I do not agree with mandated health insurance

[sixmile]

In the current climate, it will not end well if the final health bill is simply a government mandated bailout /handout to the insurance industry.
I know we can do better than this, folks.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. It will be the end of the Democratic party

and will prove what I have said all along about the true purpose of the DLC and the Blue Balled Cowards - to destroy the Democratic party from within.

The true irony here is that passing single payer - REAL reform - in these fucked up times would ensure Democratic majorities for decades - just like FDR's reforms did.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Agreed on all points.

[BzaDem]

11. I think it would be more of an end to your association with the Democratic party

than an actual end to the Democratic party.

[HughMoran]

37. True

Just another bloviating DUer for sure up there.

[robinlynne]

12. k&r

[SoCalDem]

13. Mandate for ALL to be on Medicare would work..anything else..nope

We will end up like the mandatory car insurance in CA. The state only requires $5K liability coverage, so all kinds of bullshit policies are offered, and those are the ones that poor people buy, but when they slam into a brand new Lexus, the $5k might as well be $5.,..and all of the rest of us absorb the losses paid by the Lexus-owner's policy...

and many people buy a policy just to get their license or registration, and then just let it lapse. If you have nothing of values, to be sued over, many people only insure when they have to go to the DMV..and then pray they never get stopped.

[Johonny]

46. I agree

My favorite are the "24 hr" policy that lets you renew then bang you're back to being uninsured. Genius.

I'm all for a mandated policy. I just don't understand how you can mandate people have insurance and then not offer government price controlled policies.

[bvar22]

14. With THIS bill, the Democrats will do the impossible.

It is so bad that The Republican Party will GAIN credibility for having OPPOSED it.
Only The Democratic Party could have revived the Republican Party.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

18. LOL

:rofl:

[ctaylors6]

33. so true ... both sad and funny at same time nt

[Jack Sprat]

48. It has to be in the plan

I can't think of any other reason for this. It must be a mutual kind of partnership like World Wrestling. The corporate government is staging these congressional races and personalities to keep the citizens entertained into believing there is democracy at work. The truth is far from it. It is a plutocracy representing the fabulous few.

It seems like we would finally get tired of being had.

[Jack Sprat]

47. That's why I'm near done.

The whole thing looks too much of a two-faced, back-stabbing betrayal to have not been planned that way from the start. It's making us all more cynical. There is nobody to trust anymore. It is one thing for your enemies to dump on you, but this is the ultimate disappointment.

[MajorChode]

2. It's actually a great idea, even now, but one that will not work in this country

Lot's of countries have mandated health insurance. If you have a job, you pay a premium based on your income. Everyone gets coverage and it's more affordable for everyone. Employers benefit also because no longer do they have to worry about maintaining health insurance plans for their employees and small businesses also benefit because now they can more easily compete with larger companies for employees.

But most of those countries either have a single payer system or some form of it. In the US you have far too many people that will squeal "socialism" without even knowing what the word means and there's too many people who believe private industry does things better than the government when the reality is the opposite. In other words, the right has been very successful at convincing weak minded people of their myths.

[sixmile]

4. It will not work in this country for many reasons

the foremost being the inability to destroy the billion dollar health "insurance" industry.

Without a true single payer option for all, I want no part of this sham reform.

[jtrockville]

16. No country I know of (other than USA) allows profit on essential health care.

If we don't ban profiteering on health care, any so-called reform is bound to fail.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

19. Sing me that song when you have a loved one with a pre-existing condition

Whats in the works now aint nirvana but its got a lot of good in it.

[MajorChode]

25. Agreed. It's a bit naive to think we're going to get a perfect system in the first round

It's more important to have a system by which we can build on that does some good today. If we shoot for the stars in the first round, the detractors will simply have more targets to shoot at and insure that we get either nothing at all, or a system that is so flawed that it fails miserably.

[jtrockville]

29. FIRST round? It's not like we're a developing nation.

Or are we?

[MajorChode]

34. In politics, an all or none approach almost always results in none

The Social Security Act of 1935 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were both limited in scope from their beginnings but have improved significantly over time and hopefully will continue to improve. Both were hotly contested, controversial, and took many years to even get that far and both passed during a time when the Democrats had control over the legislative and executive branches of government. Imagine if the authors of those bills had taken an all or nothing approach. Driving down the court towards your own goal is generally a better approach that trying to shoot from your opponent's free throw line.

Do you think we were a "developing nation" back in 1935 and 1964 also?

[eridani]

42. The currently proposed crap is nothing we can build on

Voluntary buy-in to Medicare might have been.

[MajorChode]

52. I'm not sure you understand how Medicare is financed

Medicare is financed by payroll deduction of all wage earners in the US. Much like Social Security, it is a pay-as-you-go system whereby the workers of today are paying the benefits of the recipients. Now certainly there are supplements to Medicare that you can buy into, but allowing people a "buy-in" to Medicare would fundamentally change Medicare itself. So, near as I can tell you're advocating a single-payer system, which is certainly not a bad idea IMO, but I don't see how you can simply offer a buy-in to Medicare without completely changing Medicare itself because Medicare is not something anyone buys into and never has been. It is a benefit provided to those who are eligible which is financed by all working people.

[eridani]

54. Yes, a buy-in would change Medicare

That is the point. It needs the money that the volunteers would add to the system. Medicare needs to be changed.

[MajorChode]

24. I don't know one that doesn't

Even in countries where both the finance and delivery of health care are primarily state managed, you still have all sorts of profits involved for various functions that can't effectively be performed by the government itself.

I'm more for a narrowly focused system where the government just manages the financing of basic health care. In that way you can effectively control the costs of most everything else that's essential.

[jtrockville]

27. Have you seen "Sick Around the World"?

None of the countries highlighted in this film (United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland) allow profit on basic health care.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/

[MajorChode]

36. So where do they get their...

Prescription drugs...

Crutches...

Bandages...

Scalpels...

Or thousands (if not millions) of other medical supplies?

Do those governments produce all those items?

Japan most certainly does have for-profit health insurance and for many (if not most) people, it is compulsory and they don't have the option of the national system. There are also plenty of for-profit hospitals and clinics in Japan.

There is profit on health care in all countries. The only question is how much.

[eridani]

43. Not on the buying ansdselling of insurance

What we have is the equivalent of a for-profit fire departments. Sure, public fire departments buy their trucks from for-profit companies, but that does not make the department itself for profit.

[eridani]

41. Countries with mandated private insurance have governments setting the prices n/t

[damntexdem]

5. That's fine, just so long as you sign up ...

so you won't be a burden to the rest of us. Disagree all you want, though!

[sixmile]

6. Then we're gonna have to burn this village to save it!

The insurance racketeers need to be treated like the gangsters they are.
There is no way in hell I am signing onto anything that forces me to give my money to a gangster.
If you're that scared, fine.

[sabrina 1]

30. It only took five posts before that rightwing talking point

showed up.

[optimator]

7. we should form a group of disobedience

I vow to REFUSE to buy for-profit health insurance

[sixmile]

8. I second that emotion

And believe that many of our countrymen on the right (wrong) would agree.

[underseasurveyor]

56. Sign me up too

I refuse to have to buy in to a system that's fucked up, broken and corrupt as it is today. Fuck big pharma and the insurance companies that enable them!

[Greyhound]

9. Billions for corporate welfare, not one dime for citizen care!

Welcome to the Amerikan work camp.

"Arbeit Macht Frei"

[Warpy]

10. I don't agree with forcing people to pay for

for profit insurance plans. Those companies have dealt in bad faith with us for far too long, and forcing people to buy a faulty product to fatten a corporation's bottom line should not be government's business.

However, if there is a strong public option, I do support a mandate to buy into that on a sliding scale, depending on income.

The way to decrease cost is to widen the pool of insured. Young, healthy people who think they're immortal and immune to accidents are the ones least likely to want to buy into any insurance plan. That's where a mandate would have to come in, but only if there is a public plan and for that public plan.

I've been without insurance for 22 years and I can wait a little longer if there is no public plan. I won't be buying into a for profit insurance cooperative. I don't trust them after the way they've treated me for the last 22 years.

[sabrina 1]

31. I don't think young people are without insurance because they

think they are immortal. Most are without it because they cannot afford it.

[Warpy]

39. That's certainly the case in this economy

but when things were better, they'd opt out of the insurance package in favor of a higher hourly wage.

That's what has to stop.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

15. Of course you do

You just call it single payer

[sabrina 1]

35. I think the objection is about being forced to pay

the Private Insurance Industry for a shoddy commodity that the OP objects to.

Single Payer would be a government run program, like every other industrialized nation has, and like Medicare eg. In such a system, people would no longer have to pay the outrageously high premiums they now pay to Private Insurers, nor would businesses. Instead everyone would pay a tax for medical care, as they do for SS and Unemployment and it would be far less than they are paying now.

Private Insurance costs in overhead are one third of what people pay and do not go to health care. Eliminating these middlemen, would lower that overhead cost to what it is for Medicare, 3%.

There is no logical reason to 'save' the Private Health Insurance industry. They are a burden on the public in every way and have failed to provide the service they are overpaid to provide in far too many cases, often resulting in the deaths of those they claim to cover.

[sixmile]

40. Thank you for understanding the OP

Let's call the insurance industry what it is: organized crime.
Why allow it to continue? Medicare for all. Level the playing field.
You want better coverage? Buy it. But your tax dollars will still be used for all Americans.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

44. Then chose the public option

whats the problem?

[sixmile]

45. The problem is oversimplification and ignorance

It wil be up to the states to optin or opt out, etc. of any public option. And this congress' version of it is horsehockey, anyway.
Medicare for all is easier, cheaper and doesn't line the pockets (legally) of gangsters.

[sabrina 1]

49. What Public Option?

As far as I know, the weakened, watered down excuse for a PO, which we got only by screaming over the objections of the party, will as I understand it only cover a tiny percentage of the population. If your job offers you even the worst kind of coverage, you have to buy it or face penalties. You cannot 'opt out' and choose the PO.

[yurbud]

17. I would agree to mandated health insurance--even private--if a couple of conditions were met:

the insurance companies could no longer deny claims, but would have to dispute AFTER payment with an outside oversight agency.

The amount spent on overhead like exec salaries, profits, advertising, etc. would be capped and tied to the amount Medicare spends on overhead.

or better yet, force them to become non-profits or get out of the health insurance business.

[bvar22]

20. Do the math:

New price tag for HCR = $900 Billion dollars of Public Money for 10 years

Enrollment in the Public Plan = 6 Million (CBO) after 10 years.

Somebody is going to get a whole bunch of Public Money, and THIS does NOT include the BILLIONS of out-of-their-own-pockets money The Democratic Party is going to force Americans to cough up.

First, Wall Street gets their Trillion Dollars.

Now, the Health Insurance Industry is going to get their Trillion Dollars.

What next?
How about "Entitlement Reform" (Social Security).

Follow the MONEY!

The "Centrist" Democrats are channeling MORE Public Money into Private hands than the Republican Party could ever dream about.


Beyond Disgusting.
Contemptible.

[inna]

38. "Entitlement reform".... Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid....

Democrats Push for Plan to Cut Deficit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/politics/01deficit.html?_r=2&hp

Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats, the White House and Congressional leaders are weighing options for narrowing the gap, including a bipartisan commission that could force tax increases and spending cuts.
...
The main driver of long-term deficits is the chasm between the benefit programs Medicare and Medicaid, which are growing faster than the economy, and federal tax collections, which are at one of their lowest levels in many decades relative to the size of the economy.

Mr. Obama’s budget director, Peter R. Orszag, now at work on the president’s next budget, due in February for the 2011 fiscal year, declined to comment about a bipartisan commission and instead promised that the coming budget would propose additional ways to reduce the deficit beyond next year, when the economy has fully recovered.

“As the recovery strengthens and the economy begins to deliver job growth, we will have to take the tough steps necessary to return our nation to a fiscally disciplined and sustainable path,” Mr. Orszag said. “Even with a fiscally responsible health insurance reform that will help to reduce long-term deficits, we recognize that more is needed to put the budget back on a sustainable path.”

Something tells me that when Orszag was referring to "the tough steps necessary to return our nation to a fiscally disciplined and sustainable path", what he had in mind was cuts in spending and social programs and NOT the only sane solution - raising taxes on the rich.

[sabrina 1]

50. And another reason why the current taxes being collected

isn't keeping up with the cost of Medicare and other programs, is because so many people are unemployed and not paying taxes. This of course, is the result of the policies of the past two decades where US jobs were sent overseas and Big Corps were rewarded for doing so.

Interesting that they are not worried about paying for the huge, wasteful Military Budget. Apparently we always have enough money to pay for wars and weapons and keeping bases open in every country in the world.

How about ending these outrageous wars, closing down a few of our military bases overseas and spending some of that money here at home.

Like spending it on creating jobs, bringing manufacturing back to the US instead of importing cheap goods from overseas much of it made by child labor.

Funny how it's always the 'entitlement' programs that seem to be the problem. When you look at a pie chart of the budget, these programs are a tiny part of the pie, compared to the outrageous Military budget. Soon, we'll be told that the elderly will need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and 'get a job' as the richest country in the world cannot afford to give back to them, what they paid into when they thought they were living the 'American Dream'. American Nightmare maybe a more accurate description of life in the US, except of course for the 1% who have appropriated most of the wealth of this country. And we are about to give them even more.

[inna]

51. +1.

could not agree with you more.

"Funny how it's always the 'entitlement' programs that seem to be the problem. When you look at a pie chart of the budget, these programs are a tiny part of the pie, compared to the outrageous Military budget. Soon, we'll be told that the elderly will need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and 'get a job' as the richest country in the world cannot afford to give back to them, what they paid into when they thought they were living the 'American Dream'. American Nightmare maybe a more accurate description of life in the US, except of course for the 1% who have appropriated most of the wealth of this country. And we are about to give them even more."

[bvar22]

53. ...OR ending The Wars and slashing Military Spending.

A chill goes down my spine when Obama and the "Centrist" "Democrats" invoke "Entitlement Reform".

I'm still very uncomfortable with the proposed $500Billion dollar cut to Medicare to pay for Health Care Reform that is as yet undefined.

[rollingrock]

21. Classic bait & switch

that was one of the big reasons why I and so many others voted for him, because we were scared of Hillary's healthcare mandates, and Obama promised he would never support them. well, that turned out to be another one of his broken empty promises, like so many others. BO has the credibility of a used car salesman.

[cornermouse]

22. Its another monthly bill at a time when

a lot of people are having trouble paying the bills they already had with little or no benefit for the majority of those in need. This is going to be bad for the democratic party.

[Cleita]

23. Worse than that, it criminalizes the poor, who will be subject to penalties, fines

and worse if they choose to eat instead of buy health care.

[sixmile]

26. Exactly.

Take the money from those who can least afford it and give it to the gangsters for protection money. What a racket.
Not for me. Thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Forced purchase of for profit products is just wrong.

Candidate Obama was against mandates, and flung mud at Clinton for being for mandates. This was the only real difference between them that mattered to me, and why Obama got my vote. Bait and switch is what they call it.

[sabrina 1]

32. Same here. He says his 'thinking has evolved' on the issue

but it was Hillary's position on mandated healthcare, which was seen as a rightwing position at the time, which made the difference to many people.

[rollingrock]

57. That's a good one

you actually buy that line? wow, so many suckers in this country. he would have been more honest if he said his thinking has 'devolved.' Breaking campaign promises on a regular basis, filling your administration with former Goldman Sachs lobbyists, etc. is not my idea of evolved thinking or change for the better.

[Vidar]

55. Me neither.