Americans STRONGLY OPPOSE fines for not buying health insurance.

[dkf]

Only 28% support it with 62% against and 10% don't know.

They also oppose taxing expensive health plans with 34% in support, 55% opposed and 11% don't know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=190766

[stray cat]

1. They also are not in favor for paying the bills for those w/o insurance

but people get treated anyway and the taxpayers get billed.

Americans generally don't like having to spend their money on necessities

[Donnachaidh]

4. oh let's drag out that dead horse and beat on it for awhile, shall we?

Yeah yeah -- it's ALL the fault of those bastards who had the NERVE to get sick and need treatment.

Medicare for all would solve that problem. Not this insurance company giveaway that Obama is trying to ram down everyone's throat.

[Teaser]

50. make me fucking care.

.

[girl gone mad]

14. No one ever paid for my bills when I was uninsured.

My insured neighbor, on the other hand, had to declare bankruptcy because her insurance co. refused to cover a hospital stay.

Good luck with this lame-ass Republican talking point.

[golfguru]

46. Yet Americans donate more $$ to charities than any other nation

per capita. Go figure!

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Health care for all must be paid for by all...

Deadbeats can not simply be allowed to die.

[Armstead]

6. But not Health Insurance Bottom Lines

If mandates were for public insurance coverage, your reasoning would make sense.

But mandates to make sure the insurance companies get fat and happy is unfair.

Does "deadbeat" translate to someone who simply cannot afford an additional $800 a month for private insuarnce?

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Mandates work in many other countries (Germany, Japan are two)

They can work here.

It is a tested and proven solution that delivers health care to everyone by health insurance companies resulting in 0 bankruptcies due to health related problems and leads to a healthier population that has their medical needs met.

[Oregone]

27. How many of these countries have anti-trust exemptions for their insurers?

How many of them had history of epic corruption and unethical greed before implementing their systems? How many of them allow the amount of profit that this will?

What percent of the politicians in those countries are bribed by big industry, made possible by massive disparities in wealth & power?

[dkf]

28. +1000

[Romulox]

40. Germany has Social Democracy and a functioning safety net. It's a strained comparison! nt

[inna]

42. Absolute bullshit. Germany and Japan (as well as nearly the rest of the industrialized world)

have publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care, not individual mandates to purchase "insurance" (which is typically inadequate) from private, for-profit (and profiteering), unregulated, rapacious insurance corporations.

[golfguru]

48. Do they have public or private insurance mandates?

[Amonester]

53. In Canada, there's a lot of taxes, and almost on everything.

But it's more or less 'progressive' taxes (based on earnings and purchases of each individuals, since a lot of corporations 'manage' to pay very little).

Such a taxation level might be considered as some kind of mandates, although it's absolutely not the same thing.

[eridani]

51. That is because insurance compantes are actually regulated there

There is nothing even remotely resembling regulation in current HCR proposals. Real regulation means that the government dictates a broad comprehensive set of benefits and what the price will be.

[golfguru]

47. You hit it on the head!

I just can not see forcing people to make health insurer's more rich.

[Oregone]

8. Sure, but forcing people to contribute to shareholder dividends is another argument

If you want everyone to contribute, create a fair, egaltarian system for them to do so in.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. People are buying a service...not paying dividends.

Mandates work in other countries. They can work here.

[Oregone]

22. They are doing both

Their premiums, as well as tax money that goes to subsidies, will in some part become profit for the companies they are purchasing services from (there is still a question of what amount of guaranteed services will actually be provided). That extra profit will be divided up among the shareholders--often people who inherited this right to profit by merely owning stock in an industry, but doing no work--and sent out in checks to go into their private bank accounts.

Mandates work great in other countries when people are mandated to contribute to fair systems. We are not talking about a fair, egalitarian system here. We are talking about multi-tiered services for heterogeneous risk groups riddled with loopholes that operate to produce profit for shareholders. The poor will find themselves burdened, despite subsidies, with a 30% out-of-pocket costs when they attempt to use such services.

If you want a mandate, demand a fair system first.

[girl gone mad]

15. Health insurance for all is not health care for all.

Sorry, we're not that dumb.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Actually, it is in other counties that use Mandates..

And it works.

[Oregone]

24. Other countries aren't mandating payments to exorbitant, corrupt, private, for-profit companies

Sure, there are similarities (just as a cat is furry like a bear), but the differences are far more striking.

[Ozymanithrax]

25. So it is only American Private Health Care companies that are "corrupt,

private, for-profit companies"

Thanks

[Oregone]

26. Yes

This is a uniquely American system, and no where else can you find these extremes pushed so far. Theres even an anti-trust exemption for this industry, for fuck's sake.

Its like you think we just need to dial it in or something for perfect results. Absurdity

[girl gone mad]

44. With hard core regulations, which no one has even come close to proposing here.

Sorry, fail.

[Captain Hilts]

20. 'Deadbeats' are statistically those under 30. nt

[Romulox]

38. No need for insurance middle men in any of this though. nt

[glinda]

56. HC for all paid by all but not involving any Insurance Companies. Period.

[Clio the Leo]

3. What do they think of subsidies for the poor and rates lowered to affordable levels?

(that's a rhetorical question btw)

[Armstead]

10. Rates lowered is not part of the current plan

The insursers will continue to be able to jack up rates to their hearts' content -- mandate or no mandate.

[mn9driver]

5. This is an unavoidable consequence of the approach that they are taking.

You can't mandate that private insurers cover everyone without going to the flip side and requiring that everyone get coverage. The economics wouldn't work.

The basic problem is the approach itself. Universal, single payer, "Medicare for all" coverage would eliminate the problem entirely. But that would leave the private insurance industry with a greatly diminished role in sucking up health care dollars, so it's not going to happen.

We'll be lucky to even see some sort of watered down, toothless and meaningless "public option" in the reconciliation bill. Make no mistake: This new version of "reform" is pretty much just like the old version--and due to Corporate Ownership of our government, that's all we're going to get.

[progressoid]

9. + yep.

I think we're gonna get screwed no matter what happens.

[Oregone]

7. Hence, they don't really support mandates. They support suggestions

Because an unenforced mandate is just that: a subtle suggestion

[Armstead]

11. They don;t support this kind of mandate for good reason.

[freddie mertz]

12. And guess who will be ready and willing to exploit this opposition in November?

You guessed it.

[Oregone]

13. And whose fault do you think that is?

Those opposing the plan, or those who picked it?

[freddie mertz]

21. Those who picked it, of course.

They can't even bring themselves to describe it in public.

It's always "people will be covered" not "people will be forced to buy private, for-profit insurance."

It makes me sick.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Like Canada, it has to be done through taxes. nt

[Oregone]

23. Other things about Canada

- No copay to deter poor people from using the services

- No deductible to deter poor people from using the services

- No multi-tiered pools that allow the rich to get better care than the poor

Its really difficult to ask people to contribute when your end-system is anything but fair the everyone.

[Captain Hilts]

31. Very true. nt

[kenny blankenship]

37. +1,000,000

[slipslidingaway]

30. That is what the majority of Americans want, but politicians continue

to ignore the polls.

[Captain Hilts]

32. No clearer indication of how 'bought' Congress is. nt

[slipslidingaway]

45. yes, Yes, YES! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

29. knr nt

[and-justice-for-all]

33. Well YEAH!!! nt

[Ter]

34. The government can't fine someone for not wanting to go along

It wouldn't hold up in court.

[krabigirl]

35. Yep, I certainly oppose the fines.

[Cha]

36. I hope those People are calling their Congress People

and contacting the White House instead of just answering polls.

[Vinca]

39. This is like . . . DUH. If you can't afford the insurance,

you sure as hell shouldn't be penalized for being too poor to buy it and too well off for Medicaid. This whole thing is ridiculous. Single payer makes so much sense.

[brand404]

41. Repubs have now found their Talking Point for November -- Good By Democrats...you caused this

[Beaverhausen]

43. They raised the value of those cadillac plans

to over $27K I think. That would exclude all but the very wealthiest among us. I'm fine seeing those plans taxed a bit.

[depakid]

49. And yet these are the signature elements the Democrats chose for their "solution!"

:applause:

while dumping the more popular and effective measures from the bill!

Without even appearing to TRY to push them through reconciliation, And choosing NOT to place even MORE popular measures- many of which were once loosely known as a "Patient's bill of Rights" in a separate measure that they could have used a damning campaign issue.

It's almost as if the party leadership wants to lose so they can timidly go back into their corners and be browbeaten (by the right while still collecting the cash).

[SanchoPanza]

52. Interesting Poll

59% favor requiring all Americans to have health insurance.
75% favor requiring most businesses to offer insurance to their employees.
62% oppose the only means by which the above are accomplished.

I also imagine a similar breakdown for those who think everyone should drive safely but who also oppose maximum speed limits.

[DisgustedInMN]

54. How is what We the People want...

... relevant to what We the People have shoved down our throats?

:shrug:

[LatteLibertine]

55. IMO

we're paying a lot more in the end for folks that aren't insured. They use the emergency room as a GP.

Even healthy people should be insured. That said, premiums should be closely regulated. I'd roll back all hikes that were done in the past year or so as a reaction to coming HCR and freeze them for a while. The deliberate abuse and exploitation are ridiculous.

So I don't mind mandating folks be covered IF you regulate and reform gouging via out of control premiums.

If they're going to allow insurance companies to set premiums at any level they please and hike them by any amount when the like, no mandate should be in the bill.