I have a lot of problems with this healthcare bill, but "forced buying" is not one of them.

[Sparkly]

Call me a Socialist, but "forced buying," "mandates," etc. are the road to single-payer.

- It comes from your taxes, or it comes from your bank account after taxes.
- It goes through a non-profit government agency directly to health care providers, or it goes through insurance companies whose goals are to make profits.
- It is affordable, or it's not. It's comprehensive, or it's not. It's beneficial, or it's not.

I think THOSE are the questions. In my view, it'd be far better (more efficient, more economical, more beneficial) to have single-payer universal "government-run" health care system to provide for the needs of every citizen. But obviously, there isn't the will to do that among our Democratic majority in DC.

Meanwhile, though, it's the "mandate" that makes it work for everyone. Just as you can rest assured that if it's YOUR house that catches fire it'll be extinguished, so you can pay your dues so that you AND your neighbors can know that the protection is there.

The government's role is to make it more of a benefit than a cost. The Libertarian view is generally anti-government as a Big Oppressor (not of, by, and for The People). That's an idealistic Thoreau vision of self-sufficiency and independence and free will that simply doesn't function in our society. The costs and benefits of democracy (involving "community," "society" -- ooh, like communism and socialism!!) are so built-in to the structures of our lives, we couldn't survive without them.

(I mean, if you want to go live in the woods off the land where you have no monetary income, go right ahead.)

What we have comes with a cost. We both give to each other, and gain from each other. It's not as though the person whose house DOES catch fire is some lucky duck for getting more money spent on them; it's not as though the person with an expensive medical crisis is getting a cushy deal we'd all like to have... We give to know the parachute is there, but hope we aren't the ones upon whom the money is spent.

You're already paying for Social Security and Medicare, which rival only defense spending in their share of our tax dollars. This, too, is not something you may benefit from right away. But we have ALL paid into it. A health care fund is not much different. We pay in while we're young and (likely) healthy and not in need, for the greater good and for our own futures.

Finally, I wonder whether this is a generational divide, and although it may seem remote, I think of the draft. The first generation of Americans who never felt its threat have lived long lives now, without it. (I'm just old enough to remember.) THAT was a government imposing on its citizens to give and sacrifice. THAT was actually being forced to give up freedom, "rights," "choice," etc., and for causes that had nothing to do with the greater good of anybody.

Paying in for something that benefits you as well as others? Adjusted according to your means? With subsidies from other taxpayers if you need them? Almost like Sweden or something?

I'm sorry. :nopity: There are many problems with the legislation as it currently stands -- costs, who and what it benefits, profit motives, eroding women's rights -- but the notion that everyone pays according to their ability, to meet all needs, is a step forward to me, not a step backward.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I stand with you, Sparkly.

And I can't believe what I'm reading here lately... some of it.

K and R

:patriot:

[Hello_Kitty]

2. It's not that we're being forced to buy something. It's *what* that something is.

You could force everyone to buy a sailboat and call it "health care reform" but it won't make it so.

You hit on what the problem is here: It goes through a non-profit government agency directly to health care providers, or it goes through insurance companies whose goals are to make profits.

Sorry, but support for forcing people to buy a shoddy product from a private corporation and pretending it's the same thing as single payer because both have a mandate doesn't wash.

[Sparkly]

4. Agreed, and I said that. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

5. And I think you're making assumptions about DUers who oppose the mandates

Most of us are for single payer or at least a strong, competitive public option that is open for everyone, and understand that it would come with mandates.

[Sparkly]

6. OOoookayyyyy... And you read the first parts of the post?

I think I made a distinction between the issue of WHAT is being paid for vs. the very notion of a requirement to pay in.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Yes I did

Your entire OP, OTOH, seems to be addressed to a largely mythical group of DUers who oppose being forced by the government to pay for something strictly on principle. I've come across no more than one or two and they tend to be libertarian-leaning.

[Sparkly]

8. Hard to believe

since I cited Libertarians in particular.

Maybe I'm not on DU as much, but I've seen lots of freaking out from people who think the Big Bad Government are trespassing their freedoms and will send them to jail if they don't comply!!

[pnwmom]

3. Great post, Sparkly. Recommended. n/t

[graywarrior]

9. I'm forced to buy insurance in MA

It is not a big deal. Right now, I pay just $10 for doctor visits and $10 per prescription. All tests are free. Once my income goes up when I finish school, I will pay more. I'm fine with that. I'm relieved to know that if something happens to me, my husband will not be saddled with medical bills. We filed bankruptcy five years ago because of a car accident and medical bills. Anything could happen and although it's not perfect, having this healthcare coverage is a huge relief.

[alarimer]

10. It is a problem as long as the money is going to insurance companies.

From what I have read, the proposed public option here is nothing more than a giveaway to insurance companies. It will only cover about 2% of the uninsured, be way more expensive than it should be, and not cover much (akin to those catastrophic health care plans).

[inna]

11. That would have been a HUGE step forward, except that nothing like that is taking place.

<<the notion that everyone pays according to their ability, to meet all needs>>

There's nothing I'd welcome as much as that. That could be easily achieved with a simple proportionate tax on everyone (let's say, 10% of income on everyone), let alone with progressive taxation (the way it works everywhere else in the civilized world). However, the current bill is effectively a massive and hugely regressive tax on the struggling middle/working class.

[Sparkly]

15. Explain, please.

I thought there were built-in subsidies for those who can't afford care.

[inna]

36. You won't get any subsidies if you make over $32K as a single person or

over $62K as a family of four. Having to pay 20% of your gross income to (profiteering) insurance corps is anything but "affordable" for someone who makes $33K.

It's in effect a hugely regressive and unprecedented TAX that disproportionately affects the struggling middle/working class.

Note that the wealthy will be paying a tiny fraction of their income for the best possible coverage, while the struggling middle/working class will be paying a very significant portion of their income for junk insurance/premiums only, and actual CARE will be still unavailable to them because of high deductibles/copays.


The only fair way to fund health care is through fair (preferably, PROGRESSIVE) taxation (i.e., the way it's done in the rest of the civilized world), not through ridiculously regressive "mandates" (back-door taxes) that disproportionately affect the struggling middle/working class.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. K&R

I know I'm a member of your posse and all, but this **really** good stuff.

[Roland99]

13. There's a HUGE difference in paying 3.3% in PAYROLL taxes (as in HR676) versus......

having a fine of 2.5% of adjusted gross income levied for failure to obtain insurance.

An amount that is sizeable and offers NO benefit to the person against whom the fine is levied.


With Single-Payer coming out per paycheck, the payee of the taxes receives the benefit of having insurance!!


See the difference????

[Sparkly]

14. The difference...

... isn't about whether or not it costs you something.

As I acknowledged in my post, there's plenty to dispute about this bill, and where the money goes.

But you DO, in fact, get "benefit." You can't opt out of the benefit anymore than you can tell the fire department not to put out your house fire, or the medics not to resuscitate you. When it comes down to the wire, that safety-net comes with a price.

[Roland99]

16. If I don't purchase insurance and am later fined via 2.5% of my income in taxes, tell me....

what benefits did I receive?

[Sparkly]

17. A.) Buy the insurance.

B.) Other taxpayers will subsidize what you can't afford, like any progressive tax.

C.) Your benefit is having insurance.

D.) If you decide not to buy insurance, that's another issue. You will still be treated, at the expense of others, and you'll be levied a fine for not contributing to the pool for others, although it ended up aiding you.

Single-payer, as I said, is far more efficient and beneficial. But if others are covering your ass, you ought to cover theirs, too.

[Roland99]

18. A) How? B) How? C) What insurance? D) What if I have no choice?

Let's say I have a pre-existing condition and the premium the ins. company would charge is too astronomical. Am I guaranteed a policy thru the public option? Not everyone would be eligible. In fact, very few would be. And, what guarantee is there that I could even afford the public option plan?

There are so many holes in this bill and so many gifts to the insurance companies it's sickening.

[Sparkly]

19. Red herrings.

Even this abysmal legislation addresses pre-existing conditions, provides subsidies for "too astronomical," continues to provide emergency care, etc...

Yes, I agree about gifts to the insurance industry, etc.

But the NOTION of being "forced" to pay in is NOT some big, unprecedented government trampling of freedoms.

[Roland99]

21. It forbids rejection for pre-existing conditions but doesn't mean premiums won't be double or triple

or worse.

This legislation is nowhere near a victory for the country, much less the Democrats and even much less for Progressives.

Plus, it doesn't stand a chance of getting thru the Senate with feeble Reid at the helm ready to hack away at anything positive this bill might contain.

[Sparkly]

23. Agreed.

The bill is crap.

Again, what I'm talking about is the very NOTION of paying in as a "mandate." As mandates go, this one is nothing.

[hansberrym]

20. You go girl! Pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration, not the Constitution. :)

Some of the weaker minded among us may ask -How can the country pay for this?
The answer is crystal clear! A combination of paper dollars with absolutely no backing, clever accounting, and confiscatory taxes will do the trick. I say to such weak minded fools -do not trouble yourself with such details, your representatives in Congress have this well covered!


Others of that ilk may question if the current level of federal spending is sustainable? To these cretins I gladly repond; The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth. Why California alone, were it a country unto itself, would have a GDP rivaling the richest nations of the world!


Still some fools persist; Say old chap, Isn't there a real danger that California will soon be insolvent?
But we here know that is simply impossible, with such good men and women running that magnificent state, it can not possibly go broke. Why California alone, were it a country unto itself, would have a GDP rivaling the richest nations of the world!


We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!
We are the richest nation on earth!

[Sparkly]

24. Ummm... I surmise you were trying to make a point.

I'm guessing your point is that we can't afford it?

The remedy, in my view, is single-payer. Without that, I think healthcare will tank the country's economy sooner or later.

Again, there are many reasons to oppose this bill. Paying in isn't among them. It's the only way OUT of this mess, as I see it.

If you have a different opinion you'd like to share, please do.

[optimator]

22. i'll never accept corporate welfare

sorry.

[Sparkly]

25. Read the post.

:eyes:

[newspeak]

26. and I don't mind paying into health insurance

if it's a strong public option or single payer. Why should I pay for an insurance corporation that will probably give me shitty service, a high deductible, high payment, so that they and their wallstreet buddies can make even more of a profit? One way or another, they will make more of a profit, whether the government has to subsidize those that cannot afford it or just taking our money for whatever service we can really afford. Their whole reason for existence is profit, so tell me why should I encourage them? Like the "forced" auto insurance, y'all see any payments going down since we all have to have auto insurance (oh wait, only those who have vehicles).

I pay into medicare and we don't mind paying a "reasonable" price for health care, but we have other debts and lower paying job, so if this bill is a major giveaway, I'll probably pay the penalty (because it may be something we can afford) and still not have insurance. Of course, I'm looking on the bright side, maybe my small penalty may help someone who's willing to play, have a government subsidy to pay for their for profit insurance.

[Laelth]

27. Make it an increase in the progressive income tax, and I am with you.

But a mandate is, by nature, regressive, and health care costs us all the same amount. That makes this tax very regressive. That, in fact, is why it was done. It doesn't hurt the wealthy, only the struggling middle class.

I am ashamed of the Democratic Party.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Unvanguard]

28. That's why there are subsidies. n/t

[Laelth]

32. I beg to differ.

The subsidies are there only so that the struggling middle class gets less of a shaft (less of a tax increase), and the insurance companies can insure that they still get paid.

If we were serious about protecting the struggling middle class, this plan would be funded by an increase in the progressive income tax. It's not. And it's not because we know we're shafting the struggling middle class with the mandate. We know we're about to increase their taxes (despite Obama's promise that he wouldn't do that).

The Party will regret it if this law passes.

:dem:

-Laelth

[inna]

38. on subsidies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6965237&mesg_id=6971169

[Faryn Balyncd]

29. Perhaps the major problem is that the mandate is a mandate to buy FROM A CARTEL.....

....and that such a mandate solidifies the power of the cartel.


If the mandate was a mandate to purchase healthcare from a fair, accountable entity, that would be entirely different, I would think.

[newspeak]

30. RIGHT ON

And, to me, if they give more power to such a cartel, those who think this will lead to a public option or single payer are in for a rude awakening.

[Sparkly]

31. Yes, that is a major problem.

Among others. I said that.

[kenny blankenship]

33. Just because you can't do something halfway right doesn't mean you should fly off the handle

and do something absolutely appalling.

I'll never understand the I-Voted-For-The-Iraq-War-Resolution-Even-Though-I-Knew-It-To-Be-Flawed mentality. And that's what we have here. A very lengthy apologia for forced tithing to Royal Monopolies.

Actually I DO UNDERSTAND the mentality, I just wish to God you people had some self-control.

[YoungAndOutraged]

34. Then I will (and should) pay nothing.

No job + no income = I'm not paying a penny, and I will not accept being looked down on for it, and I will also not accept "then why are you posting on an internet forum" from those on the right, and especially those on the left.

[JoeyT]

35. I'm not against mandates either.

I'm just against *this* mandate.
Most of the people that are angry about the mandate aren't freepers that scream bloody murder at the very mention of taxation. We're liberals that scream bloody murder at the mention of forcing the middle class to deal with the worthless bastards that wrecked the system in the first place.

"There are many problems with the legislation as it currently stands -- costs, who and what it benefits, profit motives, eroding women's rights" Yeah, with very few actual upsides. So we've eroded women's rights and we're forcing the middle class to kneel at the feet of a new master to accomplish virtually nothing. So let's all make violin emoticons. Women didn't need those rights and the middle class don't deserve real reform anyway.

Edited to add: I'm not against violence for self defense, but I'm not about to support a guy that runs around hitting kids with a baseball bat either. Just because I think a strategy can be useful or good doesn't make every possible application of it a good idea.

[Shagbark Hickory]

37. I support a mandate but REFUSE to be forced to pay a private company just to merely be in compliance

Gonna need a public option or I guess I go without.