Do you support a mandate to purchase for profit health care insurance without

[Uncle Joe]

a strong public option?

Before this poll even starts, we can be certain the vast majority of Republicans won't, and I imagine at best Independents will be split.

[leftstreet]

1. Not just No, but HELL No! n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Same thing I was going to say.

[Edweird]

27. +1

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. FUCK no!

If this wretched bill passes, then I hope the Repukes in states like Idaho and Virginia are successful in the efforts to get the mandates declared unconstitutional. Because they ARE.

If they wanted to reign in the abusive practices of the insurance companies, yet allow them to still exist, they should have gone with the Switzerland model. Make them NON PROFIT corporations and tightly regulated. And no, the mild "reforms" in the current bill do not meet that qualification. Not by a long shot.

Not that I believe the insurance companies SHOULD exist. Nor do I trust the DLC to regulate them, since they have a 20 year track record of being pro-privatization and anti-regulation.

[mike_c]

4. the only people who support this are insurance execs and investors...

...and the democratic party leadership they have purchased. A few will jump on the bandwagon just because of partisanship, and some to thumb their noses at the rest of us and associate themselves with the "winning" side. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine a "reform" effort that is less in line with the public's interests or desires.

[Echo In Light]

9. +1

[ixion]

12. exactly

well said. :applause:

[Luciferous]

24. +1

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked for the 2:47 CST crowd. n/t

[cilla4progress]

6. Sorry to be out of step with y'all here but -- maybe

1) What if it doesn't matter what you call it - public option or simply deep subsidies for low to middle incomers? Sure, that doesn't address $$ flowing to insurance companies but...
2) What about all new new limits on insurance companies, including rebates to purchasers if admin costs go over a set percentage?
3) What about my soon to be 18 year old staying on our health insurance until she turns 26?
Closing the donut hole. Instant coverage for children with pre-existing conditions?
4) Is it all Kabuki? The lobbyists and ads? The Republicans? Obama? Pelosi? Reid? Kucinich? Sanders? All colluding to make it look like its for us, when they're really against us? All? For what, or whom?


Maybe it's a glass half-full / half-empty thing.

I'm just hoping it makes a meaningful difference on many levels, once it passes.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

7. Those are all good things. However, I still am not happy with

the concept of a mandate to purchase coverage from a private, for-profit, health insurance company. I would have preferred a single payor or Medicare for All type of solution.

BTW - if your health insurance is paid for by your employer, you will probably have to pay taxes on the value of your 18 year old's coverage. That's the situation we have here in CT where we have had to cover 18-26 year olds for the past 1.5 years. Our employees have to be taxed on the value of single coverage which is about $450 a month. I haven't seen any discussion about whether they exempted this coverage from tax in this bill. MA has the same policy and they exempted it from State income tax. No other state of the 20 or so that have this provision did that.

[EFerrari]

8. Once the insurance companies have the mandate, do you trust them?

It's not elegant but that's the big picture for me. These people have spent their entire careers studying how to deny healthcare.

And now, we're putting the nation's health care in their hands by law?

:shrug:

[cilla4progress]

10. I guess I'm relying on the

new government controls and regulations on their practices contained in this bill to really come into effect - be enforced.

[EFerrari]

15. Yeah. I haven't seen any inclination from our government to control

or regulate the industry that wrote this bill for them.

[cilla4progress]

23. Well, it's supposed to be coming up.

We'll see if it works, I guess.

[girl gone mad]

73. I predict it will work about as well..

as the Fed regulating Lehman and the SEC regulating Madoff.

In other words, the regulatory agencies will be staffed with unqualified, underpaid and captured employees while the insurers will have teams of brilliant lawyers and policy wonks taking advantage of every loophole. And let's not forget the new pools of money they'll have once mandates go into effect. If you think they own Congress and the White House now...

[Uncle Joe]

16. If a Bush or Cheney were to come back to power; how long do you believe

any new government controls or regulations will stay in effect or be enforced?

I believe the passage of this bill without a strong non-profit, nationwide, public option or even better universal coverage will only increase the chances of such a thing happening.

I also believe there are some good things about this bill; but it doesn't change the key structural dysfunction of the for profit "health" insurance concept.

You can decorate a home until Martha Stewart becomes envious but if you don't make sure it's built on a solid foundation, you will be inviting catastrophe, as the structure collapses and you lose everything you put in to it.

[cilla4progress]

19. Exactly. That's why we have to pass this bill,

so we can keep the door open, the ball moving forward. We don't stop with passage of this bill, but if we DON'T pass this, are we in a BETTER position than if we do? That's regrettable, but it's true.

I think it's PATHETIC that this weak, weak bill is being considered so transformative and historic. This bill that doesn't go nearly as far it should. But maybe I don't yet believe in all the positive impacts it will have, according to its promoters. So, I agree with you.

Obama is the real deal. If he weren't, so many others I know who are - Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, wouldn't believe in him, as they do.

[Uncle Joe]

21. The foundation is the non-profit public option or even better universal coverage.

November is coming up fast and the mandates to purchase from the primary villains of our 37th ranked health care system, who by the way are so despised, they ran their opposition through the Chamber of Commerce, no Harry and Louise today. How will that help in November?

If the Democrats trashed universal coverage from the outset without even giving it serious debate and couldn't pass a public option in the Senate with a 60-40 margin, how are they going to doing anything with a 59-41 margin before November?

In short I don't believe the ball is being moved forward, they're fumbling it with this bill.

[cilla4progress]

26. Yeah, I see what you are saying,

but, imagine it fails. Then what? I think a vote against by a Dem right now is a "principled vote," a statement in principle; a protest vote. I don't see how that gets us further than a vote in favor, and these minimal protections enacted. Either way, we basically have to begin campaigning again. But in passing this act, the front of the campaign, is further forward.

[Uncle Joe]

29. If it fails, the Democrats need to come out strong for the most popular reforms and mean it.

That being universal coverage and/or at a minimum, a strong non-profit nationwide public option to eventually wean the American People off dysfunctional, inefficient, illogical and immoral for profit "health" insurance.

The for profit "health" insurance corporations are despised, even the "health" insurance corporations know this, if the Republicans start pulling that B.S. about "big government" or "death panels," the Democrats should throw it in back in their face and tie them to the for profit "health" insurance corporations with every other sentence, pointing out where the real death panels are.

There is plenty of real life evidence to support them and if the corporate media start pulling their corporate supremacist propaganda, they need to be called on their inherent conflict of interest as well.

That's the only way I can see the Democrats winning in November by enough of a margin and mandate to do what they will be elected for, and if not enough gains are made this November then repeat the strategy for 2012 as well.

[Mimosa]

22. Cilla, in my heart I believe you're right.

I couldn't accept that I've been fooled after i worked so hard to get Obama elected.

[leeroysphitz]

87. John Kerry doesn't believe in anyone anymore. n/t

[cilla4progress]

35. I guess you're assuming if this bill fails

We get an automatic immediate 2nd chance. Start over. Why not just go from there (where will be if these passes) to our 2nd chance, instead of where we are now without all the bill's new protections and benefits? It's better than where we are now, right? It's just on principle, I guess, to vote against it. Not for any constructive strategic reason.

[Uncle Joe]

42. I view the vote against it as both principle and a constructive strategic reason.

While the bill has some good features to it, I view the overall package as worse both from a policy and political standpoint.

Peace to you.

[cilla4progress]

44. Thank you for your view.

I just can't go there.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Lagomorph]

14. What will be interesting to see is...

...if you HAVE to cover your children until they are 26. Are you still legally responsible for them until 26? That effectively moves the age of majority into the mid twenties.

[cynatnite]

88. I hope it makes a difference, too. n/t

[Dawgs]

11. What's the point of this poll?

Isn't obvious that most of us want all of those things?

Seems like you're implying that those who support this bill think it's better than having a public option; which isn't true at all.

[Uncle Joe]

17. The point of this poll is to reflect the political implications and probable cost of it passing

without at least a strong non-profit nationwide public option or even better universal coverage.

If most all of us want these things, and you know the Republicans will hate it for their own reasons and this will motivate them from at least 2010-2016 and Independents at best will feel ambivalent, how can this help the Democrats from a political standpoint to retain power and modify, improve or enforce some of the good aspects of this bill?

[BurtWorm]

13. Absolutely not.

Unfortunately it's part of this piece of shit bill the Dems backed themselves into a corner having to pass or die trying.

[grantcart]

18. I am also against gravity

eliminate discrimination against pre-existing conditions = mandates.

The willful ignorance on a subject that has been so well documented is astounding.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. And that is exactly why it is morally repugnant to tie profits to

a mandate. None of our peer nations allow profit to be made from providing basic health care or insurance, most decidedly not when that insurance is mandated by law. So. If mandates are all about the pre-existing conditions exclusions, then is it not simply wrong to make profit any part of that goal. Is it not questionable to seek profit by holding up the ill and infirm?
Why conflate the mandates with profit based business? The poll itself says 'without a strong public option'. Words have meanings. A mandate without a strong public option is not the same as the mandate you are promoting.

[grantcart]

28. and that is why OPM has absolute authority over not only price, MLR but profit yes profit

q) Part IV of subtitle D of title I of this Act is
19 amended by adding at the end the following:
20 ‘‘SEC. 1334. MULTI-STATE PLANS.
21 ‘‘(a) OVERSIGHT BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
22 MANAGEMENT.—
23 ‘‘ (1) IN GENERAL.— The Director of the Office
24 of Personnel Management (referred to in this section
25 as the ‘Director’) shall enter into contracts with

snip

7 (at) least 2 multi-State qualified health plans through
8 each Exchange in each State. Such plans shall pro9
vide individual, or in the case of small employers,
10 group coverage.
11 ‘‘(2) TERMS.—Each contract entered into
12 under paragraph (1) shall be for a uniform term of
13 at least 1 year, but may be made automatically re
14 newable from term to term in the absence of notice
15 of termination by either party. In entering into such
16 contracts, the Director shall ensure that health bene
17 fits coverage is provided in accordance with the
18 types of coverage provided for under section
19 2701(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Public Health Service Act.
20 ‘‘ (3) NON-PROFIT ENTITIES.—In entering into
21 contracts under paragraph (1), the Director shall
22 ensure that at least one contract is entered into with
23 a non-profit entity.
24 ‘‘(4) ADMINISTRATION.—The Director shall im25
plement this subsection in a manner similar to the
56
BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1 manner in which the Director implements the con
2 tracting provisions with respect to carriers under the
3 Federal employees health benefit program under
4 chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, including
5 (through negotiating with each multi-state plan)—
6 ‘‘(A) a medical loss ratio;
7 ‘‘(B)

a profit margin;

8 ‘‘(C) the premiums to be charged; and
9 ‘‘(D) such other terms and conditions of
10 coverage as are in the interests of enrollees in
11 such plans.
12 ‘‘(5) AUTHORITY TO PROTECT CONSUMERS.—
13 The Director may prohibit the offering of any multi-
14 State health plan that does not meet the terms and
15 conditions defined by the Director with respect


The premise of your objection is wrong in two ways. Everyone entering the exchanges will

1) have the option to purchase from a non profit entity

2) purchasing plans where the profit is controlled by OPM.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Then why would Nancy Pelosi say the public option was dead?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7902496

And what comes after this part where you snipped?

23 ‘‘ (1) IN GENERAL.— The Director of the Office
24 of Personnel Management (referred to in this section
25 as the ‘Director’) shall enter into contracts with

snip

[grantcart]

37. nothing is missing the numbers are the line numbers

and it went to another page.


Public Option as a part of the national plan was taken out. States can pass a public option and have them included in the state exchanges.

[Uncle Joe]

40. That's not a strong public option, as it is corporations dominate the federal government,

they would easily wear an even weaker state out.

[grantcart]

43. corporations have no impact on OPM which is seperated from

political parts of the administration

They currently do an outstanding job administering health plans for 2,000,000 federal employees.

You have heard many politicians say "Well we should just let the average American buy the same plans federal employees get" - that's what this plan does.

Companies that currently specialize on federal plans have MLRs that are half what corporations due.

If you want to compare compare the MLR of Humana with Cigna for example.

while corporations have an obvious impact where purchases depend on Congressional input the current HCR bill puts the power to control in a part of the government that is tied to the civil service and impervious to political machinations, and is doing it now for federal employees.

[Uncle Joe]

46. Who decides whether a state will enter in to this exchange and or leave it?

After Bush vs Gore and Cheney/Bush I can't bring myself to believe any part of the federal government can't be compromised by the political parts of an administration.

I used to believe the same about Attorney Generals, they were supposed to be out side of politics and represent the government, not the President, of course that was before they started legalizing torture, because the administration wanted it.

[grantcart]

49. Every state has its own exchange

I am not aware of any political arms that have penetrated the normal running of civil service benefits.

[Uncle Joe]

52. From your post #37, you said

"Public Option as a part of the national plan was taken out. States can pass a public option and have them included in the state exchanges."


From my interpretation, that means they don't have to join, so someone in state government has the choice, is that correct?

[grantcart]

56. There are state exchanges

these insurance exchanges will be open for uninsured and small business employees to join.

It will allow them to get the benefit of larger pools

It will be run by the OPM and every state will have them.

Each exchange will have for profit plans that will be controlled by OPM i.e. Profil MLR etc

Each exchange must have atleast one non profit alternative.

If a state wants to run a public option then they could do so and it would be included in the plan.

I believe that some states to run public options (Arkansas?) but they may not be very good.

The state exchanges are established for every state but the option of having a state public option would be with the state.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Why aren't they very good?

"I believe that some states to run public options (Arkansas?) but they may not be very good."

I do appreciate you answering my questions.

[grantcart]

66. I had a discussion with one person

who was from Arkansas (I think) and she said that Arkansas had a state option that people could get but it was more for catastrophic and expensive. Sounds like it was for a small pool of high risk people.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. My premise is not wrong

In our peer nations, it is a crime to profit from those services. A crime. Meditate on that. You missed my point entirely. My objection, as you put it, was not so much about the bill but about using humans as rhetorical devices to collect profit and hurling insults at those who want a public option. No need for that. This question is not about mandates up or down, but about mandates with no public option. Your pretense that it is otherwise is just rude.

[grantcart]

41. Your pretentiousness is amusing

1) the mandate is linked to pre-existing conditions. The bill, as cited above, gives unparalleled federal authority to limit not only price but MLR and profits.

2) If you know anything about 'peer countries' lol you will find that they all have one thing that we do not - consensus that single payer systems are worthwhile.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/188

Now how did those 'peer countries' arrive at a consensus?

There are three basic models:

In reading about single payer systems in other countries it turns out that single payer systems came about by one of three routes; 1) Where a catastrophic event causes the country to make a gigantic step together in a wide consensus - England after the war 2) Long historical consensus of shared responsibility - Germany has a shared compact that goes back 100 years or 3) After an initial increase in federal power gradual increases until widespread consensus - Canada - a 20 year journey.

We don't have 1 or 2 and have to settle on 3

The Canadian evolution from capitalis to single payer took 20 years from the time a modest single payer system for hospital expenses in a single province took was expanded to a national single payer system. It took another 20 years for that system to remove all of the capitalist parts of it including 'fee for service' to be eliminated and that there was a consensus among the parties that it was a part of their national heritage.


Simply put no 'peer country' has ever implemented a national single payer system without a wide consensus politically. In every case the system that they have now has been expanded from its initial limited begining to a larger scope.

You are using other countries final outcome without understanding how they got there and advocate that we implement a single payer system that would revolutionize health care without a working national consensus.

That has never happened anywhere else in a 'peer country'.

Meditate on that.

[girl gone mad]

69. The mandates won't be enough to eliminate discrimination against PEC.

The fines would have to be about 10 times higher for that concept to even begin to work.

Those with pre-existing conditions will still face discrimination through any of the bills endless loopholes or through higher rates and co-pays.

I think it's going to be another real problem for the administration and for congressional Dems when people figure out that, once again, our leaders have over-promised and under-delivered.

[girl gone mad]

74. Yes, everyone is ignorant except for you.

With such a brilliant rhetorical premise, how can you go wrong? :eyes:

[LWolf]

25. HELL NO. nt

[bvar22]

30. This is bizarre.

How can so many support "Obama's Plan",
but OPPOSE Mandates without a Public Option?

That IS "Obama's Plan".

[Political Heretic]

33. Maybe the 7% post 50x more than everyone else? :)

[Dinger]

34. That Is The Question (nt)

[TorchTheWitch]

72. our two party system has become nothing more than a football rivalry

The "party at any price" ideology has become our biggest problem. Of course, that's exactly how the politicians want it.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[amborin]

36. No mandate w/o a robust P.O. K and R

[county worker]

38. If you honestly can't spend money on health insurance because it will take money

needed for necessities I would be against your being mandated to buy insurance.

But, if you can afford insurance but just don't want to buy it I think you should be mandated to buy it. You sit behind your screen and tell all of us that we should have health coverage for everyone yet you are unwilling to contribute to it's cost. That is just double speak.

Of course you say you would pay for a public option but not for insurance industry products. The trouble with that is that there is no public option at this time.


If you want the benefits of the medical system you should do the right thing and pay for your share of it. It is a collective thing. The more of us that pay into it the less the cost to the individual and more care it can provide. The mandate is one of the legs of the chair.

[cilla4progress]

45. Sounds like the strongest objection here, on the left

is being forced to pay our own resources into the corrupt private insurance industry. I get it. Definitely. That part sucks - completely objectionable.

Assuming it passes, we'll have to be vigilant and hold accountable the insurance companies any time they come close to violating the new regs going into effect against them. I think this bill kinda tips the scales a bit in our favor. As I heard Obama call it, a patient's bill of rights on steroids.

[county worker]

47. For all that's bad in this bill, it will save lives, it will give care to people

who don't have it now. Yeah I don't want to pay the guys that caused the problem in the first place but that is what is in front of me to do, nothing else but to do nothing.

To be honest, some of us do not want to pay for our health care. We say it is a right but someone has to provide it. Without providers what good is a right to something that doesn't exist?

[EFerrari]

48. It's not a "collective thing" if the pot belongs to the insurance industry.

[gravity]

53. A single payer system would raise your taxes

which would eat at your living expenses if you don't already buy insurance. Healthcare is going to get paid for one way or another.

The bill also bans the worst insurance practices and limits the overhead costs that the companies can expend. This might not be as good as a public option, but with enough regulation, you can keep the insurance industry in line.

[kenny blankenship]

58. a single payer system would eliminate 30% of the waste of our current system right off the bat

(that's the typical overhead of private for-profit insurance companies. While Medicare's overhead is about 3% So to be fair let's say we can save 27% right off the bat by going to single payer. In reality it would higher because hospitals and doctors spend enormous amounts in administrative costs just dealing with all the different insurance co.s and their different sets of paperwork. Single payer can cut through that administrative waste with one stroke.)

If we adopted Single Payer your monthly insurance premium that you currently pay to Nosferatu Health Systems vanishes for good.

"But my taxes go up"

But you're no longer paying Count Vlad for the new wing on his castle. Ever again. Never.

People in countries with single payer systems pay less for healthcare per capita. Way less.
They pay this lesser amount -yes- through their taxes.

Now would you rather pay MORE in a separate payment to Count Vlad the insurance guy, who has every interest in seeing you die instead of receive care which costs him money? Or would you rather pay LESS to the National Social Security Health Fund?

While you're pondering this simple math, consider also that people in countries with such single payer systems are living longer than Americans.

[cilla4progress]

59. Totally agree.

I wish there was another choice - I can't believe there isn't. Do you suppose Reid, Grayson, Sanders, et al. will really go after a PO after this passes?

[gravity]

60. People in countries with well regulated insurance pay less per capita too

There is more than one way for achieving universal healthcare coverage, each with their own merits.

And for every person who hates paying a private corporation, there is going to be someone else who hates paying their money to the government.

[kenny blankenship]

64. And do KNOW how they do that? It might be helpful to know how that ACTUALLY works.

They make insurers provide basic health insurance policies at no profit.

In Japan, the govt DICTATES to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies what the price is for EVERY procedure, service, and medicine. People belong to health associations organized around communities and trades, and these are run on a non-profit basis.

In Switzerland, any insurance company that wants to sell any kind of health insurance must by law offer basic policies at no profit. They had over 90 % of their population covered by health insurance before any law mandating an individual purchase was ever proposed. Insurance was that cheap.

In Germany, you are automatically enrolled in a statutory health plan, which is non-profit. If you are young and healthy, or especially rich you can opt-out of basic non-profit insurance and get a for-profit plan (because you and your insurance co. agree you are unlikely to cause them to have to pay out). 90% of Germans are in the non-profit plans.

The common denominator of these successful plans you vacantly allude to is that they are NON-PROFIT. Just like Medicare or Canadian National Health Insurance is NON-PROFIT.

We aren't talking about creating a new American system characterized at any level by non-profit organization. We're talking about chaining people - all the people - to a system where industry profits will be right where they were back in the nineties when Democrats fucked this issue up the first time.

So basically, we'll be putting the American taxpayer in servitude to insurance corporations and saying this predatory arrangement STAYS EXACTLY AS IT WAS no matter how high the cost becomes. And you'll be forking out for the inefficiency and endless thirst of the insurers for yourself and for others who can't possibly afford it themselves and must be subsidized. TALK ABOUT YOUR HIGH TAXES!
You are soaking yourself, smart guy.

[Uncle Joe]

65. There is a major difference in fiduciary responsibility between a for profit private corporation and...

the government.

By law the government is supposed to represent the best interests of the American People, ie; "We the People," "general welfare" and all that.

A corporation has no such allegiance with it's only prime directive; to make profit by any legal means.

In the most direct and pure sense those are two different dynamics, with the former working for the people and the latter working for it self.

If the Democrats truly want to win the people over, they will need to take this on and let the Republicans represent the corporations, because the Republicans; have a natural hatred for "We the People," if they can't steal our votes, they want to drown us in a bathtub.

[girl gone mad]

71. The problem is that millions of people..

are able to get good health care without having to buy health insurance, while many millions more have insurance policies, yet get no health care.

I cannot support legislation that forces everyone to buy into the broken and corrupt system we have in place now. I will be one of the people fighting the mandate on Constitutional grounds.

It's a shame that this bill made no attempt to allow those who have alternative access to care to opt out of the insurance system.

[Cleita]

39. If there is a mandate people should have a choice of buying into Medicare

or Medicaid.

[chill_wind]

67. That makes too much sense. n/t

[The Gunslinger]

50. I wouldn't support it even with a strong public option.

[readmoreoften]

51. So only 7% of DU supports this bill? I'm confused. Why are the Pro-Insurance Bill voices so strong?

[Uncle Joe]

54. I believe there is a multitude of reasons.

Some of them believe it's a good bill and there are some good features about it on the surface.

However I believe much of it is tied to an emotional longing to support the President and Party.

I don't believe this bill would be getting near the support on it's own merits if Cheney/Bush and the Republicans were pushing it.

[thotzRthingz]

63. There are literally MILLION$ of REASON$ ...they OWN most of the people in CONGRESS (and I'm

beginning to suspect that they OWN those in the White House as well!

[Stinky The Clown]

55. But But But But ...... the bill is supposed to be our health care salvation, isn't it?

[thotzRthingz]

61. I'm an INDEPENDENT, and I say: not only NO, but HELL NO! ... K&R (n/t)

[Raine]

62. Hell NO!!!!!! nt

[chill_wind]

68. K & R.

[salguine]

70. This is so wrong. By the same logic, Maytag should be able to dump enough cash into

Congress to make them pass a law that says everyone in America must purchase a Maytag washer and dryer. How is it any different?

[Stand and Fight]

75. Absolutely NOT. And how Obama can is the greatest betrayal.

After all his bullshit during the campaign against Hillary Clinton's "mandate," he now supports one himself -- only without a strong public option. He and the lousy Democrats in Congress are sailing this country down the river and laughing all the way to the bank. Jerks!

[gleaner]

76. No I would not ...

And I am not a Republican or an Independent. I am a Progressive Democrat whose common sense tells her that without a public option or single payer there is no real competition to drive costs down. Also, since they have refused to fund a federal watchdog to help regulate premium raises, and insurance companies are for profit entities, what is going to keep premiums down? I can't think of a thing. I don't know how you stand or fall on this issue but your post is worded in such a way that one can draw the inference that "real" Democrats would not vote no. Is that what you meant to say, or am I misreading this?


edited to change a late night misspelling.

[Uncle Joe]

81. Just the opposite, I worded the O.P. the way I did, because I had a strong suspicion of how the vast

majority across the board felt about mandates particularly without a strong, national, non profit, public option.

The point I wanted to make with the wording and poll results was how this will be a no win political and ultimately policy situation for the Democrats as it's currently proceeding.

The Republicans would oppose having any kind of mandate but for different reasons, I believe they've been brainwashed in to the government bad/privatization good angle, but nonetheless the passage of this bill will highly motivate them for November.

I also don't believe Independents will view mandates without at least a minimum strong public option any better than Democrats.

The Republicans will be highly motivated and what can fire up Independents to be on the Democratic side or Democrats over the next few elections with the concept of rewarding the primary villains behind our national health care crisis?

Furthermore I believe should the Republicans come back to power this bill/law will be made even worse.

I believe for profit "health" insurance to be an illogical, redundant, inefficient, immoral, fiscally irresponsible and dysfunctional industry that damages our general economy and the peoples' health by profiting from their injury, illness, and death.

With all that being against it, I believe this bill will cement it in to American Society.

[gleaner]

89. Thank you very much for clarifying your stand ...

You put it beautifully, and though my post is not nearly as elegant and well thought out as yours, I feel the same way. There is a part of me that remains convinced that the Republicans will not win big in the elections. What they did when they held power and their sheer viciousness on this issue is really burned into the public consciousness. I don't think people will forget and hand power back to them again. Also the Republicans are turned against each other in singularly bitter infighting and that will not be resolved easily. The public voice we are hearing are the worst of the worst and it is very clear that they have no regard for what people need or want.

I don't think you can put a price on people's health. That is one of the things I most dislike against this bill. I listen to the analysis of it and I hear a lot about how it will make Medicaid, which is a very troubled program, available to more people just as more doctors and hospitals are refusing to accept it. The governor of my state (California) has gutted our Medicaid which used to be one of our better programs, and sometimes the quality of care that Medical recipients receive is almost worse than no care at all. I also hear a lot about how this bill will save money and cut the deficit. Even if I believed it, and I don't, that isn't what this was supposed to be about. This was supposed to be about helping people to get the best quality of care that they could within a workable and humane system. We wanted health care not more industry profits or deficit reduction. The deficit reduction should be dealt with as a separate issue by taxing large corporations, windfall profit taxes, and taxing the most wealthy individuals at a higher and more reasonable rate. The profits they already have are shameful and much more than enough. They don't need anymore money at the expense of people's lives and well being.

Also, we need to stop pouring money into wars of attrition which are killing our young people and making us more enemies all over the world, but achieving little else. Just think how many people we could help with all of that money that is being funneled to bring death to other countries and even higher profits to the war contractors who have already made out like bandits on the flesh and blood of those who fight and die.

Again, thanks for your answer. I think we are all feeling edgy and battered and used right about now. I don't like myself much when I am this cynical and suspicious, so I am very relieved by your reply.;)

[rucky]

77. compared to what?

[Vinca]

78. Absolutely not.

Imagine - some people will be forced to buy insurance from companies that had previously opted to deny them treatment. It's like a sick twist on "Survivor."

[shotten99]

79. Depends:

If it is actually meaningful and affordable coverage, I don't care if it comes from the man on the moon.

I live in Croatia. The public insurance here is mandated and they're a nightmare to deal with.
At least in an exchange, you could go elsewhere.

The ends justify the means.

[TexasObserver]

80. No

[mvd]

84. No

Insurance companies ARE the problem, as they will deny care as often as they can to keep profits going. The non-profits are still private and not strong. I'm not convinced this bill has enough regulation.

[LoZoccolo]

86. Yes. n/t

[kestrel91316]

90. I DO support a mandate to pay taxes that will fund SINGLE PAYER.

[Uncle Joe]

91. I believe the vote numbers would be reversed if that were the question.

[laughingliberal]

92. No. Only around 33% of the population supports that.

Add the public option and 70% support it nationally.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. No, but I believe it to be an acceptable compromise to get the good things in this bill

[Uncle Joe]

95. I see the compromises as being so politically one-sided as to endanger the good things

in the bill.

I believe we will pay a heavy price this November and particularly when the mandates to support a dysfunctional, illogical, immoral and redundant for profit system hit after the next Presidential Election in 2012.

The Republicans will have firm grounds for complaining to their partisans, the Democrats will be on weakened ground with no firm moral authority for support.

The corporate media propaganda machine will make sure the American People forget any good that may be in this bill and magnify; the bad which will be easy to do as there are multiple fundamental structural bads.

[girl gone mad]

94. No, and that's a major reason I supported Obama over Hillary in the primaries.

The bill, as it stands, is a total betrayal and a sell-out on the part of our President and our party.

I also don't believe the mandate will ever be adopted or enforced because it's simply too unpopular.