Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm sorry but unless Obama is suggesting a way to divest myself of my body, a mandate is a tax.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:20 PM
Original message
I'm sorry but unless Obama is suggesting a way to divest myself of my body, a mandate is a tax.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. ..a tax I'd be ok with, PROVIDED there's a Public Option . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. yes, me. too.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. And, uh, what if you wouldn't qualify to use it? What if it was unaffordable unsubsidized?
Everyone is breaking this all down to some simple binary problems. The US health care debate is complex because they choose it to be so (they must put profits ahead of reform). With that said, things get more complicated.

The bottom line is, the government has no business to mandate the purchase of any good unless they can guarantee, beyond a doubt, that an efficient public alternative accessible and affordable (via subsidies or employer contribution) to ALL Americans. All.

If anything should be "triggered", it should be mandates. The government needs to make a case they can accomplish what is being claimed before forcing everyone with penalties. Thats an ass-backwards approach they are taking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
62. What if it ATE MY BABY!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #62
75. Well....
:rofl:


Butthead....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. My error. It was the dingo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
86. make that a STRONG public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Take your pick. Mandate or status-quo.
It's really a no-brainer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. A mandate without a public option is a giveaway to the insurance industry.
With a mandate and no public option, I'd be better off with the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The PO was assumed. Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. No worries. Although, the way things are going...
I wouldn't be surprised at all if a mandate and no PO is exactly what we get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Its not a no-brainer at all
I would suggest anyone who would break it down to a "no-brainer" may be lacking one themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
57. Mandate = permanent status quo
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 03:41 PM by brentspeak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. and again....
like with income tax, it has been stated that there will be exemptions from the mandate and/or assistance to those who need it.

Although I would greatly prefer a fully nationalized plan with an option to buy private if you chose, I think this reform is necessary and a step in the right direction.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/06/mandato...
Now in the White House, Obama has set in motion steps toward his broad goal of making health care more affordable, improving quality of care and expanding coverage. Says Obama: "We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children."
He largely has left it to the House and Senate to work it out.

But in recent weeks, Congress signaled that legislation overhauling health care was all but certain to require that people have insurance. Of course, details about how to implement such a mandate must be worked out and there are many but the overall concept increasingly seems on track to be included in any sweeping health care overhaul that makes its way to Obama's desk.
...
In a letter in early June, he told key Senate Democrats writing legislation that he was willing to consider their ideas for "shared responsibility," requiring people to have insurance with employers sharing in the cost. "But," he added, "I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable."
...
"I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance," he told doctors. Thus, he said: "I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can't afford it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prolesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. And how do you feel about mandatory car insurance?
Is that a tax?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. As Obama would say, LOOK. Not every citizen MUST BUY or HAVE CAR INSURANCE. Do you NOT GET
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 01:37 PM by WinkyDink
the DIFFERENCE?

More disturbingly, does the President NOT get it? Of course, he does. He is being disingenuous, and people are worried because of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. You have a choice not to own a car. No car, no need for car insurance.
As the OP says, he has no choice but to have a body, and bodies ultimately break down, or get into accidents, or need repair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Agreed; I see personal mandates as a "life tax"
That's what Obama doesn't see. Plus, mandates would be federal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I'm really lost... Why are we having this argument?
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 01:49 PM by high density
Do people here really think it is a good system to allow people to opt-out of insurance, go the ER when they are very sick, and then default on the thousands of dollars in charges that accrue? In the end the rest of the people in the system absorb the cost of the care. Who gives a crap about the semantics of it, tax, fee, mandate, fine, whatever. It doesn't work currently and something new needs to be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. As I understand it, people are equating the penalty fee for not buying insurance to a tax.
I don't care about the semantics. The objection I have is that I don't have insurance b/c I can't afford it. If I can't afford insurancewhich I would very much prefer to havehow in God's name am I going to cough up a penalty fee?

I don't know what will happen to me if I get very sick. It's not a lark I'm on though. I'm not exactly buying Manola Blahnik shoes instead of health insurance. So let me die in the street. Just walk past me. After all, I wasn't as clever as you to have made sure to somehow have gotten health insurance. I deserve to writhe in pain and die then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:09 PM
Original message
Obama said that certain income levels will be exempted from the mandate
Plus we don't have a good idea yet of how much subsidies would be or how much insurance would cost on the Exchange to begin with.

A+ on the straw man though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #14
88. agree with you- there seems to be a libertarian streak coming out here when those without insurance
claim their right to live without it. THe point is that we ALL PAY for those citizens who are uninsured. They get sick, go to the emergency room and those of us with insurance pay for them with higher premiums. It's a questions of fairness and pooled risk to lower costs for the majority. It should be mandated as long as it is "affordable" . The focus 0f our efforts should be on the "affordable" and securing a public option, not fighting a mandate. Fighting the mandate is like saying: i'm not going to pay for the fire station and firefighters, and you still have to put out the fire in my house even if i don't pay for it. It's a risk we all pay for.

The core issue i see here at DU is that most here don't' trust the insurance co's to lower costs-justifiably- that's why I agree there HAS TO BE a public option or non-profit option if there is going to be a mandate. The important argument in my mind is having affordable options, subsidies for those that don't have the resources, and cost controls by modeling best practices. Without comparative effectiveness and best practices modeling, the cost of delivery will outpace the cost of insurance, public or private.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. I'd gladly pay for a public option
After all, we already pay into medicare. But, I hold the insurance industry in contempt. Mainly, because of their greed--I believe, they're a for profit business who care about their shareholders more than they care about their customers.

I trust a well run government program more than I trust a for profit business. So, why don't I have choice? Let all those who don't want their medicare, to sign it away (on principle, of course), and allow those people who want public option to buy in.

All I have to do is look at what * did to the military. I mean, privatizing security has worked out so well for the military. Tainted water, unsafe food, energized showers, poor construction, and disrespectful security. I'd rather have government run health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. yah, privatizing the military really worked out well... for a new source of campaign contributions
for the pukes. I agree- i'd trust a publicly run option over a privatized version- we already have decades of experience that the for-profit insurance industry is out of control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. If you don't drive a car, you CAN'T produce risk and inflict a social cost on drivers in general
Since you MUST have a body, you necessarily produce risk and inflict a social cost on other people in the society.

This is why the whole "you don't have to own a car" logic is bullshit. It is precisely because you HAVE to have a body that the analogy holds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. As long as we agree that Obama supports taxing the middle class contrary to what he claimed in prima
primaries of 2008 and not only a tax on the middle class, but a relatively regressive one, we're fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Why would I agree to
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 02:23 PM by alcibiades_mystery
your nonsensical interpretation?

My point was simple: the "you don't have to own a car" argument is particularly stupid because it confuses the accidental features of the analogy (ownership of a thing) for the essential part of the analogy (mandates prevent free-riding on social costs). Anything beyond that, I'll leave to your fevered imagination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. He's supporting a tax on the middle class. He promised we would not be taxed.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. So you say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. In what respect, Charlie.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
39. Ask my children
They are both under 3. They don't drive yet, nor are they forced to pay for it. But they do go to the doctor at their age, which isn't free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
43. I would not like mandatory car insurance. That is a bad idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
58. Somehow, I doubt you're much interested in "uniting the proles"
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 03:43 PM by brentspeak
Unless by "proles" you mean "insurance company executives."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
84. Many people do not need to own a car because of -gasp-
public transportation options. Options. Not mandates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. If you aren't required to pay it, it's not a tax IMO.
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 01:44 PM by Phx_Dem
I think the cost that the rest of us incur by people who can't be bothered to insure themselves should be considered a tax. How 'bout that?

In this case, you CAN opt out of a health care "fee" by getting health care. That way we don't have to pay for your sorry ass if you get sick or injured.

Are toll booth fees, taxes as well? What about ATM fees if you use an ATM that is not owned by your bank. Is that a tax?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I guess you are able to afford insurance for your sorry ass.
Or does your employer cover your sorry ass? Good luck with paying for your own sorry ass if you lose your job then get sick or injured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yes I am. And if I couldn't, I'd receive a subsidy.
If you can't afford to pay a 'reasonable' cost for health insurance, how are you going to pay for an emergency room visit or long-term treatment for an illness you could get next month?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Easy, this person would limp into an ER
and get "free" medical care, whose costs obviously just evaporate into the heavenly plane, never to be seen or felt by earthly pocketbooks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I'm not so sure subsidies will be enough
With just private insurance, mandates are a give away to the insurance companies, which should be regulated so they are required to cover anything you need at a reasonable cost to the patient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I don't think they're a "giveaway"
Those who have it will likely utilize the coverage. They will get something for their money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I don't think they will, and they are a boon to private insurance
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 02:09 PM by mvd
I'd rather see increased taxes, especially on the rich, and reductions in defense spending to help. I can't accept mandates unless there is a strong public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Mandate -> Health Insurance Exchange -> Public Option
Seems quite simple to me. Obama has said that the public option is going to have to survive without the support of taxpayers, so it needs to get a revenue stream from somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. I disagree with him on the taxpayer thing, for one
Another thing is that I didn't hear Obama say the PO will be available to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. Exactly. The gov't will be using the public as a pass-through. Here's your subsidy; now give it to
the nice insurance companies.

And where does the subsidy money come from in the first place? From tax revenue. The bottom line will be: Insurance company profits stay the sameor greatly increase b/c of the new mandateand the public pays for it. The CEOs are probably looking at brochures for new private jets as we speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
65. Maybe we should wait to see what the plan and subsidies are
before we freak out. Just a thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
49. As it stands now, I won't be able to pay for the ER or treatment. I can only hope I die quickly.
And that is the simple truth of it. So bring on your penalty fees & continue to heap your I'm-insured-nyah-nyah scorn on me. You can't get blood out of a stone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Do you think mandate costs for private ins would the be the same
as if you went to the Blue Cross website and signed up for a plan right now? Seriously? Do you really think you'll be mandated to pay $500/month out of your pocket for private insurance? If so, please take your money and buy a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Uh, isn't that what's in Max Baucus' plan? People would have to pay up to 13% of their income?
$6000 a year for a policy is $500 a month. That would be on an income of $50,000. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and need a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. $500/month would drive some people into Chapter 7.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
66. Fuck the Baucus plan. That shit isn't going to pass as the final, conference-approved
bill. No way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Every individual (or someone acting on their behalf) is required to pay for HI.
There are exemptions, but the overarching rule that "every individual MUST pay for health insurance" is what makes it a tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. How do you feel about police and firefighting services...
should they be optional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Should they be optional? In some parts of the US, they ARE optional.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. Optional in what way?! What State or Town?! Give me some examples here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. Monett, Missouri.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. In what way are they optional? They have 2 fire stations and a police department.
That's not optional. The civilians who work as dispatchers are volunteers but the rest work on State financing--which comes from taxes.

Fire:
http://www.cityofmonett.com/city_departments/fire_depar...

Police:
http://www.cityofmonett.com/city_departments/police_ind...

Give me another example----because this one seems to be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. The case where that guy's garage was on fire, but he had failed to pay
some kind of premium for the fire department, and when the fire department arrived, they declined to put it out, his garage burned to the ground and this was totally legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #59
95. It currently looks like it's provided by the State.
Can I have the article that states your claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Tax funded public service....hows that compare at all?
You want to make public insurance available for all COMPLETELY tax funded and subsidized, then GREAT! Thats not the proposal. Many people may get no shot at even qualifying for an exchange, and hence, no shot at affordable public insurance. We won't know until past mark-up really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. Only if they want me to pay 15% of my income towards it while other countries pay half that
...I don't want my MANDATED income going towards their profits without some heavy regulations like the Auto Insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. It's true that covering the costs needs to come from somewhere, but..
there are other ways besides mandates. Tax the rich, end the wars, cut adminstrative waste out of the system. I have no problem with taxing the rich harder because they've had it very easy lately, just like in the late 1800s. There would have to be some tax increase for all, but costs now are worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
54. Multimillionaire insurance company executives put out fires and catch bad guys?
Holy crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
71. So if the house next to mine catches fire ... and they don't have "coverage" ... My house is ok????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
79. The fire department doesn't double your property tax if you have a fire
That's how health care should be paid for, but NOT if you let useless shitstain intermediaries like private insurance cream off a third of the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
33. Unless you are guaranteeing that your body won't produce social costs
You should be mandated (to thus guarantee).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
35. A mandate is a prevention of free riding.
If you could buy insurance but don't, then if you do get deathly ill, you will be treated -- and the cost will be a tax on everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
55. Is that the new spin?
I understand there are people paid well enough to deliver that horselaughing-inducing rationale, but hard to believe there are really people dumb enough to actually believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #55
91. It is true
if you want to make insurance companies cover preexisting conditions. Or else people won't buy insurance unless they get sick which is not fair to the folks that are healthy who pay every month for insurance.

If insurance doesn't have to take care of preexisting conditons, then there is no need for a mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
38. His claim this is not a tax increase is a transparent attempt to not contradict yet another promise
which was something along the lines of "if you are a middle class person, your taxes will not go up by even one dime". Whoops, there goes another campaign promise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. Are you thinking? He's requiring you to have insurance.
This goes for those who can't afford to get some sort of insurance (including Public Option---and/or Medicaid). The purpose so we can all don't HAVE to pay extra fees on our insurance. This is just another way to lower costs across the nation and also get everyone covered. That's not a tax considering he talked about giving out subsidies of sorts in order for those who may not be able to cover all costs but some costs. This is seen with medicaid as well---medicaid covers co-pay costs for those who may have private insurance and don't depend solely on medicaid. How is that a tax? It's better for you and me health wise and also cost wise---especially for those who pay for health insurance with bloody high premiums every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. To burden Americans with a requirement to have insurance at a COST is to promote a tax increase.
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 02:36 PM by closeupready
I have less of a problem with this fact than I do with the fact that the wealthy continue to make off like gangbusters. When are THEY going to have THEIR taxes raised? Until they all pack up and move to China, they are all as much a part of this society as the middle class is, and if a need has developed to cover the uninsured, THEY should pay the lion's share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. Actually-----subsidies, medicaid, and possible public option is always there.
You do realize that even with Medicaid and Medicare---there is still insurance companies that need to be chosen. My dad was o Medicare and I had medicaid----that wasn't a cost to me---unless you count my tax dollars which already went into that department. How is that a burden---when most people who will have insurance will be getting it through their job----ie the requirement Obama spoke about in a bill he wants. It must require all businesses to provide insurance to people----even those who work part time (at least a basic plan). What he is saying the insurance companies will be in play because you'll be chosing through them----but that's not an added cost. This is already established in plans we already have that are government run or funded.

And he already said those who will pay any increase in taxes if there is one---will be the 1% of the country that already has it. As for those who can't afford it---if you listened, you'd be aware that there would be subsidies and all other avenues to make health care either affordable or bloody free. That means everyone essentially benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. In other words, it's a TAX
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 03:48 PM by brentspeak
And the populace is being made captive customers of the insurance racket whose "coverage" involves raising premiums, deductibles, and rates at whim while simultaneously denying and limiting coverage. Your spin won't change a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #60
97. Uh..hence the reason for the legislation...hello.
Where they can't increase premiums to maximum rates, where there is a choice as to the insurance plan you want at a lower cost----and or at no cost if you are eligible for public option/subsidies for insurance/ or medicaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #46
85. Medicaid is a means tested benefit for those with no Insurance
and no assests as well as very small income. So this idea that Medicaid patients have private insurance as well is news to me, and to millions of Americans. Medicaid has no co-pays here. Your state might be different, I guess, but no one with assets gets Medicaid anywhere I've lived.
So could you back up your assertions with some links or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #85
96. No problem---As the first form of clarity I NEVER said that Medicaid gives charges co-pays.
However you misunderstand my statements.

I said that if you have private insurance medicaid does pay for co-pays that you get on that insurance. Further more those who have Medicaid in my State has to choose to recieved that service (although provided by the state---a line of private insurance. IE My doctors came from GHI.



http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/inde...
If I think I am eligible for Medicaid, should I cancel any other health insurance I might already have?
No. If you currently pay for health insurance or Medicare coverage or have the option of getting that coverage, but cannot afford the payment, Medicaid can pay the premiums under certain circumstances.

Even if you are not eligible for Medicaid benefits, the premiums can still be paid, in some instances, if you lose your job or have your work hours reduced. If you need help with a COBRA premium, you must apply quickly, to determine if Medicaid can help pay the premium.

You may be eligible for the Medicare Buy-in Program. This program pays your Medicare premiums and deductibles.

If you have Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Medicaid may be able to help pay your health insurance premiums.

Do I have to join a managed care plan?
In many counties you can join a plan if there is one available and you want to. However, there are some counties where families will have to join a plan. In these counties there are some individuals who don't have to join. Please check with your local social services department to see if you have to join a plan.


In my State you have to join a plan (ie health insurance provider) and those that have private insurance through their work you can have medicaid (in some cases) pay for the co-pay or in this case premiums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
44. reading this thread is a tax
exclamation point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
53. Many of the responses here -- and the unrecs -- demonstrate how the DLC has taken over GD-P
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 03:36 PM by brentspeak
Do these twits get paid per unrec/post or just by the hour?

BTW: OP rec'd

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
56. Should anyone be fined by the gov't for not giving money to the private insurance industry?

And should anyone be forced by the government to buy private health insurance.

Those seem to be the real bottom line questions to me.

Now I suppose you could consider a fine enforced by the IRS and payable to them as a tax but what it's called isn't the biggest issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
70. Should anyone be forced to buy auto insurance
Own a car and don't buy it here, and sooner or later you go to jail. Ever been hit by an uninsured driver?

I know one does not have the option of going without a body, but niether does one have the option of never getting sick.

As George Carlin put it, "we are all terminally ill". We are born that way and it is just a matter of time.

I am hit by uninsured humans every day. It runs me about $1000 a year or so. I would not mind if we required them to pick up a bit of the tab in the least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. Medical care is not the same as home or car insurance

If millions of people are required to buy private health insurance do you really think the insurance industry will decrease your premiums and/or improve your medical benefits?

Come now.

You don't really believe that, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. Personally
I would prefer a tax and socialized insurance, like the plan in Canada. No one gets to avoid taxes, so the currently uninsured would end up contributing more than they do now, and get better care. The tax could be made progressive so the burden on the poor is not too high. I am not poor and have no objection to paying a higher amount under such a plan, however, everyone should be in the same boat and rowing in the same direction, to the extent they can.

Without a public plan there is no evidence that costs will be controlled. Auto insurance rates did not come down when coverage was mandated. I do not expect mandates to cause lower health insurance rates. However, there is no free lunch. If you are not paying, then someone else is picking up the tab.

A Single payer plan is simpler yet. It is also a mandate, but a mandate with force of law to participate in a publicly run plan. Everyone pitches in and everyone gets benefits. I am good with that too. The notion that the uninsured should or even could get a free ride in this is silly, and no plan proposes this.

A better healthcare system will cost money. Some of it can come from savings, the rest will come from premiums or taxes. I prefer progressive taxes, even though I will likely pay more than my share in a "flat tax" sense. I make a decent living and don't mind.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #70
93. Thank you. Been there, done that myself...
I really don't understand why the mandate is so hard for some to understand, and why some are against it. If a person can't afford the MINIMUM hc plan then they can get a HARDSHIP WAIVER... you're not REQUIRED to purchase something that you cannot afford. There will also be subsidies to help pay for it if needed. The penalty will be enforced if you elect not to sign up at all. I think once everyone comes to the conclusion that the corrupt insurance industry will continue to (unfortunately) have a seat at the table, we'll be able to move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
63. A tax paid to a PRIVATE company, mind you.
That's what is wrong with this mandate.

I have no problem paying a real portion of my taxes towards health care for everyone.

But when I'm forced to pay it to a soulless bloodsucking vampire, that's when I tell them they can fuck off!!! :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Exactly. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blasphemer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #63
94. Exactly!
I have problem paying taxes for public services. If the government isn't running health care (or at the very least giving an open public option), I don't feel there should be a mandate to support a corrupt private industry. They are racketeers pure and simple. The government would be aiding and abetting extortionists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. so what? It'd be like any other public benefit
You'd get health care in return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. One of the resident DLC shills -- right on time
Paid by the hour, or by the post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #64
77. I am not so sure we will get health care in return. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
68. A tax is a tax
and a mandate is a mandate. Why abuse the english language?

I would prefer a tax to a mandate. A tax would likely fund a public plan (like single payer or public option). A mandate is a requirement to buy private health insurance, leaving the private sector as the provider.

A mandate is not a tax, taxes are in fact a better approach.

You don't get to avoid income, social security, or medicare taxes, I am all for more taxes, as long as I get better distributed healthcare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
72. Here's hoping you never get sick, and need the "kindness of strangers"
the beauty of an all-in "mandate" is that no ONE group gets singled out for "blame"..and if you never need care (get hit by a bus at a healthy age), you "lose", but most of us will age and get the chronic ailments that go along with aging.

All in , makes it possible for costs to go down.. It's the bargain that civilized people make.

Families are the ultimate "socialist" unit..parents care for their young, free of charge, and in their declining years, those youngsters usually help their aging parents..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #72
80. Fine. Let health care be a government funded service then
Don't force me to patronize useless sociopathic vultures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rmp yellow Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
73. Question. If i become unemployed, will I have to get health insurance?
Or would I be seen as a $0.00 income person worthy of a full subsidy? (100%).

Or would I be exempted from buying insurance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
81. Bullshit, unless you can be sure that your "body" will never need health care.
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 08:54 AM by Dawgs
What do you want, free health care? Single payer health care wouldn't be free.

I'm not getting your argument. Are you saying that you're okay with not getting health care, even if you need it? Are you willing to carry a note on your person saying, "Don't give me any health care, I choose not to have it".

A mandate is necessary because it's the only way to bring down costs. It's no different than what single payer would require.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. Bullshit. A mandate is not going to lower costs. Only single payer can do that.
Once the heat is off, the insurance companies will continue to find ways to suck in more money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #82
87. I agree a public option or some form of non-profit option would lower costs, but
insurance is not, and should not be the only focus of how to lower health care costs. The cost of delivery is even more important, and varies widely throught the country. There are models of best practices that are lower cost with higher outcomes. If all hospitals were modelled after the Mayo clinic, we could cover everyone, including the uninsured,at a lower cost overall with better outcomes. Read "The Cost Connundrum" and the Darmouth Atlas studies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
83. Well, yeah
On the other hand, if there is a public option AND decently structured subsidies, I have no problem with that particular tax. Remove either one and the mandate is a no-go. Remove the public option and the thing turns into a bonanza for insurance companies, remove well structured subsidies and the whole thing's pointless 'cos people won't be able to afford it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #83
89. agreed . well said n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC