New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea

[HopeHoops]

Source: AP via Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

----
In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."
----

more at link.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insurance

---

-----
"Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it." :rofl: - How true!

[wordpix]

1. anything to obstruct passage and now implementation

:grr: but good article :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[nightrain]

2. we are continually lied to. up is still down.

[Lorien]

72. We've all fallen down the rabbit hole

Suddenly Dems approve of a mandate without a public option because the teabaggers are against, well, anything. We're also told that we must approve of continued wars in the Mideast, torture, wiretapping, privatizing public schools, doing nothing to slow climate change, the Patriot Act, continued tax cuts for the rich, bank bailouts, keeping Gitmo open, etc. etc. because OUR team is the one now doing it. Meanwhile the Right opposes everything that they strongly approved of for the previous eight years because their team is no longer the one in power.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[No Elephants]

104. +1

[No Elephants]

3. Um, Hillarycare (1993) had both individual and business mandates.

Nixon's plan had business mandates, but no individual mandates.

Kennedy and other Democrats fought him.The Republicans never introuced a health care bill after 1990.

So, the only folks who actually sought to make individual mandates law were the Clintons, Romney and Obama, and only Romney (plus the overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts State Legislature) and Obama (and his Democratic Congress) succeeded.

Getting tired of Democrats making Republican ideas into law.

[No Elephants]

5. P.S. Let's tell the truth. The mandate was the idea of health insurers and both Parties jumped.

[sabrina 1]

42. Exactly ~ so it was always up to the people to resist

this corporate friendly policy. It was up to us to oppose anything that didn't include a PO. If Republicans had pushed for this, every Progressive blog would have been outraged.

What I learned from this whole debacle was that there are no principles worth fighting for on either side. The Corporate State we live in, and the real bosses of this country know they can count on each party to fire up their followers to vote against their own interests by turning politics into a sport, where a win for the team trumps principles every time.

That is why we saw so many posts towards the end, when all the excuses fell apart, admitting that 'we have to win or it will be a black mark against Democrats'. Is that really what politics is all about? We KNOW that both parties do what Corporations tell them to do and are rewarded, which we the suckers who elect them, are not, when they pass legislation that favors the bottom line of Big Business.

We could have succeeded in foiling them this time, IF so-called progressives had not caved to corporate America. So, for the forseeable future, not much has changed regarding the Health Care System in the U.S. It is still a for-profit system strengthened by the stamp of approval it just got and by the profits they now can take from public funds.

The left was outraged over Bush's Faith-based program. Or were they just outraged because it was done by a Republican? Since this administration is in favor of it, it seems to have become acceptable to the formerly outraged left. Same thing with war. The people dying under a Democratic administration are apparently different from those killed by the former administration.

[No Elephants]

99. I don't know if Progressive caved or simply were ignored. I never caved; and I contacted

the WH, my Senators (even the Brown turd) and my Rep very frequently, as well as adding my name to every online petition that came my way via email or message board links.

Short of taking up arms, ala the wingnuts, I am not sure what more I could have done. And, I fully believe there were thousands upon thousands who did the same. Polls also showed that something like 80% favored a public option. 80%. Think about it.

Thing is, voters who can't contribute millions of dollars are all but irrelevant at this point, especially Democratic voters.

I think too many of us were asleep too long as Congress (both Parties, Republicans first) morphed into corporatists. The Democrats resolved to woo the corporations at least 30 years ago, about the same time they decided to woo center right voters.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Stellar]

32. So, you're saying that a lot of people had to die

during those years because know one wanted to compromise? My way or the high way?

Why did Hilary Care fail?

We could have been at a point 'this' time around to include a public option or single payer.

ETA: My understanding was that Obama wanted to *not* make the same mistakes Hillary care made, so he went another route.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

41. "the whole story", you say?

Obama argued for a public option, but couldn't get it. Did Romney argue for one?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

45. Did Romney "speechify" for a PO? eom

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Earth Bound Misfit]

82. Obama argued for a public option?

HUH?

[boppers]

84. Yup. He wanted it, but didn't think it was a "must have or I will veto the bill" deal breaker.

Compare:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32718713/ns/politics-white_house/
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73275-obama-public-option-not-the-most-important-part-of-healthcare-bill

[Earth Bound Misfit]

85. Wow. I am over-FV#$ING-whelmed.

"Wanting" it (post #84) and arguing(post #41) for it are oceans apart.
Thanks(?) for the links--

1st link:

Banner 1: Obama rallies troops in Afghanistan visit
Banner 2: Duke outlasts Baylor for 1st Final Four since ’04

2nd link: The Hill????

“There's 5 percent differences, and one of those differences is the public option,” Obama said. “But this is an area that has just become symbolic of a lot of ideological fights. As a practical matter, this is not the most important aspect to this bill — the House bill or the Senate bill.”

Not exactly a vociferous "argument" is it?

[boppers]

87. I suppose it's a matter of opinion on the "oceans apart"....

He brought it up on different occasions(I provided only two links, for brevity, did one not work right?), and in case you missed the whole brouhaha, here's a couple of roundups from politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/

The portions of the thread (now missing) that would have provided context was a claim that "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" were identical, IIRC.

[No Elephants]

103. That's VERY different from fighting for a public option, your original claim.

Like most politiicians, he wanted it both ways in the public mind.

He has a lot of power over Democrats in Congress, from DNC funds to primary and election campaign appearances by him and other party honchos (ala the Lieberman-Lamont primary) to committee assignments and public funds(via Pelosi and Reid, who will do a lot for him and the Democratic agenda), etc. The notion that he is powerless over Congress is laughable.

But, I have a feeling you know that.

[boppers]

120. Yes, I know that.

Degrees of "fighting" are relative...

In this case, it's like "fighting" for head from your spouse.

[No Elephants]

102. I disagree. I think Obama gave lip service to a public option, which he also called a "sliver."

I don't think he fought for it with anyone who had a vote in either House of Congress. In fact, he avoided meeting with the Progressive Caucus until after the Senate bill was prety much set in stone.

He fought for the votes to pass a bill that lacked a public option, but I never saw any indication that Obama fought for a public option among those who actually had a vote on the subect; i.e., members of Congress. To the contrary, many things indicate the opposite, from meeting with health insurers, PHRMA and big health care before the process started to leaving the public option out of his "fixes," IOW, pre-start to finish.

Making speeches to the public saying "I think a public option would be a good way of insuring competition, but it's only a sliver"--certainly not anything I'm going to insist on--is not fighting for a public option. Neither is refusing to meet with the House Progressive Caucus until it was time to jawbone them into voting for the Senate bill. Neither was praising Baucus to the skies, but dissing "my friends on the left" for insisting on a public option. Etc. Etc. Neither was not resorting to reconcilation to pass a public option, instead of resorting to it only to pass a Senate bill.

And, if you think Obama, POTUS and head of the Democratic Party, has no power over Democrats in Congress, you are very much mistaken. If nothing else, look how fast the WH killed the drug reimportation bill.

We say "FDR's New Deal," FDR passed Social Security" and "LB's Great Society Legislation," or Bush's War. If they had no power over Congress, why does everyone say those things? And, if they did have power over Congress, how come Obama doesn't (allegedly)?

[grahamhgreen]

4. We've been conned - a simple bait-and-switch. Repeal the mandate or expand Medicare, please.

[Wilms]

6. Perhaps now Progressive opposition is just a tiny bit more comprehensible to some. n/t

[Mithreal]

17. +1 Progressive principles unwelcome.

Progressive opposition seems to be purposely mischaracterized at every opportunity or ignored altogether.

Not giving up though.

[liberation]

26. They only want our votes, not our opinions...

... and most definitively not our ideals.

[No Elephants]

106. IMO, some always understood it, but pretended not to; and some never will understand it

because they are in denial. And some pretend that no one on the left has any opposition to this bill.

[samplegirl]

7. Chris Matthews called it

Socialism on a State level.

[ChicagoSuz219]

8. You can't have universal coverage without a mandate...

...the younger/healthier people have to offset the older/sicker ones. It also will keep the costs down for everyone. It's just math...

[HopeHoops]

10. That's why Social Security worked for so long - they just didn't anticipate people living longer.

That's really the problem. Mathematically, it was completely sound from the beginning, based on what was known to be true at the time. The increasing longevity fucked with the stability of the calculations.

Still, you're correct. The only way this can work is if healthy people contribute to cover those who are sick. I paid health insurance for many years without using but a fraction of what I paid into it. I'm using it a bit more now because of an injury, but still not close to what I pay into it. At some point, the equation inverts.

[ChicagoSuz219]

12. A voice of reason. Thanks. Here's a link...

...to something I found on Blue Cross' website.

Apparently, they commissioned a study last year. I haven't finished reading it yet, but you get the general gist early on...

http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsured/background/Oliver-Wyman-Report-Showing-Impact-of-Healthcare-Reform-on-Premiums-pdf.pdf

[liberation]

30. Wait, you are linking a study paid by a private health insurance carrier to make your point?

Jeez, no conflict of interests there at all...

[ChicagoSuz219]

69. I am telling you why a mandate is needed for universal healthcare...

...unless you raise taxes by 40%+ & offer it for free, like they do in other countries.

How do you think that would play here?

[EFerrari]

11. You can't keep costs down and mandate the purchase of INSURANCE

from private vendors with high overhead. That's just math, too.

[ChicagoSuz219]

70. You can offer cheaper plans that force them to become more competitive. n/t

[mainer]

95. It CAN work with private vendors.

but you have to regulate their profits. Like a utility.

Netherlands
Main article: Health care in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.<45>
Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary, curative care which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductibles, co-pays etc or refuse to fund treatments which a doctor has determined to be medically necessary). The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit). All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts will receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medically disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Neth...

[Oregone]

14. What is the value of universal coverage if people don't have universal access?

60% actuarial?

:rofl:

[Lorien]

74. Aye, there's the rub. If your plan comes with a 10k deductible and you only make

24k a year you'll never have access to health care.

[Mithreal]

23. Not with that style of thinking and math confined to one dimension.

[liberation]

28. I don't think "mandate" means what you think it means...

... using the federal government to force people to buy the product of private corporations is not a "mandate" it is "extortion."

[musical_soul]

50. The problem is.....

everybody can't afford it. In theory, the government is going to help those people out.

However, how does government assistance usually work? You usually have to be poorer than poor
to get the assistance. Anybody who is strugglig to pay their bills but yet just barely make
"enough" don't get it. Now, people are going to be punished for it. That isn't fair.

[Lorien]

75. Yeah, sure-what part of your equation allows for massive CEO salaries

and executive bonuses? Why DOES the CEO of United Healthcare "need" to make 120k PER HOUR? How about all those stockholder profits? It's not about "keeping costs down"; it's about profiting by raising rates and denying care.

[ChicagoSuz219]

81. It's not "my" equation...

Part of the new Law states that private insurance companies have to spend 80% of premiums on actual health care, or send rebates to the insured.

[fascisthunter]

91. exactly!

[dflprincess]

86. And a mandate would be fine if it were a mandate to pay a tax to a single payer system

that actually allowed access to care. You know the kind of crazy system so many other countries have.

It's being told you must buy the same shoddy product from the same for profit crooks who make their money by denying access to healthcare that many of us find unacceptable.

[No Elephants]

105. A mandate to buy into a federal or state program, like Medicare, is very different from a mandate to

buy from private companies. I don't think anyone here is arguing against a mandate to buy into a government program. Few, if any, on the left are.

[elocs]

9. It must have been because this is the 3rd time I've read it here this morning,

and the 3rd time is a charm.

[TomCADem]

13. Really? Name A Single Republican Who Voted For It.

I know a lot of folks keep on referring to Romney-care. The MA state legislature that passed it had a Democratic majority I believe. Yet, the MSM gives credit to Mitt Romney.

[Oregone]

15. Not RomneyCare. NixonCare

Do you need to buy a clue as to why Republicans opposed it? They don't like Democratic "success" (especially not by a black president)

[TomCADem]

16. Nixoncare? Try Ted Kennedy-care, Which Should Have Passed...

Once again, why are we rushing to give Republicans credit? Shouldn't Ted Kennedy get credit for "Nixoncare"? Nixon just happened to be President, and he was willing to compromise on HCR. Here is Ted Kennedy himself on "Nixoncare":

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406/page/2

For the next generation, no one ventured to tread where T.R. and Truman fell short. But in the early 1960s, a new young president was determined to take a first step—to free the elderly from the threat of medical poverty. John Kennedy called Medicare "one of the most important measures I have advocated." He understood the pain of injury and illness: as a senator, he had almost died after surgery to repair a back injury sustained during World War II, an injury that would plague him all of his life. I was in college as he recuperated and learned to walk without crutches at my parents' winter home in Florida. I visited often, and we spent afternoons painting landscapes and seascapes. (It was a competition: at dinner after we finished, we would ask family members to decide whose painting was better.) I saw how the pain would periodically hit him as we were painting; he'd have to put down his brush for a while. And I saw, too, how hard he fought as president to pass Medicare. It was a battle he didn't have the opportunity to finish. But I was in the Senate to vote for the Medicare bill before Lyndon Johnson signed it into law—with Harry Truman at his side. In the Senate, I viewed Medicare as a great achievement, but only a beginning. In 1966, I visited the Columbia Point Neighborhood Health Center in Boston; it was a pilot project providing health services to low-income families in the two-floor office of an apartment building. I saw mothers in rocking chairs, tending their children in a warm and welcoming setting. They told me this was the first time they could get basic care without spending hours on public transportation and in hospital waiting rooms. I authored legislation, which passed a few months later, establishing the network of community health centers that are all around America today.

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach. With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.

Why are we so eager to give Republicans credit for a bill that had Ted Kennedy's name all over it?

[Oregone]

18. NHIPA was Nixon's idea. Kennedy vehemetly oppossed it

Kennedy originally went with single-payer, and then went back to the Kennedy-Mills Compromise Bill, which was payroll tax funded, with private administration of the plans.

It was the viable contrast to NHIPA (subsidized and mandated private insurance plans, like this act), which Ted Kennedy called "a partnership between the administration and the private health insurance industry. For the private industry, the administration plan offers a windfall of billions of dollars annually. The windfall is not entirely a surplus, since elements of Administration's proposal appear to have originated in the insurance industry itself"

Sorry, I think you got that one wrong again. Please check:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19760517&id=ph8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KSkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6942,4322069

Kennedy was not for the NHIPA, but directly oppossed with a variety of his own plans. Unions did not ultimately prop up Kennedy-Mills due to not having 100% actuarial (as I understand it). In any case, Kennedy did not favor individuals being forced into the marketplace to purchase insurance from private providers, as did Nixon.

[TomCADem]

19. That passage I linked is Ted Kennedy himself...

You can argue the politics of it, but with respect to the policy, and what Ted wanted, he is the one who wrote the passage I quote:

When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House.

I don't see Ted Kennedy giving Nixon credit for the plan. It sounds like Ted is taking ownership of it.

[Oregone]

20. I think you aren't seeing the big picture

"Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974"

Thats not necessarily Nixon's plan he is referring to (NHIPA that is subsidized and mandated private plans that people must have)

Rather, he may be referring to his very viable Kennedy-Mills Compromise plan, which didn't require a purchase in a private marketplace, because it was payroll tax funded. It had very strong support, but was a compromise by letting private providers administrate the plans

So you are trying to originate mandated, subsidized privately purchased plans to Kennedy, but that isn't what he was advocating. It was what Nixon was advocating.

A quote without context is worthless, and you are making a wild assumption that there was but a single plan, and that plan was one the Kennedy favored/wrote. Its just not the case. There were a variety of plans, ranging from the worse (on Nixon's end to the best on Kennedy's single payer end--though he settled on a compromise). This plan signed into law is closer to Nixon's plan.

Understand? Credit Kennedy-Mills to Kennedy and the NHIPA to Nixon (which is mandated & subsidized purchases of private policies)

[TomCADem]

35. HuffPo - "The distance between Kennedy and Nixon then was so small ..."

I think you are putting to much emphasis on Ted Kennedy's original proposal, rather than the proposals that Ted Kennedy came closest to getting passed even after the resignation of Nixon. Thus, is it really accurate to call the proposal Nixoncare, since Nixon was not even around as it moved through committee?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/when-kennedy-nearly-achie_n_269935.html#page_url---http%253A//www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/when-kennedy-nearly-achie_n_269935.html*ad_client---pub-3264687723376607*ad_output---js*max_num_ads---3*ad_type---text*feedback---on*ad_channel---8073093451%252CPolitics%252C9299244974%252C7118282503*hints---%2520*hp_dest_id---contextual_ad_unit_1

A legislative tango ensued. Recognizing that single-payer didn't have the votes, the senator set up secret meetings with Congressman Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.), to put together an alternative piece of legislation, one that had the health insurance industry serving as intermediary in a still largely-government-administered system. Once that was accomplished, Kennedy set up another secret meeting, this time with the president and his advisers.

"He wanted to see if they could find a three-way compromise," recalled Stuart Altman, a health care adviser to Nixon, and highly respected expert on the subject. "It was the beginning of what became known as the Kennedy mystique. He clearly is a liberal; he was a liberal; he strongly favored liberal position. But he never let his ideological position cloud him from getting things done that would help people."

But as the main actors grew closer, external forces were pulling them apart. As Altman explained, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Caspar Weinberger pushed back against many of the concessions that the congressmen were demanding. The American Medical Association decried the Kennedy-Mills bill as "socialist." The National Federation of Independent Business, meanwhile, deemed it "nothing more than a first step towards socialized medicine."

The real pushback, however, came from the labor community. As Watergate cast a shadow over the Nixon presidency, unions began asking why compromise was needed in the first place. "They wanted the insurance industry out," said Altman. "They were convinced that they would win the presidency in 1976 and they just said no. And so, they essentially left Kennedy out to dry. And the same thing with the conservatives. They were flabbergasted that Nixon was willing to go as far as he did."

Even after Nixon resigned, Mills pressed forward. Moving even closer to the then former president's outline, he put legislation to a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee in 1974. It passed by a 13-12 vote -- a historic breakthrough but still a narrow one. The congressman was wary of moving anything to the House floor without a bigger majority.

From this description, it really does look like President Obama passed a HCR package that Ted Kennedy would have happily championed. Yet, we give Nixon credit for the work of Kennedy and Mills.

[Oregone]

37. Please stop this foolishness. Read the following

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19760517&id=ph8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KSkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6942,4322069

They were seperate plans. Kennedy DID NOT want to force people to purchase insurance from the private market.

One approach to national health insurance was reflected in the Nixon Administration bill, which called for one price premium payments by all but very low income families as the most equitable way to finance health care. These premiums would be paid to private insurance companies.

A second approach found in the Kennedy-Mills and Corman-Kennedy called for a government administered program financed by a payroll tax so that costs would be distributed on the basis of ability to pay

[flyarm]

54. it was discussed last night on the Bill Moyers show..Oregone you are 100% correct! eom

[TomCADem]

56. See Post #16 and #29

Post #16 Is Ted Kennedy Himself. Post #29 is a detailed discussion of Ted Kennedy's efforts to pass the Kennedy-Mill plan that you yourself raised.

[Oregone]

58. Absolute rubbish

Why haven't you addressed the FACT that Nixon's plan and Kennedy's plan were not the same?

:rofl:

Nixon's NHIPA == Subsidized & Mandated insurance purchased from private market

Kennedy-Mills == Payroll tax funded insurance

[No Elephants]

107. Oregone is correct.

[No Elephants]

100. Reply # 18 is correct. It was Nixon's proposal and TK initially opposed it bc

he did not want Republicans to get credit for health care. However, he repented and the proposal became the Nixon-Kennedy proposal. However, by then, the Wategate mess was distracting Nixon, then Congress and the bill never passed. Also, maybe some Democrats, still powerful in Congress then, shared Kennedy's reluctance to let Nixon get any credit. In any event, this initial opposition was something Ted Kennedy rued the rest of his life and often spoke of. Google if you like. (And, the Nixon-Kennedy proposal was to the left of Obamacare.)

[No Elephants]

110. To clarify: I did not mean something formally called a Nixon-Kennedy proposal.

I meant only that, after fighting Nixon's proposal initially, TK got on board with passing universal access to health care during Nixon's administration.

[flyarm]

53. ahhh nooo..get your history right here..Kennedy opposed it ..big time..and then spent a lifetime

regretting his own opposition!

[TomCADem]

57. Post #16 Is Ted Kennedy Himself On The Subject...

Again, I find it strange that folks are arguing about what Ted Kennedy supported when we have Ted's own article from Newsweek that addresses the subject. Why speculate?

Ted strongly support President Obama's HCR efforts, and President Obama himself.

[Oregone]

59. You are becoming a joke

Why are you pretending Kennedy is being quoted as supportive of Nixon's shitty plan? He wasn't. He was supportive of his own counter-proposals.

:rofl:

[TomCADem]

61. Ted Kennedy - "We almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974"

Ted's own words, unless you are saying that Ted had the votes for single payer, and that Nixon would have signed it.

[Oregone]

63. Yep, Ted Kennedy had a plan then. Why are you pretending it was Nixon's plan?

So Kennedy had a plan Nixon would sign. Was that plan NHIPA? Who wrote the NHIPA? Who proposed it? Was that the name of the plan Kennedy was referring to in that quote, or a different one? If it was a different one, what was it?

[TomCADem]

67. I Thought I Answered That, Well ONce Again, Here Is The Plan Nixon Almost Signed That Ted...

Appears to be referring to...

A legislative tango ensued. Recognizing that single-payer didn't have the votes, the senator set up secret meetings with Congressman Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.), to put together an alternative piece of legislation, one that had the health insurance industry serving as intermediary in a still largely-government-administered system. Once that was accomplished, Kennedy set up another secret meeting, this time with the president and his advisers.

"He wanted to see if they could find a three-way compromise," recalled Stuart Altman, a health care adviser to Nixon, and highly respected expert on the subject. "It was the beginning of what became known as the Kennedy mystique. He clearly is a liberal; he was a liberal; he strongly favored liberal position. But he never let his ideological position cloud him from getting things done that would help people."

But as the main actors grew closer, external forces were pulling them apart. As Altman explained, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Caspar Weinberger pushed back against many of the concessions that the congressmen were demanding. The American Medical Association decried the Kennedy-Mills bill as "socialist." The National Federation of Independent Business, meanwhile, deemed it "nothing more than a first step towards socialized medicine."

The real pushback, however, came from the labor community. As Watergate cast a shadow over the Nixon presidency, unions began asking why compromise was needed in the first place. "They wanted the insurance industry out," said Altman. "They were convinced that they would win the presidency in 1976 and they just said no. And so, they essentially left Kennedy out to dry. And the same thing with the conservatives. They were flabbergasted that Nixon was willing to go as far as he did."

Even after Nixon resigned, Mills pressed forward. Moving even closer to the then former president's outline, he put legislation to a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee in 1974. It passed by a 13-12 vote -- a historic breakthrough but still a narrow one. The congressman was wary of moving anything to the House floor without a bigger majority.

Seems like Ted's plan still depended in large part on private insurance, and that this was the plan that Nixon almost signed.

[Oregone]

68. Oh, thats your misunderstanding

"Seems like Ted's plan still depended in large part on private insurance"

Yes, that was part of the compromise. It was payroll tax funded, government administrated, but allowed the private providers to deliver the plans on the end point.

But no, it was not subsidized mandated purchases from the private market. Nixon's NHIPA was, and thats what people refer to when they call this bill NixonCare.

Kennedy-Mills was a good compromise, and its too bad the unions didn't get behind it

[Oregone]

60. BTW, can we just pause for a moment

To clear up confusion, since you are quoting Kennedy as being supportive of health reform...


Why don't you explain EXACTLY what his version of reform was that he was supportive of and how that compares to the current mandated, private market model

[TomCADem]

62. Ted Supported Single Payer, President Obama Supported A Public Option

There you go. At the same time, both demonstrated a willingness to compromise on these points. Is that too difficult to get?

[Oregone]

64. No, thats not the debate. You suggested Kennedy should be responsible for this mandate model

How did any of the proposals Kennedy supported relate to this model? How about the ones he oppossed?

[TomCADem]

65. Never said that. Once again...

Ted supported single payer. But he was willing to compromise. He said so himself.

[Oregone]

66. "Nixoncare? Try Ted Kennedy-care"

...in a discussion specifically about the origins of mandates.

And in that exact context, Kennedy compromised more than once, but never went down the path of mandating private market commerce.

[No Elephants]

101. They compromised--and Ted Kennedy was instrumental in that.

In today's parlance, Ted "parachuted in" when the parties were at an impasse and jawboned both sides until they reached agreement.

Now, I'm not sure why that was necessary as the Mass Legislature had enough Democrats to override a gubernatorial veto. Maybe it was Romney's proposal and the Mass Legislature did not want to pass it? Or, maybe the Democrats in Massachusetts, like those in D.C. were not unified? I have no idea, really.

[izzybeans]

21. Wasn't that a central component to Hillary's proposals. I remember Krugman hammering Obama

about them during the primaries.

[slaphappy]

29. The link has a virus

[izzybeans]

39. what link

my dumb ass blog? I guess google's blogspot has a virus then.

[No Elephants]

108. During the primaries, Obama suppored a strong public option and NO mandates.

Hillary, both in Hillarycare and the primaries, supported mandates.

[A4Dems]

25. I thought that McCain

was also for mandatory purchase of heath insurance during the Presidential campaign as Hillary??

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Alcibiades]

34. Not quite

What McCain would have done was the same thing he did when his party had the majority in both houses and the presidency: nothing.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[New Dawn]

40. Many of us here were saying that about the Mandate since the 2008 primary campaign.

But now that it has been passed into law, the corporate press comes out and admits it.

[Edweird]

43. K&R

[ehrnst]

47. Just posted on VA AG Cuccinelli's facebook Fan page. Thanks!!! (nt)

[musical_soul]

49. I'm not surprised.

The concept of forcing people to give money to companies when they don't want to
and punishing poor people who can't afford it (but don't qualify for a stimulus) is
totally a Republican idea IMO.

[No Elephants]

109. Please see Reply ##s 3 and 5.

I don't care what "ideas" people have. I care when an idea becomes law; and so far, only the Clintons and Obama proposed making mandates the law of the land.

[harmonicon]

51. I'll add my voice to the millions who feel this way: no shit - that's why we hate this bill

It is a GOP idea, and I find it disgusting that Democrats would have anything to do with this. The party has moved so far to the right that what less than 20 years ago was the Republican response to the centrist Clinton's proposals is now considered acceptable. Excuse me if I have to throw up in my mouth a bit.

[Lorien]

76. What's frightening is that "we" are now a tiny minority here

issues no longer matter. Branding, team logos, and marketing are all that anyone seems to follow anymore. Teabaggers oppose GOP ideas while Dems cheer them. Up is down, war is peace.

[progressoid]

78. +1

[harmonicon]

80. it's very disheartening

I started to know that this was going to be the case as soon as the 2006 election sweep produced no real changes in government, but strangely I thought there was a chance that changes could be made and things would move in a direction that I'd like; Howard Dean had done incredible things, and if that continued, something could really start happening. Now I feel like that's all gone. I voted for Obama feeling like while he wouldn't make major changes - he's a status quo kind of guy - at least things wouldn't get any worse. I feel like this health insurance boondoggle has made things worse.

[No Elephants]

111. Great post.

I don't know that we are a tiny minority here, though. Then again, I post almost exclusively in LBN, where there seems to be diversity of opinion.

I think the "branding" (and Obama idolatry or Democratic Party idolatry) folk may be more consistent and organized here, though.

But, what goes on here doesn't frighten me. What goes on in the real world is another story. In the real world, I think Democrats are getting more and more fed up with corporatist Democrats, though they still prefer corporatist Democrats to corporatist Republicans, if only bc the latter have gone completely looney in a desperate effort to differentiate themselves from corporatist Democrats.

[mainer]

92. It's also an idea that works around the world

Mandates are necessary for universal health care.

And as I pointed out below, the Netherlands requires everyone purchase health insurance -- and private insurers are part of their system. But those insurers are tightly regulated as to how much profit they'lre allowed.

[harmonicon]

93. that argument is crap whether you know it or not

To compare the Dutch or Swiss systems to this is a laugh. I live in a country with universal healthcare, and the Swiss or Dutch systems are much more like the UK's NHS than they are like this corporate giveaway that Obama has signed into law. Mandates are not necessary for universal healthcare - the UK doesn't have mandates. Simply put, anyone in the country who needs healthcare gets it. The only mandates that are necessary for UNIVERSAL healthcare are mandates that medical professionals must treat all patients equally regardless of money, insurance coverage, etc. The Dutch system where the price of insurance is a government-set uniform price is completely different than letting insurers charge whatever they want to whoever they want; so long as they offer something, they've done nothing wrong. If you can't afford it, you're fucked. Shit like this is why I'm looking into various immigration programs to allow me to stay in the UK indefinitely - no fucking way will I live somewhere where my life would be ruined if I got sick. I'm getting too old for that to seem like a reasonable risk.

[mainer]

94. UK requires contributions unless you're too poor

Isn't that a mandate?

From a site about UK NHS:

"The service is financed from mandatory national insurance taxation paid by employees directly from their salaries and supplemented by an obligatory contribution form employers. Self-employed persons have to pay the full contribution themselves. "

[harmonicon]

97. it's a tax, and it's incredibly small and reasonable

That's not a mandate - that's social infrastructure, like paying into social security. Right now I don't pay into it because I'm a full-time student. If I did have a job, and then lost it, I would still be covered - coverage has NOTHING to do with what one pays into the NHS. What one pays into the NHS only has to do with how the entire program is funded. An illegal immigrant would get the exact same care as a millionaire here.

[mainer]

118. It requires payment -- a tax IS a mandated payment

"The service is financed from MANDATORY NATIONAL INSURANCE TAXATION " (from NHS info)

So, yes. It is required that you contribute -- which makes it MANDATORY.



Those who can't afford it (like students) are covered gratis by the government.

But those who are earning an income are required to contribute. Just like Social Security.

Which is also a mandate.

[harmonicon]

121. NO NO NO NO NO

It does not require payment!!! What don't you get about this? If someone works one month, they pay into the NHS. If they don't work another month they don't pay into the NHS. Regardless, everyone gets the exact same level of coverage.

It's not that students don't pay in because they can't afford it. Anyone who is a full-time student doesn't pay any tax other than sales VAT, no matter how much money they make, so it's not like social security.

Since I don't seem to be getting this across with facts, let me give you a hypothetical. We'll play pretend. Now, imagine that I was some type of self-employed person... maybe a contractor, an architect, an artist or something. I would be required to pay a certain amount into the NHS just as I would be required to pay ALL of my national taxes. Now, lets say that I failed to pay any or all of those taxes, but especially didn't pay into the NHS: my medical coverage would not change in any way whatsoever. Coverage has nothing to do with who pays the tax. The only thing I would be charged with would be tax evasion, fraud... whatever was related to how I didn't pay that tax which would have gone to the NHS - I would NEVER be denied healthcare.

When one registers with a GP here, they don't give a damn about whether or not you work, what your immigration status is, whether or not you're paying required taxes, etc. The payment is FOR THE SYSTEM, not an individual payment, just as - and I've explained this before - someone in the US pays for the interstate highway system no matter how much they use it (and no one will ever be barred from using it).

The only time that healthcare is tied to individual payments in the UK is if someone buys supplemental private insurance, which pays for things like private hospital rooms.

[mainer]

122. And what YOU don't get is that those who are employed PAY INTO IT

"The service is financed from MANDATORY NATIONAL INSURANCE TAXATION " (from NHS info)

Does the above not say MANDATORY? Is this not a MANDATED payment?

The employed are required to pay into the system. In the UK, if you are employed, you pay into the healthcare system. If you cannot afford to pay into it, the government doesn't require you to.

The point is, if you have a sufficient income YOU MUST PAY INTO IT.


No one is saying that a poverty stricken person must pay. In the US healthcare reform act, those who cannot afford to pay are not expected to. That's what a national healthcare system is all about -- the poor are taken care of. The employed MUST CONTRIBUTE.

A tax IS a payment. The difference is who is administering the system. In the UK, it is a mixed governmental/ private insurance system. In the Netherlands, it is also something of a mixed system.

And in the US, it will simply have more emphasis on a private insurance system. But everyone with sufficient income MUST CONTRIBUTE.

If contributions are not required by those who are able to pay, there is no way to finance national health care. All European systems require contributions from those with sufficient income. Without it, there is no way to pay for the poor.

[harmonicon]

123. did you just not read my post?

You're posting exactly the same fallacies here again. You either just don't get it, or refuse to take part in a discussion. The only thing I could do here would be to repeat myself, so I won't. Re-read what you've read here, then go back and read my previous response. If you don't get it then, I can't help you.

[mainer]

124. And you don't seem to understand the term "mandatory payment"

Mandatory: definition: Obligatory
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandatory

You keep saying a tax is not a mandatory payment.

But it is. Try not paying your taxes in the UK; you'll find out what happens.

I have given you the official UK NHS statement, and can point you to Wikipedia on the Dutch healthcare system. All require that people pay into the system, if they are employed.

I don't understand why you keep denying what the word "mandatory" means. That's how social programs work, by taxation of its citizens, to pay for the general welfare.

I am a healthcare professional. My family is from Holland. I do understand what's going on abroad.

[harmonicon]

125. ok, fine: any tax then is a "mandate" - that is your logic.

It is also a very strange way to twist language around. My point - which you fail to grasp - is that if you don't pay your taxes in the UK, you still get the same healthcare as those who do. Is that the same as what's suggested by "individual mandate"? No. It is not. It is diametrically opposed to the new US law.

[No Elephants]

112. Talk about apples and oranges! The UK has an entire public health system, not a mandate

to buy from private health insurance companies to pay for health care from private providers.

[mainer]

96. Um, I think you're mistaken about mandates

"Mandates are not necessary for universal healthcare - the UK doesn't have mandates. Simply put, anyone in the country who needs healthcare gets it."

and if NO ONE is expected to contribute, where does the money come from to fund this healthcare?

[harmonicon]

98. see above: taxes

No one in the US is expected to "contribute" to the interstate highway system. It is accepted that that is a type of infrastructure that the country needs, so even if someone doesn't pay a nickel in taxes for their entire lives, they can drive down thousands of miles of interstate. In a first-world country like the UK, it is recognized that social infrastructure is just as important as physical infrastructure, and is likewise funded in the same manner.

[prayin4rain]

52. The republicans having been moving from a party with somewhat reasonable

differences in how they think the country should be run... to a group of raving lunatics and ridiculous human beings for the past 10 years.

[flyarm]

55. you are generalizing every republican..and that is just stupid! That would be like saying

everyone who protested the war was a lunetic or hippy or whatever silly words and generalizations you chose.

I have many many repub friends..they are hard working and don't get into any political activism..they are just normal people who have been republican their whole lives..they never rock the boat..they just mimd their own business...


So stop the damn generalizations..I didn't like it when it was done to me for 8 years..and I don't believe it is right now.

Are some nutty yes..but not all republicans ARE LUNETICS..hell I know alot of dems who could easily be called lunetics where I live...EASILY...some never take a damn shower or brush their teeth..and I have proudly stood next to them to fight for what is right....( albiet I had to almost hold my nose for fear of gagging PUBLICALLY!)

Oh and by the way ..many of my republican friends voted for Obama.

[krkaufman]

89. No, the poster qualified the statement with "from a party" ...

... so they obviously weren't referring to "every Republican." As a party, as observable from the outside based on their aggregate behavior, the post wasn't too far off.

[Unvanguard]

71. Well, a private insurance mandate, perhaps, because Republicans opposed single-payer

which, of course, is a mandate in its own right.

[No Elephants]

114. Single payer is a mandate to pay your proportionate share of taxes, some of which

will go to pay to have the U.S. government pay for health care for all citizens. That is a mandate in the same way as having our taxes pay for roads, bridges, the President's salary, etc. is a mandate. Yes, income taxes are a mandate of sorts. (Authority for that is right there in the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, too.)

What we got instead of single payer (or a public option), though, was a mandate to purchase health insurances from private companies, which is a totally different thing.

I don't know of any precedent in this country for anything like that, except Clintoncare, which never became law, and Romneycare, which did.

[Odin2005]

73. This law is essentially Romneycare, but the fanboys refuse to hear it.

GOP opposition was a political game for votes, that is the only reason they opposed it.

[krkaufman]

90. The Republicans have to be howling with delight ...

... that their private insurance chums will now have billions of new dollars rolling in, *and* that the Republicans can claim they were against these corporate subsidies.

Democrats best hope is that the mandate for private insurance creates enough of a stink that they quickly jump on board a Medicare buy-in or other public option.

[No Elephants]

115. Or Clintoncare, well before Romneycare.

[Lilith Velkor]

117. Not true - Romneycare has a public option.

[mainer]

77. Dutch healthcare: mandated, with private insurers involved

For those who are unhappy with Americans being forced to purchase private insurance, here's an example of where it works: The Netherlands.

Netherlands
Main article: Health care in the Netherlands
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.<45>
Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary, curative care which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductibles, co-pays etc or refuse to fund treatments which a doctor has determined to be medically necessary). The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit). All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts will receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medically disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Netherlands

[progressoid]

79. But we WON!!!1!

Right? We won? :shrug:

[yurbud]

83. a story that simultaneously makes the republicans look like hypocrites and Democrats look

like coward who won't go any farther than the GOP sets the limits of debate.

[No Elephants]

116. Implicit in your post is that the DLC style Democrat, which seems to rule D.C. these days,

actually wants something markedly different from what the GOP wants. I'm not at all sure that is so these days. See the PNAC memo, signed by DLCers, as well as neocons and cons.

"Center right," is, after all, not center, and it sure as hell is not center left.

[yurbud]

119. today's center right is to the right of Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower

and they actually make Hoover and Coolidge look a little progressive.

[krkaufman]

88. Almost exactly as with the bank bailouts ...

... the health insurance "reform" legislation rewards those who have failed. But what may be worse about the health reform approach, from a political perspective, is that the shelling-out of cash to those viewed as the bad actors (the private insurers) will be done on a more personal level, on a regular basis, continually reminding the voters of the injustice in it all.

For failing to listen to what a strong majority of the country wanted (a public insurance alternative to the private insurers who've been screwing us over), and amplified by what is becoming a pattern of rewarding malefactors, the Democrats should expect heavy losses in November.

[yurbud]

113. less likely to be heavy losses than moderate losses and progressive insurgency

to replace corrupt blue dogs and DLCers in primaries.

[Zavulon]

126. I said over and over that this sounded like a Republican bill.

It was a bad idea then, and it still is.

[smithgerry]

127. Health insurance

Hi Dear.
That was really such a useful information. I think people also get the knowledge about the Health insurance through this forum. And This is the best way to spread out the information.
Thank you.

<a href=http://www.optimallyag.com/>Wholesale Humic Acid</a>