Can You Afford Hillary or Edwards Healthcare Mandates? $700-$1000 PER MONTH??

[Dems Will Win]

If You are UNINSURED, Voting for Hillary or Edwards Will Cost You Big-Time for Healthcare Mandate -- But Obama has no mandate. He is going to lower costs first before making the uninsured pay for junk insurance they can't afford and that would DRIVE THEM INTO BANKRUPTCY.

Think about it folks. With Hillary and Edwards you MUST pay $700-$1,000 PER MONTH if they are elected. If you are uninsured, can you afford to vote for them now that you know this?

John Edwards was asked about the mandate by a worried voter who could not afford it:

Regarding Clinton Edwards noted, "She has a mandate which I think is the right thing to do," adding, "but she has no way to enforce the mandate."

"I'm mandating healthcare for every man woman and child in America and that's the only way to have real universal healthcare."

"Everytime you go into contact with the healthcare system or the govenment you will be signed up."

During a press avail following the event Edwards reiterated his mandate:

"Basically every time they come into contact with either the healthcare system or the government, whether it's payment of taxes, school, going to the library, whatever it is they will be signed up."

When asked by a reporter if an individual decided they didn't want healthcare Edwards quickly responded, "You don't get that choice."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-weighs.html


Mr. Obama would require all children but not all adults to get health insurance. Mrs. Clinton would mandate that everyone obtain coverage. Both plans intend to lower the cost of health insurance so employers would be more willing to provide it and virtually all individuals could afford it.

But while Mrs. Clinton is right that Mr. Obama’s plan would leave out millions, she is being misleading in implying that her own plan covers everyone. Mandates rarely achieve 100 percent compliance. In addition, they are almost impossible to enforce.

Because of those difficulties, Mrs. Clinton’s own plan would probably leave out millions.


Mandates have not worked with auto insurance. While all drivers are required to have it, 15 percent of the nation’s drivers have none, according to the Insurance Research Council.

Mr. Obama’s health plan could actually have a better compliance rate. The 15 million who would supposedly be left out equal about 5 percent of the population — a smaller portion than are going without auto insurance

...

The 15 million figure apparently originated in The New Republic. While experts say the article was well researched, the 15 million is an estimate; no one appears to have a better figure.

...

“She has not suggested a penalty,” Mr. Goolsbee said. “If there’s not a major penalty for skipping out on insurance, people will skip out on it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05truth.html?ex=1354510800&en=994f8868b8d1afb9&ei=5088&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss

So Edwards will have the gummint sign you up for mandated health insurance anywhere, even the library or if you get a traffic ticket. Hmmm. I don't think this will go over so well in the general among those populist workers he's trying to win over.

Here is Hillary saying universal health care is impossible without mandates giving the insurance companies more of your money that you don't have to give them. It's really a giant subsidy to for-profit, murdering junk insurance companies. At least Obama gives you a choice.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvKIVPB5mmg

Here is Robert Reich on the plans:

"I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now.

But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves.

Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so.

HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.

I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people."

All three top candidates propose a plan that keeps the health insurance companies but Hillary and Edwards will have problematic mandates. This thread is about the mandates, not single-payer healthcare, which of course is what we really need. I like Norway's model.

This thread is about Hillary's and Edwards' mandates: Can you afford them if you are presently uninsured? Is it right to force people to spend so much every month? Would you go bankrupt? Do you know what the PENALTIES might be in Edwards' plan? Why would Obama's plan work without mandates?

If you want to start another thread on Single Payer, please do. This thread is to clarify an important distinction between Edwards, Clinton and Obama a week before the first caucus vote. Please respect that.

People who contribute quotes and links from the candidates or the Web sites get a big thank-you in advance.

[jpgray]

1. Any reason why I should trust your take over Krugman's?

Edwards Gets It Right:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907E.shtml

[Dems Will Win]

2. Try trusting your calculator - can you afford, right now, an extra $700 to $1,000 a month?

not a hard question.

[jpgray]

3. Do you know anything about Edwards' plan? If you did you'd know it's not paid for by the individual

Read the article, maybe?

People who don't get insurance from their employers wouldn't have to deal individually with insurance companies: they'd purchase insurance through "Health Markets": government-run bodies negotiating with insurance companies on the public's behalf. People would, in effect, be buying insurance from the government, with only the business of paying medical bills - not the function of granting insurance in the first place - outsourced to private insurers.

Why is this such a good idea? As the Edwards press release points out, marketing and underwriting - the process of screening out high-risk clients - are responsible for two-thirds of insurance companies' overhead. With insurers selling to government-run Health Markets, not directly to individuals, most of these expenses should go away, making insurance considerably cheaper.

Better still, "Health Markets," the press release says, "will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare." This would offer a crucial degree of competition. The public insurance plan would almost certainly be cheaper than anything the private sector offers right now - after all, Medicare has very low overhead. Private insurers would either have to match the public plan's low premiums, or lose the competition.

And Mr. Edwards is O.K. with that. "Over time," the press release says, "the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

[Dems Will Win]

9. 55 million people are self-employed

they HAVE to shell out

[jpgray]

13. Those quoted paragraphs refer to people who -don't- get insurance from their employer

Do you know what you're talking about? Because it increasingly seems you don't.

[Dems Will Win]

16. I say clearly "if you are uninsured". THis thread is about the uninsured having to pay a mandate

I'm not going to say it again.

[jpgray]

17. Your argument is dishonest. First of all you equate all the uninsured with an average family of four

Then you choose to ignore that coverage is -not- negotiated individually as in the current system, but on a collective basis. Then you ignore that Medicare is available to any who want it, as a lever of competition for the private insurers.

Does that speak well for the fairness or accuracy of your argument, do you think?

[sandnsea]

22. How Much

You don't know. There are non-profit insurance plans and hospitals now. They're no cheaper than the for-profit care. OMIP in Oregon is $1,000 a month for people with pre-existing and most older people who aren't insured will have pre-existings. Obama promises plenty of money up front to put into subsidies to make the monthly payment affordable. We can worry about mandating adults after we know we aren't going to make anybody homeless in the process.

[jpgray]

25. But Edwards' plan provides financial aid, and eliminates a majority of insurance co. overhead

Simply due to the fact that there is no individual marketing or negotiating anymore--costs relating to that comprise two-thirds of overhead for private insurance cos.

The financial aid for lower income families is provided via a fund generated by a rollback of taxcuts, -and- from a tax on employers who refuse to provide insurance to their employees.

[sandnsea]

31. Tax credits

What are people supposed to do every month while they're waiting for the end of the year to come to get their tax credit - which is never enough for low income people anyway. Just like the college tax credits are a joke for low income people. This stuff always ends up helping the very poor, the upper income, and leaving the median worker out completely.

[jpgray]

36. Yet this would improve your situation, no? Your premiums go down, -and- you receive tax credits

If you are able to make ends meet now, wouldn't this vastly benefit you? Plus it provides an obvious transition to universal single payer.

[sandnsea]

38. No. Not remotely.

The premiums will not go down that much. If they ever do, it will take years. NO, I cannot afford $1,000 a month. Not now, not ever. If not for profit were able to cut costs so much, how do you explain all the religious systems, Kaiser, BC/BS nonprofits, etc. Face it. Health care is always going to be expensive. People will need help paying for it, every single month. Not some end of the year system. Once we know we've got an affordable system in place, then we can mandate it.

We will lose the election if we nominate someone who has proposed mandates.

[jpgray]

42. Do you even know how much the uninsured burden families' premiums? An extra $922 per month

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/paying-a-premium.html

Obama's plan does not address this. At all.

[sandnsea]

45. He provides more money up front

For monthly subsidies so that people can afford to buy insurance. That's going to get people into the system a lot faster than any phony mandate. That is how we'll reduce the cost of the uninsured.

[jpgray]

46. $922 for the average family? How many billions would you say that is? Come on.

You can't get away from the fact that any plan which ignores or sidesteps overhead and the uninsured is ignoring two -major- factors that cause our high premiums.

[sandnsea]

51. Obama's plan doesn't ignore anything

It puts mandates on the insurance companies, requiring them to provide a set of specifics and to cover those with pre-existing conditions. It addresses overhead, all the plans do. The entire point of these plans are to cover the uninsured, so how can you say he's ignoring them. That makes no sense at all. Providing real monthly subsidies to make insurance truly affordable is the way to bring people in.

[progressive_realist]

81. A tax on employers?

That's counterproductive. The employer will recover that money from the employee at the price of lower wages or other reduced benefits. So then the employee has even less money available to go buy mandated insurance with.

Thanks but no thanks.:puke:

To clarify, at the upper end of the wage scale, the dominant force setting salary/benefit levels is competition among employers for qualified employees. These positions usually have employer-subsidized medical insurance as part of the incentive package. These insurance "reform" schemes aren't going to have much effect on them.

At the lower end of the wage scale, the dominant force setting salary/benefit levels is competition among employees for available jobs. Employers tend to pay as little as they can for these positions, knowing that they can easily replace any employee who demands more. These positions do not usually offer employer-subsidized medical insurance. If the new tax is less than the cost of providing medical insurance, and it is universally assessed on all employers, they will pay it and lower wages to compensate.

Seems like a way to screw the poor some more while telling them you are helping them.

Fact is, any plan that focuses on medical insurance rather than medical care isn't doing anyone but the insurance companies any favors.

[MGKrebs]

82. Sorry. I don't buy that at all.

Call it a tax or a withholding or an insurance policy, but many countries already successfully use such a system with great effect.

Universal healthcare takes healthcare out of the employment equation. Employers will pay more or less based on many things, but healthcare just won't be one of them because it will be the same for everybody (with the exception of the higher end jobs, as you mention, if companies want to offer supplemental coverage).

And whether a government agency manages costs and payments or they hire insurance companies to do it for them, the purpose is to cover everyone for necessary care and manage costs.

[progressive_realist]

90. Universal health care and universal health insurance are not the same thing

Universal health care under a single-payer system is exactly as you say and is what we need. Universal health insurance is a scam which guarantees a perpetuation of unequal access to basic healthcare resources.

Taxation that affects everyone equally does not suppress wages, but this proposed tax on employers who don't offer medical insurance is a regressive tax which would hurt the working poor specifically.

[reggie the dog]

95. universal health insurance is not a scam

In the UK they have national health services, a nationalized hospital and doctor system (yes halfway destroyed by thatcher). Here in France we have national health INSURANCE, as well as national hospitals, but doctors are, and have been, private. Because there is only one health insurance company, the government, and they do not run the insurance to make profit, but instead to give everyone the best quality coverage, we end up paying far less for health care than you do in the states.

MANDATED PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Plans calling for mandatory insurance are designed to make people hate the idea of goverment meddling with health care, and by forcing the poor to spend money on such a thing it does not help create a populist/ leftist system, it works against it, because the poor will resent this system, whereas true NATIONAL HEALTH INSURACE would mean everyone that already has insurance would pay less than they do now and that poor people would pay nothing and be covered. That's how it works here in France anyway.

[nealmhughes]

96. Vive notre soeur, la Belle France!

Out of all the systems I have studied, I find the French the best all around.

Why do we suffer the health insurance companies having a say in the commonweal of the USA?

They are, for all intents and purposes, a profit-making combination. Not for a "rainy day fund," but for executive compensation. In short, one step short of a full-fledged Ponzi scheme.

I would deeply resent any mandatory private company receiving funds from my purse that did not provide a public service. It is a little something that many will find themselves in agreement.

Let us recall Roosevelt's 4 Freedoms. I don't find Freedom from "socialized" medicine one of them. . . but do Freedom from Fear and Want.

Evidently "socialized" medicine is good enough for governmental officials and the military and the elderly, but not for the commoners.

[reggie the dog]

97. parasites and experts

Doctors are experts, I can see paying them a great salary, they have to do 10 or more years of study after high school.

health insurance companies are vampires. They enrich themselves providing a vital service. In France they do not exist.

[nealmhughes]

102. Précisément, les spécilistes et les vampires. Parfait. Combat à mort.

Mais, qui gagna?

[reggie the dog]

114. nous

les peuple, el pueblo....on gange chaque fois qu'on va chez le médecin en France. On ne paye que 1 euro.

[MGKrebs]

101. In France, insurance companies manage the universal healthcare system

under contract to the government.

[reggie the dog]

115. my health insurance

is a national health card. We pay taxes to the govt. directly out of our pay checks for our insurance. it is called "sécurité sociale" other than that we have "co ops" or "mutuelles" to cover the deductables.

[Dems Will Win]

23. Medicare is not available to any who want it --they must be very low income

All three plans do that. The question is the uninsured in the middle -- thanks for clearing that up.

You can go get Medicaid today if you qualify for welfare. Not an issue. The issue is the lower and middle-class people who are uninsured.

I think a family of four could buy Medicare under Edwards plan for about $700 a month, no?

[jpgray]

27. Did you not read the article? Financial aid is provided to those families

And cost will go down, because two-thirds of the private insurance industry's overheads are tied to marketing and screening, which will be obviated by the Health Markets system. The emergency care at public expense is mitigated by the mandate system, which is nice since presently insured or uninsured taxpayers get the bill for those "free" emergency room visits.

[maxanne]

57. AND

the taxpayers will be subsidizing private insurance.

NO WAY do I want my tax dollars to pay for the next big CIGNA CEO bonus.

A non-profit, single payer system is the REAL answer to our health care crisis.

[Hieronymus]

86. Good, hopefully you won't say it again.

[asdjrocky]

54. He knows only how to repeat RW attack points.

[sniffa]

71. BAM! DU's Godwin law

[Hieronymus]

98. Definitely .. no solutions, just attacks.

[Hieronymus]

88. Thanks for inserting facts into this thread.

[mmonk]

44. I pay that right now. If everyone was insured,

I don't think I would have to. Besides, the Edwards plan has an option similar to medicare. The poor aren't going to be paying that amount and this scare tactic is a little dishonest.

[Joe Bacon]

67. No he does not

Only Kucinich stands up to the pimps who run the so-called "Health Insurance" racket. Moe, Larry and Curly, er Edwards, Obama and Clinton ALL want to keep Billy Tauzin and his fellow Pimps in the system. The Three Stooges want to make sure that the Pimp who runs CIGNA still gets to kill little girls who need liver transplants so he can keep making his 100+ million salary.

That is wrong.

You want to see where the waste is in the current "Health Care" racket? Add up the hundred million dollar salaries and stock options these god-damned pimp CEOs make. Add up all the million dollar salaries these god-damned bean counters make by denying care.

Only Kucinich stands up to them.

[superkia]

94. You act like people really care, they only complain and act like...

they care about others that they don't know. You hear it about the war, health care, the attack on the constitution, those issues seem to be a major issue with allot of people.For some reason, when you look at the candidate they support, it usually doesnt represent a candidate that is really going to take care of ANY of the issues? I really think the media has more brainwashing power than we ever thought possible.

Maybe one day, some of those same people will be affected by some of the issues personally and they will put their neck on the line and vote for whats right, not whats right for the situation the media has presented us?

We will see.

[Joe Bacon]

99. The Press Whores are making the choices for the masses

And right now, those Right Wing Press Whores want Moe Obama, Larry Clinton or Curly Edwards to be the Democratic nominee so they can tear them down.

See how Kucinich was barred from the last Iowa debate?

Name one Republican that was barred by the same whores. Not one

FUCK THE PRESS WHORES!

GIVE ME KUCINICH OR GIVE ME DEATH!

[surfermaw]

72. Sounds like a republican to me

[cali]

4. Where did you get the $700-$1,000 figures?

Look, in VT, people without healthcare can get it through VHAP or Catamount and it costs nowhere near that amount. Why do you think it will be that expensive?

[Inspired]

6. HA! Great minds!

[Dems Will Win]

11. Average family of four costs $700 to $1,000 per month around here in NY

In 2006, employer health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

That's from the National Coalition on Healthcare...

[cali]

21. that's it?? that's your basis for the figures?

all three candidates have plans to reduce the cost and plans for those who can't afford... much of anything. In VT, Catamount provides insurance on a sliding scale. Participants pay on average something like $60 a month. Why don't you believe it would be much more like that?

[sandnsea]

35. Obama's plan calls for that, the others don't

The others specifically say tax credits. That's why we believe there won't be monthly assistance, Edwards and Clinton have specifically said it won't. I'm surprised you haven't read the plans.

[jpgray]

40. Under Obama's plan -you- remain responsible for the public burden of the uninsured

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/paying-a-premium.html

This study quantifies, for the first time, the dollar impact on private health insurance premiums when doctors and hospitals provide health care to uninsured people. In 2005, premium costs for family health insurance coverage provided by private employers will include an extra $922 in premiums due to the cost of care for the uninsured; premiums for individual coverage will cost an extra $341.

[sandnsea]

52. Edwards plan will make people homeless

:shrug:

What do you think is going to happen when you stick people with even $500 a month insurance and tell them to wait until the end of the year for help? Homelessness, that's what. Obama's plan is FOR the uninsured, so your argument is completely senseless.

[jpgray]

58. What do you think happens when the uninsured "do without" care until they have serious symptoms?

Obama's plan does little for them. Do you have any evidence that his subsidy plan would lower costs to the extent that the burden of the uninsured raises them? Do you have any evidence that his subsidy plan would compel significant numbers of uninsured persons to take on health insurance? Edwards's system deals with both problems more directly.

[sandnsea]

63. Yeah, subsidies all over the country

States that have waiting lists of people trying to get the subsidies in the states that are providing them. Obama is going to put plenty of money in up front to make sure everybody can get a subsidy that will really make a difference. Edwards plan doesn't deal with the cost of a monthly premium at all.

[mmonk]

56. Exactly.

Not to mention increasing tax subsidizing of county hospitals for covering them.

[readmoreoften]

107. If that's your data, then this OP is utterly dishonest. It's total hysteria.

So you're saying that Hillary and Edwards intend to simply force everyone in America to shell out what the crooked, broken system is currently demanding? No, that would be a REPUBLICAN SCAM. They are going to lower costs MASSIVELY so that it is fair and affordable and, once all the pork is extracted we will be able to pay.

You're creating a dystopian fantasy out of thin air.

[Inspired]

5. Where did you get the $700 - $1000 per month figure?

Of course I couldn't afford that. I currently pay $300 for a great health insurance plan that is offered by my employer. Where does it state in the Edwards or Clinton plan that MY out of pocket expenses will increase to the amount you stated?

[Dems Will Win]

15. I said for the currently uninsured. The $700 to $1,000 is the average cost of premiums for a family

From the NCHC:

In 2006, employer health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200.

That was in 2006 and it's higher now and going up.

[papau]

61. The OP forgets mandates in Mass have worked well- between 70% and 80% of the uninsured have bought

coverage made available by the state - albeit with more limited coverage and with premium subsidies that will hit the state harder than expected (harder than expected because the state bought the nonsense that mandates don't work and expected a smaller proportion - more like 50% - to sign up).

Mandates work.

Now if Obama gets in he will not go in that direction so as to avoid the subsidies and cost to the government and in hopes thereby of getting GOP support for a less "radical" change - and he may be correct as to his no mandates being the only way to get anything passed.

But mandates do work and are a good idea if we could get them passed.

But this thread is what happens when you translate a statistic without understanding the actual plans of the candidates and the actual past results of similar proposals.

[Armstead]

7. Mandates are my main disagreement with Edwards

If we are going to have mandates, they should only be as part of an overall package of Universal Single Payer Coverage similar to an expanded Medicare.

No one should be forced into the shark-filled cesspool of private health insurance.

[jpgray]

12. No -one- is. The "Health Markets" are gov't run, negotiate, and Medicare is available to compete

So the prices are negotiated collectively instead of individually, and public insurance program is offered as a competitive option. The brilliance of this is that it can easily move to single payer without starting out that way. Starting out that way would likely make it a near impossible sell to the comfortable and profitable insurance industry or to confused and wary individuals.

[Armstead]

73. That part I like -- But I still disagree with mandates

[ellacott]

8. The different healthcare plans are interesting

but I don't put much stock into them. Proposing a plan and getting it passed, intact, are different things.

What I wonder is if might make some employers to drop their coverage for employees and let the govt. foot the bill.

If what you post about the cost of Edwards's mandates is true this would be troubling.

[RDANGELO]

10. That is what they have in Massachusetts.

There is still a substantial number of people without coverage because they just can't afford it.

[Armstead]

18. Living in Massachusetts I can safelt say....

that rather than being relieved, a lot of people are scared shitless about these mandates and how they are going to be able to afford to get insurance so they don't get financially penalized at tax time.

[CTLawGuy]

60. and guess who put the Mass. Plan in place

drumroll...

Mitt Romney!

[sniffa]

65. it's an awful plan

[MGKrebs]

14. We're not reinventing the wheel here.

Almost all of the rest of the industrialized nations already do this. There are many examples of systems in place right now that we can look at and see what works and what doesn't, and use the best practices. Some of those systems work very well, with only a couple of percent of people falling through the cracks, and sometimes even the best do it with- gasp!- the assistance of insurance companies for administration.

This demagoguery is counterproductive. If we are going to have a discussion, lets have it about facts and issues- not made-up fantasies to be fearful of.

[Dems Will Win]

26. You're comparing apples and oranges. Industrilaized nations have single payer

where the rich subsidize the whole operation through a high income tax on those making gamillions.

Here it's every person for themselves.

I suggest having Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pay part of my health care through single-payer. They won't miss the pocket change.

[jpgray]

29. Germany has universal single payer? Do you know what you're talking about?

[MGKrebs]

32. At least some systems are actually primarily funded through payroll deductions with

additional contributions from employers.

[sandnsea]

19. OMIP, 2 people, over $1,000

That's what mine and my husband's insurance is because of pre-existings and we aren't even chronically sick. We are lucky because Oregon has subsidies right now, but if those were removed due to some end of the year tax scheme, we'd be homeless. Mandates before the program is affordable is a terrible idea. Not to mention it could cost us the election.

[JackORoses]

20. Thisis the whole problem. They are not mandating Universal Healthcare,

They are just making it illegal for you not to have coverage.
So all those folks who can't afford it now will have to somehow come up with their monthly premium.
Where is this money supposed to come from???

[maxanne]

59. you and me baby

You're absolutely right, Jack. They are mandating UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE - the buying of insurance from the same private insurers who currently hold us hostage, and only pay for some of our needs.

The subsidies for the premiums will be paid by taxpayers - taxpayers subsidizing Big Insurance.

The 2008 presidential candidates have bastardized the term "universal health care." It used to mean a single payer system, but now it means "Universal health insurance." As you probably know, insurance and care are NOT synonyms.

[ThatPoetGuy]

24. Dude, you made up the dollar figure.

The prices of health insurance are inflated by the costs of the health care bureaucracy -- the CEOs and the bureaucratic industry that costs 350 billion dollars annually. HRC and Edwards aren't planning a mandate that will force people to go out and buy insurance from an existing industry. They're talking about changing the system to invest more into health care, and less into bureaucracy.

A big thumbs-down to this, the most misleading of the pro-Obama posts in recent days -- and that's facing some stiff competition.

That 700 to 1000 number is based on costs as they are now, and it implies individual costs, rather than a cost facing a family of four. Even with the health care industry we have now, an uninsured family of four is likely to pay a lot more than that per month on medical bills -- annual checkups for hundreds each, vaccinations for hundreds, prescriptions for hundreds a month, injuries and illnesses costing thousands or more.

Mandating a family of four to pay 700 a month, rather than thousands, would be a smart idea -- even if that number wasn't just pulled out of thin air.

[joeybee12]

28. Eaxactly! He says that's what they would pay now, and of course

that's what they would pay for Hilary's or John's plan...1 + 1 = 3.

[sandnsea]

34. lol, On a $1600 income?

If they're lucky enough to make $10 hr, get real. No low income family pays $700 a month in medical bills unless they're near bankruptcy. Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass.

[ThatPoetGuy]

39. I didn't pull those numbers out of my ass....

I pulled them out of my intestines, through my stomach.

I don't earn much more than 10 dollars an hour. When I had emergency surgery in 2006, it cost me 73 thousand dollars.

It is more expensive NOT to have insurance than it is to have it.

[sandnsea]

48. And you're paying that

On your $10 hour while raising a family. Riiight.

You said families were spending $700 a month on medical care, and they aren't. They can't pay $1,000 a month for insurance premiums and wait for help at tax time. It's ludicrous.

Health care is expensive. It's always going to be expensive. We're going to have to get serious about funding it and these end of the year tax credits are not serious.

[ThatPoetGuy]

55. I'm not raising a family --

and I'm not the one who dishonestly based figures for individual payment on the costs for a family of four. That was the original post.

I also had some insurance coverage prior to the operation. The coverage was incomplete.

As it is, I'm 37 and I needed to sell my home, move in with my girlfriend, and cash out my (small) retirement savings and my paychecks will be garnished for God knows how long, in order to pay off one medical crisis.

700 dollars a month would have been a lot less expensive. Every uninsured person in America is one medical crisis away from total disaster: death, crippling illness, homelessness.

And only bullshitters would claim it will cost 700 anyway.

[sandnsea]

62. Here

See for yourself. As you age, it gets closer and closer to that $700 figure if you have any kind of decent coverage.
http://www.oregon.gov/DCBS/OMIP/docs/premium_rates.pdf

And I see that what has happened to you is exactly what I've said - you're homeless. If you are making $10 hour or less, and have even a $300 a month premium, you're not going to be able to make ends meet. If you are seriously in the position you say you're in, I'd think you'd see that.

[barbtries]

75. how did you pay it?

if that was me they may as well have charged me 73 gazillion dollars for all that i could have come up with that kind of money.

[sniffa]

30. why haven't you posted this in the lounge, and sports forum yet?

or the peak oil group?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2524038

[mmonk]

33. Having a government plan to go against the insurance companies

is the only chance we have outside of Kucinich's. That's why I support Edwards's plan. Speculating costs is a deceptive losing game usually backed by a different idea if they invoke a spector of being too costly. I pay between your example of $700-$1000 for a family of four right now.

[L0oniX]

37. I'll move out of the country if that happens and I am sure I wont be the only one.

[mmonk]

43. Are you uninsured?

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Where will you go?

Every other developed country already gives you what Edwards is promising.

[liberal N proud]

41. I contend that if all are insured, medical cost will go down

Right now, those of us who have insurance pay for those who do not and go to the emergency room.
Universal health care would provide everyone the opportunity to get treatment from a physician and reduce the load on the emergency rooms.
Cost would go down for a couple of reasons:
One - everyone would be covered and the cost of those who are currently not covered would be spread among all tax payers.
Two - Preventative care would be available to all.

[Stop Cornyn]

47. Under Edwards' plan, you get coverage as an entitlement if you can't afford it and don't get it

through work.

Under Obama's plan, if you can afford insurance, but you choose not to buy it, you are a parasite on the public health system because if you have a catastrophic illness or injury you burden the system by sucking up care paid for by responsible tax payers through the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

[Gman]

49. What a pile of horseshit

trolls are everywhere. I read this very same thing over at FR a couple of months ago. FR makes a great resource for the Hillary haters. Too many DU'ers are trolls from FR.

[Tejanocrat]

50. You probably bitch about funding Social Security too. Are you sure you're not a Republican?

[Armstead]

74. If instead of publicly funded Social Security it were...

forcing people to buy into an private investment fund run by Wall St. firms, that would be a more logical comparison.

[Stop Cornyn]

109. Edwards offers a publicly run non-profit health care coverage option.

[asdjrocky]

53. Paul Krugman has never lied to me.

And you post is nothing but RW talking points. Keep this up and poor people will never get health care.

[BeyondGeography]

66. If you care about expanded health care coverage and winning an election, you'll drop mandates

Clinton and Edwards are holding their fire on Obama's plan because they've discovered they're holding a losing hand politically. The most recent Boston Globe/UNH poll shows most NH Democrats are opposed to being required to buy health insurance (gee, I wonder how Independents feel...). This was discussed here yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3881633

[MNDemNY]

68. Unless you remove the insurance companies from the equation...it's just bullshit.

[The River]

69. No Plan Is Set In Stone

There will be a lot of debate, compromise and head knocking
before any plan gets implemented.

You frame your argument as though everything you post
is a done deal. It's disingenuous.

[gateley]

70. Biden has no mandates. Would cover every child in America as his first step;

then cover catastrophic illnesses for all. His plan would be a sliding scale premium, those who couldn't afford the premium would be covered for free.
His long term goal is universal health care, a step at a time.

[red2blue]

76. I call BULLSHIT

to be universal it must be mandated.
and where did you get your numbers?

[jsamuel]

111. made up

just trying to scare people

[Inspired]

116. Isn't that the insurance industries job? To scare people?

This kind of crap is exactly why we don't already have health care insurance.

It is NO accident.

You are exactly right. First let's divide the Democrats and then the rest of the country.

We'll be lucky if we ever get universal health care at this rate.

[killbotfactory]

77. I already have a rip-off insurance plan

I would rather not be forced by the government to buy into one should I choose to dump this shitty coverage.

We need to drastically reform the health insurance system before any talk of mandating health insurance comes into play.

[RC]

78. We do not need Health Insurance. We have that already for those that can afford it.

We need government funded Health care for everyone. Other countries can do it, why can't we?

Get the private for profit insurance companies out of the equation, that's how.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. WIll we have Insurance Police issuing tickets to the uninsured?

This plan is about the dumbest idea yet.

I can see it now. Health Insurance sweeps! First they will round up all the homeless without health insurance and then they will start in on the unemployed.

[TeamJordan23]

80. Recent NH Democratic poll showed that majority of them are against mandates also. nm

[JDPriestly]

83. In fact, this is what we already pay.

Right now, you may think you are only paying anywhere from $295 to $600 per month. But think again.

Under my plan, I pay maybe $340 per month plus co-pays and most of my medications. However, I have a big deductible, and if I go to the hospital or have to go to a specialist my co-pay can be as much as $100 per visit. If I really got sick, the costs would run up very, very quickly.

Hidden in your hospital bill are the charges for all those uninsured people who go to the hospital and cannot be turned away.

Also, even when you are insured, pre-existing conditions are not insured -- and, once you really start becoming an expensive customer, insurance companies have a knack for finding some excuse for not covering your costs. So, whatever the costs will be, they probably already really are pretty close to that.

As Michael Moore's movie, Sicko, showed, it's not just the uninsured who end up in bankruptcy and desolation due to the high cost of medical care, it's people who think they are insured. \

[Hieronymus]

84. Where did you get those figures of $700. - $1,000.? Out of thin air?

[madrchsod]

85. dennis`s plan is the only one that makes any sense

the rest are sell outs to the insurance companies. these arguments over who`s plan to bail out the insurance companies is a waste of time.

[Enrique]

87. I don't trust you

[K Gardner]

89. I don't like mandates, but your numbers are completely ERRONEOUS and NOT in line with

any kind of mandated plan being proposed. There are NO numbers proposed. I've studied this issue, spoken on this issue, been to seminars on this issue and even among the most anti-mandate groups and literature you will NEVER find numbers like this. I don't know where you got them or if you just made them up, but it is a very very irresponsible scare tactic. People are scared enough about healthcare without this kind of misleading headline, and most people won't take the time to research. I'm very disappointed to see this. Again, I want Universal Single Payer, HR 676, as do most nursing unions. That is not an option this time around. Hopefully, whatever we get will morph to that. I don't like mandates, but your headline will not be the result, even if that's what we get.

I encourage responsible posting :-):hi:

[zulchzulu]

91. Putting a mandate on healthcare insurance is basically saying you don't want universal healthcare

It is absolutely doomed to failure. It will never pass as legislation. Never.

Add that it's healthcare INSURANCE, which is still the same game we're in now anyway.

[dembotoz]

92. already pay that much

[reggie the dog]

93. no more than 300 a month

Hello all, you should not be paying more than 2 or 3 hundred for full coverage for your family for a month. We pay just over 200 euro a month for full coverage for myself, my wife, and my daughter. Of course we use the national health insurance company which repays 90% of your costs and a "co op" insurance for the other 10 percent of costs, but hey, your prices are lower in the USA because of competetion, right, I mean private competition AUTOMATICALLY lowers the quality of service...er... I mean the cost of insurance, right.....?????

[Hieronymus]

117. Thanks for your input .. as one who knows first hand. Unfortunately,

many Americans of both parties have bought into the propaganda from the right wing and from the insurance companies.

[FlyingSquirrel]

100. HELLOOOOOO. CONGRESS is the one with the ability to change HC

Not any presidential nominees. So no matter what their plan is, it's really only a starting point and scaring people about it is kinda ridiculous since they won't have the means to implement them as they stand.

[peoli]

103. Mandates are idiotic

Mandate this ><

[antiimperialist]

104. I make $21,000. Your figures do not work for a person with my income

This thread is very misleading.

[laureloak]

105. You can cram your smear campaign where the sun don't shine.

Edwards plan is almost single payer.

[riqster]

106. Go Kooch. None of this crap applies in his case. nt

[leaninglib]

108. Is that all? The way I look at, if the fedgov is involved, the beltway bandits

will be picking our pockets for a whole lot more than that.

[LWolf]

110. A better question:

What will the uninsured, and the under-insured, pay under HR 676?

It's the best health-care plan on the table. Let's talk about what that will cost us.

[Work4Peace]

112. There is no reason not to support Kucinich plan for single payer

He is the only candidate that offers real legislation, instead of false promises.

[flyarm]

113. Hubby and i pay a hell of alot more now! $1,900.00 a month..and hubby's employer

pays 2/3rds additonal!

and that is for 2 of us.

fly