HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It time to put an end to ...

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:17 AM

It time to put an end to the GOP talking point repeated here on DU again and again.



Obamacare does not require you to buy health insurance. No one is now or will be required to write a check to Blue Cross or any other insurance company. Nor will you be required to give anybody any money to have them buy insurance for you. You do and will have total freedom to not buy insurance from anyone. The tea party GOP and even some on the Supreme Court would have you believe otherwise because it advances their cause of total repression of the middle class and poor of America.

Obamacare DOES allow the IRS to collect a tax penalty from anyone who can afford insurance but who does not get that coverage and from those who could sign up for free or subsidized insurance but does not do so. The IRS has no way, method or plan to get you insurance if you don’t want it. They are totally powerless to do anything to get any insurance company to insure you unless you buy the insurance as your choice. You are the only one who can make sure you have insurance and you have total freedom to not get health insurance. The tax penalty is 2.5% of your taxable income at the most. The IRS will not and cannot use that money to buy from a private insurance company insurance for you or anyone else. Not only are you not required to send a check to any insurance company, the IRS is not required or even allowed to send a check to an insurance company. There is no commerce being created, mandated, required or otherwise commanded. Yes, Obamacare encourages, stimulates, even provides an incentive for people to get insured but that has nothing to do with your freedom to not buy insurance. You will have total freedom to not participate in the commerce of health insurance. (Incidentally your employer, as now, may have the power to require you to buy insurance if you choose to work for him. But that’s subjecting yourself to the capitalist, not the government. The GOP loves that!)

That the Tea Party has convinced anyone here on DU otherwise shows the power they have to control the dialog. Please correct any comments you hear and remind them that no where in the Affordable Healthcare Act does the government have the power to make you as an individual buy insurance from anyone, any company, public or private.

Note: I would prefer a Single Payer Healthcare system like Medicare for everyone but right now, Obamacare is all we have to defend. Your kids will be grown and out of the house before we see any healthcare reform if Obamacare is thrown out by this Supreme Court. Complain about it all you want, but stop repeating GOP talking points and explain to me where in the act it says to write out a check to anybody for health insurance. If it does, tell me which company, I have my check book ready and I need the coverage.

260 replies, 41694 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 260 replies Author Time Post
Reply It time to put an end to the GOP talking point repeated here on DU again and again. (Original post)
rgbecker Apr 2012 OP
KG Apr 2012 #1
FarPoint Apr 2012 #2
Doctor_J Apr 2012 #21
FarPoint Apr 2012 #35
xtraxritical Apr 2012 #70
FarPoint Apr 2012 #75
A Simple Game Apr 2012 #91
FarPoint Apr 2012 #130
A Simple Game Apr 2012 #146
progressoid Apr 2012 #200
Skittles Apr 2012 #206
rgbecker Apr 2012 #215
Skittles Apr 2012 #249
Javaman Apr 2012 #222
pa28 Apr 2012 #98
rgbecker Apr 2012 #133
Zalatix Apr 2012 #135
rgbecker Apr 2012 #137
sabrina 1 Apr 2012 #180
cyberpj Apr 2012 #219
Cheviteau Apr 2012 #232
stevenleser Apr 2012 #237
reACTIONary Apr 2012 #191
Zalatix Apr 2012 #61
pnwmom Apr 2012 #121
cali Apr 2012 #6
robinlynne Apr 2012 #176
rgbecker Apr 2012 #11
thesquanderer Apr 2012 #116
rgbecker Apr 2012 #131
BOHICA12 Apr 2012 #145
robinlynne Apr 2012 #177
Posteritatis Apr 2012 #211
W T F Apr 2012 #18
appleannie1 Apr 2012 #26
MinisterMelinda Apr 2012 #45
EFerrari Apr 2012 #48
SunSeeker Apr 2012 #87
JDPriestly Apr 2012 #102
zinnisking Apr 2012 #126
markpkessinger Apr 2012 #114
EFerrari Apr 2012 #216
cbayer Apr 2012 #52
LACarMan Apr 2012 #84
A Simple Game Apr 2012 #108
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #168
Telly Savalas Apr 2012 #193
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #204
hfojvt Apr 2012 #105
levp Apr 2012 #111
markpkessinger Apr 2012 #117
hfojvt Apr 2012 #125
GirlinContempt Apr 2012 #207
SmellyFeet Apr 2012 #221
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #112
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #259
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2012 #100
Sancho Apr 2012 #107
levp Apr 2012 #113
Recursion Apr 2012 #187
napoleon_in_rags Apr 2012 #152
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #171
Recursion Apr 2012 #188
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #189
Recursion Apr 2012 #192
pnwmom Apr 2012 #120
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #169
pnwmom Apr 2012 #184
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #190
GirlinContempt Apr 2012 #208
SmellyFeet Apr 2012 #223
still_one Apr 2012 #212
bowens43 Apr 2012 #236
freshwest Apr 2012 #3
tibbiit Apr 2012 #4
ffr Apr 2012 #33
EFerrari Apr 2012 #5
cali Apr 2012 #7
EFerrari Apr 2012 #44
FarLeftFist Apr 2012 #51
LineLineLineLineLineReply !
KG Apr 2012 #53
EFerrari Apr 2012 #64
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #132
unapatriciated Apr 2012 #230
Voice for Peace Apr 2012 #8
Arkansas Granny Apr 2012 #9
markpkessinger Apr 2012 #119
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #173
rgbecker Apr 2012 #196
pnwmom Apr 2012 #122
adam in oregon Apr 2012 #227
pnwmom Apr 2012 #241
adam in oregon Apr 2012 #245
pnwmom Apr 2012 #250
NNN0LHI Apr 2012 #10
rgbecker Apr 2012 #13
xtraxritical Apr 2012 #77
LibDemAlways Apr 2012 #15
NNN0LHI Apr 2012 #16
barbtries Apr 2012 #12
Marr Apr 2012 #14
rgbecker Apr 2012 #19
Marr Apr 2012 #24
rgbecker Apr 2012 #37
jberryhill Apr 2012 #235
Orangepeel Apr 2012 #36
rgbecker Apr 2012 #62
Marr Apr 2012 #67
Orangepeel Apr 2012 #93
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #134
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #175
KamaAina Apr 2012 #244
KamaAina Apr 2012 #243
marshall gaines Apr 2012 #43
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #144
JoeyT Apr 2012 #17
rgbecker Apr 2012 #23
JoeyT Apr 2012 #94
Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #30
kestrel91316 Apr 2012 #74
rudycantfail Apr 2012 #198
riderinthestorm Apr 2012 #199
rgbecker Apr 2012 #217
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #20
saras Apr 2012 #34
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #148
quaker bill Apr 2012 #179
hughee99 Apr 2012 #95
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #136
rgbecker Apr 2012 #139
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #147
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #149
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #151
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #154
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #172
freedom fighter jh Apr 2012 #153
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #157
freedom fighter jh Apr 2012 #162
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #167
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #183
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #159
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #170
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #185
GirlinContempt Apr 2012 #209
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #248
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #254
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #256
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #257
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #150
hughee99 Apr 2012 #155
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #156
hughee99 Apr 2012 #160
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #163
hughee99 Apr 2012 #178
rgbecker Apr 2012 #195
hughee99 Apr 2012 #242
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #203
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #247
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #251
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #252
girl gone mad Apr 2012 #253
rgbecker Apr 2012 #194
adam in oregon Apr 2012 #228
JoePhilly Apr 2012 #260
1monster Apr 2012 #22
Tobin S. Apr 2012 #28
rgbecker Apr 2012 #29
dragonlady Apr 2012 #40
1monster Apr 2012 #55
rgbecker Apr 2012 #66
subterranean Apr 2012 #59
Marr Apr 2012 #76
appleannie1 Apr 2012 #25
Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #27
rgbecker Apr 2012 #46
Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #50
Marr Apr 2012 #65
rgbecker Apr 2012 #71
Marr Apr 2012 #80
Doctor_J Apr 2012 #182
Maven Apr 2012 #186
marshall gaines Apr 2012 #31
Gman Apr 2012 #32
MinisterMelinda Apr 2012 #38
rgbecker Apr 2012 #49
earthside Apr 2012 #39
denvine Apr 2012 #41
obxhead Apr 2012 #42
rgbecker Apr 2012 #57
obxhead Apr 2012 #69
rgbecker Apr 2012 #78
Marr Apr 2012 #82
KG Apr 2012 #85
obxhead Apr 2012 #92
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #141
rgbecker Apr 2012 #143
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #224
pa28 Apr 2012 #104
obxhead Apr 2012 #109
Phlem Apr 2012 #47
woo me with science Apr 2012 #101
MNBrewer Apr 2012 #54
mdmc Apr 2012 #56
KG Apr 2012 #63
mdmc Apr 2012 #72
rgbecker Apr 2012 #79
mdmc Apr 2012 #83
SmellyFeet Apr 2012 #225
tularetom Apr 2012 #58
canoeist52 Apr 2012 #89
earthside Apr 2012 #96
tooeyeten Apr 2012 #60
rgbecker Apr 2012 #81
1monster Apr 2012 #97
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #164
mike_c Apr 2012 #68
rgbecker Apr 2012 #88
Marr Apr 2012 #73
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #165
ChadwickHenryWard Apr 2012 #86
rgbecker Apr 2012 #90
Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #99
rgbecker Apr 2012 #118
SoutherDem Apr 2012 #103
TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #142
former9thward Apr 2012 #106
rgbecker Apr 2012 #123
pinto Apr 2012 #110
pa28 Apr 2012 #115
kudzu22 Apr 2012 #124
rgbecker Apr 2012 #127
quinnox Apr 2012 #128
frazzled Apr 2012 #129
SmellyFeet Apr 2012 #229
truedelphi Apr 2012 #138
bluedigger Apr 2012 #140
Bluenorthwest Apr 2012 #158
simplesimon Apr 2012 #161
retread Apr 2012 #166
robinlynne Apr 2012 #174
Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #181
radarluv Apr 2012 #197
progressoid Apr 2012 #201
Puzzledtraveller Apr 2012 #202
busteddrum Apr 2012 #205
Zalatix Apr 2012 #210
rgbecker Apr 2012 #218
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #220
GreydeeThos Apr 2012 #213
rgbecker Apr 2012 #214
dkf Apr 2012 #226
Xyzse Apr 2012 #231
AzDar Apr 2012 #233
joeybee12 Apr 2012 #234
Dragonfli Apr 2012 #258
Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2012 #238
rgbecker Apr 2012 #246
DennisBrault Apr 2012 #239
TBF Apr 2012 #255
Enrique Apr 2012 #240

Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:19 AM

1. buy insurance or be fined.

all the lipstick in the world ain't gonna pretty up that pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:22 AM

2. I like it...I support the mandate.

It's that simple, it's responsible....

Secondly...I agree completely with the OP...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:58 AM

21. Your post is an oxymoron

Subject line: I support the mandate

text: I completely agree with the OP (which says there is no mandate).

Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:24 PM

35. If you desire discussion then do so.

Being aggressive and insulting is unbecoming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:10 PM

70. Doctor J's reply was in no manner "aggressive and insulting".

 

His reply was intelligent and succinct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #70)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:14 PM

75. I am entitled

To my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #75)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:37 PM

91. Yes you are entitled to your opinion, you are even entitled to both of them. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #91)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:04 PM

130. So, you join the game of harassment as well?

Let me make this clear...if I misunderstood the entire context of the lengthy OP, then I apologize and wish the harassment to please end now ...Do not treat me as if I were a troll....I will not tolerate being bullied.

I support the mandate, I support Obamacare. If the SC strikes it down...we can start over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #130)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:22 PM

146. Agreeing with you is harassment? If you say so.

Please let me know what you will tolerate, and do it now! Imagine the last four words in your best bullying voice, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #91)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:58 PM

200. heh heh heh

+1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:39 AM

206. LOL

AKA "I cannot admit I am wrong"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #206)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:16 AM

215. What is he wrong about?

One could easily support the idea of having people feel obligated to get coverage and support the idea that those who don't pay a tax and still agree with me that the ACA does not require anyone to buy insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #215)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:03 PM

249. lol

yeah, the idea of bringing attention from the IRS is in no way intimdation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:50 AM

222. How was his question an insult or agressive?



seemed like perfectly reasonable observation and question to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:43 PM

98. Looks like the doublespeak came unraveled for a minute there. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:22 PM

133. The truth is, although the word "Mandate" is not in the ACA,

that is not my point. The Tea Baggin GOP tells us the government is making us "Buy" insurance. They say they are being forced into creating commerce where there was none. They say we'll all have to buy broccoli soon and join a health club. These are lies. You simply will have to pay the IRS a tax penalty. After all is said and done...you will have no insurance. No broccoli and no health club. You will continue totally free to have no insurance. The IRS isn't going to sign your check over to Blue Cross and get a policy for you. You won't have insurance if you don't want it.

One could easily support the idea of having people feel obligated to get coverage and support the idea that those who don't pay a tax and still agree with me that the ACA does not require anyone to buy insurance.

The issue in this post is the repetition of the GOP talking point that somehow we are all going to end up with insurance somehow by being required to buy it. Yet none of the repeaters have suggested how that compulsion is going to take place if I don't want insurance.
Which insurance exactly am I going to be buying? If the IRS doesn't say which one, who does? Will one of those tea baggers please come forward and tell because it is not anywhere in the ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #133)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:29 PM

135. A tax penalty is not forcing you to buy health insurance

 

much the same way as the threat of a fine doesn't force you to get a driver's license.

There's a difference, you say? Yup, nobody's forcing you to drive.

The only way out of the "buy Cigna's insurance plan or pay the fine" is to die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #135)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:47 PM

137. Pay the fine and still not get insurance...

How is that being forced to buy the insurance plan? When the year is done...you still have no insurance. This is the GOP talking point I'm trying to call out. If you were being forced to buy insurance, how is it year after year, you still don't have it? You may have paid more in taxes, but that seems different than having to buy insurance. The proof is in the pudding. Do you have coverage after you were so called "Forced" to buy insurance? Seems like you didn't buy it as you don't have it. So the force wasn't enough? How about jail? Not in ACA. How about deportation? Not in ADA. Even if those penalties were in the ACA, you still end up with no insurance. If the ACA said the IRS or the Health service would be required to issue you a policy and the IRS would be required to garnish the premium the GOP might have a case...but that's not in the act. No insurance if you don't want insurance. Freedom. Very simple truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #133)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:53 PM

180. Supposing you are a family barely making it on the income you have. You pay your taxes,

you have priorities, food, rent, driving expenses which are mainly to get to an from work. You have no extra cash to spend on vacations or other luxuries, which in today's America includes HC. Let's say your job doesn't cover you so you simply cannot afford another dollar to buy coverage and live on the hope that no one gets sick.

Now there is a law that requires everyone to buy HC OR be fined by the IRS. You are earning too much to get assistance, so you now have an additional expense, and if you can't pay it, we all know what the IRS does when a tax bill is not paid.

To such a family, and there are untold numbers of them, that new tax means they have make yet another choice of what not to buy for their family. Should it be the clothes from the thrift shot, a little less milk or eggs for the children?

I don't think anyone who followed the debate on the HC bill was unaware of this. From a legal standpoint re the SC, it may save the bill, and at this point most of us probably hope it does. But that doesn't change the implications for many, not-quite-poor-enough families who are currently living paycheck to paycheck as it is.

No democratic country should be fining people for not buying HC, period. But we had that debate, we lost and all we can do now is hope that the bill will benefit enough people to be an improvement of what we had before, and work hard to get what all Americans have a right to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #180)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:40 AM

219. Well said. And if there are fines to be paid - they SHOULD be used to defray unpaid medical costs.

I'm not sure we know what happens to the fines once the IRS has them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #180)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:25 AM

232. I did notice...

...that with all the buying the kids clothes and more milk and eggs, that you didn't mention who was going to pay for the next emergency room visit for said kids. That would be me who pays a hefty premium for a supplemental policy in addition to my medicare premium. And don't discount my taxes that go to support public hospitals such as the LSU medical center here in my small town. Who do you think keeps doctors and nurses in those emergency rooms? Again, that would be me and those like me who pay outlandish prices for a visit with a stubbed toe or hang nail.

Compare a 2.5% surcharge on one's taxes to a $150,000 bill for reconstructive surgery on a small child who's been a victim of an unavoidable accident.

Get my drift, here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #180)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:17 AM

237. Simple, you get a tax credit.

Individuals and families that make under a certain amount of money get a tax credit that they can use to purchase insurance.

Sabrina, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we went with single payer, taxes would have to go up to pay for it. The same family you talk about would have their taxes go up by a couple of hundred dollars a month. That is also money out of their pockets. That is the way single payer is handled, you pay for it in taxes.

Lets not pretend there is a material difference there in the impact on families of having to pay for health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:38 PM

191. "The Mandate" is simply the term that is used for the provision in question...

...using the term "the mandate" does not mean you think it IS a mandate. It is completely reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:54 PM

61. So did the Heritage Foundation, who came up with this idea.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #61)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:23 PM

121. It's the best we could get through Congress, and it's already started to bend the cost curve down

even though most of its provisions won't take effect till 2014.

Meanwhile, millions of children and young adults already have insurance they didn't have, and others aren't bumping into annual or lifetime limits on their policies.

So the Heritage Foundation didn't have such a terrible idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:25 AM

6. sounds ok to me. just out of curiosity, do you have health insurance?

Look, if the ACA is overturned, more people will suffer and die than if it isn't. it's that simple, but a lot of you evidently don't give a flying fuck about that.

Sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:45 PM

176. We do. and agree on that point. better with the bill than without for some people. BUT the bill

has a mandate to buy insurance, which is absurd for so many reasons.
two big reasons are:

It exposes the bill to this current Supreme Court situation, which we all knew was coming.

It is about buying insurance, not about receiving healthcare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:29 AM

11. Paying a fine and being forced to buy insurance are two very different things.

Lipstick is for bulldogs. It doesn't take a hockey mom to figure out how the GOP has taken this talking point and shoved into the mouths of the most progressive writers on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:11 PM

116. It's a subtle distinction

There are lots of things that we are told are not allowed. But to carry the OP's argument to its extreme, *everything* is allowed... as long as you are willing to face the penalty.

You don't have to buy insurance. But if you don't, you will have to pay a penalty. (Whether it is a tax or a fine is some of what is being debated in the court... see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/live-blog-obamacare-challenged-at-the-supreme-court/ )

You don't have to put money in the parking meter. But unless you do, you will get a ticket (at least in New York, it's pretty much a given!). You don't have to pay the ticket. But if you don't, there can be even more unpleasant consequences. So, do you or do you not have to put money in the meter? Every action (or inaction) is okay, if you are willing to accept the consequences. Can you leave the scene of an accident? No. Well, maybe yes, if you are willing to accept the consequences.

So I think that saying that the state isn't "forcing" you to buy insurance is technically true, but only to the extent that state can't force you to do anything, short of the point of putting you in shackles where you can be physically forced. Other than that, any time the state says you must or must not do something, it's always a choice of benefit versus consequences. So whether or not you are literally being forced is a semantic argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #116)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:07 PM

131. If the ACA was making people "buy" insurance...

you would think they would instruct the IRS to take the penalty money and sign it over to an insurance company which would be required to issue an insurance policy in your name. Thus basically ending up with the "Mandated" requirement of having insurance. Instead, the penalty money goes directly into the treasury and you still, thank goodness have no insurance and you didn't have to buy any. The tea bagger has stolen this discussion by somehow making us feel bad for making him take his hard earned money and giving it to the evil insurance company when in fact it is not in the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #116)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:19 PM

145. You are correct. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #116)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:46 PM

177. What is the fine for posession or for DUI? about the smae, right? actually probably less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:17 AM

211. "Do this or face legal sanction" = "you are forced to do this." Period. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:52 AM

18. You don't buy insurance and go to the emergency room, I get fined...

all the lipstick in the world ain't gonna pretty up that pig........touché

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W T F (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:04 PM

26. WTF are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appleannie1 (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:33 PM

45. When the uninsured use the ER for medical care, we ALL pay for it

That's WTF he is talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinisterMelinda (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:38 PM

48. I have news for you. When the insured use the ER for medical care

we all pay for it, too, in higher rates and subsidies. And we will continue to pay for it if this plan is implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:25 PM

87. "And we will continue to pay for it if this plan is implemented." Link?

Do you really mean to say the same number of uninsured will continue to use the ER on the ACA as they do now (and hence we will continue to pay the same mark up on our insurance for this highly expensive, inefficient use)?

Yes, we will continue to pay high rates under this plan, but every objective analysis of this plan I've seen indicates the rates will be less high than without the plan because there will be tens of millions more insured and paying into the system. And, this plan will save about 45,000 American lives every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:47 PM

102. This bill will help many low-income families pay for health insurance.

It provides assistance to people earning below a certain income, and the level of income is set high enough to make health insurance affordable for many people who cannot afford it today.

Instead of paying the emergency room bills for low-income people who cannot now afford insurance, taxpayers will subsidize their insurance premiums.

The problem for the poor is that they do not get primary care. Insignificant, easily remedied problems become significant and difficult to treat. That is why this bill is so important.

It is also important so that people who have to have emergency care because they have accidents or infectious or other diseases can have good follow-up care.

Perhaps the most important part of this bill is that it will enable all pregnant women and small children, including lower middle-class women to afford and obtain pre-natal, post-natal and early childhood care. This requires the supervision of a doctor, but some of the work -- like the shots and ear, nose and throat examinations can be performed by nurses and nurse practitioners.

I had single payer for years -- especially during my pregnancies and the early childhood years of my children. It was wonderful. And our children are the healthier because I did not have to hesitate before taking them to the doctor. I did not have to worry about whether I could pay for their medical care.

Yes, we paid very high taxes for the benefits. But what is a child's good health worth? A lot, more than you can imagine, I can tell you. This is especially true if you have a child born with a pre-existing condition -- even something like allergies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #102)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:54 PM

126. It will help single men like myself.

As long as they have children, low income families are already in the system. My sister has lived in several low income housing units in my area. Everybody there is insured.

It's about time they give some help to hard working single adults who have crappy jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:09 PM

114. Insured folks are far more likely to see their doctor rather than go to the ER...

...but even if they do go to the ER, then at lest some of the cost will be either paid directly or reimbursed by insurance. For the unisured, NONE of it gets reimbursed. Now tell me again which scenario is the greater contributor to aggregate medical costs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:20 AM

216. MA pays 15% more per capita above the national average

as I've already posted elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinisterMelinda (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:42 PM

52. Exactly. Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinisterMelinda (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:24 PM

84. How?

 

My wife carries no insurance currently. She went to the emergency room last year. We are still paying for it. I don't see anyone else kicking in.

Even if she had cut rate insurance, the premiums would be around 350.00 a month (4200.00 a year). With a 2500.00 deductible, the cost of her visit would not have been covered by insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LACarMan (Reply #84)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:53 PM

108. But if you couldn't afford to make payments on the emergency room visit

you do know someone would have to make up the deficit?

Now if you were paying the $350 per month for what is essentially near useless insurance, could you still make a payment for the emergency room visit?

Will you admit that there are people that are less able to make an extra payment to a hospital than you? Will you admit that there are people that couldn't make the $350 payment for insurance in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #108)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:05 PM

168. The government makes up the deficit now.

This bill just shifts some of those costs onto working people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #168)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 10:08 PM

193. I've never heard of that.

What program? Where's its website?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Telly Savalas (Reply #193)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 02:41 AM

204. Here:

Who currently pays for uncompensated care? This chart provides a breakdown. Surprisingly, physician’s in-kind free treatment makes up only 14% of uncompensated care. On the other hand, Medicare and Medicaid fund the largest share of uncompensated care. The reason for this is that Medicare has a disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment program indirect medical education payments and Medicaid also has a DSH program as well as supplemental provider payments programs. The authors count these programs as payment for uncompensated care. The DSH payment system doesn’t make much sense to me. If, Medicare or Medicaid payments are too low, why not raise the reimbursement rates rather than give lump sum handouts to hospitals in the form of a DSH payment.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/04/01/the-cost-of-uncompensated-care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinisterMelinda (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:49 PM

105. that is only true if the uninsured don't pay their medical bill from the ER

Which I paid, thank you very much.

I submit that it is easier to pay an occasional $1,000 bill from an ER than it is to pay $600 a month for health insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #105)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:00 PM

111. ER would be OK for trauma, but...

...what about any chronic conditions or preventive care?

How is ER going to manage your diabetes or heart condition? How is ER going to do your cancer screenings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #105)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:11 PM

117. A $1,000 bill from an ER is VERY optimistic! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #117)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:39 PM

125. mine was "only" $800

and it was padded with $500 worth of X-rays that I didn't need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #105)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:36 AM

207. This kind of thinking

on a national scale, is part of the reason the US pays more for health care (and receives less, and is less healthy) than the rest of the developed world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #105)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:49 AM

221. $1000 if the worse thing that happened to people was a broken arm and needing stitches.

 

Your knowledge of health care is so ignorant and simplistic it astounds me.

And, where are you getting the $600 a month number?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W T F (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:01 PM

112. That calls for a link. Please provide proof that you have been fined when someone else

doesn't buy a product you do? Your product potentially costing more is not a fine, fines are levied by governing bodies. (Not always GOVERNMENT bodies, just those that govern a certain area).

Are you arguing that any lack of demand that prevents production being scaled to the lowest cost for its consumers is a fine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #112)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 08:22 PM

259. Who knows what these people are arguing for anymore, it is all semantic contortions at this point.

The individual mandate no longer exists, because the enforcement mechanisms are just coincidental or some such horse shit.
I wonder if that works the same with DUI enforcement mechanisms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:46 PM

100. If you are under certain income

you won't be fined either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:50 PM

107. buy a house or you can't deduct the mortgage interest...etc, etc...

you can call it a penalty, tax, or whatever...if you don't have insurance, you pay more taxes...

it's just another layer on the tax code. Call it a deduction if you pay for insurance if you wish...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #107)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:03 PM

113. Wait,

but if you DON'T buy a house, there will be no mortgage - thus no mortgage interest to deduct...

So you do have to buy a house in order to be able to deduct mortgage interest. What's wrong with this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to levp (Reply #113)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:27 PM

187. I rent. That means I pay a tax penalty

If my rent were instead a mortgage, I would be paying less in taxes. As it is, I'm subsidizing home owners. Exact same deal. We just don't call it a "home purchase mandate".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #107)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:47 PM

152. +1. Or "give to charity or don't get a tax break!" That's real tyranny.

Its a tax break for being responsible, with a subsidy to help the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #107)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:12 PM

171. No one is penalized for not purchasing a home.

You get to deduct the mortgage payment on your income taxes if you decide to itemize your deductions. This only applies to people who earn enough of an income to pay federal taxes, and who have enough deductions to itemize. There is no penalty or tax for those not carrying a mortgage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #171)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:28 PM

188. I am being penalized for not purchasing a home

If I were buying instead of renting, I would pay less in taxes. Just like I will pay less in taxes for having health insurance than if I didn't. What's this magical distinction you're seeing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #188)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:33 PM

189. Your landlord probably takes the deduction which lowers your rent.

so I doubt you're being penalized in any way.

Still the comparison you're attempting to make here is absurd. The government is not requiring you or anyone else to purchase private property or face penalties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #189)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:55 PM

192. Nope. The building is paid off. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:20 PM

120. Health care isn't a lipstick. It's a necessity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #120)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:07 PM

169. Health care, maybe.

Health insurance, definitely not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #169)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 08:17 PM

184. In the U.S., insurance is a necessity. Medicare for all couldn't have gotten

through Congress. It's not Obama who opposed it, or the majority of the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #184)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:37 PM

190. Insurance is not a necessity.

Millions of people get perfectly adequate health care sans the parasitic insurance middle men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #190)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:40 AM

208. Where?

I agree, but I agree because I live in Canada (although I do also have insurance, which is great, covers things like prescription drugs until I reach my provincial deductible to get it free from the government, long term disability, dental, etc) so sure, there are millions of people out there who get health care with out insurance. But if you're talking about within the US, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this statement because I sure don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #169)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:50 AM

223. Ah, another ignorant one.

 

Brilliant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 06:18 AM

212. gee, if an uninsured person goes to the emergency room, who do you think pays for it now?

Not only is that a "shared" burden to society, it is at the MOST expensive price

By having the mandate the risk is shared by all, it benefits all, both directly and indirectly, by providing healthcare for those who couldn't get it or afford it previously, and at more affordable rates

However, I wouldn't be too concerned since it looks like it will be overturned by the supremes, which incidentally, will most likely leave me without any reasonable priced insurance in the next two months



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:03 AM

236. and repeating the 'fine' lie over and over

doesn't make it true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:22 AM

3. Here's hoping people will understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:24 AM

4. I agree with you

Stop the talking points people. The consequences are too dire to keep the rw talking points going. If Pukes get the white house, another scalia and alito will be on the court for life.
that must not happen. Seriously, it must not happen.
tib

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tibbiit (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:20 PM

33. I just ingore threads to repeat TP

Once we stop repeating, they'll be forced to repeat our message. What a revelation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:25 AM

5. If we're not buying insurance, then what is our $447 billion dollars buying, exactly?

Sophistry. You defend Obamacare and leave me out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:27 AM

7. so it doesn't matter enough to you that if the ACA is overturned

many more people will suffer and die than if it remains intact? Because that is the bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:32 PM

44. You go ahead and trust the insurance industry to come through, cali.

I was born at night but not last night.

And, btw, it's not self-evident that "many more people will suffer and die" than if it remains intact. As Dr. Steffie Woolhandler recently said about MA, "Some people got helped a little bit; some people got hurt a little bit. But for most of the doctors and patients, nothing changed. That is, people still could not afford care and had to seek care in the public sector because they were unable to afford the care that they needed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:41 PM

51. Do you know that Obamacare is also regulating the ins. industry to make them more trustworthy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:43 PM

53. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:58 PM

64. So goes the fame. I remain skeptical that this bunch of criminals

will be forced to behave by anyone in our government, Congress or the Executive. And with the current court, forget it.

As long as the health care industry is for profit, we're screwed. MA spends 15% more per capita than the national average and insurance premiums have gone up between 5-10% annually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/massachusetts-tries-to-rein-in-its-health-care-cost.html?pagewanted=all

Unlike the Republicans, my problem is not with the mandate, it's with the profit and with the insurance industry vultures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:15 PM

132. A predatory cartel, with regulation still on the state level, with virtually no enforcement budget,

essentially self reporting, that maintains an anti-trust exemption is being regulated into trustworthiness?

Please. We have a largely toothless, unresourced, and convoluted law that says it does what you claim but willfully avoids it.

Congress was not serious at all. I heard more threats to MLB's anti-trust exemption for steroids and lockouts than the entire healthcare debate.

I also know that when it is actually undertaken to regulate something we see hammers for every nail from fines to community service to probation to prison. We see agencies created with budgets to investigate, prosecute, and punish.

Here we get if what you report isn't compliant then we will be forced to announce/publish the fact and eventually inform the cartel "if you persist you won't be allowed to have our exchange customers who you refused to cover or abused mightily if you would take their money by the wheelbarrow load (provided you all don't collude to tell us to fuck off and leave us with no choice but to knuckle under because we have no choice)".

Since no one would trust a comparable system to render a puckish 8 year old trustworthy, no I don't find it remotely credible on some of the most callous and predatory fucks in history as a toolbox to transform my perception to one of trust.

This bill makes the cartel even more dangerous. They are being made a too big too fail, supported by the with faith and credit of the United States and literally every citizen a personal obligation to them to backstop an "industry" on course with suicide from their own practices and avarice.

When your solutions are too build up and build around the problems, the burden should actually be on you to overcome bias against your reasoning. Even more so when you reach for a pre-existing solution not built with such intent that has been put into practice with little record of such either, participation is up but cartel is still the cartel there. Your "reform" was designed to prevent systemic reform, not enable it. To empower the cartel, not make it a servant of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #132)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:03 AM

230. I suggest that those who have blind faith in our governments capability

in controlling the Insurance Cartel watch Sicko again.
This was not just a documentary about others, for many it was our life story(mine included).
California enacted really strong laws in the early 90's regarding pre-existing conditions and claims denials.
The Insurance Industry either ignored or found loopholes that benefited them. Leaving their insureds scrambling to pay for health care that was covered under their policies. They didn't just deny claims they were allowed to 'review' claims and take back payments already paid for health care services.


California has had to revisit the practice of the Insurance Industries denial of care or policy cancellations many times. Yet the insurance cartel continues to ignore the law. Why, because the fines are less than the cost of providing care. Profit is what it's all about, health care not so much.

http://phoenix.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/blue-cross-of-california-agrees-to-settle-rescission-class-action-lawsuit.aspx?googleid=218686

http://www.shernoff.com/legal-news/Blue-Cross-of-California-Settles-Class-Action-Suit-Over-Policy-Cancellations.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:27 AM

8. thanks very much!

this is helpful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:28 AM

9. Buy insurance or pay a penalty. I suppose you could call it "incentive".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:17 PM

119. The penalty is FAR lower than the cost of an individual premium . . .

. . . and in the meantime, you actually do get something in return for that penalty. You get the option, should you suddenly and unexpectedly become afflicted with a major illness or injury that would require tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat, of being able to then buy insurance at the moment you really do need it, without worrying that you will be disqualified because it is a "preexisting condition."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #119)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:18 PM

173. For now.

It's already set to go up dramatically. It will be very easy for the insurance industry to lobby for ever greater penalties.

BTW, you need to read the bill because the claim you're making is not accurate. While it's true that the insurance companies can't deny people because of pre-existing conditions, the bill does not require them to write catastrophic policies for people with PECs. What's more, insurance cos. can still deny claims and they're still allowed to kick people off of their roles using the fraud provision, which is the main way they screw policyholders now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #173)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 10:46 PM

196. What? You're telling me if you defraud the insurance company they won't pay?

I can't believe the democrats would write such a bill. And no catastrophic policies for anybody, I believe, not just people with pre-existing conditions.

Thank goodness I don't have to buy one of those policies and can just pay the fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:30 PM

122. It's hard not to feel resentful of people who have good insurance, mandated by the govt.,

and who oppose this bill that gave millions more people access to healthcare.

It's all too easy for people who already have good insurance (including Medicare recipients) to say that we should wait for the perfect bill to get passed. Not so easy for those of us who aren't insured, or who's children aren't insured, or who face loss of insurance if our situations changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #122)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 09:29 AM

227. What's changed?

 

I am in a similar situation. I work in a hospital and have insurance now. My hospital lost millions last year and is up for sale. No one knows what the situation will be in 5 months. How does forcing me to buy insurance I can't afford help me? This bill does not give millions access to health care. It gives insurance companies millions of new forced customers. Two very different things. Probably with plans that really doesn't cover much. And if they have to cover everyone, for life, with no denials, cost will go up.
Before I got this job and for a while after I had no insurance(nearly two years) because it was not affordable. My Cobra plan came back at 600 dollars a month. That is not happening if I am unemployed. With underemployment and regular unemployment being around 15-20 percent I don't know how people will afford insurance.
We need to scrap this law and start over. Health insurance is a scam that offers nothing for a patient except to drive up the cost so CEOs can make million dollar bonuses. This country needs single payer, paid by taxes. Not forced subservience to an insurance company as a requirement of being born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adam in oregon (Reply #227)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 12:51 PM

241. You need to check out the facts before you decide this would be unaffordable for you.

The government will be expanding Medicaid and subsidizing many other people to keep the cost to a certain percent of income. If you are unemployed with no income, you wouldn't be expected to pay $600 a month! Why don't you investigate what the actual costs would be in your case, rather than just assuming the worst?

If this law is scrapped, no one will be starting over because the Rethugs have no interest in developing any health care plan at all, much less single payer. This is the best we could manage at this time, but it could pave the way for single payer, as insurance companies start to leave the business because of the way the law limits their profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #241)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 02:15 PM

245. Assume the worst.

 

I always assume the worst when it comes to government. The last time I was between jobs, my COBRA would have been 600 dollars a month, which is where I got that number. I could not afford that being employed, let alone unemployed. I had a decent job, therefore enough income at the time, so I doubt I would qualify for any subsidy. Even if I did, I probably could not afford the co pays and pill costs that are not covered.
This bill was written by the insurance industry to get 50 million more guaranteed customers that they would not otherwise get. No other industry in the world is guaranteed lifetime customers just because you were born. This country needs better health care, not health insurance, whose only function is to skim money off the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adam in oregon (Reply #245)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:38 PM

250. If you do you're just fear mongering. The new law is nothing like COBRA. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:29 AM

10. Can't convince people of something they don't want to believe

I let the cat out of the bag here that Keep America Beautiful and the crying Indian ad was a scam paid for by the worlds biggest polluters once here.

Needless to say, it didn't go over well.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:34 AM

13. May not work, but people need some talking points of their own.

GOP is good at the catchy phrase and we need ammunition at the front lines at the coffee shop and water coolers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:18 PM

77. Democrats need a Karl Rove type that's for sure.

 

Being reasonable and discussing ideas is all very good here at DU but in the real world sound bites seal the deal. Vote a Straight Democratic Ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:41 AM

15. Completely off topic but the crying Indian you reference wasn't even

a Native American. That was actor Iron Eyes Cody, who, admittedly, strongly identified with Native Americans but was, himself, Italian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:46 AM

16. Should have been here the day that little factoid was posted

It was like someone announced to a Kindergarten class that there was no Santa Claus.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:33 AM

12. great post.

thank you. send to SCOTUS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:36 AM

14. Were you doing that 'Jedi mind trick' hand wave thing as you typed that?

The plan is based around a mandate to purchase for-profit insurance. I don't think anyone was under the impression that the penalty was a public flogging.

But good luck defending this Republican legislation. If this had come from the Heritage Foundation, you'd decry it as a cynical bait-and-switch con, with healthcare swapped out for corporate welfare.

Oh wait a minute-- I think it *did* come from the Heritage Foundation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:53 AM

19. Call it Republican legislation if you can find one Republican who supports it.

I'll ask you and the Republicans to join together to say what you intend to do to get healthcare costs under control and to get healthcare to the uninsured, to those with pre-existing conditions. Oh! Wait, I know, let them go down to the nearest emergency room and then, if they survive, garnish their wages.?! I suppose if the GOP can withdraw their support for the Heritage's and Romney's plan because it was signed by a black president, you could refuse to participate in the dialog because old white guys together with virtually all the black guys in congress came up with a plan that might actually work and by the way, is presently the law of the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:00 PM

24. Can I go back a few short years?

Why would they espouse something their opponent is willing to push?

In fact, given the context, I'd say their lack of public support is even more damning. If they expected it to actually do the job they claimed it would do back when they were promoting it, you'd think they'd want to get some of the credit... wouldn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:25 PM

37. I think the GOP has opted to just lie and hope the lies will be repeated by freedom lovin Democrats.

The picture you paint is clear. Mitch and John standing with Obama, praising each other for the great job they did passing a healthcare bill that regulates the insurance companies into unlimited caps on coverage, coverage of 40 million uncovered poor people, most of whom will be subsidized and coverage for pre-existing conditions. I don't think so.

Normally, if people who think the way to cut the government budget deficit is to cut government revenue by cutting tax rates on the wealthy (which are at 85 year low) support something, that would be the damning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:40 AM

235. And the EPA was signed into law by Nixon

The Republicans we have today are not the same Republicans we had even a few years ago.

In some instances, some have cynically changed their position.

However, when you get into the business of examining ideas on their pedigree rather than their merit, you are going down a foolish path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:25 PM

36. The plan is not based around a mandate to purchase for-profit insurance

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, for example -- while still expensive-- is not-for-profit. So is Kaiser Permanente.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:56 PM

62. Right on.

Call people out on the words they use to lie and cheat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:08 PM

67. You're wrong.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is for-profit, and Kaiser is a non-profit umbrella with for-profit, state-level operations underneath it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #67)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:39 PM

93. No I'm not wrong. CareFirst is not for profit

And, as I understand it, Kaiser Permanente Heath insurance is not for profit. The physician owned medical groups that provide services may be for profit.

There are legitimate issues with the idea of a mandate, but the "for profit" part is not one of them. One is not mandated to buy insurance from a for-profit company.

Perhaps a legitimate response to that statement is "So what? One is still mandated to buy insurance!" Okay. That's a discussion worth having. But if a linchpin of the argument against mandates is the "for profit" part, the argument falls apart, because that's just not necessarily the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #93)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:27 PM

134. CareFirst is a network not a plan, if you want benefits they tell you to call your plan

The shell games permeate the entire industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #93)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:43 PM

175. Non-profit ownership does not guarantee accountability.

CareFirst executives have been attempting to undergo for-profit conversion for over a decade. They would have already succeeded if it wasn't for the state of Maryland having stopped them. Do you think they're going to quit trying once their coffers are swollen with the revenue stream of their newly captive consumers?

What complete garbage to pretend for-profit status is a badge of unquestionable honor and purity! The same class of crooked rent-seekers who run the for-profits run the non-profits. Non-profit management is every bit as greedy, corrupt and incompetent as their for-profit counterparts. The executives are showered with lavish compensation while they squander assets in search of self-glorification. They deny care to patients while doling out contracts to cronies and spending top dollar on luxurious jets and box seats at sporting events. They use the same techniques to capture their regulators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #175)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 01:36 PM

244. Hawai'i's dominant insurer is nonprofit

HMSA (Hawai'i Medical Services Association) has about two-thirds of the market; Kaiser is a distant second.

In practice, the only difference between them and a for-profit corporation is that the execs, rather than shareholders, reap the obscene windfall profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 01:33 PM

243. Where are you?

In CA, Anthem Blue Cross is for-profit (Anthem bought the Blue Cross name), but Blue Shield is nonprofit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:30 PM

43. for profit

 

Look at the phenomenal profits the health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and health industry in general are making off of us now and some things are still not covered. And what about low income WORKERS/PART-TIME who aren't offered insurance by their employers or just can't get insurance? They go to urgent care, we with insurance end up paying for it one way or another. Too many lies out there. I think all this is much ado about the fact that the Obama administration is truly trying to help people in our society and the tea baggers and repugs could care less about the less fortunate and their reason for being is to be obstructionist on anything good coming out of Washington in this political cycle. Some people out here are thinking for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:45 PM

144. Luckily the Jedi mind trick does not work on insect type sentient species

He will have to try to trick this Dragonfli by winning a race or something. (I have this betting habit you see...)

I did not know the Heritage Foundation had so many fans here but it would seem they do.
The supporters of GOP policies have grown here exponentially the past few years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:51 AM

17. Yeah, it's one of those "optional mandates".

This is just silly. You aren't required, you just get fined if you don't and if you don't pay the fine you go to jail.

Y'all need a new talking point, because this one is dumb. It's like claiming speed limits aren't requiring you to drive under a certain speed because you can always speed and pay a ticket or go to jail.

If you support mandates, say so. Then try to convince people why they're necessary and good. Don't spend several paragraphs trying to redefine "require". If "If you don't do this you will pay a fine or go to jail" means something isn't required, you've just invalidated every law in the country. Congrats, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:58 AM

23. I'm still waiting with my checkbook.

Just show me in the ACA the name of the evil insurance company waiting for me to be forced into commerce. God knows I don't want to go to jail. If you think paying a fine is the same as buying insurance, Congrats, I guess. But I don't think you'll get any reimbursement for that x-ray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:39 PM

94. Then you'd better pay that fine if you don't get insurance.

Because if you don't pay it, you'll either go to jail or they'll start seizing your assets.

All laws to make you do or prevent you from doing something have enforcement mechanisms. The idea that you have the "option" of triggering the enforcement mechanism means you aren't being forced to is completely absurd. It's like claiming laws against murder aren't trying to prevent murders because you can always kill someone and go to prison. Forcing people to do/not do things by punishing them if they don't/do what our entire legal system is based on.

I'm open to arguments that the mandate is a good idea. I'm not sure if it actually is or not. If the consumer protections are strong enough and the subsidies for lower-lower middle class people well funded enough, it may be a good thing. That's an entirely different argument, though. Your argument doesn't say the mandates are a good idea, in fact it implies mandates are a terrible idea. It claims the mandate doesn't exist at all.

"Sure I had a gun pointed at him while he signed that contract, but he didn't HAVE to sign it. He could have chosen to make me shoot him." The "Mandates aren't mandates, they're suggestions that we punish you if you don't follow." argument negates the very idea of forcing anyone to do anything. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:09 PM

30. +1

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:13 PM

74. Where in the law does it say if you don't pay the fine you go to jail?

If you owe the IRS money on a tax return you file, they don't jail you. They just bill you and if need be seize assets.

But thanks for repeating the RW lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #74)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:10 PM

198. People have gone to jail

 

who have not paid their taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #74)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:54 PM

199. Of course you go to jail if you don't pay taxes!!

I thought you owned your own vet clinic, if your tax preparer/attorney/accountant hasn't told you this, please make sure you get better advice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #199)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:26 AM

217. Actually, unless you defraud the government, there is virtually no possibility of jail time.

Simply agreeing to what the government wants you to pay, but because you don't have the money, you don't pay will not put you in jail. In the case of the ACA or any other tax provision, if you lie about whether you have the insurance, saying you have it to avoid the fine when actually you don't, you could see some serious jail time. The IRS has many methods to get hold of your money, but that is all they are interested in, not having you in jail.

Either way, in this case of the whether the ACA requires you to buy insurance, there is no way, method, or plan for the IRS to make that transaction transpire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:56 AM

20. YUP ... its actually similar to the home mortgage deduction.

No one is forced to buy a home with a mortgage, but you get a tax break if you do.

Of course the even simpler argument goes like this ....

The Constitution gives the congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. The Health care industry is interstate commerce. Therefore, the congress can regulate it.

Importantly, the constitution says nothing about the manner in which such regulation occurs. So debating the mandate as a tx or as a penalty is a red herring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:24 PM

34. Why IS health care interstate commerce? That's part of the problem, not the solution.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saras (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:26 PM

148. Your point is irrelevant to the question at hand.

The supreme court is determining whether the mandate violates the Constitution, not whether health care should or should not be "interstate commerce".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saras (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:48 PM

179. because you can get sick in any State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:40 PM

95. It's similar to the home mortgage deduction, except completely different.

If you want it to be similar to the home mortgage deduction, raise EVERYONE'S taxes by the amount of the fine, and then give deductions to those who buy insurance. You're not doing that here, though, because the mandate isn't a tax, it's a penalty to be added on to whatever your current taxes are IF you meet certain criteria.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing congress can't regulate the health care industry, but is "regulating interstate commerce" the same thing as forcing everyone to engage in interstate commerce? The banking industry is interstate commerce but congress can't force everyone to keep their money in a bank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #95)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:45 PM

136. +1

The poster knows this as well and is spinning hard to make a muddle in minds. The truth doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #136)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:05 PM

139. Stir, Stir, Stir.

If the ACA required you to buy insurance as the tea baggin GOP would have you believe and which you apparently believe, then how is it, after all the penalties and taxes and contra tax credits, and mortgage payment deductions and speeding tickets you still don't have insurance? The GOP wants you to think you have lost your freedom to choose to buy or not buy health insurance. Say I choose not to buy. Take me through the process as outlined in the ACA about how I end up with an insurance policy. Say I make $100,000/yr. Self employed and pay about 15% on a taxable income of $65,000.

I have my checkbook out ready to write the check to whichever company the wicked government says I have to "buy" a policy from. I'm ready to be forced into the market place. I'm ready for forced government created commerce. But remember, I'm also a decent citizen, member of DU and I'll write a check to the IRS if that will keep me from supporting Blue Cross.

Your mind has already been muddled by the GOP, high school history and glorification of the marketplace.

I'll await the truth. I'm open minded that maybe they are going to make me buy insurance but I can't find it in the present ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #139)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:24 PM

147. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #95)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:30 PM

149. "The banking industry is interstate commerce but congress can't force everyone to keep their money

in a bank"

Well, not yet, but I am sure that it is in the works, they just need to find and dust off some old GOP law from some thinktank somewhere and stamp a D on it.

I will be historic Democratic Legislation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #149)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:36 PM

151. If you keep your money in a bank, the government taxes your dividends.

That's a regulation. Congress regulates your relationship with the financial industry. Congress also wants to regulate the financial industry so that banks can't use your deposits as leverage in risky financial investments.

That's congress "regulating".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #151)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:02 PM

154. neat post, too bad it has nothing at all to do with what I posted /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #154)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:15 PM

172. Ok ... try this ...

They could say that if you keep your money outside a recognized financial institution, then you pay a tax.

Now ... tell me which part of the commerce clause prevents that.

Well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #149)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:59 PM

153. Maybe all they need is for the SCOTUS to find that the individual mandate is OK.

From there it's just a small step to making everyone keep their money in a bank. The constitutionality will have been resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #153)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:19 PM

157. If they overturn it, it just a "small step" to say that the government can't force you to

pay a tax for Medicare, or Social Security.

And if this gets overturned, that is exactly where the GOP will go next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #157)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:39 PM

162. There's a difference.

You're talking about taxes. It's established that the government has a right to levy taxes to support programs.

The mandate requires you to buy from the private sector. That is new. And if SCOTUS OK's it, then next time Congress wants to require you to buy from the private sector they won't have a SCOTUS battle. They can just do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #162)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:03 PM

167. Not really.

The mandate taxes you if you don't have insurance and you can afford it.

There is nothing in the commerce clause that prevents this. Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the mechanisms that they can or can not use are not limited by the Constitution. It says NOTHING on the matter.

And again ... if the SCOTUS throws this out, Medicare and Social Security are next for the same reasons. That will be the argument, and if we have the same SCOTUS, those are out too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #167)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:59 PM

183. Look, even the administration disagrees with you on this one..

which is why they based their entire SC argument around the idea that health insurance is a "unique" product. The administration didn't want to set a precedent which would allow future legislation mandating private purchases. It sounds as if the majority of the justices weren't ready to buy the argument that the health insurance market is unique, for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #153)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:30 PM

159. Might I suggest a new law "The Affordable Transactions Act"

It would require that all citizens keep any liquid funds in a bank listed on an exchange, one will be issued a Debit Card for all of your transactions and banks will only be able charge 15% per transaction, it will be well regulated (as we always do with banking).

It will protect us from having direct access to our money by placing a responsible corporation in a position as gatekeeper.
No one will ever have to worry about cash again.

For those that fear such progressive progress, I submit that even if it is mandated that your funds be managed for you, you can refuse to give up your cash as there is no law requiring you to use the debit card, if you chose to us cash you may, but the enforcement provisions would require you to pay the IRS a heavy fine, that is in no way meant to force you to comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #159)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:12 PM

170. If you were good at this ... you'd indicate which parts of the Constitution prevent

your proposal.

The question is not the "goodness" of your proposal, but whether it can be defended, or blocked via the Constitution.

In case you missed it, Congress can pass some really crappy laws that fall within the bounds of the Constitution. Hell, a few years back, the Congress voted to give their Constitutional Authority to declare war to the President.

The discussion here is whether the mandate is constitutional. There are plenty of side arguments about it being a "bad thing to do" but those do not make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I do expect the GOP SCOTUS to throw it out, along with the entire bill ... Roberts claimed he felt that the court should always show "restraint" ... which of course was bullshit.

Regardless ... you are not arguing the Constitutionality of the law, but why you don't like it. Which is fine, unless the discussion is on the Constitutionality aspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #170)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 08:19 PM

185. If you were good at this YOU WOULD DO THAT, it was my proposal, why would I be

burdened to prove it is unconstitutional?

All that really means anyway is whatever Scalia and company say, I think they will uphold the mandate, constitutional or not.

It is and always has been a GOP idea, they appear to be the sort of men that admire Heritage Foundation policy and will bend the law backwards if need be to accommodate the Corporations they so lovingly call citizens with first amendment rights.

Insurance Cartels are their favorite type of "citizen" Corporate ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #185)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:00 AM

209. Riiiight

That's why Thomas' wife has spent buckets of money and time since this started to try to defeat this law, that's why Roberts and Scalia are palling around with the law firm arguing the case, it's all a conspiracy to support the law by doing everything possible to undermine it publicly. I get it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #185)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 04:00 PM

248. But I think your proposal was Constitutional.

You presented that proposal as an example of some bad future law. You did so to help your case in arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional.

But you did not explain what makes your bad law proposal unconstitutional.

A law can be a good law and also be unconstitutional. A law can be a bad law, and still be constitutional.

And so claiming that you think a law is bad does not in and of itself make that law unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #248)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:07 PM

254. The point that just keeps flying way over you head, what really matters

is if a law is good or not.

If it is indeed (and quite frankly that depends on the interpretation of humans, corrupt or not) "constitutional" in YOUR (It would appear by boast, EXPERT opinion) or more importantly at the moment, Robert's Supreme Courts Almighty declared constitutional opinion to be deemed "constitutional", then whe need to use the provisions provided in a living document to amend the damned thing so that a really, fucking bad law is no longer constitutional.

You get it?

What really matters is what is right, you keep arguing that whatever matters is only what lawyer bullshit you need to make a bad law all good and legal.

We are really arguing about two different things, on this I wholeheartedly agree: I am arguing for what appears to me to be an axiom, if it is bad, don't make it law.

You are arguing, "prove I can't get away with it" because I want it to be law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #254)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 03:29 PM

256. Actually, the OP is about the Constitutionality of the law.

Not the "goodness"

You seem to miss that.

Throughout our history, bad laws have passed. And the Constitution was not, and is not perfect. Originally, women could not vote as one simple example.

So yes, it is a living document.

The OP's point is that those who claim this law forces everyone to buy insurance are wrong. And the OP is correct.

Now ... you would like to discuss what is "right" ... as if what is "right" is an easy thing to determine.

You claim the mandate is "bad". Ok ... let's test that. The mandate only applies to those who can afford to buy insurance. The law also says that those who can't afford it get either subsidies so they can, or expeditions from the penalty.

I think that this particularly legal structure for the mandate is acceptable if and only if, it also means (a) those with pre-existing conditions get covered, (b) no life time caps, and (c) can't drop some one when they get sick.

Would single payer be better, sure. But is the combination of a mandate, plus regulations to protect people in situations a, b, c a law that I think is "bad".

Nope.

On edit: Start there ... and continue push to single payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #256)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 07:59 PM

257. Pay attention to what I responded to, hint, it wasn't the OP. And

I think that my proposal and the Heritage Foundation law are both unconstitutional, I simply do not claim to be the expert you claim to be. It really doesn't matter what Joe on the internet thinks about constitutional law, not unless you are arguing before them.

So basically you are using your beyond reproach expertise in constitutional law to argue, shit, a steaming pile of it, is constitutional mainly because you want this stinky shit passed. Perhaps you are correct, I doubt it, but if you are, then time to change the Constitution yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #95)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:33 PM

150. First, if no one buys insurance everyone's tax does go up, no?

If no one buys insurance, then we all pay the tax / penalty.

Second, you can't force people to participate in an industry that they already participate in. And for all practical purposes, every one of us already participates in the health care industry.

The instant you are born in a hospital, you've just participated in the Health Care industry. Go see a doctor, you just participated. Even the purchase of over the counter drugs is "participation" in the health care industry. I suppose you could make the Christian Science position that you will pray away illness .... but even they face consequences when they allow a child to die by not treating a simple illness that ultimately kills that child ... if that's not force, what is?

And so again, you can not be forced to do something that you are already doing, and that is participating in the health care industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #150)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:07 PM

155. I don't need to keep my money in a bank to "participate" in the banking industry either.

Virtually everyone participates in the banking industry whether they like it or not. You're really working hard to "find" a constitutional justification for this when, I'm sorry, there just isn't one. Unless, of course, you want to interpret the commerce clause so broadly that it can be used to justify virtually anything the government wants to do. In that case, though, you now need to be willing to defend giving the government such sweeping authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #155)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:18 PM

156. Can you tell me what specific limits you see in the commerce clause?

The commerce clause give the congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. As far as I am aware, the Constitution does not describe specific limits on how they do so.

Can you outline the limits that you find there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #156)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:32 PM

160. I would certinly not consider forcing everyone to engage in interstate commerce

to be part of regulating it, nor would i consider creating a financial penalty for those who choose not to engage in interstate commerce to be "regulating it" either.

I don't want to sound like a freeper on this, but the interstate commerce clause is not, nor should be, a justification for the government to tell people what they have to do with the money left over after taxes. If the government is going to REQUIRE you to do something with your money, they should tax you and spend the money for that purpose to ensure that it gets done. I'm all for single payer paid for by TAX revenue, I don't think they government should be able to tell you "either give your money to some private company (you get to pick which one) or we will fine you". Not for health insurance or for anything else. If it's so important that EVERYONE needs to have it, the government should be running it (even if they do subcontract the day-to-day operations to a private company).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #160)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:45 PM

163. Sure ... but as I said earlier, you can not be forced to participate in something

you already participate in.

Even if you are a Christian Scientist, and you avoid all participation in health care ... if you get hit by a car, or if you have a heart attack on the street, you will participate in the health care industry.

And, if you have no insurance your treatment costs are passed on to everyone else. And in that sense, we are all participating in the Health care industry together.

Now ... if hospitals did not have to treat you when you showed up in an ambulance with no coverage, then the situation might be different. If you could wear something that indicated that you "opted out", maybe there is a case to be made.

But that's not reality. The health care industry is unique because it provides services even if you don't have insurance and can't pay for them. And so again, we are already participating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #163)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:46 PM

178. So what happens if I don't get hit by a car?

If the government wants everyone to have insurance, it should offer insurance to anyone who wants it, not require people to turn their money over to the the for-profit health insurance industry.

And in any case, you're suggesting that we need this because the health care industry has to bear the cost of the uninsured. How exactly does this fix the issue when the private company I've been forced to buy my insurance from DENIES my coverage for a specific procedure?

The reason everyone is going to be forced into this isn't because of a desire to have everyone insured, it's because with the other regulations that are being implemented, the costs will be such that the only way to make this work is to force all the people who can afford, but don't have, insurance to pay for it. As these are likely those less likely to use the insurance, it will be a financial boon to the private insurance industry, which was the payoff for having their lobbyists not completely derail this.

The minute the public option disappeared, it was clear that this plan was just fucked. Yes, there are certainly good parts of the bill, like the pre-existing conditions rules, but it's going to be implemented at the cost of freedoms to all Americans. There's other, better ways to do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #178)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 10:31 PM

195. Which freedoms will it cost us?

The freedom to buy an insurance plan that doesn't meet the ACA's standards? And ?

Actually there will still be insurance companies offering those plans, they just won't excuse you from the tax penalty provision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #195)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 01:19 PM

242. I was thinking about the danger of setting a legal precedent

that allows the government to direct your personal spending. The fact that the current penalty "isn't very much", as some would suggest, is irrelevant since the size of the fine isn't the issues, it's the fact that they can impose one at all. The proper way to handle this issue is to tax people for this and spend that money on it, like medicare. This is a hack, as computer programmers would say, and a bad one in which we potentially create more issues than we solve. As the mandate seems to be required to make the system work, what happens if insurance rates rise and congress either decides to raise the penalty significantly, or drop the penalty to a dollar? Either of these actions would make this whole thing fall apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #163)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 02:36 AM

203. "And, if you have no insurance your treatment costs are passed on to everyone else."

First of all, even if it were true (I'll get to why your statement contains more truthiness than truth) what would be wrong with that? Isn't that exactly what we should want: socialized medical care?

Now for why it's not really true. If I'm uninsured and get hit by a car or have a heart attack on the street, sure, I'll get some basic level of care at the hospital. Then I'll get a big fat bill. Since I have income and assets, the hospital will come after me to collect. I could probably negotiate some sort of payment plan (still much higher than what the insurers would pay for the same services), which is what ultimately happens in many of these cases. If I ended up in bankruptcy, the hospital would probably pass the bill along to the government, as you point out. The government spends tens of billions paying for uncompensated medical costs each year. Right now it adds to our deficit - which is a pretty good thing to do during recessionary periods such as the one we're currently in.

But, wait, that's not all. Most people who go through medical bankruptcies have insurance. Will you guys that continually push this talking point about the costs of the uninsured being passed on to everyone else ever address this fact? The ACA will not put a stop to medical bankruptcies. There's actually no guarantee it won't make the problem worse, since the insured seek out more medical care, get more unnecessary procedures, and don't always have better outcomes, despite the higher costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #203)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:52 PM

247. You have still done nothing to debate the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the bill.

Also ... your math does not work out.

After your car accident or heart attack, you get treated. That costs money. You claim that you have assets that they will take from you. Perhaps. But do those assets actually cover all the costs?

In many cases no. I have a 27 year old nephew in law. He had a low paying job, no insurance, no assets. He crashed his motorcycle, broke both legs, spent 3 months in the hospital. He has no assets to take. The hospital will eat that cost and write it off as a loss. Which gets passed back to the rest of us.

As for your point about people with insurance going bankrupt ... you are correct ... now think about why ... the reason that could happen before is that insurance companies could kick you off their plan when you got sick, hit the lifetime maximum, or if you had a pre-existing conditions ... that's one of the critical parts of the ACA ... to NOT allow insurers to do any of those things going forward, thus stoping such bankruptcies.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #247)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 06:00 PM

251. The hospital's loss got passed on to the government..

in the form of a tax write-off or recompensation through the Medicare program. It does not get "passed back to the rest of us". That's where you're confused about how our economic system functions.

The reason insured people go bankrupt is usually either because they can't afford the co-pays or the insurer denies the claims. Neither of these issues are addressed in the ACA. Nor does the ACA prevent insurers from kicking patients off of their plan when they get sick.

You guys who spend so much time defending this junk should try actually reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #251)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 06:14 PM

252. You are wrong.

The ACA does not allow insurers to kick you off the plan if you get sick. Its actually part of the legislation.

Same as no life time caps. Those are gone too.

And the costs of the uninsured do get passed back to the rest of us because health care providers, when they write off the loss from some one who can not pay ... they still lose money, the can not write off the full cost ... so they raise their costs ... and that moves right back into your premiums.

And again ... you still do not provide a reason that the mandate should be considered unconstitutional.

I'm still waiting for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #252)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 07:36 PM

253. Insurers are still free to remove sick people using the fraud provisions.

This is one of the most common ways insurers remove unwanted customers now.

Hospitals are reimbursed in one form or another for virtually all uncompensated care. Any added costs won't go away under the ACA because uncompensated care won't go away. This bill really doesn't resolve the issue. it shifts a fraction of those uncompensated costs from the Medicare DSH program on to young working people, but it doesn't eliminate the problem of unaffordable co-pays, denied claims, or unhealthy patients being pushed off of private plans to lower quality plans or government care.

ETA: I actually think this is a terrible way to deal with uncompensated care from a macroeconomic perspective. When Medicare pays for the costs, we're efficiently putting more money into the private sector. By forcing young workers to bear these costs, instead, we're taking money out of the private sector. Worse, we're doing it on the backs of a segment of the population which is already facing too many challenges, from student debt to diminishing employment opportunities.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to create commerce, and the power to tax is a governmental, not private, power. In this case, I agree with the lower court ruling, which said in part, "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #160)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 10:26 PM

194. Nicely put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 09:43 AM

228. forced commerce

 

They can regulate commerce that exists. They can not force you to engage in commerce. The interstate commerce clause has been so twisted in the last 50 years it is frightening. Look up Wickard vs. Filburn. Gonzales vs. Raich. And tax and penalty are different under the law, and so have to be argued differently. It is what tripped up the US lawyer during the first day of arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adam in oregon (Reply #228)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:40 PM

260. Everyone already participates in the health care market.

Even if you trade chickens to do so.

You even participate via your contributions to Medicare tax.

And the penalty is treated as a TAX. That's why the IRS collects it.

BTW ... As I understand it, the court ruling in Wickard vs. Fishburn creates a precedent for the HCR mandate.

Or do I miss read it? Or are you claiming that ruling, and the subsequent one you mention were wrongly decided?

Also ... I'm not sure how you compare HC to those anyway ... no one is growing HC for their own use. The vast majority of Americans obtain HC from the HC market. And congress gets to regulate that market.

A better comparison might be this ... you can have a cow, and milk it, and drink that milk. But the law won't let you sell that milk without meeting some regulations.

Also, the HC industry has a rather unique element. If you collapse in the street, you get treated regardless of your ability to pay. In that situation, the industry is required to provide a product to some one who can't pay for it. That has a direct effect on the HC market.

Now ... how the current SC will rule we have no idea. I suspect that if the current President was Romney, the conservative judges would up hold the mandate and also declare the requirement for coverage of pre-exiting conditions unconstitutional.

In other words, no matter what the current court does, I doubt it provides a reasoned position on this topic.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:58 AM

22. Who determins who can afford health insurance?

My family income says we can afford insurance, but our budget says we can't. Only my husband has health insurance and that is through his work where his employers pay a big piece of it. Private insurance for my family of three was $1,369.00 per month with a $3,000 deductible, and an 80/20 split for the first $10,000 before paying 100% the last time I checked. That's $16,428 per year. In 2009, we had the largest out of pocket medical bills since our insurance company decided to leave the state and dropped us. The family total for that year (including my husband's copays) was $1,650. One tenth of what the insurance premiums would have been.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:07 PM

28. That's all well and fine when you have a cold or a rash

What happens if you get cancer or heart disease?

Your insurance bill would be much lower in a group plan which is what you would have if the current law stands. I just got covered at work and I'll be paying about $2000 a year in premiums for me and my wife. It won't go up if we have children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:08 PM

29. If the insurance companies can't provide coverage for 8.5% of income....

You won't have to pay the tax penalty if you don't get the coverage. The insurance coverage will have to meet the Obamacare rules of coverage for pre-existing conditions etc. and it could be the coverage will be quite high. But no one will have to buy insurance. They may have to pay a tax penalty if they don't buy insurance that is priced below 8.5% of income or if they don't sign up for available free or subsidized coverage but no where in the law will anyone have to pay to an evil insurance company any money if they choose to not have insurance. Hopefully, as more people who are presently in good health, look at their options, they will start paying in and that will decrease the cost of everyone's portion and decrease deductibles, co pays etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:27 PM

40. Subsidies will be given for families up to 400% of the poverty level

This is according to what I heard at a recent health care law forum. That figure currently amounts to about $90,000 for a family of four.
I don't know for sure, but the subsidy is probably on a sliding scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dragonlady (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:46 PM

55. An 8.5% premium is one quarter the cost of what we have been offered for standard 80/20

coverage.

I have been offered 50% coverage with a $5000 deductible fore what is $125 more than 8.5%. Do I have to accept substand coverage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:06 PM

66. Is your state working under the Obamacare rules yet?

Unfortunately, what the insurance companies can offer isn't suddenly going to be affordable. Nothing in the Law as far as I know will require a certain rate. Now also there is no law requiring a certain rate. There will be minimum coverage requirements and a more transparent marketing place via the internet. Will insurance companies be allowed to offer high deductibles and different co-pays? I think they will, as the cost will shift too much to the states if they don't. Most states will be subsidizing a range of income levels between medicare and the 8.5% rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dragonlady (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:52 PM

59. Yes, it will be on a sliding scale.

The more you make, the less subsidy you'll get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dragonlady (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:16 PM

76. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true.

We're still talking about insurance, not healthcare. So we have tax dollars being shoveled into the insurance industry in the form of subsidies, and the benefit is "coverage", which means whatever they say it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:03 PM

25. I have been to too many funerals of people that did not have HC. I like the plan. Granted

I would rather have single payer but anything that saves lives works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:05 PM

27. Bullshit it doesn't. Either you buy health insurance or you're fined. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:36 PM

46. Still waiting to hear how paying a fine is the same a buying insurance.

If I pay the fine (Tax penalty) and get insurance then maybe you could say I was required to buy insurance. But there is nothing in ACA that says you get coverage by paying a fine. So how is paying a fine making me buy insurance? By the way, if I have to buy insurance, please tell me to whom to write the check out to. Must be in the ACA somewhere, Scalia says so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #46)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:41 PM

50. That's because nobody claimed that paying a fine is the same as buying insurance. Just you. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #46)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:59 PM

65. ...huh?

The pretzel logic in this thread is blowing me away.

You're mandated to stop at red lights. If you don't, you'll receive a fine (or conceivably go to jail if you don't pay it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #65)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:11 PM

71. Read it again.

Call it what you want, fine, mandate, command, threat, but no where in the law are you required to pay an insurance company for health insurance if you don't want to. If you don't want insurance coverage, simply pay the IRS. If you repeat the opposite, I say your repeating the GOP talking point devised to overturn the law which, however much I don't like it, will provide healthcare for millions who are now forgoing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #71)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:22 PM

80. The *law* says you will be *fined*.

Nice rephrasing though. You aren't "simply paying" the IRS, you are being *fined* by the government for failing to purchase insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #46)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:54 PM

182. So your claim is that the law says

I can either pay money and get insurance, or pay money and not get insurance. I thought you are in favor of the law. You "support" of it is decidedly unconvincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #46)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:26 PM

186. It's NOT the same

That's not the point.

It is a FINE for not doing something the government wants you to do.

It makes no fucking difference where the fine goes to.

What the hell are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:15 PM

31. believe

 

i believed everything the preacher said until i read the whole bible for myself. read for yourselves. there are too many hidden and not so hidden agendas in this political season. THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:20 PM

32. Thank you so VERY MUCH!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:26 PM

38. Guaranteed Health Care In Iraq - But Not For You

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

You'd better sit down, folks.
Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen. Article 31 reads: "First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

This news is an example of the benefit of our online viral information age. The situation was first called to my attention late yesterday (September 8) by a long-term blogger, Korkie Moore-Bruno, on a think tank list of Obama supporters. Korkie posted an alert from her Facebook friend Jubal Harshaw. Give them credit for the heads-up; all I've done was verify the rumor with the United Nations.

It would seem that U. S. citizens might find out if their Representative and/or Senators have supported or voted to fund the war in Iraq. If so, do they support health care as a civil right for you?

If the answers to those questions are "yes" and "no," respectively, you might consider less hypocritical representation.

THERE IS A PDF LINK FOR THE IRAQI CONSTITUTION IN THE ARTICLE. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HELPED TO CREATE IT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinisterMelinda (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:39 PM

49. Wolfowitz said the whole thing was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil!

He forgot to tell us they'd be charging us $110 a barrel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:27 PM

39. The Ultimate Gift to Insurance Corporations

If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, here is the future:

The health insurance corporations will immediately begin to use their billions of dollars to begin undercutting every regulation of the ACA that cuts into their profits.

Watch for intense lobbying and campaign contributions to Senators and Representatives to weaken, for instance, the regulation banning denial of coverage for a 'preexisting condition'.

Within a very, very few years we will all be mandated into paying the insurance corporations and be right back where we were before this legislation was passed -- except that the insurance industry will be even richer and will have even more power over us. (And, watch how the shameless Repuglicans will have no problem whatsoever is becoming defenders of an amended, 'deregulated' ACA.)

We all must buy their product or pay a fine -- from the beginning I have thought that there couldn't be a greater gift to the health insurance industry than the mandate on individuals.

Sadly, because of the two party system in this nation that almost requires us to pick one side or the other, we are stuck with the pathetic notion that "Obamacare is all we have to defend."

My biggest disillusion with Pres. Obama is still his capitulation on the 'public plan option' ... let alone his never presenting single-payer as an alternative plan.

Frankly, whether or not the Supreme Court upholds the law or throws it out, I don't think we're going to be much better off (and maybe worse off) in the intermediate term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:28 PM

41. Long term strategy

At first, the President wanted a single payer option, but all the Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and the entire Medical Business Community screamed Socialist. There was no way this piece of legislation was going to pass. Compromise and they came up with a former Republican plan, but now that the President supported it, the Republicans called foul. The American people are watching this and listening to all the blabber mouths, but really coming to grips with the fact that we do need some type of reform. The ACA is not the ideal, better than nothing, but maybe now the single payer option is looking better. Maybe this is a round about way of exposing the Republican plan for what it is and showing that the single payer plan is what we need. Optimist, maybe, but it sounds good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:28 PM

42. Mandate:

man·date    Show IPA noun, verb, -dat·ed, -dat·ing.
noun
1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
3. an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

You can view it however you want to. The fact is you are required to purchase health insurance. There is a penalty for not purchasing that insurance.

If I go speeding down the highway and get caught I get a fine. Just because the penalty is only a fine does not make it any less of a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obxhead (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:50 PM

57. Sorry, Big difference. It is not breaking the law to not buy insurance.

No one, not even the GOP says not getting insurance is a crime.
Speeding is breaking a law. Choosing to pay a tax penalty is simply choosing one option over the other. If you file your 1040 late, you are not breaking a law, you are simply subjecting yourself to the late filing fee. If you don't have enough taxes deducted during the year as estimated tax, you are not "Breaking" the law. You simply are choosing the fine rather than to do what is "Mandated." W. Bush says he was mandated to privatize Social Security. Was he breaking the law by not doing it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #57)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:09 PM

69. The mandate is part of a law.

The penalty for not obeying the mandate is a fine. The fine is for violating the mandate included in the health care law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obxhead (Reply #69)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:19 PM

78. You could get work at Fox News.

Call it what you like. Fine, Mandate, Violation. No where in the ACA is there a requirement that you buy insurance. And by that I simply mean: If you do not want to send money to an insurance company and get insurance coverage, don't. Pay the IRS instead and get no coverage. You will not be listed as felon. You will not be put in jail. You will not be deported. Even if you were, you would still be without insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #78)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:23 PM

82. You make a hell of a lot of accusations for someone who's wrong all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #82)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:25 PM

85. i was wondering when the insults would start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #78)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:39 PM

92. "No where in the ACA is there a requirement that you buy insurance."

So where does the fine come from?

ETA: If you fail to pay the fine it will be taken out of any tax return you get in the future. You will never escape that money owed to the government.

I would also like to point out you analogy to the fine for filing taxes late. That fine is based on the law requiring you to file by April 15th of every year.

Fines are based on a violation of a law. Just because they can't or won't put you in jail does not make them any less of a violation of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #78)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:13 PM

141. Fox News???? Really, when you are redefining the entire legal system in order to make a stupid claim

There is no law restricting murder, you may find yourself in the electric chair but nothing prevented you from killing whoever you please is a bunch of idiotic stretching. Or claiming there is no such thing as conscription because you can always run and hide or be shot on the spot of go to prison.

No one claims that Congress can write the laws of physics, no law prevents or directs ANYTHING according to this sham logic. In laws not written by gods but by men, prevention or coercion of action is rarely plausible so actions or inaction (in this case) come with penalties.

You follow this jacked up nonsense to its conclusion and Congress could require us all to report to Catholic Church twice a week for worship and not run afoul of the Freedom of Religion clause because the law cannot force us to go to church and simply subjects to punishment ______.

Or that it is okay for Congress to pass a law that punishes speaking ill of Congress with death because free speech was not abridged, the person wasn't stopped from complaining about Congress, only executed as a penalty.

There is no there there, just a simple minded self justification for most any possible law or command from the government by shifting the debate to Congress no being able to change the nature of the universe so there are no laws.

Yes, we grasp Congress did not enact gravity and its effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #141)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:45 PM

143. So now we buy into the GOP talking point that the tax system is a system of penalties.

I'm penalized with the wretched income tax if I earn income. The government clearly says "earn income, dare you, then pay the penalty. You must be punished for such an assault on slothfulness. We'd draw and quarter if only the democrats would allow."

I suggest the tax code is legitimately used as method to modify behavior of the citizens but is not usually considered a penalizing method. In fact, most legal penalties are aimed at stopping the aberrant behavior: Incarceration of the thief, death to the killer, revocation of license for the driving while intoxicated. True, many have a fine that could be levied to keep the jails from filling up, but these are collected by the courts, not the IRS.

In the case of ACA we have no courts involved and nothing whatsoever is done to get the offender an insurance policy. To say he must "Buy" health insurance but then leaving out the actual transaction certainly can't be construed into somehow creating commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #143)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:56 AM

224. Sure don't. You are the one saying taxes and penalties are the same thing.

The penalty is for inactivity, it does not create the activity.

You are the one redefining words to fit your purpose because you want to make the argument about something other than what it is.

This was not codified as a tax, it just wasn't. More it WILLFULLY was not structured as a tax. This wasn't a slip up but a tactic for a some to be able to claim no new taxes bullshit that you are now trying to spin away and accuse people of disseminating "Republican talking points" like a fool when the objections are so old they were the objections when this was the Republican plan put forward by Heritage, supported by Dole and Gingrich, and implemented by Romney.

Further, even in its own context your accusation makes virtually no sense because most of the objections are not at all the same. Truth is that without some use of old ass Republican talking points one cannot advocate for this legislation because it is built on their worldview, their economic beliefs, their worship of capital, and devotion to "free markets".

Everyone isn't 20 years old or one of those that didn't really follow politics until Bush, Jr. I've been watching this one a long time and it is a Republican machination, regardless of it being orphaned for partisan sniping or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obxhead (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:49 PM

104. Shhh. We're trying to create our own reality here. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #104)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:56 PM

109. Apparently. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:37 PM

47. I do believe there are R's in DU

disguised as democrats. I was just in a thread where the dialogue was strangely frustrating, like talking to an ignorant republican. I wish we had Single Payer for DU cause the R's seem to infect then spread like an ugly tumor.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:47 PM

101. Welcome to the new DU! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:43 PM

54. And laws against murder don't FORCE you to not murder, right?

All they do is allow the criminal justice system to arrest, try and imprison you if you don't comply with the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:50 PM

56. either buy insurance or get fined.. am I wrong?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdmc (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:56 PM

63. no, you're not wrong, tho you will be informed that you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #63)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:12 PM

72. thanks for the reply KG

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdmc (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:20 PM

79. You're right, but you still won't have insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #79)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:23 PM

83. I have health insurance through my employer

 

I lack access to medical treatment because my co-payments are too high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 09:02 AM

225. Good luck rgbecker. This thread has turned into one where almost no one gets your point.

 

It's been really sad to read the responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:52 PM

58. What do all the relevant players want in terms of health care?

The Insurance Companies - they want the individual mandate but they don't want all the conditions and cautions that came with it like not being able to terminate people's policies if they get sick, not being able to force young adults off their parent's policies, etc.

Republicans in Congress - they want the entire thing thrown out so they can use it as a club to smack Obama with during the upcoming presidential campaign. Not that they have any better plan.

The Medical Profession - they don't care, because they will continue to complicate the entire process and charge more for their services regardless of who is paying for it.

Drug Companies - see "Medical Profession" above.

Consumers - they want a single payer system of health care delivery but most of them are afraid to use that term because some asshole on TV told them it was "socialism".

The Obama Administration - I have no fucking idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #58)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:35 PM

89. This is the most accurate assessment to date. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #58)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:42 PM

96. I had to come back.

I read your post, then had to do some other work ... but what you wrote stuck in my mind.

You have summarized the situation very well.

The Repuglican politicians in Washington are against 'Obamacare' because Pres. Obama is for it --- plain and simple. But absolutely, if the Court upholds the law and mandate, by the next Congress they will be onboard and working diligently to 'deregulate' the ACA. Their outrage over the individual mandate will only exist rhetorically, because their masters, the insurance corporations, will love it.

As for us, the health care consuming rabble? We will be required to buy a corporate product with fewer and fewer consumer protections after every election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 12:53 PM

60. Obamacare?

Could we call it what it is "Affordable Care Act"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tooeyeten (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:23 PM

81. Obama says he likes it: Obama Cares

I'm going with it. And I like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tooeyeten (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:42 PM

97. But it is not "affordable"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tooeyeten (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:51 PM

164. if we what called it what it is it would be "Affordable Insurance Act" and the affordable is not

a given. I don't think a bronze plan with a deductible I can not afford is affordable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:08 PM

68. totally disengenuous....

Sure, you don't have to buy health insurance, you just have to pay a penalty if you don't. Similarly, no one has to obey traffic laws-- one need only pay a simply penalty for choosing not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #68)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:28 PM

88. Nice analogy if it were true. There are a lot more penalties to breaking traffic laws.

The IRS could fine you to smitherings, til you hadn't a penny. Then the penalty wouldn't apply, and you'd still be walking around and without health insurance.

Try that out on the judge at your next speeding ticket hearing. Then see if they let you keep your license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:12 PM

73. Now when we talk about war, we're really talkin' about peace.

I swear to god, party Democrats don't stand for jack shit. It's just whatever services the party's interests at any given moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #73)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:55 PM

165. Both parties think 1984 was a manual it would seem

It breaks my heart, to see so much doublespeak and right wing ideology disguised as the "new face of my party".

I must be getting old, this party is nothing like the one I joined, it resembles what the Republican party was when I became a Democrat instead, only with a far worse record on civil liberties than even those Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:25 PM

86. What, in your mind, would constitute "forcing one to buy health insurance?"

If not fiduciary penalty, what, if anything, would constitute a government command or compulsion to buy health insurance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChadwickHenryWard (Reply #86)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:37 PM

90. Well there are a lot of options.

How about jail?
Or just make Blue Cross cover you whether you like it or not.
Or not allow you, by physical retraint, within 500 feet of a doctor, hospital or pharmacy.

The truth is, they are not commanding nor compelling you to buy insurance. They are establishing a tax penalty to be paid by those who can afford to buy insurance but who do not get coverage. Even if you don't buy insurance, as far as the ACA goes, nothing happens that will get you insurance if you don't want it. Pay the fine...still no insurance. Don't pay the fine...still no insurance. Nothing in there will get you to buy insurance if you don't want it. Freedom, gotta love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:46 PM

99. Why didn't they characterize it as....

1. everyone pays a tax;
2. you get a tax credit for buying health insurance.

Surely this would have the same end result and I don't see why it wouldn't be constitutional. Am I oversimplifying here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #99)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:15 PM

118. Are you proposing these together or as an either-or?

Together it makes a little sense. Simply get the Congress to approve a tax equal to 2.5% of income and at the same time a tax credit 2.5% if you can show health care insurance coverage. Two steps instead of one to fool Antone Scalia.

I'm afraid it won't shut up those who rant that the act somehow makes people get insurance, even if they don't want it and thus indicates that the government is "Fundamentally altering the relationship between the government and the people." But, as I point out in the post, you'll never have insurance unless you choose to get it yourself. The Government is not making anyone write a check or even sign a policy or in anyway engage in the commerce of healthcare insurance. They simply are requiring a tax penalty. If you pay that penalty, you still won't have insurance. How can anyone call that being required to buy insurance? That's easy. It's the GOP scaring people into thinking the government is about to make everyone go down to the Stop and Shop and buy broccoli, stopping at the local gym to work out on the way. Using their hard earned money to do Nancy Pelosi's bidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:47 PM

103. Mandate or Tax???

Last week I heard several "news" commentators argue whether the penalty was a mandate or a tax and the old saying if it walks like and duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.

I know it may just be semantics but apparently this is an important question and could be the pivot point in which this whole argument balances.

Let me make it clear, I am for the mandate or tax, no actually I am for single payer which is taxed directly to be paid for similar to the health care in Canada and many European countries, but which ever way it happens we NEED real health care for this country. We like to claim to be the most advanced country on the planet but we DO have people dying because they can't pay for the care they need.

If we could call it a tax I know the argument which the conservatives would make, "they shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's health care. Well, I don't have children but I pay taxes to help those who do have kids go to school, there are roads which I never drive on but my taxes help build and maintain those roads, and there are law enforcement agencies which I will never receive any protection from but I pay taxes for those too.

My point is we accept paying taxes for things of common good for society, I don't see any difference. So, maybe we should start calling it a tax instead of a penalty or mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoutherDem (Reply #103)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:21 PM

142. What we call it isn't important but what it is and how it is codified.

It was written as a penalty, not a tax so it is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:49 PM

106. Your post is one of the most Orwellian speak I have ever seen on DU

You must sign a contract with a private corporation or be fined. That is mandatory. I guess if we follow your logic then we really don't have any speed limits on the highways. When a sign says max speed 55 it is not stopping us from going over 55. We will just be fined if we do. So therefore by your logic there are no speed limits anywhere. Good luck selling that crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #106)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:33 PM

123. Look, this speeding analogy doesn't have traction.

If you speed, and keep speeding, you are going to be physically stopped. Then your license will be revoked and you will no longer speed. If you fail to obtain the insurance coverage as specified in the ACA you will be fined (taxed) if your income is high enough and I suppose if you really press it, put in jail. But you will not at that point have insurance. No one will get you insurance if you don't want it. You will not be required to get insurance by the ACA. You are FREE, FREE at last! No insurance ever.

How is it on DU we are hearing all about the awfulness of having to buy insurance when we are not and yet no one is complaining that the government is not making the insurance companies sell us a policy when they are not?

Only explanation is the total buy into the GOP talking point lies and selling us crap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:59 PM

110. I'm an extremely high cost Medicare / Medicaid client.

Baby boomer, retired. AIDS and a recent onset of a siezure disorder. Meds alone, paid by Medicare Part D, are > $1,500 / month. Thanks, Gen X, Gen Y and others in the workplace. You are already contributing to my healthcare as I did for others while I was working. It's called spreading the risks and the costs across all those who pay into the system.

The mandate aims at the same thing. We're all in this together. ACA also aims to lower overall costs and limit the overhead take (profit and operating costs) to insurance companies. And, iirc, Medicare billings and payments in the Western Region are handled by AETNA, an insurance company, acting as the agent for the government program.

Here's the official Medicare funding fact sheet -

How is Medicare Funded?

Medicare provides health coverage for 47.5 million people.

In 2010, Medicare spent $516 billion for covered items and services. Have you ever wondered where Medicare gets this money? Read this fact sheet to find out, and learn ways that you can help Medicare
save money.

What are the Medicare Trust Funds?

Medicare is paid for through two trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.

1. Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund

What does it pay for?

■■Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits, such as inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care
■■Medicare Program administration, such as costs for paying benefits, collecting Medicare taxes, and combating fraud and abuse

How is it funded?

■■Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
■■Other sources, such as income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Part A premiums from people who aren’t eligible for premium-free Part A

What are the Medicare Trust Funds? (continued)

2. Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund
What does it pay for?

■■Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) benefits, such as doctor services, outpatient hospital care, home health care not covered under Part A, durable medical equipment, certain preventive services, and lab tests
■■Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits
■■Medicare Program administration, such as costs for paying benefits and for combating fraud and abuse

How is it funded?
■■Funds authorized by Congress
■■Premiums from people enrolled in Part B and Part D
■■Other sources, such as interest earned on the trust fund investments

Note: Federal funding for the Part A, Part B, and Part D benefits for people who join a Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C) is split between the two trust funds. Enrollees may also pay a premium for these benefits.


http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:09 PM

115. In White House language it's the "personal responsibility provision".

Explain this to the people who are going to get whacked by steep tax bills because they lack insurance.

I'm sure they'll understand there is no "mandate".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:38 PM

124. Let's look at it another way

Please note - this is just a thought exercise, not advocation of the following absurd policy or ACA or anything else. It only goes to the question of what is a mandate and what is a tax.

Suppose an all-GOP Congress and President Palin had passed a law that allowed the IRS to tax anyone who didn't have a gun $500 per year. Their rationale is that 9-1-1 is expensive and if you can't protect yourself then the cops have to come and save you at public expense. Would you say that they are mandating you buy a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #124)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:56 PM

127. That's a good one!

Forget the word Mandate..I don't think you'll find it in the ACA anywhere..what you are asking is if Palincare requires you to buy a gun. That is, write a check, or lay the cash out and get a gun....OR is Sarah happy to simply have you pay $500 and not have a gun. If she really wanted us to have a gun, why not give us each a gun? Or use your Dad's gun or the one your friend gave you? Would that remove the $500 obligation? Not much of a requirement if she lets you just pay $500 to not do it.

We need to know a lot more about Palincare before we know what's up with that...

Meanwhile, the ACA is clear. Get coverage or pay the tax. That tax won't get you insurance. Whether you have insurance or not is entirely up to you. You are free to choose NO INSURANCE. No one is making anybody get, have, buy, sell insurance. Simple. If you don't have insurance and don't want it, you won't get it. Sarah isn't going to buy it for you. Barack isn't going to buy it for you. No insurance company is going to give it to you if you don't pay them and there is nothing the FEDs can do to make you do that.

This should be clear to even the most ardent Ron Paul supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:59 PM

128. whatever you want to call it, its shit

 

Gosh, though I'm so relieved that you will allow someone to have an opinion that paying health insurance corps for shitty high deductible insurance or paying a fine to the government is a pile of shit and we can still be Democrats while holding that opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:00 PM

129. How many of the 125 respondees in this thread currently don't carry insurance

and don't want to?

If you are currently insured through a plan of your employer's, this new law will change absolutely nothing for you. That's something like more than 85% of Americans. Nothing will change for them.
If you are currently insured through Medicare or Medicaid nothing will change for you. More people will be eligible for Medicaid, but that's about all.
If you are not employer insured and have been unable to buy insurance in the individual market either because of a pre-existing condition or because it would be too expensive for you, this law will allow you to obtain it no matter what condition you have, and will subsidize your insurance if it is too expensive for you to buy on your income.
If you are uninsured and do not wish to be insured, you'll have to pay a tax penalty to cover the cost of treating uninsured people and the cost of helping to insure everyone else. Just like you are taxed for schools you may not use (you don't have kids), or roads you don't use (you don't drive).

But honestly, how many people wailing and moaning already have insurance?
How many would like to have insurance?
How many would refuse to be insured under any circumstances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #129)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 09:43 AM

229. Good question.

 

Interesting that no one is responding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:03 PM

138. Like KG said in their response number one:

Buy health insurance or be fined.

It is that simple. And like KG added, all the lipstick in the world wouldn't make that pig look good.

Why the Big Insurers were coddled and then allowed to actually draft so many of the provisions I do know: it's called politics.

And right now our political machinery is so broken that many of us don't know how to think about politics any more.

So Rahm meets with these criminals from Big Insurance and he got them to help him right the legislation.

So health care in this country, a nightmare before the ACA of 2010 was signed off on, remains a nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 04:06 PM

140. It's still a shit plan. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:22 PM

158. It also relies on discriminatory tax law language.

Only families as defined according to Rick Warren get treated as families. So take pride in that fact. You get to add to the injustice in society while selling insurance policies with force of law. Good stuff. God is in the mix, of course that God is the Almighty Dollar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:32 PM

161. Mandated insurance

As far as government mandating insurance goes, here in Wisconsin, as with many other states, one is required not only to pay for and maintain prescribed minimum levels of auto insurance, but to carry proof of this in your car. If you are stopped by an officer, you are asked for the proof as well as your license -- and you darn well better have it.

Sure you can avoid buying auto insurance -- but only if you don't drive. The reason for this is obviously twofold: to protect other people one may be involved with in case of an accident, and, since uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance is part of the requirement, to assure an innocent receives care and not at state expense.

I have never heard anyone bringing up pigs and lipstick concerning this insurance requirement, which I would argue is much closer to a true mandate than the ACA.

Since any one of us is only a bad head-injuring fall away from being reduced to vegetative status I don't see what the problem or the objection is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 06:58 PM

166. "the GOP talking point repeated here on DU again and again" Just one?? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:41 PM

174. the fine is higher than the fine for drug posession or dirivng under the influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 07:53 PM

181. And I thought our Cirque du Soleil folks were flexible.

 

Contortive semantics aside, this insurance-only plan locks the nation into dealing with this extortive cabal, period.

All the wriggling and hair-splitting in the world does not change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 11:06 PM

197. Another GOP talking point that you could put an end to.....

Forgive me if someone else has already made this point before me, but you could quit calling it "Obamacare."
That is a term that the GOP and their assholes love to hear everyone use. Isn't it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 12:41 AM

201. The problem is that in America, we have health insurance first and health care second.

ACA continues that flawed plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 01:52 AM

202. Some people support Obamacare because

they have read through it and believe it's really what the country needs and it will work.
Some people think it's a good start towards something better.
Some people support it just because it was democratic legislation, even if they do not actually like it.
Some people support it for strictly partisan reasons.
Some reject it because of the "mandate".
Some reject it because it's not single payer.
Some reject it because they oppose the size and scope and favored piece meal changes to insurance laws.

Every example I've given has been some form of support of opposition by Democrats and Progressives.

Which are you?

I simply oppose it due to the "mandate". I have a right to that opinion and it's not a litmus test. There is too much" you are either with us or against us" chatter on the forums these days. We are better than Republicans beause we have a diversity of opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 02:42 AM

205. Double taxation

All things being equal with 2 taxpayers with identical returns except 1 has a deduction for health insurance; the one who does not have insurance will pay more taxes, then pay an additional penalty.

Medicare for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 05:06 AM

210. The Heritage Foundation thanks you for your support of their brainchild.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #210)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:31 AM

218. The Heritage Foundation sucks.

If you think they support Obamacare you had better read up on their latest drivel. I'd agree that it was their brainchild if I thought any of their supporters had a brain. Scalia may tell you the Heritage's Mandate is the center of the ACA but it is just a small park of an attempt to get America's healthcare system out of the gutter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #218)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:45 AM

220. They invented the individual mandate in 1989, and supported it publicly for years. They only spoke

 

against it when the Democrats spoke for it.

Such is the level of Machiavellian politicking in the halls of power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-individual-mandates-c_b_1386716.html

Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.

This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the government's accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection. This means that, while government would take on the obligation to find ways of guaranteeing care for those Americans unable to obtain protection in the market, perhaps because of chronic health problems or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.

Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.

Help would be provided in two ways. First, the tax code would be amended, as Chapter 3 describes, to give tax relief to individual purchasers of health insurance or prepaid plans and to provide tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses. Second, government would aid those who, because of income or medical condition, find the cost of protection to be an unreasonable burden. Such aid could take the form of vouchers for purchasing insurance or state-managed systems as described in Chapter 5.

The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 06:26 AM

213. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the correct name for the law



    O****care is a made-up, right wing word used to negatively frame the issue. The first thing we all need to do is stop using right wing definitions in our discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreydeeThos (Reply #213)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 08:12 AM

214. Obama has embraced "Obamacare", People know what it means.....

I say use it and support it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20092578-503544.html

I truly believe Obama does care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 09:28 AM

226. It's a penalty not a tax or so said the Obama administration.

 

That is what makes it a potential problem in terms of the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:24 AM

231. I was against the Individual Mandate and Still Against it...

However, like some people say, this current Health Care reform needs to continue.
There is no such thing as "Repeal and Replace" and any Republican mentioning that is either lying, naive or just does not know the proccess.

Stating that, it shouldn't be called an Individual Mandate as everyone from the time they were born in America or crossed the border, they have become part of the Health Care System.
One can not choose not to be part of the Health Care system as non-participation in insurance is a choice.

If one were to get in to a car crash where one has insurance and another doesnt', both get the same immediate care from Emergency Services.
The difference is that one is basically paid for by the government. Meaning, we already have socialized care as is. The craziest, most expensive type around.

It is a person's responsibility not to be a burden to society and those who opt out of having insurance are a burden to society and opting for socialized care at the greater expense of all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:28 AM

233. Nice post, Zeke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 10:35 AM

234. Unrec...so, you don't buy it and you get fined...

In other words, a heavy financial penalty to not buy it...sounds like forcing someone to buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #234)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 08:12 PM

258. You are just not getting the Olympic level semantic contortion or you would know

That no one is requiring you to but a shitty bronze plan with high deductibles you can't afford to use, no it is merely a coincidence when you face the punishment for not doing so.

It is almost like you don't know that no one forces you to drive sober, that DWI thing with all the costs and penalties are a separate issue that has nothing to do with enforcing DWI laws.

Now don't you feel dumb, now that you know that everything is permissible, but there are penalties for all you do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:27 AM

238. Uhhhh, this is DU you're trying to peddle that crap to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #238)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:06 PM

246. Great picture....

Good points all, really adds to the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:38 AM

239. It’s Not an Individual Mandate—It’s an Individual Penalty

The Op is spot on the money.

Watching “Morning Joe” last Monday morning I was reminded once again how effective, a propaganda tool, a slogan that tells a lie is. Joe and crew repeated over and over again the slogan “Individual Mandate” and falsely stated that it forces an individual to purchase health insurance from the private sector. It does not. The mandate doesn’t mandate that anyone purchase anything. Instead, the “Individual Mandate” penalizes the individual for not purchasing heath insurance.

The correct term should be the “Individual Penalty”. Because there is a penalty that the government assess, on an individual’s tax form, if that individual has not purchased health insurance. So who created the term “Individual mandate” and why? The puppeteers for power and profit?

One can imagine the debate, at the propaganda puppet master’s PR HQ, over which term “Individual Mandate” or “Individual Penalty” would most effectively influence the public mind to achieve their desired goal. It is obvious, by the puppeteers’ choice of the term “Mandate”, that their goal, of creating a negative feeling about ObamaCare, can best be accomplished praying on peoples anger at being told what to do. So why would Obama go along with this?

So the next time you hear the term “Individual Mandate” remember the pysops game the puppet masters are trying to play on you and say “NO”, The proper term is “Individual Penalty”.

http://www.thedailycall.org/?p=16543

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DennisBrault (Reply #239)

Tue Apr 3, 2012, 11:57 AM

255. States do this with auto insurance -

It's called "uninsured motorist fee" or something like that.

Personally I think we need to take the profit out and nationalize health care (single payer), but I also don't see having an "uninsured fee" for health care as something onerous or unprecedented in the meantime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 2, 2012, 11:43 AM

240. there was more demonization of it when Obama was against it

Back when Hillary was for it and Obama was against it, the mandate was a big issue here and it was exaggerated how evil it was.

Now, when the mandate is discussed here it's usually to defend it from conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread