can bring people together from both sides of the aisle and get things done?

[Yuugal]

132. Don't worry

It will be easier to fix up that crumbling foundation AFTER we build a huge house on it. All you people who insisted on rebar will be proven wrong in a few years...... :banghead:

[varelse]

194. Touche

That's been driving me nuts for a while.

[area51]

21. Yes, the excuses of rightwingers on DU are amazing, aren't they?

You can't have a mandate without regulation of insurance company prices and a public option; this is political suicide orchestrated by DINOs.

[ixion]

28. yeah, or the can just call the person

a wingnut, or a operative or tell them how stupid they are, like the GOP-DLC'ers have been doing.

[Blasphemer]

56. LOL... nt

[Odin2005]

216. The number of posters defending FASCIST ECONOMICS is disgusting.

That is essentially what these justifications of the Mandate are "Fascist-Corporatist means is OK as long as it's for good ends".

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!

[NashVegas]

18. That's Nothing. Just Wait

Until the women in your family find out what they're in for, particularly if they're in a red state.

Basically, the HCR in its present form is a de facto over-turning of Roe v Wade. Companies that provide abortion coverage can be disqualified from receiving subsidies in the house version, in the senate it's just a pain in the ass.

[Odin2005]

217. Yep, disgusting!

:grr:

[JVS]

23. It's good to know that the "centrists" in the Senate made this bill so appealing to your "centrists"

[ixion]

24. I've talked to quite a few people from the left, right and center about this

and I've heard no one support mandated insurance. Quite the opposite. There is palpable anger and disappointment.

[dkf]

44. I busted my ass off for a candidate who became a rep.

Every day waving signs, every weekend dropping off literature, manning phone banks, donating funds. He wins the seat. I am ecstatic I made a difference. Then he decides he wants to run for senate against one of our elderly beloved and well liked senators. My former rep lost in a landslide.

He threw away all my time and all my effort. . Now I say forget him.

Obama is on this same path. He is throwing away majorities we achieved by suffering through George W Bush with a loser of a bill accepting the one provision he campaigned against. Remember the mandate was hillarys idea and Obama argued against it. Someone said this bill will ensure democratic majorities for the next forty years. I was incredulous. I lol at that

All for naught for a piece of crap legislation. Losing seats as far as the eye can see. I am beyond upset at this hairbrained move.

[BeFree]

49. yeah

We got the same kind of response when we passed the civil rights act. And social security, Medicare, etc.

Funny how they don't complain that they are forced to support bombing Afghanistan and Iraq.

But help poor people get access to health care? Bahhumbug!!

They are fools, and it is your job to defool them. Get busy, rudy.

[rudy23]

58. So, because it's extremely unpopular, it's like the Civil Rights Act?

That is truly some of the worst logic I have ever heard.

And actually, they did complain that they were forced to bomb Iraq. Some of them.

I don't think they're the fools here. And I don't think this bill gives poor people access to healthcare without hurting the middle class and elderly. Most of my friends who were upset with this bill are left-leaning, but largely apolitical, and lower middle class. I don't know where to start educating them, because I agree that this bill hurts them. Maybe you could educate me.

[BeFree]

61. Basically

There are still uninsured people.

Now they can go to the ER and get bent over the table.

And who pays the ER bill? Potentially it is free to the patient so the Gov and ER split the bill. That's the system we have.

With the HCR now, at least there will be many free clinics set up and paid for by the gov. Now the ERs won't have to split the bill. The ERs will be somewhat off the hook and patients might get better care.

BeFree, trying to make lemonade out of a lemon.

[rudy23]

66. I hear you. I've tried to make that lemonade many times, myself.

The problem is, the people who usually carp about paying for people to use the ER are conservatives who believe that Obama is passing this bill so he can commandeer the insurance companies under his big-government umbrella.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. The cost of caring for the uninsured is greatly exaggerated

First, health care providers, and ERs are notorious for this, will jack up the rates on uninsured patients big time. A procedure that costs $4k to a person with insurance will often carry a $16k price tag for an uninsured person. Second, people have been led to believe that uninsured patients just stick the hospitals with their bills and walk away. Not true. They put you on a payment plan for that $16k and ruin your credit and hound you if you don't pay it. Most of them do pay it off. If you can't pay the whole thing they write the rest of the inflated bill off as a "loss" and then they and the insurance cos. boo hoo about how it's all the fault of the uninsured that everything is so expensive.

[BeFree]

81. boo hooo

That is a problem, eh?

Now, when everyone is insured the bill will be at the $4,000 level?
And people won't be hounded and there will be no more 'loss'?

This is the foundation to universal care, imo.

[Hello_Kitty]

86. Um no.

They'll find another reason to claim they need more money. With a captive market of subsidized clients, they can jack rates up to the sky now.

[BeFree]

91. ok

Just replying to your example of the dif from 4g to 16g.

The Ins cos can do that now: claim more money.

I see the HCR as the foundation to begin universal care and the gov regulation of the Ins. cos.

You have a better idea?

[laughingliberal]

250. One better idea might have been to include some enforcement mechanism for the regulations

but they didn't. The regulations are pretty weak as it is but, without an enforcement mechanism, they're completely worthless.

[eilen]

265. Maybe there should have been two bills

One bill reforming health insurance companies, stopping things like rescission and putting on some price controls or set in place public insurance boards like they have public utility boards.

Another bill funding more public health centers so those uninsured or uninsurable have a safe place they can go with sliding fees. One that provides for those who need surgeries and cancer treatment who are unceremoniously dropped by insurance companies without insisting they must sell their home and all their possessions in order to qualify for it. It can be modeled on a single payor delivery system but does not require everyone to participate. They can use member fees, increased income taxes and surcharges on health insurance companies to fund them. They can also offer the option for people to buy into medicare (subsidized per income levels) for those self employed and use the medicare system for tracking and quality improvement.

For instance, I know a girl who is a home health aide. She makes about $8 an hour helping elderly people stay out of nursing homes, ostensibly saving her clients from needing to sell all their possessions and spend them down to qualify for medicaid, and ultimately saving the government thousands and thousands of dollars in medicaid payments. She gets a tumor in her uterus. Her surgeon demands $1700 up front to remove it. The hospital cost is $24,000 and she was there less than 24 hours. The surgeon used one of those Da Vinci robots. The use of that cut down on hospital inpatient time. She had 24 days in which she could not work post op. I thought advances in technology were supposed to reduce health care costs. To me it seems like they have increased and are arbitrary. She found that even if she married her boyfriend and went on his insurance, it would not be covered. Even if she left her job and went on medicaid, it would not be covered. The surgeons do no accept either insurance (medicaid nor her boyfriend's ins.) because they do not reimburse him -- don't send a check-- look for every reason not to compensate. She paid the doctor but will likely never be able to pay the hospital. The hospital is a state hospital (or they would have never allowed the procedure) and they will send the bill to the state government as a "unrecoverable cost" which, bundled with other such costs from poor patients like this one or unreimbursed medicaid bills-- the state will refund with what is commonly known in the hospital as "dish money." (I don't know if they will get dish money this year in NY with the Paterson cuts). The hospital may be required to sue her and file a judgement, ultimately selling it to a collection agency screwing her over with constant phone calls and wrecking her credit for the rest of her life. Enough to start another tumor.

[Hello_Kitty]

60. Boondoggle to health care industrial complex = Civil Rights. eom

[BeFree]

64. wrong again

Just showing how dumb the dumb are. They were dumb then they are dumb now.

Progress has a cost. And health care is not free. If all people are going to get health care there will be price to pay. How else do you pay for universal heath care if not everyone buys in?

[Hello_Kitty]

70. Gee, why don't you ask that to the architects of this bill that STILL leaves 20 million people out?

I mean, EVERYONE has to be in...I mean...except illegal immigrants. No, really, EVERYONE...uh...except people who get a hardship exemption because the premiums are too big a percent of their income.

[BeFree]

74. well

the way I see it this is the foundation being laid. What happens as the structure goes up will be determined by those who become a squeaky wheel.

[Hello_Kitty]

101. This bill is the "best" that a Democratic controlled Congress and a Dem President can come up with

I cannot for the life of me figure out where people get this conviction that it can be improved in the future. That would require Democrats maintaining control of all those bodies well into the future (not likely) and a substantial shift to the left (even less likely). There have been "squeaky wheels" for 40 years now and politicians have ignored them but always have time for corporate lobbyists to whisper sweet nothings in their ears. As soon as the bill is signed the industry will pour millions into lobbying against any further reforms and millions more into the campaigns of GOP and conserva-Dem candidates. SCOTUS is about to make corporate donations "free speech" which will magnify their power even more.

[kelly1mm]

198. They may be "dumb" as you say but they do vote. nt

[grahamhgreen]

103. We were not FORCED to buy civil rights from litigation attorneys.

[NYCGirl]

68. All of these friends are uninsured now? NT

[rudy23]

83. Many were, and some float back and forth.

Out of everyone I talked to at all the Christmas parties I've attended in the last two weeks, maybe about a third are self-employed or employed in creative fields, aged 28-50, and choose not to have insurance. Another third have insurance through employers, but don't feel stable in their careers, and might want the option to go without for a year or so if they needed to.

They weren't exactly doing backflips over the idea of subsidies b/c they didn't trust that they would kick in anytime soon, or for nearly enough to encourage them to risk a trip to the doctor's office that the subsidies wouldn't cover. There were a variety of reactions to some specifics, but absolutely no one was accepting of the mandates, and were in utter disbelief over the abortion language.

[NYCGirl]

90. Why do they choose not to have insurance?

BTW, I went without for over 10 years when I was starting and running a business. I sure would've loved more choices, and perhaps a subsidy.

[rudy23]

100. They feel invincible and live paycheck to paycheck.

To them, unless those subsidies cover 100% of their costs, it's just taking a sizable chunk out of their budget.

[CTyankee]

105. Interesting. What did these people say about what would happen if they got into an accident

and went to the ER? Had they thought that through? It's one thing to decline to go for a routine dr's visit to save a few bucks, but a full-on emergency situation can be mind bogglingly expensive.

While I understand their resistance, it is kind of self defeating at this point. They are risking a LOT with their lives and careers in the balance, the very thing you tell me they are concerned about. Life "happens" even to people who are 28-50. Accidents, early onset of cancer, diabetes and other illnesses, some of which could be chronic. Have they even considered that something like that could happen to them?

Just wondering what universe they're in...

[rudy23]

112. Have you ever lived paycheck to paycheck?

It is a gamble to be sure, but when you're on a budget, you have to take some gambles.

I don't disagree with you. I have insurance. I'm just saying, I see where they're coming from, and they're not thrilled about their situations either.

[CTyankee]

127. Well, I have lived pretty much paycheck to paycheck but during that time I

had jobs with health insurance...all of these jobs were pretty low paying as I only worked in the nonprofit area, but the health insurance at that time was a regular deal. I retired from full time work at the end of 2004 (again, from a nonprofit), and things have only gotten worse from the standpoint of health insurance in the workplace.

I can see a 28 year old taking the gamble, but the people in their 40s have got to be worried. I started having health problems in my mid 30s but they weren't chronic illnesses, just weird random stuff. My blood pressure was a problem, starting in my 40s, one of those things that can't go untreated.

Unless this issue is resolved people are going to have to really change their lifestyles and their life goals and this will require great sacrifices...

[girl gone mad]

158. In the system we have now, insurance is also a gamble.

Many people have been dropped after getting in an accident or being diagnosed with a chronic illness, because of pre-existing condition clauses or "fraud". Claims are frequently denied. My neighbor is going through bankruptcy because of a hospital bill, and she had insurance.

I understand the bill may address some of these problems, but at the same time, it gives the biggest rewards to the worst actor in the health care system. Universal insurance does not equal universal health care.

It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that the insurance companies will start acting responsibly now.

[Vinca]

69. If they don't remove the mandate, there will be a whole lot of po'd voters.

[freddie mertz]

73. What you describe is the ticking time-bomb that may end the Democratic party

For a generation.

We have to try to fix this, or we are going to be very, very sorry.

[juno jones]

196. Yep.

It's a poison pill for sure.

[Uncle Joe]

77. I see this as a train wreck on multiple levels; functionality, efficiency, economics, from a moral

standpoint and politically speaking.

Thanks for the thread, rudy.

[salguine]

79. if your friends and reasonable family think that "our supposedly left-leaning president

is about to force us all to buy shitty insurance without doing anything to really regulate or compete with private companies," maybe it's because our supposedly left-leaning president is about to force us all to buy shitty insurance without doing anything to really regulate or compete with private companies.

[rudy23]

94. LOL--agreed. I think the polls are reflecting that most people are still in denial about it.

My friends sure were. I don't think Obama's going to take a hit from the bill he signs until a month or two after our more politically disengaged friends start to realize that we're not just being pessimistic or cynical about what's actually in it.

[HughMoran]

82. low info being the key

nice setup for the 'low info' posters. :eyes:

[rudy23]

85. To me, lo-info and "centrist" are interchangeable. I totally realize my sloppy semantics.

And it's not like they're morans. They're all college educated, fairly well-read. They just totally ignore politics and the news b/c they're focused on careers, families, selves, etc.

[andym]

93. How popular is the Massachusetts' mandated health insurance?

I understand that it has similar mandates to the federal plan? Have they removed many of the legislators who passed it?

[CTyankee]

106. Massachusetts ain't Mississippi. nt

[grahamhgreen]

108. I don'r know, but it is wicked expensive and complicated....

https://wfb.dor.state.ma.us/dorcommon/tools/hcaffordability/Year2008/Index.aspx

[Davis_X_Machina]

111. Roughly 59-28% in favor

Details here.

Note the 11% for repeal....

[Kansas Wyatt]

118. Pretty big "though" in there.

"The poll found that 79 percent of those surveyed wanted the law to continue, though a majority said there should be some changes, with cost reductions cited as the single most important change that needs to be made."

[HughMoran]

130. & as is being said now about the feds bill

It's always about cost reductions. No plan - even the PO - has yet shown that it would immediately cost less in the short term. This is a long term problem and no 'back room arm twisting' or other 'quick fix' techniques are going to make the problem go away tomorrow or placate Obama's critics.

[Kansas Wyatt]

264. The solution is NOT to crawl in bed with the Insurance Industry...

Like Obama & Democrats, Inc. did with this alleged HCR Bill.

The solution has always been to put the Insurance Industry in it's fucking place... By kicking them out of the damn building.

[Hello_Kitty]

123. Here's a little detail:

In another question, residents were nearly evenly split over whether Massachusetts could afford to continue with the law as it stands: 43 percent said the state could not, and 40 percent said it could.

[Cleita]

125. Thom Hartmann said the same thing.

He said once the majority suddenly realize that they are going to have to buy something they can't afford and that doesn't really give them good health care coverage, there will be an uprising. However, if this doesn't happen until 2014, don't hold your breath expecting it until then. However, if those majority of low-information voters maintain their outrage, it could be that legislators will scramble back to the table and start making this into a better bill before it goes into effect.

[grahamhgreen]

139. Thom is wrong, IMHO. There was never even a blip about mandatory auto insurance,

and there will not be one about this.

Yes, other countries have socialized auto insurance which costs 10% of American plans.

[Cleita]

140. You don't have to drive if you don't want to get car insurance.

I have known people who have done just that in protest, using public transportation or bumming rides with friends. With this there is no choice not to buy it. You either buy or you get fined.

[grahamhgreen]

165. Yes, but the idea that people will rally for a public insurance option because they

are forced to buy insurance has been shown to be unlikely, since people have never rallied for public auto.

It has little to do with whether or not you have to buy a car - I am talking about what motivates individuals to action.

PS - I do not have a car, I bicycle. My auto insurance in Australia for 1 year in the 90's was $25 including the registration.

[clear eye]

138. I think killing the bill is better for the Dems than

passing it for the sake of having passed a HCR bill would be, despite what the cheerleaders think.

[subterranean]

141. Are most of your friends uninsured by choice?

If they already have insurance, I don't see why they'd be upset about the government making other people buy insurance. If they are uninsured because they don't want to spend money they don't have for crappy insurance they can't use, then I can understand why the mandate might upset them.

[rudy23]

142. Some were, some forsee a time soon when they'll be in between jobs.

Many work in the creative fields---where even if you're gainfully employed, you're still shuffling around between day jobs to keep a steady income flowing. So they're in the habit of letting it ride in between steady jobs, and paydays from their creative work.

[mdmc]

147. Interesting

we were talking about how the working poor have full health insurance but cannot afford medical treatment (due to out of pocket expenses not covered by the full health insurance).

[Nikki Stone1]

149. So Mary Landrieu was right: many people don't understand the bill at all.

I think Wall Street promotes and then relies upon the collective ignorance of the American people.

[TheKentuckian]

155. I'd bet that the only people that fully understand the bill

are the Finance aides and the insurance lawers they wrote it with.

[Doctor_J]

159. By low-info centrists, do you mean Limbeciles?

sounds like it.

[rudy23]

179. I mean people who generally identify as moderate Democrats and excited Obama voters.

Only a few friends I talked to identified as Republicans. And they were having a field day calling the bill Socialist, b/c it was government mandated. Even though it's on BEHALF of private companies. They were playing on the whole big government/Comrade Obama thing, b/c through their prism, it's a move on behalf of big government.

[Doctor_J]

280. If they are calling thi ssocialists, they are Limbeciles

or Oozebeckstanis, or whatever other epithet you want to use for Hate Radio/Cable "News" addicts.

[rudy23]

285. No, they're certainly not that. They just think mandates are scarily Authoritarian

And to them, Communism is a form of Authoritarianism. They also don't defend that blurring of the lines between Totalitarian Communism and Socialism, b/c the right wing has cemented that framework for decade.

Sort of the way uninformed "centrists" will often concede that the media is liberal. That's the level they're working on. When the heard about the mandates, the general reaction was, "Gee, that is pretty Communist. Why's he giving them ammo by doing something so Communist?"

[DailyGrind51]

164. Did they mind having their e-mails screened without warrants?

[rudy23]

181. I think there, they are still in "let's wait and see where he's going with this" mode

I think they know he can't look soft if we're attacked, so they give him more of a pass there. It's still a topic of conversation, and most people seemed generally disturbed about how similar we've seemed to the Bush admin on security and defense. Nothing like the shock and disbelief about mandated insurance w/ no price controls.

[amborin]

174. k&r

[bvar22]

177. AND, the Republicans did NOT have to do a thing.

The Democratic Party WILL reap the blame for THIS, and it WILL be a horrible whirlwind.

The Republicans are in the perfect position to pick up the pieces.
All they will have to do is sit back and say."Yep. We opposed this nightmare."

With this bill (primarily a Republican Bill...Mandates without a Public Option) the Democrats have done The IMPOSSIBLE.

In six short months, they have resurrected a DEAD Political Party, and given them credibility.

[varelse]

195. Yes, that's pretty much what seems to have happened

I cannot imagine how they will fix this.

[Generator]

182. I know it would never sell

unless the health CARE not insurance was guaranteed and no more going bankrupt. If it was a real deal it could sell. But it's NOT.

See the deal is-people will pay to insure their car because it's the only way they get to drive.

People insure their house because it's the only way the get to have one.

But breathing is something we have to do with or without a senaate mandate. And health CARE not insurance is a human right.

That's why it no worky in people's minds.

[greengestalt]

187. What's the income threshold and what's the fine?

I can't seem to find any actual texts...


But I've heard it's up to 4X federal poverty level that you can get health insurance free.


And, frankly, I live in a "Rural" area so while the wages suck donkey d--- the cost of living ain't that bad either.


I just wonder, if you "just pay the fine" can you then go into a hospital, the dentist and then demand reasonable care? (regular check-ups, life saving procedures, etc.) That'd actually make it cheap health insurance. That's what I noticed, the fines aren't either token fines, nor grotesque RIAA downloader lawsuit level, but something on the lines of most reasonable estimates of socialized health insurance. Perhaps they are trying to sneak that in? Get all the money from the insurance lobby, then sneak in something that whammies them with overwhelming public support.

[clear eye]

192. No.

[TheKentuckian]

206. Nope, none of that

If you make minimum wage or less you might get medicaid if you're single or maybe $10/hr if you have a family of 3 or 4.

[California Griz]

214. Not exactly snuck in more like Mona Lisa in a zig saw puzzle

If more people took the time to figure out what they have set up they might not be so upset. Some people want to bitch so bad they can't see the forest for the trees. Don't ask me to elaborate we saw what happened to the buy-in.

[Politicub]

191. No one one mentioned this during my family's xmas day dinner

And my family is quite conservative.

In terms of me bringing it up, I decided a few years ago to not broach volatile topics such as politics or religions at family functions. No one is going to change their mind based on a few hours of argument. I believe my conservative relatives do the same thing, since I know many of them harbor ideological opinion. But I also admire and respect that they adopt a live and let live attitude when the family comes together for Thanksgiving or Christmas. It's not perfect by any means, and who knows how long this unspoken agreement will last?

It could have to do with my family being a small one and wanting to keep ties between one another. And I've noticed that as I have gotten older, I value my relationships with my family more than trying to sway their opinion. I've learned that living by example is the best way to change minds - it has changed attitudes about LGBT folk at work, as one example.

[varelse]

193. Yes, the mandate is a serious political liability to the Democrats

I'm curious to see how they deal with that.

[Jakes Progress]

209. The president knew how "hot" the topic was

during the primaries. That was when he said how he hated them and how silly Hillary was to suggest that we have them. He knew then that it would be a vote loser. Now it seems that he already feels he has lost the next election so why not go ahead with them.

[w4rma]

240. Agreed. The folks he campaigned with were smart, but he appointed the DLCers to run the nation. (nt)

[Odin2005]

210. we ARE essentially being forced to buy insurance.

This POS Fascist bill is a PR gift to the Right. The Dem leadership are MORONS.

[Mithreal]

221. I guess we are going to have to learn how to spin

it's what all the centrists are advocating.

[ChiciB1]

230. This Has Been My Observation All Along... Too Many People Who Aren't

into activism, don't blog or just don't follow what the politics scene is will suddenly wake up when the reality of what it contains "hits them!" Right now, far too many millions just DON'T KNOW specifics.

And while I wish a lot could get done in the House to change a lot of the crap, I DOUBT that is going to be the case!

It may well end up being Obama's Waterloo! Every day I hear "something" else whether it be HCR, Wars or a myriad of others situations that go on that seem counter productive!

Eugene Robinson wrote a good article this morning saying we CAN'T be chasing the Taliban from country to country, it's JUST NOT GOING TO WORK! I wonder if anyone in Washington will listen!

We will go broke internally here in America, and isn't that what happened to many other countries? ROME has been at the back of my mind for so long now and we seem to be going down that path!

And yet, nothing we activists do seem to make the slightest dent on an already "fixed" agenda! It's just mind boggling, and I feel helpless as I watch this country crumble away piece by piece. Al Queda & The Taliban really are achieving much more by our continual "invasions" into country after country! We keep spending money we don't have and killing innocent people at the same time! Not to mention what it does to our very own country!

I'm so fed up!

[TomClash]

239. Spot on

The individual mandates are a knife to the heart of the Democratic Party.

[patrice]

246. No competition, No regulation are the Problems. Most Americans live with mandated car insurance,

because they can obtain it for less than 1K$ a year.

[Zavulon]

252. Yep, that's the best we could do, apparently. Force people at gunpoint to enrich insurance companies

Failure to comply means fines or jail. "Change we can believe in."

What amazes me is how many people are defending this garbage. Instead of providing health care, just force people to buy it? Hell, I would have expected shit like this from Republicans, not from us.

As someone who was recently laid off, I am first in line to get my job back if things pick up - but my employer tells me that if and when I come back, I'll be on my own for health insurance. Thanks to this shitty bill, as of January 1st everyone in the office is. This announcement was made the day Harry Reid was triumphantly prattling on about what a great thing this fucking bill is.

[burning rain]

256. Lack of a public option is stunning.

Health care reform is far more popular with a public option; the polls went underwater when it was dropped. This suggests that a decisive number of Democrats are so determined to please the corporate world that they'll write less popular legislation, anger the public, and harm their chances at reelection rather than displease the widely reviled insurance industry.

[Hamlette]

263. I suppose all you dead beats want those of us who have insurance to keep paying your bills?

this is the way it works. You whiney bastards thought universal health insurance would be free?

You're as selfish as the republicans.

[laughingliberal]

273. No, but we thought we might get coverage that doesn't divert 30% of the money we pay into

the insurance companies' 'overhead.' And we kind of hoped that we would get policies we could actually afford to use after paying a big chunk of our income out for the premium.

edited spelling error

[Hamlette]

294. you will

the insurance companies will now be required to pay between 80 and 85% of premium money out in medical costs. The government standard is 85% (15% overhead) so it isn't as bad as it was.

[treestar]

278. Your friends are not a representative group

And they are a stupid bunch you admittedly know nothing about the bill.

That's as you have described them.

[rudy23]

279. They're not stupid at all, just disengaged from politics.

I mean, I agree, they're pretty ignorant politically, but fairly representative of mainstream Obama supporters who don't keep up with the blogs.

They think that mandates, and no P.O. are going to be fixed in the final bill, and that people like me are just being pessimistic when we tell them what the bill will ACTUALLY look like when it's signed.

[laughingliberal]

287. Some of them are probably stupid enough to still think Obama

campaigned on the public option.

[Dorian Gray]

281. Many of us had the same conversation

People were incredulous about it. Sort of interesting.

[rudy23]

286. Incredulous is the word I'd use to describe 90% of the reactions I saw.

Most people were still insisting that those who said the final bill would have a mandate and no price controls were just being pessimistic and complainy. Surely Obama wouldn't sign something like that, would he?

They're not stupid, just not blog junkies like us. They're about 2 months behind us. But these are all college grads, & pretty high ranking professionals in a lot of cases.

[Vidar]

291. I hope you're right.

[Monk06]

292. In government run, single payer BC if you qualify for BCMed and don't pay your premiums

The government takes it to collection. Except for
people who qualify for subsidy. A government run
system couldn't function if people could avoid
paying premiums.

However letting insurance companies set the price
of premiums without oversight means that people
who couldn't afford insurance before still won't
but now will be fined on top of it.

Talk about adding insult to injury if I understand
correctly.