So if mandatory insurance passes?

[terrell9584]

And the government establishes a precedent that they can force you to buy a service from a privately held business as a pre-condition for living in the United States and when it becomes an issue in campaign 2010, what will you say? What will you say when the pictures of every representative and Senator go up on billboards in every competitive race in the country reminding people that the reason they now have an extra bill that they have to pay, which will have hurt their budget in other areas, is because of Congressman or Senator X?


The subsidies aren't near what you think they are but the burden certainly is. Many families who may not be able to afford individual insurance and not get their employers but who can now afford private education will be forced to pull their children out. Many adults who are now able to attend undergraduate and graduate classes will be forced out if they comply. Many people who previously able to have things like cable will be forced to get rid of it. People who right now can afford to pay the car note on a decent car may yet have to give it up in order to satisfy this federal mandate.


I think the people who are pushing this have little to no idea what it is to stretch a paycheck that is only $800 to $1000 every two weeks with this expectation that people can just gleefully and happily put up $100-150 of that every time for insurance. If they could, they'd already have it. And isn't it interesting that it is always well-paid ivy leaguers who dream up concepts like an individual mandate but never the guy on the factory floor, the waitress and so on?


And we talk about eating healthy? A family might be able to eat healthy right now. Force this mandatory insurance burden on them and soon they'll be forced to eat nothing but cheap carbs that will wreck their immune system.


Passing something for the sake of passing something is the stupidest logic ever. If they abandoned this plan that is unpopular with the American people and said they were going to do a jobs creation bill, that they had set a deadline for it and that they would use reconciliation for this you would see Obama's approval rating shoot back up over 60% and you'd see Congress's double.


But if you honestly think that the American people are going to thank the elected officials who force this mandate on them, this new bill from their paycheck, with another term in office you are severely mistaken and if you think the masses of unemployed will be returning incumbents to office who pushed this instead of getting them back to work you are also severely mistaken.


But don't listen to me. Go ahead and pass this monstrosity and see what happens on election night.

[qanda]

1. I agree because I won't be voting for anyone who forces me to buy insurance

Without a public option.

[ShortnFiery]

2. This horrific Senate Bill does not have "a chance in Hell" to be reconciled with only 40

milquetoast Senators signing the pledge for a Public Option.

Our party will be out of POWER for at least 8 years. The only upshot is that MAYBE we can shed the corporate conservative democratic legislators. They truly belong as "moderate republicans."

IMNSHO, our tent is so damn large we no longer STAND UP for *The Working Wage-Slave American* but are a lighter version of the corporate enabling GOP.

Remember the old adage, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything?"

Shame on the corporate democrats and some of the more easily duped *useful idiot* progressive legislators who are FALLING FOR this Administration's Corporate give away to the Insurance Cartel and Big Pharma. :thumbsdown:

Lambs to the slaughter ... that's EXACTLY what our "leadership" is doing to our beloved party.

[terrell9584]

3. Not to mention

The Republican votes are actually there to break a filibuster on a jobs creation bill. Something that you don't have for this mandatory insurance boondoggle.


And those insurance rates where based on an obviously cheaper market than many Americans face. For many, that burden would be upwards of $300-400 a month. On the salaries of many people that's just cripplingh.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. 90% or more will be unaffected.

Vastly overstating the problem with mandates for private insurance does not make a convincing argument. Nor was the so-called 'public option' much of a remedy.

The people of Massachusetts have had Romney-care for quite a while now, and basically it works. It is not a great system, but all this nonsense, such as "family might be able to eat healthy right now. Force this mandatory insurance burden on them and soon they'll be forced to eat nothing but cheap carbs that will wreck their immune system" has not happened there and will not happen under the proposed federal program. What has happened in Massachusetts is that coverage has increased, but the quality of that coverage at the low end is rather dubious.

No exclusions for pre-existing conditions requires universal participation or people will not purchase insurance until they get sick. A far better solution is a tax based mandatory participation system that puts everyone into a not-for-profit insurance system, such as medicare, but private insurance mandate systems can and do work.

[terrell9584]

5. In Massachusetts costs have risen

Lines have lengthed and now the state is serious considering a policy that would be the equivalent of rationing. Not to mention, costs have increased.


It's why none of the proponents of this actually want to discuss Massachusetts at any great length. The only good thing about the MA system is that it ensures Mitt Romnney can NEVER be president.


And I'm sorry, but 10% of my gross income vs 2.5% for a penalty? Tell me again why I shouldn't just pay the penalty and wait till I'm sick for the insurance burden?

[MadHound]

8. 90% will be unaffected INITIALLY

We'll all be effected once premiums start to rise, and don't think that they won't. Despite so called "price controls" in the Senate bill, they have loopholes in them large enough to drive a train through. Premiums will continue to rise, and the middle class and working class folks will quickly become the new poor.

[KharmaTrain]

9. But I Want Free Health Care...

:sarcasm:

I honestly think that's what some people think "reform" is all about. Somehow we're all going to get healthcare and never have to pay a dime for it. Either one's employer or pay or the government will pay.

The major problem with this debate is the difference between health care reform and insurance reform. We're getting the later not the former...and there's nothing in these bills that address the right to care as much as the accessibility of such care...which is where the insurance reform comes in.

[ipaint]

6. Your right and the Massachusetts system proves it.

Mar 6, 2010 3:43 pm US/Eastern
Mass. Health Insurers Want Significant Rate Hikes
BOSTON (AP) ― Massachusetts health insurance companies have asked the state to approve significant rate hikes, weeks after Gov. Deval Patrick warned his administration might turn down increases it deemed excessive.

The insurers have asked for increases of 8 to 32 percent, starting April 1.

http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Mass.health.insurers.2.1542106.html



Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
By Susanne L. King
March 2, 2009

...First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

[TomClash]

7. Without a doubt this is the worst part of the bill

Paying 8-12% of your after-tax income for health insurance only is ridiculous. No one will do it; some will either pay the penalty, which will never be enforced, or simply lie about the purchase.

This issue has been served on a silver platter for Republicans to court young voters in 2012.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. So, the people with insurance, already paying directly for it or losing a $1000 a month in pay

because their employer is paying for it, should just keep on funding those without insurance? With subsidies go up to a family of 4 with something close to $90K a year. Somehow people must get their priorities straight. There isn't any debate about cable TV vs. health insurance. Nor one about going to private schools vs. health insurance.

Once you, personally, are hit with a major illness and you start getting bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, you might wish you'd forgone cable TV and bought insurance instead.