I am very concerned about requiring parents to get insurance on their kids

[dsc]

At first blush this sounds wonderful and responsible. And with a Democratic President helping fund it that sounds awesome. But what happens when the GOP takes over. Imagine if Clinton had decided to go this route. Now with Bush as President millions of low inocme parents would have to chose between some form of penalty (loss of Drivers' licence and tax deductions for children are two penalties I have seen mentioned) and having enough money to eat. I realize that we never would get full coverage of children without a mandate (that is why Dean didn't make 100% coverage of children in VT). But if we do have a mandate we are handing the next Republican President a very powerful weapon to use against the poor. Imagine a legal way of preventing poor people from voting it could be the 21st century poll tax. Show your insurance card or no ballot. Do you really think Rove wouldn't do this?

Sorry. I thought somoone reading this thread would have likely seen this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=70316&mesg_id=70316

both Clark and Edwards seek to require parents to insure children.

[JewelDigger]

1. What are you referring to? Link?

eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Where'd you get the driver's license thing? are you talking about Edwards'

plan?

Require Parents to Cover Their Children: Under the Edwards Plan, parents will get affordable credits and easy access to insurance. If parents find they still cannot afford coverage due to extraordinary circumstances, they will be able to apply for additional help. But parents will have a responsibility to cover their children. Parents who do not provide coverage will receive a warning, and parents who still do not cover their children will face a reduction in tax benefits equal to the cost of CHIP. Their children will be automatically enrolled in the appropriate program.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-fact-sheet.asp

[dawgman]

3. i'd be screwed....can't afford anything right now.

[dsc]

4. The drivers' licence and the exemption

is from the DLC plan which would require insuring children (it is a post in the thread I linked). I think reducing the tax deduction which is the route Edwards is taking is also dangerous. Think of the implications of letting cuts in subsidies to insurance for the poor be doubly effective at balancing the budget. First as a direct cut in government spending and second as a increase in taxes on the working poor. Again, this is right up Rove's alley.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. That's like arguing we shouldn't have Medicare

because the Republicans could cut it.

[dsc]

6. No

If Medicare gets cut the people who get Medicare are no worse off than they were before the advent of Medicare. Here the people would be worse off. They would lose their deduction or have to pay market price for insurance. That would make poor people poorer.

[sandnsea]

7. That's what happens with a Medicare cut

People lose their deductions or pay higher premiums for their Medicare. I'm not really in this debate. I've got my own concerns with requiring insurance. But it is possible that passing a law requiring children to have health care, like we did with school, will mean that the state & federal government will HAVE to step up to the plate and provide adequate funding. It might be the only way to get consistent funding.

[redqueen]

9. The difference is...

that in the health system, the federal funding of insurance means our tax dollars subsidize private insurance! How is this logical? What value does putting a middle man in there do for people? The simple, obvious solution is to enroll them in Medicare!

Wait, isn't someone else already advocating this? ;)

[sandnsea]

11. SCHIP

Most Democrats plan is to enroll kids in CHIP. There are also plans to provide tax credits to small business private insurance. And there's plans to make the federal health insurance available to anyone who doesn't fall into these other programs, with some subsidies available there too. I agree that it's stupid to continue using health insurance and we'll have to go to single payer some day. But, right now, I think people will be more willing to pay into the regular federal health insurance than to pay for the very iffy benefits of Medicare or Medicaid. To me, it's a matter of which program will Congress and the people be most likely to support.

[dsc]

13. Obviously you aren't

because if you were you might know what I had said and what Edward's plan is. Under Edward's plan you lose you TAX DEDUCTION if you refuse to insure your children. Thus under the hypothetical that I stated a person would lose both the insurance help provided by Edwards and his TAX DEDUCTION if he or she couldn't afford to insure his or her children. That is NOT what happens under Medicare cuts. There the elderly simply lose their benefits but the do not OWE MORE IN TAXES.

[sandnsea]

15. The tax pays for the insurance

I don't think you read the plan. You don't just lose your tax deduction, it goes to pay for the kids' medical plan. Wealthy people are already going to have coverage for their kids. Lower income families would just have the tax deduction applied, usually to SCHIP. It's really a way to have the insurance and have it come out of your taxes at the end of the year.

[dsc]

16. Yes I know

but if you had bothered to read my post, my problem is what happens when a Republican gets in and eliminates the subsidies but keeps the requirement? Then, the workning poor won't have insurance as they can't afford it and will lose the deduction for their kids. They will be poorer and uninsured. This is a very scary proposition to me to give the next Rove that kind of power.

[OKNancy]

8. The Clark plan

if you are low income the insurance is free. If you are working poor and not covered you get subsidized insurance. I looked up the figures for my family. It would be subsidized for a family of three makeing under $42,000.

Covering children is like making them get immunizations. You HAVE to require all to do it for it to work. If you just covered the kids, it wouldn't be that expensive anyway. It's adult insurance that really costs the big bucks.

[redqueen]

10. The first thing I thought of when I read your post...

was the hue and cry when they made it mandatory to have auto insurance. People in Texas complain regularly about how insurance is a racket and blah blah blah....

I don't pay much attention to them because it doesn't help to (I'm in TEXAS), but seeing your post made me wonder if directing tax dollars to the health insurance industry, which is already squeezing consumers AND employers, is just a dumb idea, period.


edited because i can't spell

[Mairead]

12. feeding the health-insurance industry

A dumb idea indeed, RQ.

And I agree with dsc about it being a bad idea to lumber parents with the legal responsibility to provide insurance for their kids. As sure as eggs is eggs, that requirement would be used as another bludgeon against the poor. There's no reason to make it something a parent must positively do, if it's to be universal. The way Edwards wants to do it only makes sense if there's a hidden agenda. The honest course is to make coverage the default, so if the kid breaks an arm or gets the pox, the parent only has to take the kid to the doc, with the cost of the visit billed centrally.

[dsc]

14. Don't get me started on required automobile insurance

that ends up being a mongo tax on the poor unless you regulate insurers far better than Ohio currently is.