Mandating un-affordable insurance purchases is like the old vagrancy laws

[Tom Rinaldo]

Under those laws people who could not afford a home to go to were criminalized for their poverty. Now we are about to be told that if we can't afford to purchase insurance from newly federally sanctioned company insurance stores we'll be fined for not being rich enough to afford life or death resources. This in an economy that may never fully recover from the job loss we just suffered in the Great Recession, after millions of good paying jobs for working class and middle income Americans had already been outsourced overseas. This from a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic Administration.

The entire Democratic justification for individual insurance mandates was hinged on the introduction of robust price controls driven by serious competition to the private sector from expanded and widely available public insurance alternatives. The current plan sanctions continued annual double digit private insurance price increases on top of already un-affordable base line pricing, with subsidies pegged out of the reach of tens of millions of hard working Americans. It mandates that pre-existing conditions be covered but not at prices that average Americans can afford. Our government will now become cops in the employ of private industry, intimidating citizens into becoming their consumers under penalty of law.

Will the next big reform championed by Democrats be the return of Poor Houses?

[cdsilv]

1. No. Debtor's prisons. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Yes, I think you are right...

Poor Houses will be in the initial legislative proposal but will get taken out to win Lieberman's support.

[apocalypsehow]

27. We already have brought back the debtor's prisons - they put guys who don't pay their child support

in jail all the time. So that ship's already sailed.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I wish people would actually look at what's been proposed. Both the House and Senate bills

exempt low income individuals/families from paying fines/taxes for failing to get healthcare. Both also lower the requirements for Medicaid coverage and open it up to more adults.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html?hp#tab=0

Require that most Americans have a minimum level of health insurance or else pay a penalty.
House version
Includes mandate.

Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.


Senate version
Includes mandate.

Penalty: Starts at $95 a year per person in 2014 and rises to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Don't assume we aren't aware

Today in America families that would not qualify for subsidies under these proposals are already losing their homes to foreclosure. Where do you expect them to squeeze 8% of their household income out of? And in return, should they cut back from 3 meals a day to two meals a day to afford it, they get to buy the worst plans available. While these might be an improvement over the worst plans currently available, they still would be the cheapest offered for obvious reasons; things like big unaffordable out of pocket deductables should anyone who scrapted their pennies together to buy one actually get sick.

[dkf]

5. They won't even get to the point where they choose pills or food

It will be insurance coverage or food

[dkf]

6. They won't even get to the point where they choose pills or food

It will be insurance coverage or food

[sinkingfeeling]

9. So, your solution is what? To provide any hope of the exchanges working to reduce the

overall cost of insurance for everybody, there must be participation of the vast majority. Both plans exempt the lowest income families and open Medicaid to families of 4 making up to $33,075 a year. If one reads the proposals, you would find that they also reduce the % of out-of-pocket expenses these lower income families would be liable for and since the insurance plans themselves are regulated by the government for inclusion into the exchanges, the policies must cover the required conditions.

It would appear that many here want the 'health care fairy' to just provide everybody with free, uncapped entirely, with no co-pays, and with no restrictions policies. Health care costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and VA care is already bankrupting the country. Who and how would you pay for this?

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I accepted mandates tied to a system that offered viable public options

This isn't that - that was negotiated away to curry the favor of Lieberman and the like. Health care coverage cost increases in the private sector far outstrip cost increases in the public sector. It takes the willfully blind to not see the implications of that. The current public sector options would be returning huge surpluses to the Federal treasury if their funding base was authorized to increase at half the rate that private insurance coverage costs have increased in this country over the last decade.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Again, I ask you, what funding base? The only part of Medicare paid for by payroll deduction is for

Part A, which still requires the patient to pay $1033 (or something close to that) for the 1st to 29th. day in a hospital. Part B costs $96.40 a month plus co-pays. That is a greatly subsidized premium. A young healthy person will pay closer to $350-$400 a month under an employer plan. That subsidizing, plus Part D, and Medicare Advantage, where the government also subsidizes most of the cost, are driving the Medicare fund shortage.

So you're suggesting that we increase Medicare withholding by 10 to 15% each year? And increase Medicare monthly premiums for the elderly by the same amount? And somehow the Federal treasury will be rolling in hugh surpluses?

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Don't look at the federal deficit outside of the context of the entire real world economy

Americans aren't losing their homes primarily because George Bush or Barack Obama increased the federal debt, they are losing their homes because they are unable to earn enough money to pay their bills. Most bills that Americans pay are private sector bills and private health care coverage costs are exploding faster than almost anything else.

The Federal debt would begin to vanish if Americans were mandated to buy private security insurance with only 85% of the premium costs dedicated to fielding and equipping the U.S. military (within parameters defined by Congress) rather than having it paid for by taxes. But do you think that would lead to a more affordable military for Americans to bear the costs of? Our taxes and the national debt might go down but more Americans would be forced into bankruptsy as a consequece of a privatized national security sector with mandated individual support of it. Haliburtan and Blackwater would be propped up and legitimized in our economy then as surely as Wellpoint will be soon by this legislation.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. I think you hit the nail on the head with this. It would make a good OP.

As I've pointed out many times before, many mandate proponents seem to be laboring under the impression that most uninsured people have gobs of disposable income that they are selfishly and wantonly withholding from the insurance system. I've actually seen, on more than one occasion, DUers claiming that young uninsured people are spending money on cell phones and flat screen TVs instead of health insurance. The uninsured have been Welfare Queened. It was necessary to portray the uninsured in an unsympathetic light to get Democrats to support a mandate during the primaries so we began to hear a lot about "free riders" and "gaming the system" from politicians and pundits, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of uninsured are uninsured because individual policies are expensive as hell and the coverage is shit and they make "too much" to qualify for Medicaid. Some of these people will be helped tremendously by this bill but others will be stuck with a new monthly bill which, even with subsidies, they will not be able to afford. A health insurance premium of "only" $1100 a year is a lot of fucking money to a waiter or a cashier making $20k a year and that's what they'd be paying under the current Senate plan. That's money, BTW, that won't be going into our consumer-spending based economy. That's just for the premium, BTW. And those are the 18-29 year-olds who were so crucial to Obama's victory and will NOT be supporting Democrats in 2010 or 2012 if they are forced to buy craptastic health insurance.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Thanks Hello_Kitty.

Why not write one yourself though? Clearly it struck a nerve for you, I only wrote a few lines but you got deeper into it than I. If you do I'll participate on your thread. PM me if it slips by without me otherwise noticing it.

[eridani]

31. HR 676 has 4.75% withholding. Works for me n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

18. And now you want to add billions in subsidies to private insurers to the mix.

Somehow, that won't contribute to "bankrupting the country". You're contradicting your own point.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. I give. I'm leaving DU. There is no body left that looks at the real world.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Bye.

I merely pointed out that subsidizing private insurance purchases will cost money too.

[sendero]

32. Mandates...

... to buy into a system that really has controlled payouts for services and has very low administration costs (Medicare) is one thing.

Mandates to buy into a broken system that controls payouts poorly and has a stunning 27% cost of administration is another.

You are the health care fairy, you don't get it.

[medeak]

12. am worse off!

Pharma deal kills my thyroid meds that aren't available in US since Aug. Pre-existing condition is status quo....sure you can get insurance but at what cost? Was quoted $46,000 a year for husband with Parkinsons

[Cleita]

15. We have looked and the bill is full of loopholes that favor insurance company profits.

There are no controls over insurance companies going their merry way by continuing to offer us a useless product that will be a hardship for those who can't afford to spend their money on insurance with large deductibles, co-pays and higher premiums for conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.. The cheapest plan available will be not much difference than catastrophic insurance today, which is pretty useless for the consumer and a big money maker for the insurers. Medicaid for the poor is so low paying that most doctors won't take it. There is no provision to update and improving funds for it. It's the working poor who will be squeezed and stomped on the most. This bill is nothing more than supply side, conservative capitalistic exploitation of people who need health care.

This is why Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders and others can't accept it. When you make less than $25,000 a year 8% of income is a hardship. To penalize on top of it is so Republican. I got penalized because I refused to enroll in Medicare Part D, because of the way it was written, so I refused to get it, but I finally had to capitulate and I'm being fined for refusing to be held hostage. This is a crime for senior citizens on a fixed income and will be a crime for penalizing the poor.

[jberryhill]

17. "people with religious objections"

Hmmm... I'm thinking of starting a religion...

[Laelth]

7. Agreed.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

This is a really bad idea, and the Democratic Party will pay for it dearly if it forces this bitter pill down the throats of the American people.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. The perfect summary, Thanks. n/t

[Laelth]

30. My pleasure, and a kick. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[area51]

10. +1

Forcing people to buy insurance with money they don't have (even with a subsidy), from for-profit, unregulated insurance companies is a complete clusterfuck. If we can pay for a huge military-industrial complex, and run two wars of choice without further gouging the American public, why not declare war on the healthcare problem, relegate the insurance companies to regulated, non-profit status and let them sell home or car insurance but not health insurance, have all American citizens in one huge pool for savings, like Canada does, bring soldiers home and offer them training in the healthcare professions, and this will, over time, become a "war" we can win.

[leftstreet]

21. +1

[Cleita]

13. Or, going to debtors prisons or going to prison for stealing a loaf of bread.

It's very Dickension. I wonder how long before we start finding all these things happening again?

[marlakay]

19. I don't think they have a clue what they are doing

how many people won't be able to afford food, helping their kids with college, or just helping them period because they are out of work.

I wonder what the set up will be. My husband and I retired early, moved to the mountains, built a small home and had part time jobs, now we lost those and just make it on pension. We are lucky we have insurance through union retirement but it covers only 70% of big stuff so we have to hope nothing happens before we turn 65. We are 53 & 60.

We already had to downgrade to what we have now because we couldn't afford the better plan. If the plan we have now goes up we can't pay it but union rules say you can't say no, so we would lose our home since houses aren't selling here at all. So much for security, I am scared.

[tomm2thumbs]

22. next they'll be mandating Cadillacs - heck, it makes the neighborhood look good

making sausage is okay, as long as American citizens aren't the ones who get ground up and put in the sleeve

[fascisthunter]

24. what our own party leaders and their supporters don't understand is...

we don't give a flying fuck what their reasons are... what we know is we will be worse off than before being mandated to pay into a unnecessary racket that effects our LIVES, not a lifestyle. And that's one reason I get really pissed off at apologists. Bitch all you want about our disapproval of this bill, but what a lot of you idiots don't want to consider is how it will effect our lives, those of us who don't earn as much as you do, so while you can afford to support this piece of shit bill, know that it has a direct impact on the majority of this country. Our lives, NOT YOURS... you may want to consider that next time you try to talk down to us all.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Yes, we may have to start up whole new "debtors' prisons" ... good for the economy? eom

[amborin]

29. it's a poverty tax