Help me understand your opposition to health insurance mandates

[apples and oranges]

I thought the goal was to make sure that everyone is insured? :shrug: With single payer (the ideal plan), we'd have to pay the government in the form of taxes, would we not?

So what difference does it make who gets paid as long as everyone is covered?

I'm starting to sense that some of the anger is coming from people who wanted all the insurance agencies to be shut down, with no true concern for the uninsured.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Forcing people into contracts with private companies

With nebulous guarantees that they will get the service they are paying for but absolute guarantees that they will be penalized by the government if they don't pay.

[Mz Pip]

2. For people who

can't afford the insurance there would be subsidies (our tax dollars) that would help them cover the costs. This will just increase the insurance companies profits. I don't have a problem with mandates as long as one of the choices that people are offered is a public option that bypasses the insurance companies completely.

Why do you think insurance companies like the idea of mandates but hate the public option? More customers for them; more profits for them.

[DrDan]

3. have you seen the obscene profits from private insurers? and those come without mandates.

Now we are going to force EVERYONE to contribute further to those profits.

How fair does that sound.

[apples and oranges]

17. As long as they are providing the service according to the law

without discriminating against certain conditions I don't care about their profits.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. I do. It's money going to fatcats that is not going into care.

This is a massive transfer of what little wealth the middle and working classes have left to the wealthy elite.

[apples and oranges]

34. I think ultimately mandates will lower cost

Everyone is required to have auto insurance and now we have tons of cheaper options. Does paying for auto insurance mean we will get a new car? Not necessarily. All insurance companies get over. That's a fact of life.

[Hello_Kitty]

113. The GOP thinks tort reform will lower costs.

And for the brazillionth time: Auto insurance != health insurance, for a number of reasons.

[juno jones]

61. We're talking billions in 'profit'

money paid into a health system that isn't returning billions back to the consumer, and people are dying prematurely as a result. Even tho they have 'great' insurance.

Medicine should be truly non-profit. Every penny going in should pay for treatment. Not luxury condos and fucking private jets. And if the 'best and brightest' won't work without those perks, there's plenty competent people out there who will.

[DrDan]

84. ordinarily I would agree . . . but when the profits are based on mandates I have a problem

If they earn those profits based on a freedom of choice and exceptional service - then good for them. However, when so much is based on denying benefits - and everyone must have insurance - then I think we have gone too far with reform.

[sabrina 1]

108. Do you care that people who can barely afford to feed

their families will be forced to further enrich these predatory corporations? And if they simply cannot afford to do so, they will then be fined? Are you in favor of further criminalizing poverty than we are already doing?

If you supported Obama in the election over Hillary, this was one of the main differences in their policies.

Obama understood that forcing poor people to buy something they could not afford was just wrong, to put it mildly. It's also unconstitutional.

Hillary was for mandates which may have been a deciding factor in the end for those who supported Obama.

It was for me. Now, Obama has gone back on his very sound reasoning on Mandates in the primaries, and agrees with the Right that there is basically no such thing as being too poor to find the money to make a greedy Corporation even richer.

He also now disagrees that Health Care is a right. He appears to have changed his mind, and adapted the rightwing claim that Health Care is a commodity. The problem is if you agree with that, you cannot force people to buy any commodity.

So, my question is, 'why would any Democrat support a rightwing, pro-corporate, anti-people bill that will criminalize poverty and send many more people to jail simply because they are poor? And why would any Democrat support a policy that may be unsconstitutional, that forces people to buy from their friends, who bribed them with large sums of money to do so?

This is the way the Mafia operated, isn't it? I am shocked to see how, just because Dems in power, so many progressives are just rolling over and joining the right in kicking poor people in the face one more time.

[ixion]

4. my resasons for opposing a mandate:

1) Insurance != health care.

2) I don't think that the people who are gaming the market (insurance companies and Big Med) should be rewarded with a gargantuan windfall for years of fraud.

3) Government mandates ultimately limit one's freedom, and I'm against anything that does that.

4) You should have a right to choose, and not be coerced by force.

5) Government mandates generally do not serve We, the People, but private interests. Very true in this case.

[Cant trust em]

6. So if you're opposed to the mandates because they limit your freedom

Then you OK with paying for all costs out of pocket if something happens to you?

[ixion]

9. yes

thanks for asking.

[Autumn]

38. I've been paying out of pocket the last

three years for my health care. My Husband had a heart attack four years ago, with insurance as a state employee, we were out 12,000 dollars AFTER the insurance paid their share.:shrug:

[apples and oranges]

47. If mandates are put in place, all care should be covered in full

At least I hope that will be the case, otherwise what's the point?

[Autumn]

53. I agree, or at least a large part of it

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Why do you think that?

The most generous estimates have the uninsured adding 8% the the average family's premium. So ostensibly your premium would go down 8%. The remaining 92% of premiums plus the other out of pocket costs will not be addressed by having a mandate.

[apples and oranges]

62. 8% is a big deal. You mention the 92%

but further down some people were saying everyone should be entitled to unlimited doctor visits. That adds to cost. Yes there is greed by doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. On top of that, there seems to be a disconnect between consumers and which actions raise costs for everyone.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. 8% isn't insignificant but it's not the all powerful panacea mandate supporters believe it to be.

Mandates are to (some) Democrats what tort reform is to Republicans.

IOW, a "solution" that doesn't really solve the problem but will be very lucrative for corporations.

[Oregone]

63. But your premium may go up 12% by guaranteeing demand at higher price points

I don't know...Mass has the highest national family premiums of about $13,800 a year, and thats the subsidized mandated model a lot of this is coming from. Anything gained may be given right up.

[apples and oranges]

73. MA has the 6th highest median income (65k)

[Oregone]

80. What difference does it make?

Health insurance premiums are based on the cost of the risk pool, not what they make.

[apples and oranges]

83. you really believe that?

[Oregone]

87. Uh, yeah. Thats sorta how insurance is supposed to work

It calculates the average cost per year (overhead/salary/disbursements), which is needed revenue, adds in profits, divides by total people for premium average, then adjusts per individual risk.

It really isn't rocket science. You don't need CEOs getting paid millions and shareholders that do nothing skimming off the top to figure this shit out. Insurance, private and public, has been around using these models for many centuries, and its not exactly an innovation driven field. Its a nuts and bolts industry.

[apples and oranges]

94. "Supposed to" being the operative phrase

Even the greediest corporation knows you can't charge people what they don't have.

[Oregone]

96. Insurance companies don't charge people *less* than what they should, if thats whay you suggest

(or there would be no profits at all)

If someone cannot pay for their estimated costs and profits, there are not insured. Pure and simple. Why? No one would cover someone who is not profitable to cover.

Mass residents having more money doesn't allow insurance companies to get just the "right" amount. It allows them to get more than that, aided by mandates & government subsidies (which go to private profits)

[Hello_Kitty]

79. Yep

And even if mandating insurance really did result in a cost savings to insurers, what makes people think the corps are going to pass that along to us? When has that ever happened? If they figure people are used to paying a certain premium, they'll keep charging it. Of course, they'll make up some excuse for why costs haven't gone down. Dollars to donuts it will be: "Oh we didn't realize how much it would cost to cover all those people with preexisting conditions!"

[juno jones]

68. Yep, have been for years

and would prefer to keep doing it, in lieu of real reform.

[AllentownJake]

5. I don't believe it is constitutional

Forcing someone to buy a product in the private market place does not seem to me a power congress has been given the authority to do.

[HamdenRice]

7. Basically, lots of DUers think universal coverage means free health care, no premiums, no taxes

After reading lots of what people are saying, I've concluded that this is, in fact, what many people thought was possible.

Health care has to be paid for one way or the other -- in taxes or premiums. They are both cost sharing, risk spreading, system financing pay systems.

I was reading a post today from some guy who said he made "too much money" to qualify for subsidies but didn't want to be asked to pay premiums.

Apparently, a core of DUers thought that single payer would mean health care would magically appear, like schools, fire departments and public schools, and no one would have to pay for them in either taxes or premiums.

[AllentownJake]

12. No but that is a cute way of repeating Mary Landrieu's talking points

[Cant trust em]

13. And that tying the PO to medicare means that all expenses will be paid for

Meanwhile there are many reports that doctors and hospitals aren't being reimbursed entirely for their services.

[Romulox]

15. This is the very soul of the strawman argument.

I am shocked to see this sort of thing from this poster.

Dag!

[Hello_Kitty]

19. The DUers made of straw who reside in your imagination think that.

I have no problem with being taxed to pay from a universal health care system administered by the government.

I have no problem being mandated to purchase insurance from private companies who are barred by law from making a profit and are heavily regulated.

I have a problem with being forced to buy the shoddy product of a bloodsucking and parasitic profit-driven industry.

[Oregone]

21. Straw man bullshit

Look. I have universal health care. My ENTIRE tax burden (health care included) is LESS than my private insurance premiums alone would cost in Massachusetts (which has mandated private insurance).

This isn't about paying taxes and having the government spend it in an efficient and ethical manner. Its about paying extra to pad the pockets of shareholders, who cure no cancer and perform no operations. What a bullshit argument.

While everyone wants something for free, they know the next best thing is progressive funding of a responsible program that takes care of its people and promotes social mobility.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[HamdenRice]

33. Roflmao!!

I knew you would show up to add your less than 2 cents of nonsense!

:hi:

You're one of the least interesting posters on this forum.

[Dr Fate]

43. Great point-I've never heard anyone ask for a "free" war either. n/t

n/t

[Romulox]

36. PS: Dag! Another trainwreck!

:rofl:

[Romulox]

37. PPS Thank GAWD it passed! nt

[Dr Fate]

40. Taxes pay for these two shit wars, so why not Health Care reform?

I was hoping that the DEMS would have the spine to raise taxes on the people who got us into this.

Pulling out of these two SHIT wars we are in would help too.

In that case, your excuses would be invalid. We would have the money, just like every other modern nation seems to find it.

No one thought it would magically appear- but some thought it might be paid for by raising taxes on corporations and the very rich.

[apples and oranges]

64. Morally it should, but that's not going to happen

until Americans unite and fight for it. We're not in that atmosphere yet

[girl gone mad]

70. I don't know a single person who thinks that.

Way to repeat a Rush-Limbaughesque talking point.

oh, yeah, and this garbage from the guy who thinks those $23.7 Trillion banking bailouts are free and we're going to make a profit off of TARP. :rofl:

[HamdenRice]

72. "$23.7 Trillion banking bailouts"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Being able to add and subtract, and understand numbers over 1,000 should be a prerequisite for participating in discussions of political-economy.

[girl gone mad]

116. I'm sure you know more than Neil Barofsky.

He's just the Inspector General of the Treasury Department. I guess a guy with degrees from Wharton and NYU can't add or subtract or "understand numbers over 1,000".

Why don't you call him up and set him straight? Tell him about all of those TARP profits we're making now. No need for him to keep looking into the books, because HamdenRice has it all figured out.

[HamdenRice]

118. Barofsky retracted his statement the next day

and admitted it was completely bogus. You should keep up with the newspapers. Every mortgage in the US would have to default, every bank would have to fail and every bit of real estate would have to have zero value for that number to have any meaning.

TARP was around $500 billion.

[sabrina 1]

110. Thanks for that old rightwing talking point!

Why are you here, instead of where you would obviously feel more comfortable?

For the record, to correct that stupid, lame and over-used rightwing talking point taken directly from the rabid rantings of the moronic Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage and the rest of the lying rightwing noise machine. It is the RIGHT who think that a Single Payer system would be free.

You clearly don't know much about Democrats, as I've now seen at least two of your posts that are so full of the ignorant rantings of the right, I thought I was on FR for a minute.

Not one single Democrat I know is so stupid, as are the right, that they believe any program, private or government run, is free.

Where did you get that ridiculous idea if it wasn't from Limbaughs lying lips? Shameful to see it here though.

[kenny blankenship]

8. The difference is *literally* called profit.

You should now understand that there is a QUANTITATIVE as well as qualitative difference. That is to say it will not be a matter of aesthetics or how you "feel" about the arrangement, but a difference that can be expressed in whole numbers. And that difference will be quantitatively as well as qualitatively vast. Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars will be wasted that should have been spent on preserving health and preventing death. That means unnecessary death, suffering and economic hardship. And the dead and living screwed will have had no choice in the matter, since the government elected to TAKE this money from them to WASTE it on the middle man, to line the pockets of the insurance companies, who add/produce literally NO value to the health care of the (now) captive market. I'm sorry your mind is so degraded it cannot fathom the difference between social insurance style healthcare on the one hand and govt. organized robbery on the other, and I suspect no amount of explanation will help you.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

[Romulox]

10. It's like mandating a starving man eat. nt

[ixion]

23. very well put...

and fining them if they don't.

[Oregone]

11. "I thought the goal was to make sure that everyone is insured?"

I thought the goal was to make sure everyone was cared for, and the more efficiently the better (being that America is already uncompetitive). Mandating the purchase of private goods & services doesn't necessarily guarantee care, and it introduces another 30% overhead of pure profit (as well as ensures a continual 10% bleed off the deliverers that need to outsource billing).

Mandating the purchase of a private good, rather than providing it, suspends the free market by guaranteeing demand to private entities. With a guaranteed demand, per price point, it could put upward pressure on prices. Massachusetts has mandated private market insurance. They also have the highest premiums in the nation, with families paying almost $14,000 a year on average.

[apples and oranges]

26. Insurance covers annual check ups = health care

[Oregone]

32. Though they skim a ton off the top, compromising economic growth

But you know, I was in the DMV the last time I was in the states, and I overheard a woman talking about switching her insurance plan due to it being unafforable. The gist of the conversation was that on her new plan, her kids get to see the doctor twice a year. Only twice a year, per head. Probably restricted her doctor too, and who knows what procedures they allow in the case of illness. It didn't sound like wonderful care to me.

Not sure why Americans think insurance that may compromise care, and skim a ton off the top, is equal to universal health care. Pretty ass-back wards

[apples and oranges]

35. How often should her kids see the doctor? Every week? Every month?

And at what cost? This is what I find so confusing when I read through the blogs. What some of you want is not realistic.

[Oregone]

39. Every time they are in need of a doctor

I go months without taking my kids to a doctor sometimes. Sometimes, I take them multiple times in a month. But whenever they are in need, due to declining health, in the back of my mind I know I will always have access. That is how it should be (but I live in Canada).

When I lived in the states, I didn't have an insurance company rationing my access. I had my pocketbook doing it (to see a doctor 10 minutes costs $150 dollars uninsured). Hell of a "system"

[apples and oranges]

44. In that case you would pay more to get unlimited visits during the year

The point is, doctors charge money. That will not change.

[Oregone]

51. No. In a sane system, you pay less

In America, where every industry has to make perpetual profits, you pay more

[Hello_Kitty]

54. Yeah, the Canadian system is such a disaster.

I'm sure the vast majority of them would gladly trade their socialist progressively taxed single payer system for the ability to be forced to pay premiums to for-profit insurers who skim 20 to 30% off the top. :eyes:

[Lars39]

48. We want healthcare when we need it.

[Obamanaut]

56. Here's what I want. I want everyone to have access to health

care.

SCHIP (or CHIP) covers 11 million children and over 300,000 adults. There are three levels of TRICARE, ranging from no cost to under $20/month, available for military dependants and retirees (to age 65), Medicare (with Tricare for Life as the supplement for military retirees 65 and over), Medicaid, VA for lots of veterans.

I've read estimates that the total covered by these programs - government type single payer of a sort - is 100 million.

With these programs in place, they should be expandable to cover the remainder of the US. I pay about $90/month +/- out of my soc sec for Medicare. I'd be more than happy to pay extra if that's what it takes to expand the coverage for everyone else. I'd even be happy to chip in a reasonable co-pay for my doctor visits, hospital stays, medications.

The programs are staffed with employees, they have the paperwork and forms, doctors would not be facing multiple insurance companies trying to get payment - and sick people get care. Everyone wins.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. Shoot, I was happy with the straight-up socialized health care I got in the Navy.

My providers were doctors and nurses who were either active duty themselves or government employees, in government run health care facilities. I realize most people would balk at a government delivery system like the NHS in Britian but I'd be okay with it.

[Obamanaut]

117. I know what you mean. I retired with 28 years from USN in 1988. I used

Tricare until I became 65, now Medicare with Tricare for Life for my supplement. I started to write a check for a co pay on my first visit to a dr after my 65th b'day, and the nice lady said I had paid my last doctor bill, no more checks.

I think some sort of combination of all those other programs would make it affordable for everyone. My $96.40 is more than fair, and if it must be increased so everyone can get the same care I get, that would be fine be my.

[sabrina 1]

124. A National Healthcare system

would cover annual check-ups. Like Medicare for all. Medicare's overhead costs are only 3% of the funding that supports the system.

Private Insurance overhead is 30%. Ten times more. Why do we need them? They are nothing more than unnecessary and very costly middlemen.

As for forcing people to pay for a shoddy product, run by incompetent, greedy administrators whose main interest is the bottom line, definitely NOT the welfare of their customers? I can't understand why the question in your OP even needs to be asked.

[Romulox]

14. Taxes go to the (non-profit) government. Premiums go to the (for profit) multinational corporations

This difference is definitional. :hi:

[Sinti]

16. It's quite simple

Insurance companies make obscene profits, mandates add to those obscene profits in return for questionable benefits to the payer. I think this is most folks' objections. Why not a tax, that goes to the government, and which forgoes giving more money to those already richer than god?

I would prefer a mandate that forces me to burn $600 a month in a bonfire in my backyard - at least the fire would keep me warm for a minute. You apparently haven't had a bad experience with an insurance company "death panel" that decides to dole out drops of care when you need buckets.

[izquierdista]

18. I don't want insurance

If I get sick or injured, I want CARE, not insurance, health CARE. And yes, we would all be better off if people selling health insurance were put out of business. It is an extremely flawed model of how to pay for routine care. There was a time that insurance for catastrophic, out of the ordinary problems worked well, but nowadays, those are the ones that get ground up and spit back at the claimant. They have revealed themselves to be nothing more than a scam, and should be shut down.

[apples and oranges]

30. Insurance pays for the care

Your issue appears to be with the way hospitals and doctors operate.

[Oregone]

41. Sometimes

And they take a massive cut on top.

[izquierdista]

88. No, fee for service used to work

Most dentists and optometrists and veterinarians still operate on a fee for service basis, readily accept new patients, diagnose problems, and provide appropriate care. Something terribly wrong has gone on with hospitals and medical practices that have succumbed to insurance reimbursement schemes and IDC-9 mumbo-jumbo. Practices provide treatment based on the best reimbursement codes and insurance companies play gotcha into denying their financial obligation.

[Skittles]

20. without a real public option it is a giveaway to the insurance industry

I did not notice my auto ins going down after mandates were put in place; in fact, they went up

[ixion]

25. exactly

and that is just what will happen in this case.

[Autumn]

42. You know. my car insurance rates have

almost doubled since it became mandatory and I have never had an accident and haven't had a ticket in 30 years.

[Skittles]

46. and their profits BOOMED

[apples and oranges]

49. Why haven't you switched companies?

There are tons of companies out there that would provide the same service for less.

[PeaceNikki]

52. ppppppppppppppppssssh

Have you shopped for auto insurance recently?

All the quotes I got from 6 different companies were nearly identical.

[Autumn]

57. Not a lot of difference in rates,

just wasn't worth the trouble. edited to correct

[Obamanaut]

24. Forcing people to pay with a penalty for those who are reluctant

is a tax. There were words being bandied about in 2008 about no taxes for those under some nebulous amount of income.

Financial penalty by force of law is in fact a tax.

Deja vu all over again, except without the "read my lips."

[CrispyQ]

28. What difference does it make who gets paid?

Are you kidding?

I would rather that the amount paid in insurance premiums go into a national health tax pool, which would provide health care to all citizens, than to have that money go to the for-profit blood suckers, who will hack away at benefits every chance they can, to use the money for obscene salaries, bonuses & expense accounts, lush corporate offices & jets & profits for the ownership class.

Insurance does not equal health care.

[Gravel Democrat]

29. Obama himself explained part of why mandates are wrong in his campaign

You wrote: "So what difference does it make who gets paid as long as everyone is covered? "

I'll use the same words Nancy Pelosi used when asked where the authority is under the
constitution to mandate a purchase from a private company:

"Are you serious? Are you serious"?

If bush produced a plan to mandate your purchase of a pistol, for your safety of course,
and said you could write off ammo on your taxes, you'd be ok with that.

Or better yet, mandated purchases from huge insurance companies that wrote a bill
requiring you pay them,
you'd have no problem with that, even if it specified enforcement by the IRS.

Right?

[Vinca]

31. If it's going to be mandatory, it should be a single payer system

funded by taxes. My worst fear is getting a quote from big insurance I can't afford and being in a worst place than I was before: fined and still no health care.

[treestar]

45. I don't like the concept but can see the point

If the person has the $$ they have to spend it on health insurance rather than a big screen TV. Sounds OK to me. I'd rather have it all go through the government though. But I guess that would be single payer.

There is a knee-jerk hatred of big companies here (while at the same time apparently wanting to work for them).

But the idea is to get everyone covered, which means insurance coverage, which means insurance companies, so people who really hate insurance companies shouldn't want anyone covered.

[Fumesucker]

65. The hatred for big companies is because it's totally obvious to anyone paying attention

That they are gaming the system against the average individual.

There may be some few exceptions but I damn sure can't think of any right now.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. IIRC the poster you're responding to hearts outsourcing

So probably not the most objective observer. Sadly, many DUers drink the Corporate Koolaid.

[treestar]

105. I do not

I respond to the posts as I see fit, you are lying, so take a chill pill. I respond to racists and xenophobes who believe that anyone nonwhite doesn't deserve to work (that's their real complaint about the outsourcing), and also to selfish idiots who think only their job matters, and irrational morons who think "we don't make anything in America any more" and unrealistic idiots who think that we can do without import/export.

Irrational hatred for corporations just because they are corporations makes no sense. Besides, why care if they outsource if you hate them so much? Aren't they gone then? Surely you don't want to work for such a horrid, profit-making entity? And you don't want anyone covered by health insurance, since those companies are so damn evil, right? And everyone who works for them can go hang (just like anyone who works for an importer or exporter).

[Hello_Kitty]

109. Bullshit corporate stooge talking points

You globalization humpers have been pwned on this topic so many times yet you keep returning for more in the vain hope that someone will buy the horsehockey you spew. Figures you'd be all for transferring what little wealth the remaining middle class has straight to the coffers of billionaire CEOs.

[treestar]

93. But who are you putting that on?

Big companies employ a lot of people. How far down do you go?

[Hello_Kitty]

66. Oh here we go with this tiresome meme again

If the person has the $$ they have to spend it on health insurance rather than a big screen TV.

Once again, I point out that the uninsured have been turned into the new Welfare Queens^{TM. :eyes:}

[treestar]

95. No, there are some people that don't spend wisely

Especially younger people or people willing to take a chance on their health. If the chance does not pay off, these days, they are those very people with the tragic stories - not covered and with huge medical bills.

If you have the money, buy health insurance with it. Those that don't have the money are subsidized.

You're assuming every one of the uninsured is uninsured because they can't afford the premiums. If that's so, the mandate doesn't affect anyone.

[Hello_Kitty]

102. Some. What the fuck is "some"?

Give me a percentage. Put up a link to it.

I'll help you. Google is your friend. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/October/04/npr-voluntarily-uninsured-explainer.aspx

14 fucking percent.

[girl gone mad]

75. What kind of big screen TV costs $13,000 PER YEAR?

That's the single dumbest argument I hear about health insurance - that people can't afford it because they are wasting all of their money on fancy television sets. :crazy:

[Hello_Kitty]

82. It started with Hillary supporters during the primaries.

Suddenly the uninsured, who had previously been regarded with sympathy for the most part, became irresponsible freeloaders selfishly withholding their considerable disposable cash from the insurance industry and making the poor hardworking white Americans pay too much for health care.

[treestar]

100. You're being overdramatic.

The uninsured get sympathy because they don't have the great job with health insurance or no job at all.

You're talking about people who could afford it but don't buy it. They get plenty of sympathy when they run into a disaster, though.

I suppose they are who the mandate might be for. Plenty of people think they want to take chances on things like this. This is who the mandate would be aimed at. It is human nature to gamble on such things, or think that illness is far away or unlikely. There are many other things to spend money on rather than insurance and insurance is a frustrating thing to spend money on, especially if you don't make any claims.

[Hello_Kitty]

106. How many is "plenty"?

Newsflash: The vast majority of uninsured people would get insurance if they could afford it and the coverage was decent. The masses of healthy young freeloaders with boatloads of extra money buying bling instead of insurance and laughing with glee as they stick you with the bill for their ski accidents and coke binges SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST. Jesus God. Most young working people can't afford toilet paper, let alone craptastic "insurance" that makes you pay thousands out of pocket before the coverage even kicks in.

[treestar]

99. The TV set was just as example

13K a year is for a family, right?

I pay my own (self employed) and it's nowhere near that.

I could take a chance and not pay for health insurance and buy a bigger car.

[girl gone mad]

114. It's cheaper for you so you assume it's cheaper for everyone else?

13k might be average for a family of 4, in good health.

My brother in law's insurance was $900 a month when he was self-employed because of a pre-existing condition (he took anti-depressants as a teenager). This was the cheapest policy he could find, it covered only him, and it had a high deductible. His medical expenses had averaged $300 a year for the last decade.

If I had been in his shoes, there's no way I would have bought that policy. It's a scam. Forcing people to buy such policies is a scam. At least with the car or the tv, you know what you're getting for the money and you can make a value judgment.

[ZombieHorde]

90. "There is a knee-jerk hatred of big companies here"

When a company is responsible for the deaths and/or bankruptcy of millions of Americans, the hatred is not a knee-jerk reaction.

[ZombieHorde]

50. I don't like the idea of being forced to purchase a product or service from a private company.

Especially from companies which are responsible for the deaths of many Americans. They have abused us for years, now we all have to give them money, or we will all be harassed by our own government.

This is like a school telling all of the kids to give the bullies a portion of their lunch money, and in return, the bullies will be a lot less likely to beat the shit out of you, but the bullies are still trying to get around the "no beating the shit out of people" rule. If you don't pay the bullies, then the school will bully you until you do pay.

[apples and oranges]

55. We're forced to buy auto insurance, utilities (many private)

You say insurance companies are responsible for the deaths of many Americans? That is true but reform will come with changes to what those companies can do. It will be *no* insurance that kills people, once the reform is in place.

[ZombieHorde]

77. I am not forced to buy auto insurance or utilities in my state.

When bullies threatened me in school, I immediately attacked them, then they quit threatening me. If I gave them my lunch money, they would not have left me alone.

Insurance companies have been bullies, they should be destroyed, but instead, we have to pay them off or our own government will harm us.

Mandates = "Buy this product, from these murderers, or we will hurt you."

[apples and oranges]

81. "they should be destroyed"

Is that where the bar has been set? Any bill that does not destroy insurance companies is crap?

[ZombieHorde]

85. No. Those four words in my replies are not my main point, but I think you know that and are playing

with me. Do you care to address my other points?

[Hello_Kitty]

119. How about making insurance cos. non-profit?

And I mean REAL nonprofits, not what companies like Blue Cross claim to be.

[girl gone mad]

78. No one is forced to buy either of those things.

They are optional.

[Obamanaut]

120. No, we are not forced to buy auto insurance. We are not forced to

buy automobiles, but if we do, we can drive them all over our own property - unlicensed and uninsured.

We are forced to seek health care of some sort from time to time. It should be made affordable for everyone.

[timtom]

59. No!

The goal (according to some, including me and Dennis Kucinich,) is to provide universal, single payer health care to all.

Anything else is a corporatist half measure, at best.

[philly_bob]

60. A buddy of mine sez: "There's a totalitarian solution to every problem."

Sure, you can solve drunk-driving by forbidding the import and sale of alcohol. You can solve child abuse and tax evasion by executing pedophiles and tax cheats. You can solve jay-walking by issuing revocable pedestrian licenses. And so on.

When the government forces people to enter into a business contract with a private company (a "mandate"), that's a brute-force, totalitarian solution.

We're liberals. We like to find solutions to problems that don't reduce people's rights of free association.

Is that clearer?

[mmonk]

67. Being forced into paying high priced private policies

that we have no control over or say so cannot be compared with single payer in Canada. People aren't forced into altering their lives to pay for medical bills, co pays, deductables and the like in their system. Apples and Oranges.

[apples and oranges]

74. I'm guessing the premiums will be income based and reasonable

[PeaceNikki]

76. Like the mandated auto insurance rates are income based and reasonable?

Oh wait...

[apples and oranges]

86. Auto insurance is based on your driving record

and the value of your car. All of those things are in your control.

[PeaceNikki]

91. To a degree, but my rate with a perfect record for 21 years is the same as

someone driving the same vehicle as me in the same area who makes quadruple what I make. And also someone who makes a third of what I make.

[apples and oranges]

101. Auto insurance isn't income based. A health insurance mandate MUST be income based

If implemented wisely, a mandate will lower premiums for millions of Americans who are paying the same flat rate (sometimes way more than what they can afford). At the same time, it should increase the premiums of people who have higher incomes. This might be the closest we ever get to universal care.

[quaker bill]

92. No one has ever

subsidized the purchase of auto insurance.

[Sinti]

103. I appreciate your naivety, it's heart-warming

You are, however, mistaken and will likely be taken for a big ride many, many times. I do not have to drive. I spent many years with no car, no insurance, took the bus and train (cabs for emergencies) and was happy. You are not mandated to pay for water, electric, or gas - you may be cold, thirsty, dirty and in the dark, but no government agent is going to fine you for going without, because you can't afford it.

Let me ask you this, if you were being forced to purchase 1 pound of meat per month for $600 a month, and had only eaten meat once in the past 15 years, would you think that's fair?

I've personally been sick enough to need a doctor once in the past 15+ years, paid for it out of pocket, $75 bucks at the walk-in clinic, and they gave me samples antibiotics so no prescription costs. Insurance for that same period costs $108,000 - is it morally correct for me to pay a $107,925 surcharge for what ultimately costs $75 - especially when the deductible is higher than $75?

Now, I don't mind paying a tax specifically for health care, because I know who gets the benefits (sick people) - forcing me to pay a FOR-PROFIT business to receive zero benefit is basically unthinkable IMO. I'd rather pay the fine and put extra money in savings to cover my problems, or just die if I can't afford care. Death is infinitely less offensive than continuing to support this mafia-like behavior on their part. You're paying "protection money" for all intents and purposes.

Everyone seems to talk about the emergency room, but in my experience (with other people's children) if you don't have an insurance card they won't see you period. there may be some hospitals who will see uninsured folks, and those usually already get money from the government and the churches.

If we'd just stop killing people in foreign countries there would be plenty of money in taxes for health care, and roads, bridges, schools, etc. Maybe we should try that.

[Obamanaut]

121. And there are WMDs in Iraq, and Mission Accomplished, and we've

been safe for eight years, and the kids are thriving under NCLB, etc.

I'm not gonna look up the sarcasm thingy

[dysfunctional press]

89. i have no problem with mandates, as long as a ROBUST public option is available.

"With single payer (the ideal plan), we'd have to pay the government in the form of taxes, would we not?

So what difference does it make who gets paid as long as everyone is covered? "

:grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr:

the difference is two words: Obscene Profit

[quaker bill]

97. As long as the mandate

comes with a large subsidy for lower income folks, a massive raft of regulation for the providers, and a public option, I have no problem.

There needs to be a minimum package policy available that has predictable and known federally dictated minimum benefits subject to enforcement by the feds against the insurance companies if they fail to perform.

[optimator]

98. FASCISM

a one party authoritarian corporate state.
I will go to prison before the government forces me to buy a private company's product.

[mdmc]

104. I wanted a single payer system

I also want the insurance agencies (at least the part that profits from denying care) to fail.

But really, in the end, I want a victory for Obama. I think it would really suck if Obama's success is that I get the same insurance I have now, but pay more for it.

[shintao]

107. The goals are,........

The goal for me is to give all Americans free National Health Care, while allowing insurance companies to continue business as usual.

The difference in who gets paid is elimination of the 20Xs higher rates of insurance, over the lower costs that NHC can provide, and allowing all Americans coverage.

[bvar22]

111. Because,

...I would rather the dollars I pay for Health Care Coverage actually go to providing Health Care,
(minus about 3% for administrative costs)

and NOT toward buying another Yacht or Vacation Home for this guy:


But that is just my personal preference.
You would still always have the option of giving your money directly to the guy above
if you so choose.

[girl gone mad]

115. It's pretty simple for me.

I will refuse to give one dime to any of these ethically bankrupt corporations. Their business model is corrupt. Their executive compensation schemes are obscene. I have multiple moral objections to the entire concept of for-profit health insurance.

For the record, I will not pay any federally mandated amount of income to private health insurance companies. I will fight it in court and if I lose, I will still refuse to pay.

[ixion]

122. well said...

I agree. :applause:

I think there are many who will fight such a mandate.

[eridani]

123. Fuck no! I don't want to "insure" everyone. I want to pay for their health care

How fucking stupid does someone have to be to prefer a $450/month "premium" to a $125/month "tax"?