Now we can end homelessness - LET'S MANDATE HOMELESS PEOPLE BUY A HOUSE!

[grahamhgreen]

"I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money."

- Obama

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. The whole thing means little to me

I can't by the insurance, I won't pay a fine and even if I had 70/30 insurance, I can't afford to use it. The whole thing has nothing in it for me, other than it's headache inducing. Still, I like the fact that we kicked Republican ass over it, and that makes me feel good, so perhaps in that way, it improved my health.

[Oregone]

2. Subsidize the purchases, guarantee the loans, and tax luxurious 2 bedroom cadillac condos

[Walk away]

100. Amen!

[amborin]

119. LOL! good analogy

[galileoreloaded]

3. Using a mans own words against him is low. My kind of low. n/t

[Ignis]

125. +1

[Romulox]

4. The free market works. Or the government will FORCE it to!

Either way, private profit is the key to providing health insurance to most. Without it, the whole scheme is pointless.

[bigtree]

5. the context was, he'd argue

. . . that mandates alone aren't the solution. His approach bears that out.

[Oregone]

9. I don't even think he believed it was part of the solution then

Or else his plan would of included it.


Regardless, election quotes are ridiculous. They are just trying to get votes. Obama going after anti-mandate people was a great way to pick up votes and differentiate himself from Hillary. But thats all it was: politics. In the end, in office, Obama decided to pursue something he knew he could get passed for legacy in the current political climate, rather than working to change that climate.

[bigtree]

15. it's a cheap shot, I think

. . . to suppose the President was insincere about providing a public option as a means of generating competition to provide a check on rising rates. Especially since it was Congress which held the actual votes, *and the plan he presented contained many other elements that he had, in fact, campaigned on.

[Oregone]

19. Politics is a cheap shot

When the people aren't sucker punching them, be damn sure they are getting ready to sucker punch you. In the end, don't take it personally. Its bigger than you, me, and the country, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop the steamroller.

[bigtree]

20. I think that a few successes lessen the cynicism

And I further believe, as the President stated yesterday, that the public will see how hyped the rhetoric against the legislation was and I think that will help generate confidence among members of the legislature, as well, which could spark more action. We've been made to believe for the past two terms that government is incapable of changing and responding responsibly to changes. I already see a new attitude and tone from this administration which may inspire a political renaissance in our party and beyond. I don't think we have anything to lose by remaining optimistic about our own ability to influence our Democratic legislators to action.

[Oregone]

25. Not when the cost of "success" is so high

At least not among those of us that can tell the difference.

[bigtree]

37. you know that we don't all share the same experiences?

. . . that fact, more than anything else, will shape our perceptions of this administration's (and Congress') actions.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. The context was that this statement was part of his ongoing

and extremely clear stand against mandates. In this case, he is mocking the idea outright. He also used his rival's support of mandates as a way to frame her as coming after your paycheck. The message was sent in the positive, and in the negative, in print, in filmed ads, in direct mailers, in debates and in interviews.
Your spin is absolutely absurd. He was very clear. He said, in fact, that his position was well researched and irrefutable. So this quote is not the strongest, just the funniest, in which he made the same point.

[Oregone]

27. It was part of his ongoing attempt to get elected

Not a whole lot more to read into it than that.

Part of his ongoing attempt to get re-elected was passing an old rejected Republican idea into law and spinning it off as a progressive victory. Politics is shit

[sabrina 1]

33. That is not what he said, but nice try. I can post his own words

regarding mandated insurance. He was against them, with no conditions.

'Mandates would require some kind of enforcement mechanism and I think it would be wrong to force people to buy something they cannot afford'. Paraphrasing Candidate Obama. Said in a debate with Hillary Clinton.

You'd be better off just admitting that the man had his mind changed for some reason which he has yet to explain.

But never mind Obama, he's just a politician. They are not known for their convictions without pressure from their constituents.

The problem is people who allow themselves to be led around by the nose, changing their views each time their party tells them to.

If Obama had returned to his original beliefs about mandates, the same people attempting to change the meaning of his words now, would jump right back to their original position.

I remember the unified support for a Public Option, including those now excusing its exclusion. And when each time it looked like it was possible, the declarations of support for those members of Congress who were willing to vote for it.

And that is why this country fails to do what is right even when they can. Because party loyalists are more than willing to throw away their own convictions in order to win. And politicians know this and use them because they are willing to be used.

[bigtree]

48. the proposals he made, and the new law, provides subsidies

. . . to make the mandate 'affordable'.

The quote is out of context and the analogy (or whatever) omits the fact that 'mandates' are not the primary focus of the bill (or his proposals) or the primary remedy offered, as the op suggests. Further, it was Congress which controlled the content of the legislation. We couldn't get the House bill past the republican filibuster, so we're stuck with the Senate bill or nothing. The 'fixes' are an attempt to bring the bill in line with the House effort, and, in the end, the total effort will represent the best Congress offered the President to sign. That's the process. This president was intent on signing anything Congress produced.

Anyway, it's odd to suggest he had so much influence in that 'regular' process where republicans were threatening filibuster that he could have his way on the PO. From where I sat, the PO was a no-go in the Senate.

[sabrina 1]

55. That excuse, regarding a filibuster

was just that, another excuse.

As for the quote it is definitely NOT out of context. It is exactly what he said in opposition to Hillary Clinton's ideas about mandates, and John McCain's throughout the campaign. He said it more than once and left no doubt where he stood on the issue. That was the one difference between him and Hillary that swayed many people, me included, to his side. Otherwise there wasn't much difference between them.

He also stated in another debate that the public didn't know the awful truth about Hillary's support for mandates. That lost her a lot of support. She could not defend supporting such a clearly Republican idea. Nor can he now.

You may as well drop the Republican excuse. They were never needed which was revealed completely, just as we suspected, at the end. Each excuse was debunked as it got closer to the end. 'We can't do reconciliation' 'we can't get the votes' 'no, we can't'! But they were able to get Republican ideas into the bill. Strange that considering the oppostion to those ideas, and the fact that they had a majority. We're supposed to believe that the minority party, with their unpopular ideas were ever a threat to a PO IF Democrats had wanted it. Please, we were not born yesterday.

They could have done it, but there is enough evidence available now that was suspected was in fact true. The Insurance Industry were assured there would not be a PO and there wasn't. We were outbid, we don't have the money to compete in the very system Obama was supposed to change.

He is now a part of it ~ maybe he always was.

[bigtree]

58. How do you 'reconcile' a bill that hasn't yet been passed?

. . . lot's of hyperbole to chew over in your response. Enough between the both of us . . . I'll leave it with my question.

[sabrina 1]

62. Not sure what you mean.

If they needed to use that process, they could have. Initially they claimed it was impossible, then decided it was.

Hyberbole or not, this bill is founded on anti-progressive ideas and is a continuation of a pro-corporate policy that badly needed to die in regard to our health care system.

[grahamhgreen]

68. We can (still) expand Medicare in reconcilliation, at any time.

I now believe that the mandate was the sole reason for the reform - it was a bailout to big insurance whose excesses are collapsing it's unsustainable system under it's own weight. Without a mandate, the companies were destined to be ousted in favor of single-payer or similar. Now, they have enough money to corrupt the system further.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

103. Good lord... how Orwellian!

"the context was, he'd argue that mandates alone aren't the solution. His approach bears that out."

Um, the context is not open to post-invention.

Would his contention be that Hillary had put forward a health plan consisting of nothing but a mandate and announced that it was the whole solution, and he was bravely countering that?

No, I don't think he would contend any such thing.

The guy is dishonest, but not THAT dishonest.

[readmoreoften]

134. Obama is doubleplusgood thinker!

Send liberal badspeakers to miniluv.

[liberal N proud]

6. If it would get subsidies to help those who cannot afford a house

That sounds like a great deal, it would get the people shelter.

[Oregone]

13. Yes, because that wouldn't create a disasterous bubble with massive private profits everywhere

No. It just wouldn't work. No matter how you cut it. If the government handed out cash for private people to buy private homes that private contractors created, financed with private money, the whole shithouse would eventually come down.

Providing affordable housing is one thing, but this capitalistic ponzi scheme would be a disaster waiting to happen

[liberal N proud]

17. Wouldn't it create jobs building those homes?

[Oregone]

21. So?

How many jobs in the construction sector were created under Bush to sew up the failing economy? And how did that all shake out?

Creating jobs in an unsustainable sector is not instantly a good thing.

Especially if a huge slice of your money is just going straight to privat profits too. Now, maybe if there was a socialized movement to build affordable housing, as well as finance it by the government, sure, but trying to tinker with capitalism in such a big way...what a joke.

[galileoreloaded]

23. Massive excess home inventory is the problem now. We don't NEED any new homes. n/t

[brentspeak]

121. It was called "the housing bubble" n/t

[uponit7771]

35. Of course your not addressing the cost solution proposed in the bill, you change the subject to some

...thing that has nothing to do with affordability....

People notice

[Oregone]

42. There is no real cost solution in the bill

There are some technocratic tinkering that can be classified as experimental. This bill WAS NOT about cost control. IT was about expanding insurance coverage and fixing problems created by amoral capitalism (recission, denial on pre-existing, lifetime caps, etc).

If they were serious about cost control, they would have worked to remove the 30% that insurers suck out and the 10% deliveries need to run complicated billing, and whatever the large number of risk pools add to the picture, and whatever the irregular payouts for some procedures to noteable doctors/clinics add (some 3X as high), etc. etc......

They ignore methods that would save over $400 billion a year, according to the NEJM. So really....you think this bill has cost control when they essentially did everything they could to suppress the most obvious cost control methods? Are you insane?

[uponit7771]

43. There ARE subsidies to make purchasing the insurance more affordable for lower income folk, you guys

...are reaching at this point

[Oregone]

45. Subsidies are not costs controls!

They don't reduce costs, but they pass the burden around. They hide costs in a shell game, but someone still pays, and many times those costs are passed, through increased prices or lower wages, right back to the people its supposed to benefit.

Subsidies are not cost controls whatsoever. You should be ashamed to classify them as such. If anything, they can increase demand and therefore put upward pressure on the price of health care delivery, thus increasing the per capita cost nationally. If you don't think that will continue to hamper national industrial competitiveness, which effects everyone, you have your blinders on.

[uponit7771]

47. For the pooer individual they are...the subject wasn't budgetary cost controls. Those at the top pay

...the "passed around" bill anyway.

Either way, there are cost controls and subsidies all the up to 400% above poverty......nuff said.

[Oregone]

51. I don't think you understand what "costs controls" mean

Subsidies are part of expanding access, and have nothing to do with costs controls directly (although they may in fact increase costs via market pressure).

According to what you are saying, the per capita health costs in the US, which is already absurd, can continue to rise and you will claim costs are controlled (because people have access). That is Orwellian and short-sighted, and ultimately, a view bound to fail.

[Renew Deal]

71. Yeah, screw people. If everyone owns a home, then prices will go up!

And we can't have that!

[Oregone]

86. While people are your political football, you don't understand the implications in capitalism

And as long as you want to play the old capitalistic game, you are going to play it badly with this approach.


Far far more suffering would be caused by mandating and subsidizing the private purchasing of homes, to the level that they are universally affordable, than by not doing so. There are a plethora of more effective approaches to end homelessness than by this mechanism, which would both be cheaper and market neutral. If you cared about people, you may look into further alternatives, despite how "easy" this sounds.


Forced capitalism, propped up by the government, and funded by public monies, isn't the be-all, end-all solution

[Renew Deal]

102. I don't advocate mandated home ownership

or mandatory private health insurance. I'm just pointing out the callousness and ridiculousness of the assertion that ending homelessness is bad because it will drive up prices. It's not different than those that oppose health care reform because more sick people will go to doctors, and there are people that believe that.

[Oregone]

111. "I'm just pointing out the callousness and ridiculousness of the assertion that ending homelessness"

Forgive me...ending homelessness in this manor is "bad" because it will drive up prices and cause cataclysmic fallout on the economy eventually.

You are essentially arguing that the Ends justifies the Means, while ignoring that there are many means to choose from (some do not involve using the capitalistic model to promote the construction, financing and sales of homes, which is inefficent and expensive).

You ultimately just created a straw man by suggesting that people oppossed to this think "that ending homelessness is bad". To the contrary, its a great goal.

But propping up the failings up an amoral system by throwing money at it will cause more problems than otherwise (IOW, it would be "worse than nothing"). OTOH, its quite noble to construct and provide quality public housing, as well as finance it publically if it were to be sold to private individuals instead of rented). Not everything has to carry a 35% profit margin and rely upon irrational market variables to be good for society.

[TorchTheWitch]

133. you have now officially lost your mind

You are seriously suggesting that mandating homeless people to buy a house if they were given subsidies is a GOOD thing????

OH. MY. GOD.

[lunatica]

7. We should always go over the deep end on everything

It's an American value to demand all or nothing. Look at Bush and how successful that was. Look at rabid pro-lifers. Now that's the way to be about everything!!!

[anarch]

8. indeed. while we're at it, let's lower the poverty level

to, like, income of $20/year or something. Presto, millions would be lifted from poverty!

[bigtree]

11. I believe it's based now, primarily, on the cost of food

It's not as if those standards aren't subjective to some arbitrariness.

These analogies (or whatever) are getting weaker.

[followthemoney]

10. And if they can't afford a house...

put them in a strategic hamlet.

That worked in Vietnam.

Sort of.

For a while.

[BurtWorm]

12. My understanding is that it's going to make more a few million more people eligible for Medicare.

It's going to make a few million employers who can afford to buy insurance for employees buy insurance for employees. It's going to subsidize purchase of private insurance for people who can't afford their own insurance without a subsidy. And the rest of the uninsured--those who can afford insurance but don't buy it because they believe they don't need it--are mandated to buy it without subsidies.

It would make much more sense to just make a progressive tax and use the money of it to pay for the nation's medical care through a single payer system, or at the very least, to outlaw for-profit insurance. But what we have with this bill is not like what Obama, once upon a time, said it was going to be like. This bill isn't designed to make people who can't afford insurance buy it. It's made to ensure that health care costs are spread more widely to bring the cost down. In my mind, this won't work as well as having a public option would. But it's not the injustice your title makes it out to be.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. No. No changes to the standards for getting Medicare

They are trying, or claiming to be trying, to pass a law that would open up eligibility to other groups, but that is most decidedly not part of this bill. It was part of what the left wanted, and thus, it is not in the bill.

I agree that Single Payer was and is the only real answer.

[BurtWorm]

31. This is what the NY Times reported today

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Yes, medic AID

you had said Medicare. They are not the same. I and others sought to include an expansion of Medicare, but that was not included, and is still being sought by Grayson and others.
So it is important. More will get Medicaid. But so far, no more will get Medicare. They are profoundly different things. One major difference is that Medicaid, as the Times points out, is a benefit that one qualifies for in part due to income levels. Medicare is an earned entitlement and income levels do not affect your standing.
So you said millions more will get Medicare, and that is not the case at all. They will get Medicaid, as long as they stay under the income limits.

[uponit7771]

Similar enough, you know what the point the person is trying to make

[BurtWorm]

41. There is one big difference.

Some doctors won't see clients on Medicaid. I think it's less likely (though I don't know for sure) that they are able to discriminate against patients on Medicare.

[uponit7771]

44. Some doctors wont see patience with UHC insurance either, so what? You guys are now arguin symantics

[BurtWorm]

49. There is a real difference between Medicaid and Medicare, though.

One is a social welfare program for people who can't afford insurance, and the other is for anyone who pays into the system (i.e., retired people of all income levels). That's not just semantics.

[BurtWorm]

39. Right. I made a mistake.

I agree that Medicare expansion would have been better than Medicaid expansion.

[misanthrope]

52. I've been told differently by my congressman's office...

...They told me my income is a primary factor in my Medicare Disability eligibility.

[dionysus]

14. .

:cry:

[northernlights]

16. naw, we should mandate that the homeless rent apartments

in order to support the landlord industry. But we'll mandate that landlords accept children and pets. To keep prices competitive and help the poor and middle class, we'll subsidize them and pay for the subsidies by cutting funds to elderly housing. Also, anybody who refuses to rent an apartment, whether or not they own a home and actually need or want an apartment, will pay a fine.

Oh, and the 1st $5,000 of your living expenses must be paid out of pocket before you actually get to move into your pre-paid apartment. :crazy:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frazzled]

26. God, I never thought

people supposedly on the left (I say supposedly) could advance arguments that are as stupid--nay, maybe even stupider--than the Teabaggers.

[Oregone]

30. Explain the stupidity here of Obama's quote

[Starry Messenger]

123. *crickets*

[Marr]

65. And I never thought so many people on the left would support

a bailing out a corrupt industry in lieu of health care reform, just because a politician says they should.

[grahamhgreen]

72. You are talking about Obama's argument, right?

[QC]

138. Oops! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. And, hunger. Mandate Beef Wellington and Crepes Suzette! k&r

[DevonRex]

29. You've made yourself look pretty silly. How about organizing

folks here to make improvements instead of nonstop whinging? When I see somebody who's done nothing but criticize for the past, well, EVER, then I assume they're not really serious about change.

Now, if you had dome some foot work on the activist board, with suggestions about how WE could make things better, I'd have some respect for you. As it is...

[grahamhgreen]

73. My suggestion is bipartisan - remove the mandate, keep the rest of the reforms.

[tinrobot]

32. We can if we subsidize people below 4 times the poverty level.

And make up the difference by taxing people who make over $250K.

[branders seine]

36. Then we can declare...

VICTORY!

Mission Accomplished!

They'd give the Oabmster another Nobel Prize!

Damn!

You're a genius!

[uponit7771]

38. *********************PEOPLE WILL BE GIVEN SUBSIDIES TO HELP WITH AFFORDABILITY!!!*******

Nice try though

[optimator]

40. wrong

there are no subsidies in the HCR or the reconciliation.

[uponit7771]

46. False, people ALREADY get subsidies for HCI the new HCR will EXTEND them (Link and quote)

"...the legislation will result in as many as 32 million U.S. residents gaining coverage, chiefly through expanding Medicaid for the low-income uninsured and extending federally subsidized health insurance premiums to uninsured individuals with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. ..."

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/27/08/26.php

[optimator]

50. i have the HCR bill in front of me

there are no subsidies for premiums in it.

[Political Heretic]

118. I'm not sure if you're trying to make the technical point that they are actually "tax credits"

But there are "subsidies" in the bill.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

69. I just found state subsidy programs in the bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1110r5HJD:e376648:

SEC. 1413. STREAMLINING OF PROCEDURES FOR ENROLLMENT THROUGH AN EXCHANGE AND STATE MEDICAID, CHIP, AND HEALTH SUBSIDY PROGRAMS.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish a system meeting the requirements of this section under which residents of each State may apply for enrollment in, receive a determination of eligibility for participation in, and continue participation in, applicable State health subsidy programs. Such system shall ensure that if an individual applying to an Exchange is found through screening to be eligible for medical assistance under the State medicaid plan under title XIX, or eligible for enrollment under a State children's health insurance program (CHIP) under title XXI of such Act, the individual is enrolled for assistance under such plan or program.

(b) Requirements Relating to Forms and Notice-

(1) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO FORMS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall develop and provide to each State a single, streamlined form that--

(i) may be used to apply for all applicable State health subsidy programs within the State;

(ii) may be filed online, in person, by mail, or by telephone;

(iii) may be filed with an Exchange or with State officials operating one of the other applicable State health subsidy programs; and

(iv) is structured to maximize an applicant's ability to complete the form satisfactorily, taking into account the characteristics of individuals who qualify for applicable State health subsidy programs.

(B) STATE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH FORM- A State may develop and use its own single, streamlined form as an alternative to the form developed under subparagraph (A) if the alternative form is consistent with standards promulgated by the Secretary under this section.

(C) SUPPLEMENTAL ELIGIBILITY FORMS- The Secretary may allow a State to use a supplemental or alternative form in the case of individuals who apply for eligibility that is not determined on the basis of the household income (as defined in section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

(2) NOTICE- The Secretary shall provide that an applicant filing a form under paragraph (1) shall receive notice of eligibility for an applicable State health subsidy program without any need to provide additional information or paperwork unless such information or paperwork is specifically required by law when information provided on the form is inconsistent with data used for the electronic verification under paragraph (3) or is otherwise insufficient to determine eligibility.

(c) Requirements Relating to Eligibility Based on Data Exchanges-

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF SECURE INTERFACES- Each State shall develop for all applicable State health subsidy programs a secure, electronic interface allowing an exchange of data (including information contained in the application forms described in subsection (b)) that allows a determination of eligibility for all such programs based on a single application. Such interface shall be compatible with the method established for data verification under section 1411(c)(4).

(2) DATA MATCHING PROGRAM- Each applicable State health subsidy program shall participate in a data matching arrangement for determining eligibility for participation in the program under paragraph (3) that--

(A) provides access to data described in paragraph (3);

(B) applies only to individuals who--

(i) receive assistance from an applicable State health subsidy program; or

(ii) apply for such assistance--

(I) by filing a form described in subsection (b); or

(II) by requesting a determination of eligibility and authorizing disclosure of the information described in paragraph (3) to applicable State health coverage subsidy programs for purposes of determining and establishing eligibility; and

(C) consistent with standards promulgated by the Secretary, including the privacy and data security safeguards described in section 1942 of the Social Security Act or that are otherwise applicable to such programs.

(3) DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each applicable State health subsidy program shall, to the maximum extent practicable--

(i) establish, verify, and update eligibility for participation in the program using the data matching arrangement under paragraph (2); and

(ii) determine such eligibility on the basis of reliable, third party data, including information described in sections 1137, 453(i), and 1942(a) of the Social Security Act, obtained through such arrangement.

(B) EXCEPTION- This paragraph shall not apply in circumstances with respect to which the Secretary determines that the administrative and other costs of use of the data matching arrangement under paragraph (2) outweigh its expected gains in accuracy, efficiency, and program participation.

(4) SECRETARIAL STANDARDS- The Secretary shall, after consultation with persons in possession of the data to be matched and representatives of applicable State health subsidy programs, promulgate standards governing the timing, contents, and procedures for data matching described in this subsection. Such standards shall take into account administrative and other costs and the value of data matching to the establishment, verification, and updating of eligibility for applicable State health subsidy programs.

(d) Administrative Authority-

(1) AGREEMENTS- Subject to section 1411 and section 6103(l)(21) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and any other requirement providing safeguards of privacy and data integrity, the Secretary may establish model agreements, and enter into agreements, for the sharing of data under this section.

(2) AUTHORITY OF EXCHANGE TO CONTRACT OUT- Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

(A) prohibit contractual arrangements through which a State medicaid agency determines eligibility for all applicable State health subsidy programs, but only if such agency complies with the Secretary's requirements ensuring reduced administrative costs, eligibility errors, and disruptions in coverage; or

(B) change any requirement under title XIX that eligibility for participation in a State's medicaid program must be determined by a public agency.

(e) Applicable State Health Subsidy Program- In this section, the term `applicable State health subsidy program' means--

(1) the program under this title for the enrollment in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange, including the premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and cost-sharing reductions under section 1402;

(2) a State medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act;

(3) a State children's health insurance program (CHIP) under title XXI of such Act; and

(4) a State program under section 1331 establishing qualified basic health plans.

Continued at above link. There is no information here on how much the subsidies are.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

75. It's not a subsidy, but a tax credit which can be a hardship for some people.

See my post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8005774&mesg_id=8007078

[havocmom]

139. Yep. Gotta buy the product first, THEN send away for the 'rebate'

We could get a lot bigger tax refund if we just replaced all the old, inefficient windows in the house too, but we still can't afford the initial pay-out for the windows, so we don't get to take advantage of the great energy conservation 'subsidies' ;)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

141. It ticks me off that there has been so much disinformation on this by "knowledgeable"

DUers. :grr:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

74. It's not really a subsidy but a tax credit. One has to either manipulate their W4 to increase

deductions or wait until they file their income tax to get a refund back.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1110r5HJD:e311610:

Subpart A--Premium Tax Credits and Cost-sharing Reductions

This is going to be a headache for most Americans. It means shelling out the money to the insurance companies and having to wait for the tax refund to recoup their in your words "subsidies".

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

112. *********************SO FUCKING WHAT, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BEING DISCUSSED HERE!!!*******

Hillary's plan had the magic subsidies to which you refer.

He attacked it nonetheless in the terms noted in the OP.

So he was being exactly the lying dumbass you think everyone in this thread is... he made the cheap attack despite the existence of subsidies in the plan.

Exactly the same.

Exactly.

So send your comments to the White House and spare the rest of us.

[Political Heretic]

117. CBPP called the subsidies grossly insufficient and difficult for the poor.

The subsidies don't "cover" the cost of premiums. They don't even address the cost of deductibles, and they don't address the out of pock cost of care.

Nice try though.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Echo In Light]

54. G.Carlin: "Just buy em one-a those cardboard boxes they like to live in"

Carlin tagged that line as a typical 'American businessman solution' for homelessness.

[demgurl]

56. We can also now end poverty....

Make it illegal for people NOT to have money!

And we can end murder by making it illegal to kill someone....Oh, wait, that is already law. Guess no one is murdered any more. *sarcasm*

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. Subsidies for housing....

HUD provides subsidies for housing, and the tax laws subsidize home ownership by allowing homeowners to write off billions in mortgage interest.

And since many cities and anti-vagrancy laws, we sort of DO mandate that you have shelter of some kind.

Or were you just trying to make a fucking stupid point?

[Jennicut]

59. I would say the latter. We are mandated to have auto insurance as well.

[Oregone]

60. I know, I can barely afford it for my 3 year old.

And I just don't understand why she has to have an auto-insurance policy and they don't even allow her to drive! Tyranny.

[DatManFromNawlins]

61. Oh, for fuck's sake

No. We. Are. Not.

You have to make a conscious decision to own and then operate a vehicle to be required to have auto insurance.

The situations are not even remotely the same.

[Jennicut]

66. Fine. I really don't care about the mandates. For my medical condition, the costs in meds

and copays to see my Dr. is way more then the highest amount of the fines. 700$ year is nothing to me. I pay almost twice that amount in meds every year and copays to the Dr. every 3 months.

Ezra Klein explains why getting rid of the mandate would not work for someone like me:

Right now, the insurer sets the rules. It collects background information on applicants and then varies the price and availability of insurance to discriminate against those who are likely to use it. Health-care reform is going to render those practices illegal. An insurer will have to offer insurance at the same price to a diabetic and a triathlete.

But if you remove the individual mandate, you're caught in the reverse of our current problem: The triathlete doesn't buy insurance. Fine, you might say. Let the insurer get gamed. They deserve it.

The insurers, however, are not the ones who will be gamed. The sick are. Imagine the triathlete's expected medical cost for a year is $200 and the diabetic's cost is $20,000. And imagine we have three more people who are normal risks, and their expected cost in $6,000. If they all purchase coverage, the cost of insurance is $7,640. Let the triathlete walk away and the cost is $9,500. Now, one of the younger folks at normal cost just can't afford that. He drops out. Now the average cost is $10,600. This prices out the diabetic, so now she's uninsured. Or maybe it prices out the next normal-cost person, so costs jump to $13,000.

This is called an insurance death spiral. If the people who think they're healthy now decide to wait until they need insurance to purchase it, the cost increases, which means the next healthiest group leaves, which jacks up costs again, and so forth.

Kill the individual mandate and you're probably killing the bill, too. The mandate is what keeps average premium costs low, because it keeps healthy people in the insurance pool. It's why costs have dropped in Massachusetts, not jumped. It's why every other country with a universal health-care system -- be it public or private -- uses either a mandate or the tax code. It's why the Obama administration flip-flopped.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/draft_1.html

Now, I get that no one here wants to pay the insurance companies more money. They would rather have a public, gov. run option. I don't disagree with that. But single payer and hybrid health care systems all have some sort of mandate. My point is that nearly everyone has to have health insurance or people like me might as well just die off. I am a type 1 diabetic by the way. I need a pump for my diabetes as my blood sugars are out of control lately. I cost everyone a lot of money. Pump will be $3000. If young, healthier people keep staying out of the system people that are sicker start putting a huge burden on the system.

[grahamhgreen]

76. Poor Ezra - there is a serious logical flaw in his argument. There is no reason to suugest that

because big insurance is getting trillions of new dollars, that they will then pass the savings on to you.

In fact, the opposite is true - the more money they make, the worse their product becomes, the more people they fail to cover, the more money goes in their pockets, the more their profits go up.

Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence to suggest they will use this windfall to help you out, have you?

With single-payer, there is no profit or profiteers to siphon the money that is supposed to go to you care into their own pockets.

I sincerely hope this does help you out, however.

BTW, I am hypoglycemic, I have been taking cinnamon and gymnema to help regulate my blood sugar.....

[Egnever]

78. LOL cinnamon

She is type one you cant regulate your blood sugar with cinnamon as a type one. If its working for your hyperglycemia I am happy for you though.

To your strange tin foil hat point though. There are caps on the MLR's of the insurance companies because of this bill so they have to pass the windfall on to you.

If you havent seen the evidence then you are ignoring the MLR caps.

[grahamhgreen]

84. Who will be doing the accounting concernign the MLR caps? The insurance companies

I simply can not believe that the top accounting firms in the country will not be able to squirrel away the windfall profits into the pockets of the CEO's and whoever else is in on the game.

[Jennicut]

95. The bill is not perfect, eventually we will need a public option.

The bill is a first step in my opinion. I am covered by insurance right now, as I got the diabetes after I got the insurance. Switching to another insurance has always been out of the question as many that I talked to won't cover me. My husband could lose his job but I think we would just stay with the Cobra. Cigna has not been totally terrible but the med prices keep rising. And they have given me a hard time about some meds my endocrinologist wanted to me to take. This bill eventually will address some issues with pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps.

And get the hypoglycemia checked out by your doctor. I started as a hypoglycemic in college but became a full diabetic later on in my late twenties. Turns out I was a Type 1 even though it is mostly a disease of children and teens. Some adults can be Type 1 too. Unregulated blood sugar is a sign you could become pre-diabetic to diabetic. I have to take insulin several times a day...up to six times for all meals and even sometimes with snacks if my blood sugar is high. I am looking into going on an insulin pump, it gives you a small amount all day instead of you giving a large amount every night and before meals. It could get my blood glucose numbers better as I have had a lot of lows and some real highs. If I don't take the insulin every day, I could (and would) die from going into a coma. My parents said if I ever need help to pay for my insulin or doctor bills they would take it out of their savings and help me. It is a life and death situation and I am real lucky to have parents that care so much.

[Egnever]

77. Off topic but

Grats on pumping! I know its a big change and many people are bothered by the idea of having something attached to them 24/7 but the freedom they bring to diabetics is staggering! Its a lot of work the first couple months getting the settings dialed in but man the freedom, combine that with one of the new CGMS devices and the change in your life as a diabetic could be extraordinary.


I hope it works out well for you!

[Jennicut]

99. I am looking at an Omnipod. Cigna may cover it but I was misdiagnosed as a type

2 and at first they didn't want to cover it. Now that I know I really am a type 1 they said they will try to work something out. It has been a long, difficult process. I was diagnosed at an older age then many type 1's...at 28. And 6 years later I finally realized that everything that happened to me matched up to a typical type 1. I tried a diabetic diet and meds for two weeks. My blood sugars were in the 400s. I was put on insulin and that was that. It turns out I make about zero insulin and have the antibodies that attack your pancreas. So, I am a type 1 after all.

[Egnever]

131. Crazy!

That is late to become type 1. I would contact the pump companies directly. Especialy omnipod ! They will usualy let you test drive their pumps. Its well worth trying them ourt before you buy them as even with insurance they are a significant investment and once you get them you are pretty much locked into that pump for four years. We sorta look at it like buying a car.

Anyway I have heard mixed reviews on omnipods. We use an animas on our son and like it a lot however minmed seems to be the one with the best suite of apps for managing your information as well as having a cgms already that integrates with the pump.

Definitely look at them before you buy would be my advise.

Sounds like a recent diagnosis another thing you might want to look into is a book called pumping insulin by john walsh its the pumpers bible and teaches you how to use a pump most efectively. And last but not least learn carb counting!

If you ever have questions on any of this stuff feel free to pm me our son has been diabetic for 5 years now we have been through a lot of the little quirks you run into.

Best of luck to you either way, Its really not that big of a deal these days as long as you stay on top of it and dont lose your insurance.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. What you said! +1!

[beevul]

135. We are not.

Nobody is mandated to have auto insurance, UNLESS they drive a car on public roads or have a lien on the vehicle. And none of it is a federal mandate.

Plus, there are at least a couple states, IIRC, that do not require it.


Auto insurance is a bad comparison.

[grahamhgreen]

70. Not my point - the Presidents.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Once again, you miss the point of the mandate

The mandate was put in place because not allowing insurance companies to deny people for a pre-existing condition creates a moral hazard problem. People would just wait until they get sick to buy insurance.

Obama is right, mandating purchase of insurance doesn't solve the problem. It does solve an additional problem that could be created by the bill.

[grahamhgreen]

64. Where is the evidence to support the claim that "People would just wait until they get sick to buy

insurance"?

[Oregone]

67. Maybe getting rid of pre-existing conditions was only way to make mandate work

You are assuming the mandate came from benevolence, rather than the regulating of the industry coming from oppression.

Its tough to mandate something if someone cannot buy it from the private market.

:)

Maybe it was a combination. Im not sure. Go ask the Republicans that wrote the original bill it was based on, if they are still alive

[LWolf]

81. Of course, if we had a national health plan,

people would just wait until they got sick to see a doctor. And they could do so without bankruptcy.

[grahamhgreen]

83. I been posting thes qustion about evidence to support this claim for months, so far

no one has responded.

[LWolf]

79. K & R nt

[SidDithers]

80. Could you please link to the quote source...

so we can see the context in which Obama said this.

Thanks,

Sid

[grahamhgreen]

82. Link - with video!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/obama-health-care-mandates_n_398380.html

[SidDithers]

85. Thank you...

nothing personal, but I have a bugaboo about unsourced quotes :hi:

Sid

[grahamhgreen]

89. Me too!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

90. ....

:thumbsup:

[Recursion]

88. We do mandate house purchases, more strongly than the health care bill mandates insurance

The tax penalty for renting a house is a lot higher than the tax penalty for not buying insurance.

[Oregone]

93. Until you do the math and realize amortized interest on a home loan is 150% of principle

Then it makes home renting look far, far more attractive.

Sure, you can write off such interest, but you still have to pay it. Its very often a losing game unless you can sell in a bubble and your write-offs + appreciation beats how much you pay in interest (and then you just pass the problem to the poor sap that buys from you).

And "incentive" is not the same as a mandate.

[Recursion]

96. That's a semantic game

And "incentive" is not the same as a mandate.

The tax difference is thousands of dollars. You can call it a carrot or a stick but the effect is the same. Why is it being called a mandate for health insurance but not for home ownership?

[Oregone]

98. "Why is it being called a mandate for health insurance but not for home ownership"

Why are apples not called oranges. So peculiar. I just don't get it. Oh my, oh my. So confusing.

[Recursion]

101. Taxes are being used to encourage behavior

You save thousands in taxes by buying a home. This isn't a mandate.

You save hundreds in taxes by buying health insurance. This, apparently, is a mandate.

[Oregone]

104. You save nothing in taxes from buying a home

(aside from first time homebuyer credit, which is temporary)

You save from paying interest on a loan on your primary residence.

You can buy a home outright with cash and have no "incentive" through taxes, but this creates an incentive by avoiding amoratized interest.

In any case, there is no homogenous effect legislated for all by the government

[JuniperLea]

105. You get a tax credit on the mortgage interest every year...

The incidence of buying a home outright shrinks every year... becoming quite rare. The majority of people hold a mortgage.

[Oregone]

108. You must of missed reading that:

"You save from paying interest on a loan on your primary residence."

Its not buying a home that creates the incentive, but paying interest on financing that does.

The government is incentizing private home financing, moreso than homeownership. In any case, I don't think this qualifies as a mandate. Especially when the government contradicts itself by providing housing assistance in the form of money for rent or public housing to the poor (which doesn't pomote ownership).

[Recursion]

106. OK, so it's a mortgage mandate. That's even worse... NT

[Oregone]

109. Except for people in public housing, or on housing assistance

Then its just the government dumb fuckingly contradicting their very own "mandate" by helping people get housing by avoiding ownership and financing (which you are suggesting they are mandating in the first place).


Anyway you cut it, apples are not oranges. It is not the Government's policy that all people should, by law, own and have financing on their own homes. It is now the government's policy, by law, that all people will be required to have health insurance.

[Recursion]

114. And people who can't afford to buy insurance will get it fully (or nearly so) subsidized

And, yes, on a Federal level our housing policy is fucked and self-contradictory.

[Oregone]

115. Which may solve very little

:)

We are yet to see the market effects of increasing demand, and also how useful at preventing death and bankruptcy these subsidized plans will be with low actuarial values.

All and all, this is a big experiment designed to expand coverage without dirupting the capitalistic insurance system in place. The jury is still out, and will be for some time.



Its like subsidizing the purchase of an uninsulated shack with a leaky roof that you have to pay a private contractor 30% more to build for you than what the government could do itself. Except, that would be better because its actually Keynesian. :)

[treestar]

91. If it were being subsidized

Which it is to a degree, then people would have no problem with it and I suggest DU would have no problem with it as the end result is shelter for everyone.

Obama was being a bit daft there, because anyone who has money for shelter generally buys it - you don't have to force that one on anyone.

If people who have no housing could not afford it and they were given money to buy housing, then they should use that money for housing.

[Oregone]

92. Thats absurd. Its absolutely absurd

What is wrong when this type of talk is on a "liberal" board.


Look, if you want to correct the amoral consequences of capitalism (which is when partial demand creates maximum profits of a necessary product), you don't do it by propping up the system that caused the problem, and then throwing public money at it. That creates a volatile marketplace that screws everyone in the end.


There is no reason for the government to create a program and shell out trillions in profits to private shareholders when they could build & finance affordable housing themselves to a suitable standard.

[treestar]

116. The government gives people food stamps and expects them to use them

to buy food. Shouldn't the government run the farm itself then?

[Oregone]

126. It depends if the creation, production, and distribution of those products would cost less than

Otherwise, there is no reason for the government not to engage in profitable mixed market competition, even agriculturally.

That said, what percent of the GDP is food stamps? And home construction, financing, sales, etc? There is A LOT of profit for the government to piss away throwing it at private contractors, realtors, and bankers to do this (which everyone ultimately has to pay for, and an amount not negligible like food stamps).

Why would anyone opt for this over government housing? Its insane, and yet something else the to put on the grandkids credit card

[Lorien]

97. Hey, we can end unemployment that way too! Mandate that everyone find a

job! If you don't have a job you'll be fined. See? Problem solved!

:sarcasm: <as if it were needed.

[Karmadillo]

107. Monster dunk post.

nt

[ProSense]

110. Ever heard of

Section 8?

President Obama is right, a mandate isn't the solution to affordability. It never was and still isn't, not even in the current bill.

What he has said is that a mandate doesn't make sense if the product isn't affordable.

Now, when houses are available for $8,000, maybe the government can mandate home purchases and subsidized the difference.

[Oregone]

113. Many homes do already cost $8000

$8000 a year that is....

The price of homes is actually very close to the cost of insurance, per year. Its a simliar metric to look at.


Homes may actually be cheaper because you only pay for 30 years, instead of from 40 (or so). Not to mention, you actually build equity in them (that can be resold as wealth); with insurance, use it or lose it, every year. It makes better financial sense, but thats neither here nor there. But the per year cost is very similar, regardless.

[ProSense]

120. "$8000 a year that is...." Really?

So everyone paying about $675 a month in rent can actually afford to buy a house? Where?

But let's play. Since health care is like a house, should employers pick up a significant portion of the mortgage? What about shared responsiblity, how should the burden be shared by others?

[Oregone]

124. Yeah, really

I bought in 2003 with 6.125% interest and my payment is $790. If I refi'ed I can get that down below $600, no problem. Its not the universal case for everyone, but a 30 YR load with 4.5% interest isn't a ton in many places in the country, whatsoever, and comparable in terms of price. Now, if you were to create an eligble "exchange" where you only do this for 2BR basic rancher home that are about 1000 SQFT (like a low tier "bronze" plan), sure, then its entirely comparable to the price of health insurance (which costs more for higher deductible plans). Im not exactly sure what the median price is on what would be considered a "bronze" house, but its probably pretty reasonable nationwide.


"Since health care is like a house"

Who said that? Isn't that called a straw man? Seriously...google "logical fallacy" already and get to work.

The point isn't that they are the "same". It is that both problems are symptoms of some basic tenants of capitalism, and that by mandating their purchase and throwing public money at the problem through the private market, its not going to magically fix the problem (and could have some dire market consequences). Further, there are other non-capitalistic approaches that are both cheaper and may be more direct ways to address the problems.

[ProSense]

127. "I bought in 2003 with 6.125% interest and my payment is $790."

That's nearly $9,500.

Again, are you saying that everyone paying $650 in rent can afford to buy a house?

"Since health care is like a house"

Who said that? Isn't that called a straw man? Seriously...google "logical fallacy" already and get to work.

Flashback:

Now, if you were to create an eligble "exchange" where you only do this for 2BR basic rancher home that are about 1000 SQFT (like a low tier "bronze" plan), sure, then its entirely comparable to the price of health insurance (which costs more for higher deductible plans).

Now:

The point isn't that they are the "same". It is that both problems are symptoms of some basic tenants of capitalism, and that by mandating their purchase and throwing public money at the problem through the private market, its not going to magically fix the problem (and could have some dire market consequences). Further, there are other non-capitalistic approaches that are both cheaper and may be more direct ways to address the problems.

Again, the mandate has nothing to do with making coverage more affordabile.

The point is ludicrous.

[Oregone]

129. And if I refied, it would be about $590, but you don't want to include that.

Anyway, its an ocean view beach home...not exactly "bronze". But the standard lowered tier home probably costs, with these rates, around $650 a month, much like what a lowered tiered health plan will cost.

I'm not sure where are you going with your quotes. You don't understand half of what you are cutting and pasting most of the time. They are not the same. They are both similar problems of the same system that could both potentially fit into a similar model of mandating and subsidizing. That does not make them the same. I am sorry you can't wrap your nog around that. My point about the different tiers of housing, and how they relate, is that there are also different health plans. The costs that are being subsidized will not buy someone the best plan, and probably not even an average plan, just as a subsidization on a house couldn't be expected to do the same either.

But no, not the same, nor did I imply it was.


"Again, the mandate has nothing to do with making coverage more affordabile"

I agree. I never said it did. Some people do claim so, but its just not the case. So....Im not sure what this is in response to? Do you ever read what you respond to?

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[johnaries]

128. The thing I like most about Obama is that he's WILLING to admit

when he was wrong.

It is an "apples/oranges" invalid metaphor. Obama was finally forced to admit it, although he admits he was dragged "kicking and screaming" to the conclusion.

Jimmy Carter gained my respect when he campaigned on eliminating the B1 program. Once he got into office and was privy to information that he did not have while capaigning, he changed his position because he (finally) understood the importance of the B1 program.

I don't want a President who is an unrepentant idealogue. I want a President who has Progressive goals but who can be flexible enough and realistic enough to handle current crises with an eye on the future.

I couldn't describe President Obama better. He is that President.

[slipslidingaway]

130. The insurance companies were right before Obama realized his mistake ...

When did Obama reverse his position on the individual mandate.

:shrug:


Health Plans Propose Guaranteed Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions and Individual Coverage Mandate

November 19, 2008

http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25068


"Washington, DC – Health plans today proposed guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions in conjunction with an enforceable individual coverage mandate.

Under the new proposal, health plans participating in the individual health insurance market would be required to offer coverage to all applicants as part of a universal participation plan in which all individuals were required to maintain health insurance.

Health plans also said that premium support for moderate-income individuals and broad spreading of risk was necessary to promote affordability and maintain premium stability in the individual health insurance market.

To ensure that all Americans can access coverage, health plans also reiterated their long-standing support for making eligible for Medicaid every uninsured American living in poverty and strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“No one should fall through the cracks of our health care system,” said Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). “Universal coverage is within reach and can be achieved by building on the current system.”

[Naturalist111]

132. Let's get rid of all governments

local, state and federal and go back to the stone age! Extreme for extreme.

[BlueIris]

136. That would be a great, historic first step.

There would be some problems with it, sure, but the fundamentals of the economy are basically strong. We can do it. Yes, we can.

[grahamhgreen]

137. Housing prices would go through the roof - just like insurance stocks are now....!

[Naturalist111]

140. Some people

just don't need drugs