McCollum to look into proposed insurance requirement

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: St. Petersberg Times

Attorney General Bill McCollum has ordered his staff to check the constitutionality of the requirement in the federal health care bill that individuals buy health insurance.

The provision is similar to that of a Massachusetts law enacted in 2006. It requires people to buy coverage or face a stiff penalty -- much like drivers have to buy basic car insurance. That law was championed by Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential aspirant who was then governor of the Bay State.

But McCollum has "grave concerns" about what he dubbed the "living tax."

"It would be levied on a person who does nothing, a person who simply wishes not to be forced to buy health insurance coverage. Upon initial review, this appears to be contrary to the freedoms we, as Americans, have enjoyed for the past 233 years," he said in a release.

Read more: http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/12/mccollum-to-look-into-proposed-insurance-requirement.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tampabaycom%2Fblogs%2Fbuzz+%28The+Buzz+|+tampabay.com%29

[derby378]

1. This is my biggest problem with the individual mandate

You, as a citizen, are effectively being penalized for the innocuous act of breathing air.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. No, you would be penalized for not having health insurance

[loudsue]

4. For NOT paying for a piece of CRAP. That's what you'd be penalized for.

For NOT supporting an industry who has killed countless Americans ON PURPOSE, for their bottom line.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. for it being 'crap,' most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance

[loudsue]

9. Bull crap: "Most Americans are satisfied w/ their health insurance"

Did you hear that on Faux Noise?? Most people who DO have insurance HATE their insurance companies. I have blue cross/blue shield. The county & state employees are covered by this piece of shit company. Does NOT pay for MRI's or CAT scans, even for pre-surgery. Almost a quarter of all prescriptions are turned down, or have outlandish co-pays.

No, Mr. Conservative, "most Americans" are PISSED at their health insurance companies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Washington Post - Abc News Poll:

15. For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

6/21/09 - Summary Table*

----- Satisfied ----- --- Dissatisfied ---- No
NET Very Somewhat NET Somewhat Very opinion

a. The overall health care system in this country

All 43 10 32 57 26 31 1
All Cov 45 11 34 54 28 26 1

b. The quality of the health care you receive

All 83 49 34 16 9 7 1
All Cov 88 53 35 12 7 4 *

c. Your health care costs, including both expenses not covered by insurance,
and the cost of your insurance, if any

All 55 23 31 44 19 25 1
All Cov 61 26 35 38 19 19 1

d. Your health insurance coverage
All Cov 81 42 39 19 11 8 1
*Item d asked only if insured

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. Do yu really think that poll was set up to apprise the public that they are

not alone in detesting the health insurance set-up in your country? Or to tell them that, gee, you're in a minority, the majority greatly admire the health-insurance set-up you have. Smile! Be happy! The Have's on the far-right of your right-wing spectrum care about you so much they want to FORCE you to fund that larcenous little cartel, the health-insurance industry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. You attempt to assign motives to the pollsters rather than deal with the reality the poll reports

That is why your side loses every time.

[Zhade]

60. "your side" -- as clear an admission that you're a conservative asshole as I've ever seen.

Fucking douchebag.

[Vidar]

29. Good.

[No Elephants]

47. Per a CNN poll, Americans think health insurance is too expensive, so

maybe the motive of the pollster is relevant. Or maybe motive dictates, or at least influences, methodology and methodology is very relevant to the outcome of any poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/19/cnn-poll-americans-say-health-care-too-expensive/ (more than 3 out of 4 polled said health insurance was too expensive).

[WriteDown]

16. Interesting...

I have BCBS and it pays for all of that. I should know. Paid for 4 MRI's this year alone along with several CT scans. If they didn't pay, I'd be bankrupt.

[loudsue]

25. Not here. My MRI cost $1600. My husband's just cost him $1400.

He's having surgery in 2 weeks on his shoulder, and BCBS did NOT, and WILL not, according to their office, pay for the MRI. What do they expect the doctor to do? Figure out what's going on when he gets in there, like they used to do in the old days when all they had was x-ray?

Plus, if you by unfortunate chance have to CALL BCBS, you will be on hold AT LEAST 30 minutes before someone answers. Then you will be "transferred" at least 3 times, getting the call cut off each time, before you EVER get any help.

[alstephenson]

18. People are only PISSED at their health insurance companies...

if they've actually needed to USE their health insurance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. I've used mine many times and I am not pissed at my insurance company

[No Elephants]

52. You chose to buy that insurance--or to work for someone who provided it.

Have you used your insurance for a catastrophic illness and gone bankrupt?

Have you used your insurance for a catastrophic illness and been cancelled?

Have you used your insurance for a catastrophic illness and been told that the treatment your doctors prescribed for you is not covered because the insurance company denying you considers that treatment "experimental?'

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. I have used my insurance for catastrophic illness

I did not go bankrupt.

My insurance was not canceled.

I was not told that the treatment my doctors prescribed for me was not covered.

[Zhade]

61. Liar.

NT!

[No Elephants]

46. And they pay the full cost of private health nsurance themselves (as opposed to being covered

by a public program, including Medicare) or getting coverage paid for by their employer.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. If you're a blue dog, I'm deputy dawg. And I'm puttin' you in the pound. You're

shameless.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. I have little to be ashamed of

[ProudDad]

67. Except being part of the forces fucking up the Earth and all who live on Her (n/t)

[DesertDiamond]

15. If true, that's irrelevant. Whether they're satisfied or not has nothing to do with whether

those of us who do not want to buy it being forced to buy it. Personally, I don't have health insurance, I don't have health problems, I use only a raw vegan diet and holistic medicine, and I don't plan to ever use western medicine except if I ever sustain a traumatic injury. I would be happy to pay into a European style single payer program so that those who do use western medicine can have their care. I do not feel the same about sending a check to an insurance corporation.

[alstephenson]

19. And if you DO sustain a traumatic injury???

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Others will have to foot the bill

[No Elephants]

45. Whether Americans who already have health insurance are satisfied with it has nothing to do

with penalizing people who do not have (or want) health insurance.

And, most Americans who have health insurance either don't pay for it themselves or think it is far too expensive.

They don't represent people who have been denied coverage, either, or those forced into bankruptcy by catastrophic illness, even though they were insured.

[Zhade]

59. What a bald-faced, unsupported LIE.

You never give up, do you? Transparent as glass.

[ProudDad]

66. Mainly the ones who haven't bothered to try to "use it"! (n/t)

[truedelphi]

20. Thank you Loudsue.

As someone who has seen first hand the huge damage done to even our notion of Health Care, and to how the services that people receive are now minimal even though the inflated costs are double what citizens in any other coutnry pay, I am glad to hear someone speak out.

Just because this bill was "acomplished" by people with a "D" after their name, doesn't mean that I have to like it.

[loudsue]

30. Thanks, truedelphi...

this "mandate" to MAKE people buy insurance is, to me, the most outrageous idea anyone has ever had. It is something NOT ONE American citizen would really want if they understood it, and yet our congress is too beholden to the corporations to do the bidding of the electorate. I'll go to war over this one.

[roseBudd]

37. When an uninsured 22 year old is airlifted to a level one trauma center with viral pneumonia...

and dies anyways, the cost of that care, for a service sector employee working 2 jobs that do not offer health insurance, is born by all who have health insurance & tax payers.

When an uninsured twenty year old wrecks his motorcycle and ends up in a nursing home for the rest of his very disabled life, the cost of that very expensive care is born by taxpayers.

The uninsured who gamble that because of youth they will not need insurance, are really gambling that if they do incur astronomical bills, tax payers will cover that care.

[No Elephants]

51. Not necessarily. A person without insurance is billed--and dunned and maybe sued.

It's only if they REALLY cannot afford to pay that they get off the hook. And, in some cases, not for 20 years or until they declare bankruptcy.

[roseBudd]

56. Neither of my examples were of billable patients, one dead, one brain damaged or paralyzed

[No Elephants]

44. You will be penalized for not buying a product from a private company.

People can choose whether or not to drive. The only way to escape this requirement, though, is to commit suicide.

[Uncle Joe]

58. You're correct, for the mere act of breathing you must give profit money to organized gamblers,

if you don't you will be penalized, although on one level the mandated profit in and of it self is a penalty.

[midnight]

3. Ya, but it is so HISTORICAL...... And that's the best thing about it...

[humblebum]

5. It's actually quite different from car insurance in that you

are not required to have insurance if you do not drive. Insurance mandate is more like a poll tax and most likely will cost the democrats big in 2010.

[Frances]

7. I agree it could be a political mistake.

Personally I am tired of my taxes subsidizing people who could pay something for insurance but prefer to pay nothing. These people plan to take their chances with the ER. The rest of us pay for these ER visits with higher insurance premiums and our tax dollars.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. Perhaps you are fortunate to be earning as much. Or perhaps you're being dumped on by the

top 2 percent or so.

[Igel]

21. That was me.

But nobody subsidized my medical care. In fact, when I paid for it I paid at rates higher than charged insurance companies and reimbursed by medicare.

Yet it was cheaper.

On the other hand, the kinds of things that were likely to trigger catastrophic injuries had insurance attached to them. Skiing trips. Car insurance. Time spent abroad. That sort of thing.

Saved a bundle. Could have paid for insurance but it would have been tough.

Even in grad school, when I had my hernia, it would have been cheaper for me to just take out a loan for the operation and pay for medical care. At the end the amount of my outstanding student loans was just a bit higher than the amount I'd paid for insurance and well over twice the actual cost of any medical care I used.

Now, I'm sure there are people for whom your taxes are paying who could afford to pay. Probably not as many as you think. In either category.

[loudsue]

Boy did YOU ever drink their kool-aid! You will CONTINUE to pay

an (insurance) tax, to support a health insurance company that will then pay for doctors and some medicine. Did you read what you wrote?? You are tired of paying TAXES because someone else "prefers" not to buy INSURANCE? What about if you paid taxes because someone else needs HEALTH CARE....insurance be damned. Are you so thoroughly programmed that you really believe INSURANCE is a necessity? The insurance companies should be put out of business permanently.

And so you don't want your tax dollars to go for someone who might just bleed to death on the curb outside the hospital because they don't have any money? Or do you still buy that ronald reagan line that people in need are somehow just middle class lazy people who have plenty of money but wake up in the morning hoping to bleed you dry? Pretty paranoid of your fellow Americans, ey?

[No Elephants]

48. I see your point about higher premiums, but how are your taxes higher because of ER visits?

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. I wish I could believe that Obama is relying on this thing to be ruled unconstitutional

and plans to step in afterwards to push for better - and legal - legislation. He could say to the GOP and Blue Dogs, "See, I tried, but your way didn't work"

But I don't trust him. Too bad for a nice fairy tale.

[blackbear79]

14. Assumtions are being made

You can not assume that everyone without health insurance is receiving free health care, though many certainly are. Some are lucky to not need health care. Some seek alternate treatments such as spiritual or holistic. Some pay their bills out of pocket. Some may simply not want to be treated.

[jaybeat]

17. So if the mandate's so bad, how do we broaden the risk pool?

Since the corprotocracy has placed single-payer and even a robust public option off the table (for now), assuming we want to cover the people private insurance doesn't want to cover (the sick, pre-existing conditions, etc.) and not just let them die (sometimes I wonder on this board--if it is "single payer or death," that death could be yours, your sister, your brother, your child...), the Econ 101 solution is you get young, healthy people who are "free" to gamble on their good health by not buying insurance to... buy insurance! How exactly do you do that without incentives (subsidies) and penalties?

While I am repulsed by requiring people to purchase a private product, the principle is really the same as Social Security--just as the young pay today to take care of the old--today, the healthy pay today to take care of the sick. In both cases, when the now young and healthy are old and sick, the next generation of young and healthy will pay for them, pay-as-you-go.

Honestly, I don't like the idea of a mandate without a strong PO at all, but assuming our bought-and-paid-for-Congresscritters (really, only a handful of DINOs are standing in the way of at least a House-style PO) won't let that happen, how else do we get coverage for the sick?

[ipaint]

22. Health ins. used to work fine.

There weren't massive abuses on the part of consumers. It wasn't until the insurance industry decided they could increase profits by denying care and rescission that things got out of hand. It wasn't abuse by consumers but insurance companies that got us here. If their business model doesn't work as it used before they got greedy let them go out of business. We can then have a system similar to social security everybody in, no one out and we control it. No for profit middleman in charge.

[jaybeat]

28. I'm all for that

But our corporate-owned government isn't.

So, my question remains, what else can we do? Let thousands die every year because of no health care? Do you really want to tell some kids that their mom died because a lot of us wanted to take the profit out of health care, but, because we couldn't, we are OK WITH THAT?

Are we really ready to tell the large (and growing) number of uninsured that because we couldn't reform our corporatocracy in 11 months that they are just going to have to tough it out for however long it takes until we can? How many deaths are acceptable before we suck it up and cover people however we can, and THEN work like hell to expand Medicare through reconciliation, or do any of the other things we can think to do that don't require 60 Senate-critters?

[ipaint]

33. People are still going to die for lack of access. More and more as time goes on.

This bill does nothing to stop the greed that drives the death. All we are doing is slowing it for a tad...maybe.

What it does do is permanently cement insurance companies in place. In fact we save their business through mandates.

If you think a bought and paid for congress is going to adequately regulate an industry you haven't been living in this country the last 30 years.

Tens of millions remain uninsured, the "let them eat medicaid" folks are completely tone deaf to the fact there is a rather large shortage of doctors and specialists that accept it and throwing 15-20 million more into the program is going to create a disaster.

As long as we give up our only bargaining tool that gives us power over the corrupt ins. industry, the mandate, we are sunk. We have given up on every other demand for real reform in this bill. All the very small amount of money given to community centers will do is provide a weak safety net for the millions of people who still won't have access to health care as a direct result of this bill. How stupid is that.

As a long term uninsured person who lived through nafta, welfare reform and the mess called deregulation, this shit reform is the same old shit. If it fools the better off, that's no surprise. They can be led by the nose on the weak promise of a minor personal financial break every time.

[jaybeat]

36. I don't think "we" are giving up anything

I'm not saying, "Don't push for something better," I'm saying, If you can't pass something better, now (face it, you can't, I can't, even if Obama wanted to, he might not be able to), what do you recommend that we can do.

The bill doesn't permanently cement insurance companies in place--they're already there! And their contributions make it such that they aren't going away any time soon, no matter how much of the problem they may in fact be. If you don't trust our government to regulate the industry, how can you possibly think they would ever eliminate it entirely? I honestly don't get it!

As a "long term uninsured person" your personal experience is very different than that of the thousands and thousands of people every year, for whom being an uninsured person is a death sentence.

Honestly, I don't understand--without the mandate, how do we retain *any* leverage against the insurance industry? If we still require them to cover everybody--sick and healthy--at the same rates, but don't require the healthy to get coverage, they'll simply stop writing policies. They can pull out of entire states. The mandate is our carrot--the regulations on pre-existing conditions, annual and life time benefit caps, etc., are the stick.

What do you propose (that CAN actually be done) instead?

[Igel]

23. That's the problem, isn't it?

It's rather like, "If there's such a risk of terrorism, how do we keep people alive without trampling on civil liberties?"

These are both laudable goals. However, in each case the goal must, ineluctably, either justify the means if it's ever to be reached, or, if it cannot justify the means, simply fail to be reached. Just how badly we want that goal versus what must be sacrificed for that goal is the question.

Usually at this point the Franklin quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" intrudes on the discourse. Moreover, medical care is part of a safety net, no? However I won't so far as to quote Franklin.

Repubs and dems, on the whole, seem to be united on this point. The question is, Which civil liberties are we willing to sacrifice? Put differently, Which safety will we demand at any price?

[jaybeat]

27. Thousands die every year because of no healthcare

Terrorism, by comparison, is a complete red herring.

Again, no need to lecture me that access to affordable healthcare is a right, which should be provided by the state and paid for by taxes.

BUT, given that we have a corporate-owned government who is currently unwilling/unable to do that, how ELSE can we cover the otherwise uncoverable without a mandate?

[askeptic]

24. Congress has power to tax - not compell purchase of product

Car insurance is not analogous - driving is elective. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that Congress has the power to compell a person to buy a product. The only solution is a single payer or public option system where the premium is paid through taxes, just as Social Security is paid for.

[jaybeat]

31. That's the preferred solution, I agree

But if it is indeed the "only" solution, a lot of people are going to die because of lack of access to healthcare that could be provided (poorly, I grant you) by the current proposal of insurance reform + mandate.

That's the thing. Are we willing to fix this, badly, in order to save lives and set a crucial precedent (that access to healthcare is something the government should concern itself with--that's something the GOP is fundamentally opposed to)?

I would much, MUCH rather have a strong government option or better yet single payer, but my question remains, unless you know of a way to get that passed through this Congress, what else can we do to cover the otherwise uncoverable, unless we have a mandate of some sort?

[No Elephants]

49. Politicians took single payer off the table, starting with Obama in the primaries.

And then, they threw a robust public option under the bus. And they had (D) after their names, just like the politicians who took impeachment, then prosecution, of Bushco "off the table."

Yes, those politicians MAY have done that bc of corporate contributions (or looking forward to a cushy job when their "public service" ends), but it is still the folks we elected to serve us who screwed us, the economy and the nation.

And, we not only take it, but will likely vote for the very same folks next time we have a chance, instead of doing all we can to primary all of them.

[Betty]

26. I live in Massachusetts

and am forced to buy insurance. My rate just went up for 2010.. by 25%. Forcing people to buy a shitty product that has no price controls on it (that's how it's worked out here, anyways) shouldn't be constitutional.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. What provision in the Constitution would it violate?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

50. The Due Process Clause, for one.

A Republican Supreme Court, however, has already held that government may take property from a citizen for the benefit of a private corporation. That was an eminent domain case, though. At least, in eminent domain, the person or persons having property taken get individual attention and have the right to appeal, so this is different from eminent domain.]

No matter how the SCOTUS may ultimately decide it, there is a Constitutional issue presented.

[JCMach1]

32. McCollum= Toad and former impeachment pri$k (ummm I mean Manager)

I hope Alex Sink mops the floor with this guy!

[freddie mertz]

34. I distrust (Repuke) McCullum, but I support the idea of a court challenge.

Sad fact is that since this national version of "Romneycare" is Democratic legislation, the only likely challenge is going to come from the other party.

[No Elephants]

54. Thank you. Hating McCullum and/or hating Republicans has zero to do with whether this law is

Constitutional, and even whether it is Constitutional does not determine whether it is moral and ethical.

If Republicans passed anything like this, Democrats would have yelped loudly and long.

[Odin2005]

35. The Mandate is Fascist Economics.

Forcing us to buy the product of a corporation.

[Zhade]

62. People will scoff, but you're right -- it's literally fascist.

After all, no less than Mussolini noted that fascism could better be called corporatism.

[Odin2005]

63. Bingo!

Il Duce would be proud.

[optimator]

42. I hope Democrats think twice about what history will say

This Mussolini style solution to the problem is what the world opposed in WW2.

[harun]

53. Good. no one should be forced to by for-profit anything just

because they are alive.

Things are going to get very interesting with this new law, once signed. If the for-profit insurers lost out on their new river of revenue they thought they were going to get my faith in the administration and dem's would be totally restored!

I've always felt it clearly unconstitutional, from the first time I heard it, however no one really seems to be paying attention to what the constitution says anymore. You get two of the three branches of gov't to agree on something and it doesn't matter how unconstitutional it is, it's law.

[No Elephants]

55. And if all three branches agree on it, it doesn't matter if it is

Constitutional, let alone moral.

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what isn't, but it is not infallible. It upheld slavery, laws that discriminated against minorities and women, internment of the Japanese and other atrocious things.

[Odin2005]

65. The SCOTUS overturned FDR's Corporatist NRA using BS right-wing reasoning, but still...

...overturned it.

[Odin2005]

64. There is going to be a wave of populist outrage from both sides against this.

From both the "I hate government" Right and anti-corporate Left. The idiots in DC couldn't come up with a better PR gift to the Teabaggers.

[ProudDad]

68. The BASIC problem with USAmerican "sick care" ...

is the goddamn profit motive...

The CIVILIZED world has removed the profit motive from their universal health care systems...

The USAmerikan Empire, in order to shovel more fucking resources at the cause of the inept USAmerikan sick care system, the corporate fucks in the health insurance mafia and big phrma, feeds that profit motive...

That's what the corporate funded Congress and the tool in the White House have been HIRED to do!!!

We must remove the leeches in the health insurance mafia and big phrma from the equation ... by any means necessary...