The Best Thing for the Future of the Democratic Party...Strike Down the Mandate

[bvar22]

Then the Democratic Party can quickly Walk Away and say,
"Well, at least we tried."

If the Mandate is not Struck Down,
and 40 Million - 70 Million (projected number of uninsured 2014) already struggling Working Class Americans
are forced to BUY Junk Insurance that they can't afford to use due to High Co-Pays/Deductibles,
All HELL is going to break loose.
Using the IRS as the Collection Agency is going to throw gasoline on the fire.

Even with a "subsidy", most of these MILLIONS (Lower Working Class) are going to be forced to dig into their own pockets to write a BIG check every year to a RICH corporation for a product that will be nearly worthless to them.
They are going to be PISSED.

They WILL blame the Democratic Party, and rightly so.
The Democrats passed a Republican Bill (Mandates with NO Public Option)
without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility for it.
ALL the Republicans have to do is sit back and say, "Yep. We voted against it"
and Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.

Like I said above,
the best thing that can happen for the future of the Democratic Party
will be for the Supreme Court to Strike Down the Mandate to Purchase.
If they don't, then a Perfect Storm hits in 2014.

Here is Campaign Obama (2008) explaining why a Mandate to BUY Insurance is a BAD thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Motown_Johnny]

1. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7319619


^snip^



Here is a tool to help people figure out what the subsidy and personal payment amount for health care premiums will be under the pending health care legislation. I think the following, may help put the legislation Democrats are about to pass, into perspective.


HEALTHREFORM.KFF.ORG



The family of four, in the scenario above will pay $2,899 for standard coverage if new legislation passes. The same family will pay $9,435 without pending legislation - This, provided pre-existing conditions does not make finding health insurance impossible. I think the $2,899 is very reasonable when one considers that employer based coverage would likely cost about the same or more? At least, it has in my experience

[Xithras]

5. $242 a month when you're living paycheck to paycheck...

Might as well be $24,000.

Most of the lower middle class people I've spoken to will simply take the Obama Fine. It's cheaper.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. and leave their children without health insurance?

I think you should ask again, that number is for a family of 4.

[EFerrari]

13. Health insurance you can't afford to use is not real insurance

it's just a racket.

[Xithras]

15. Uh, yeah.

"We've survived without it until now, so what's the difference?"

Many people on this board, and in this administration, don't seem to understand that a sizeable chunk of the uninsured population in this country weren't exactly clamoring for "affordable health insurance". They have a lot of things to spend their money on, and high-deductible insurance plans are a money pit that only pays off if there is a catastrophic health problem. The though process is: If you've lived for decades without it and without needing it, then why worry?

And, of course, those people are already devoting that income to other things. It's not like people simply have unspent money sitting around. When you force them to buy health insurance, you're also forcing them to STOP buying other things they want. Nobody wants to STOP buying the things they want so they can START giving it to a dishonest insurance company to buy overpriced, low quality health insurance that will make their overall healthcare bill HIGHER than if they'd simply paid for it themselves, under threat of government penalty. In fact, that sort of thing tends to inspire a bit of anger (anger that will be well-targeted at the Democratic candidates who supported the mandate).


My own kids didn't have health insurance until my oldest daughter was eight. It simply wasn't on my radar. Nothing catastrophic happened, so we simply paid for her checkups and care out of pocket. That was MUCH cheaper than insuring her. If someone had tried to FORCE me to insure her, I'd have been furious.

[SoCalNative]

7. I have coverage through my employer

and pay $30 a month, including dental.

[dtexdem]

2. Without the mandate, the ACA health reform is dead.

This is NOT in the best interests of the Democratic Party -- but even if it were, I'd say "screw it -- it's not in the best interests of the American people." Of course, if the Dem Party had consulted the best interests of the American people, they would have at least tried to institute a single-payer system (such as Medicare for all), which would not have required a mandate.

Unrec.

[markpkessinger]

25. Absolutely -- the economics don't work without the mandate n/t

[Exilednight]

29. Even with the mandate, the economics don't work. There's a difference between having access to

health insurance and having access to health care. This just puts everyone in the former and does nothing about the problem of the later.

[mdmc]

3. r

[mike_c]

4. rec'd

Absolutely, 100 percent agree. Kill the mandate. No mandate to support for-profit insurance corporations! Let them earn their profit the old-fashioned way, by providing good service at an affordable cost. Otherwise, let them die.

[Fool Count]

6. Exactly. The mandate is there only for the sake of insurance

companies. If the mandate is struck down, the only way to keep healthcare
affordable is a single payer system (other than going for a constitutional amendment).

[quinnox]

8. I was against this from day one

Its already been ruled unconstitutional anyway, you shouldn't be allowed to force people to buy insurance from for profit companies.

If it was a government issued and run program, that is an entirely different matter, and is the way they should have gone.

To the idiotic perennial argument about car insurance - no, you are not required to buy car insurance if you don't own a car, DUH. I am free to not own a car and to not buy car insurance. Under this plan, I'm not free to not buy this insurance because I will face penalties if I don't. It's quite the difference from being REQUIRED to buy this bad health insurance or pay FINES, no ifs ands or buts.

[area51]

17. +1 n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. doubleplus 1

[progressoid]

9. Watching that video makes my BP rise.

:grr:

[woo me with science]

12. I cannot look at the man without anger.

So many betrayals.

We were had.

[woo me with science]

11. The mandate WAS the gift to the corporate donors. It was an amazing scam.

This whole debacle was an illustration of how they play us against each other for their own profit. They managed to MANDATE that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN purchase a for-profit, overpriced corporate product. What an achievement.

There is no way in hell that they ever would have been able to sell what was passed to the American people had they gone about it honestly. Not to Democrats, because of opposition to the corporate model, and not to Republicans, because of the government mandate. But fire up one side with the promise of universal coverage, and fire up the other side with the threat of government health care, and you can pass a COMPROMISE that nobody wants....except the corporations that will rake in the dough.

I remember, just before this passed, watching some pundit on TV discussing polls showing that Democrats hated the plan, and Republicans hated the plan. His conclusion was (I am not making this up), "This must mean they are charting a good middle course."

What a scam.

K&R

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Yet many support it simply out of partisanship

You are spot on with your assessment.

[hulka38]

14. K&R

[Fumesucker]

16. K&R, thanks for posting.. n/t

[rjj621]

20. I've been against the mandate from the beginning

and it has a very good chance of coming back to bite anyone who voted for it in the ass and it should.

[slipslidingaway]

21. kick nt

[court jester]

22. K& too late to R... I'm not going to add to the frustration by reminding eveyone how Baucus..

had single payer advocates *arrested* at a *hearing*

Nope.

Not gonna do it.

"...Baucus gaveled for order, guffawing, "We need more police." The single-payer movement has taken his words as a rallying cry. At a hearing Tuesday, five more were arrested. They call themselves the "Baucus 13."

One of the Baucus 13, Kevin Zeese, recently summarized Baucus' career campaign contributions:

"From the insurance industry: $1,170,313;
health professionals: $1,016,276;
pharmaceuticals/health-products industry: $734,605;
hospitals/nursing homes: $541,891;
health services/HMOs: $439,700."

That's almost $4 million from the very industries that have the most to gain or lose from health-care reform..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/14-0

[annabanana]

31. Have you seen this?:

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/balancing-act-ii-health-costs-killing-us-1.3314878

MAN am I ticked...

[markpkessinger]

23. Right Wing BS. No one is "forced" to buy health insurance under the new law...

Yes, there is a "mandate" of sorts. But any citizen has the option of not obeying that mandate. No, they won't be prosecuted or carted off to jail. They will be merely assessed a tax penalty. The NY Times had a good summary of how the tax penalty structure will work, in an article dated March 22, 2010. The article states the following:

The first year, consumers who did not have insurance would owe $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. But the penalty would subsequently rise, reaching $695, or 2 percent of income.

Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income, said Sara R. Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, an independent nonprofit research group.

Considering the average annual premium for a single in an employer-provided plan is currently estimated to be around $5,429 <1>, a single person who could not find coverage for less than $5,429 would have to have an income of at least $67,862.50 (5429 / .08), before the penalty would even be applicable.

So why are you choosing to post this nonsense here?

Look, I'm not crazy about the legislation -- single payer would have been a much preferable route or, failing that, a robust public option that could have put some downward pressure on premium rates. And I still have not entirely forgiven this President for being much too ready and willing to give away the store in this regard. But the legislation is at least some improvement over what we've had up to now.

And I would still like to know why you are using this forum to disseminate right wing propaganda.
___________________
<1> "Costs Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge in 2011," Kaiser Health News, Sept. 27, 2011.

[girl gone mad]

26. Was it "right wing propaganda" when Obama said it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

[markpkessinger]

27. Did you read my post, or are you just reacting to the subject line?

When President Obama made that argument, he had the luxury of arguing the point as a political candidate -- there was no specific legislation in place. And I agree, a public mandate was not ideal. My point is that it is spreading right-wing propaganda to suggest that people will be "forced" to buy coverage under the plan AS IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ENACTED. Big difference there.

Set aside the "right wing propaganda" comment, and respond to the substance of what I wrote. Few will argue that the legislation is ideal. But let me tell you something -- I've seen us go down this road before. If this legislation is just thrown out, as the OP suggest, no politician will go anywhere near the subject for a generation. At this point, we are better to work with what we have, altering where we can, etc., to try to get it closer to the kind of program we all want. And do you realize just how disastrous it would be for those of us with pre-existing conditions if this legislation were just discarded wholesale?

[blkmusclmachine]

24. .

:thumbsup:

[sendero]

28. Apparently you didn't get the memo..

.. the ACA was a STUNNING DEMOCRATIC VICTORY! Obama's crowning ACHIEVEMENT! At least, idiots think so.

[annabanana]

30. In an interesting aside.. Newsday came out full for a Single Payer Plan

in this past Monday's paper

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/balancing-act-ii-health-costs-killing-us-1.3314878

The salient fact about health care in America is that we already have a single-payer system. That payer is you. You pay for your neighbors, they pay for you, and everyone pays for the uninsured, unless of course they simply die untreated. By its nature, after all, insurance collectivizes costs. Our system is also riddled with tax deductions, employer coverage and other cost-shifting features that effectively hide who's paying what and how much it really amounts to.

Overall, it's a recipe for out-of-control spending, which is just what it's given us. Indeed, in Australia, Britain, Japan and some other affluent countries, the sum spent here by government alone (on a per-person basis) would be enough to cover everybody without a dime of additional spending.

Once we acknowledge that we already have a single-payer system, we might as well go ahead and make it a sensible one. What would such a system look like?

First, it will have to change how health-care providers are compensated, so that they're paid for producing health rather than performing costly procedures. Second, it would have to turn back the tsunami of paperwork that threatens to inundate American health care in costs, errors and frustration. And third, it would have to cover everybody. Hospitals already have to treat any emergency patient -- they just pass the costs along to everyone else -- and universal coverage, according to a Harvard study, might prevent the deaths of nearly 45,000 Americans annually, which is more than die each year on U.S. roads.

Makes me wonder where the HELL they were when a Single Payer option was not allowed to the table!!