Will a mandate to purchase health insurance...

[SHRED]

...make it into the final Bill?

And will the penalties for not doing so be handled by the IRS?


If this is what comes out then the Democratic Party would absolutely be screwing itself.
Don't count on a "public option" to counterbalance a mandate. Instead count on current plans to be taxed and for that money to go to more corporate insurance via subsidies of those who can't afford insurance. More corporate welfare.

Time to throw the Blue Dogs out!









:mad: :mad:

[emulatorloo]

1. There are 5 BILLS OUT THERE. BAUCUS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS SO CRAPPY

Baucus Bill is the only one pushing heavy punishment.

I have heard no Democrat come out in favor of the Baucus bill except Baucus.

I don't know why the media acts as if the Baucus bill is law already. Most of it is going to get thrown out.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. If no other Democrats other than Baucus supports his bill, you have nothing to worry about

It will die in committee.

[emulatorloo]

3. Yes Baucus bill will die. n/t

[rhett o rick]

7. If only the Blue Dogs, your hero's, would die in committee. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. YOu actually want Democratic members of Congress to die? That is sick!

[rhett o rick]

13. Oh course not. I was speaking figuratively. Although they want Americans to die

for lack of health care.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Which Democratic members of Congress want American to die for lack of health care?

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

17. Every one of them that has been unwilling to support single payer

and thinks we should be forced to buy insurance from the crooks who have been cheating us for years.

Mandated coverage does not guarantee access to health care, it just further entrenches the failing system we have now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. President Obama opposes single payer. Do you honestly believe that he wants people to die?

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

19. He apparently isn't concerned about whether or not they're acutally able to get access to care

as his main goal appears to be to protect the status quo and see to it that the health insurance companies stay healthy - even if we don't.

Perhaps he's listening to the wrong people and he hasn't really figured out how forcing us to continue to pay into a broken system hurts more than it helps.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Or perhaps he believes that the only way that health care reform can pass is

if the bill is not vehemently opposed by insurance companies.

[dflprincess]

22. It is not reform if the purpose is to protect a broken system

(and campaign "contributions") by forcing us to pay into it.

If all the coporate stooges we've elected who claimed they liked single payer but it "couldn't pass" or the time "wasn't right" had stood up and fought for it instead of caving in from the start, we might, at least, be looking at real reform instead of the scam we're being sold.

How often has the "time been right" for progressive change? It has always taken people who were willing to stand up an fight, including members of Congres. We're sorely short on representation like that now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. He wants to fix the system, not destroy it

And that is the fundamental difference between President Obama and single-payer fetishists. He ran on the campaign promise that people would be able to keep their current insurance if they want to.

[dflprincess]

24. None of the current bills are going to "fix the system"

they're going to prolong the agony, but in the end most of us we'll be stuck with the same old crap while the Stephen Hemsleys of the country continue to enrich themselves.

The public "option" won't be open to most of us and I'll bet anyone who is happy with their current insurance is someone who hasn't had to use it for a serious illness. Expanding Medicare to all would have been a much smarter and cheaper way to go and it would actually have provided access not just "coverage". And, as Medicare already has it's structure in place, the expansion could have been started much sooner that these "starting from scratch" exchanges that have been cooked up.

Michael Moore is right, the destruction of the insurance companies is not a bad thing. Contrary to what Obama has said, they serve no purpose.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. You are seeking a quick, unrealistic solution to a complex problem

President Obama realizes this, so he is proposing small but positive changes, knowing that more changes will easier as time goes on.

[dflprincess]

42. Keep telling yourself that Obama is being pragmatic and playing chess

meanwhile a lot of people who are don't have the time to wait will continue to go without health care while they're being force to pay for "coverage". This isn't change and it isn't postive, it's just reenforcing the system we have now.

Face it, Obama and the Blue Dogs have sold us out to the insurance companies because protecting profits and the status quo is more imporatant to them than protecting people.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. President Obama was elected on a platform promising that people could keep their private insurance

He hasn't sold anyone out. He is keeping a promise he made to the American people.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. He also ran on a platform distinctly opposed to mandated

purchase, and he also framed Clinton as being terrible for supporting mandated purchase. What happened to that promise to the American people? Vote for me because she will force you to buy private insurance, this is what he said. Again and again. With commercials and mailers and the works.

[dflprincess]

63. He never said that most of us would not qualify for his public "option"

and would be forced to continue to contribute money to the private insurers.

Obama is too smart to have started bargaining from what should have been the compromise position. He sold us out the day he announced single payer would not even be discussed, making it clear he wasn't interested in any real reform.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Actually, his own campaign ad said that you would be able to keep your employer-paid coverage:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/10/ad_health.html

[rhett o rick]

36. I guess your friends in the insurance industry got to him. Why do you hate America Freddie??? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Why do so many of your posts disappear?

;)

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. If you beleive that someone is violating DU's rules, you should alert a moderator

They are very good at deleting posts which violate DU's rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. A well thought-out arguement backed up with facts would be more convincing

[rhett o rick]

48. Do you get paid by the post Freddie? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. No

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dflprincess]

33. Not anymore he doesn't

he has said it would be a good idea if we were "starting from scratch" (like those goofy exchanges aren't "starting from scratch" and there is no Medicare system to build on).

When Obama was just a state senator he said he supported single payer. He never supported single payer as a presidential candidate but he did oppose mandates (except for covering children). The further up the food chain he goes, the more corporate friendly he gets.

[rhett o rick]

39. He did during the campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. That wasn't when he was running for President

President Obama is a smart guy, and is able learn and grow as a leader.

Here is what his presidential campaign's website says about single payer:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

[dflprincess]

49. "Learn and grow"??

Learning to sell out the people who elected you is growing?

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Leraning that a good bill is better than no bill at all

[dflprincess]

61. A good bill sure,

but not the Insurance Company Profit and Campaign Donation Protection Act he's pushing now.

[rhett o rick]

50. You apparently didnt listen to the video. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. Yes I did. And I am aware that it was from before he was a US Senator

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. If you don't believe me, why don't you see what Obama's website says about it:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. I have no problems making arguements here without making ad hominem attacks against DUers

[rhett o rick]

46. Yes but you fail to ever indicate any stands where you SUPPORT the American people. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. I support President Obama. Do you?

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

25. More concern questions Freddie? You know fully well who they are. Blue fucking Dogs.

You want a list?

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Yes. I would love to see a list of Democratic members of Congress who want people to die due to

lack of health care.

[dflprincess]

64. I'd put Baucus at the top of the list. Not that he so much wants people to die -

he just doesn't care if they do. As long as those campaign "contributions" keep coming in he won't spend a lot of time thinking about the consequences of selling his vote to the insurance companies.

[inna]

9. and the one that is going to be the BASIS for a final bill.

it's a pure fact, but some people for some reason prefer to be in denial - instead of fighting it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

43. It would seem

that some people here even seem to believe that the Baucus bill has already been signed into law. :eyes:

[alc]

4. without mandates you can't cover pre-existing conditions

Otherwise you don't need insurance until you have a condition and they have to cover you. Other things are also dependent on mandates. Without mandates all we get is subsidies for low income (which is good but not enough). Any po won't be different from the current situation (except ceos won't get the money). po won't cover pre-existing conditions or the cost will be outrageous. And as outrageous as private bonuses are, the cost of health care is a real problem that won't be controlled simply by having a po (especially if we have deals with pharma and other providers to not cut costs).

[Oregone]

5. "Otherwise you don't need insurance until you have a condition"

You don't need GOOD insurance until you have a condition, which satisfies mandates. There will be meat and potato plans priced a little cheaper than the penalties that allow people to pretty much wiggle out of comprehensive coverage for a price. People will continue to "game the system", because the system is entirely flawed.

The government has NO BUSINESS mandating the purchase of any service unless it can guarantee EVERY American can purchase an affordable and comprehensive plan (without it affecting their social mobility).

[rhett o rick]

30. Medicare currently has a method. They have very stiff penalities if you delay signing up when you

eligible. you either sign up for part B or the penalty is very stiff.

[NNN0LHI]

32. You are correct

It would be nice if I could wait until I got into a car accident before I purchased car insurance.

But it just doesn't work that way.

Don

[newspeak]

62. yeah, well I was against mandatory auto insurance

unless the government offered something that forced auto insurance to compete. California attempted to pass an initiative where everyone was basically covered and you could go to your private insurance company for additional coverage. But, the insurance industry spent millions to defeat it. It would have insured that the working poor would have coverage (those that had little or no assets). I consider health a right not a privilege. Forcing one to do business with private insurance, an industry who is more concerned with their profits, doesn't sound like much change to me.

I'd rather they extend medicare and schipp. I'm more than willing to pay for medicare, I'm not as willing to pay for a bogus insurance premium with a high deductible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Yes and yes.

Universal = mandatory.

I really don't know why people have such cognitive dissonance about this.

The real question is if people will have some minor assurance that costs will be controlled.

[dflprincess]

20. Big difference between universal = single payer

and universal = mandatory payments to private insurers.

With one you get health care, with the other you just get insurance with no promise you'll get care.

[Matariki]

29. The REAL question is will families have to pay as much as their mortgages for health care?

Especially families with income to high for assistance and who don't get insurance through their jobs.

Will they lose their homes if they don't pay the fine? Have to go to jail? Sell a child into indentured servitude?

[Yo_Mama]

31. The real question

The real question is if people will have some minor assurance that costs will be controlled.

The real question is whether we will be able to get the insurance company to pay for our treatment after we buy our mandatory policies (if we can afford them). Because my experience is that they deny everything they can. Then you basically have to hire a lawyer to sue them, and if you win, you are still stuck with the costs. It is a law. This is gross imbalance in power, and they basically know what they can deny and get away with.

We all have to realize that the mandated coverages are going to increase policy costs, and a lot of people who aren't eligible for subsidies won't be able to afford the coverage. These are people who are buying high-deductible plans right now, because that's all they can afford.

Sorry, I think this is the worst of both worlds.

It seems to me that every time the public hears "public option" or single payer, the poll results report favorable reaction. Every time the public hears "mandated private insurance" the polls drop sharply. Could it be that the public knows something Congress doesn't?

I don't understand why the Democratic party is walking down this path. It hasn't worked in MA. Their costs have gone up, special services to the poor have been cut, 5% of the population is still not covered, and physician wait times are far too long and are still forcing people to go to urgent care clinics or emergency rooms.

And if it hasn't worked in MA, which has much higher average incomes than most US states, I really have to question if it will work for the nation.

On the one hand, I am grateful to the Democratic party for working on the issue. On the other hand, I simply hate, hate, hate the way this is going. I believe it will be a disaster, and I believe those most in need will wind up being impacted the worst.

And no, costs will not be controlled. The high cost of medical care doesn't mostly come from uninsured people. It comes from the very low reimbursements for Medicaid and Medicare patients, which mostly don't pay for all of the costs of treatment. So as Medicare enrollment goes up, private insurance costs will go up unless Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors are raised considerably.

Now, if we all went on Medicare, I have to believe that the negotiations on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements would abruptly get real. And at least we would all know that we wouldn't have to fight just to get our medical claims paid, nor would we have to worry about losing our coverage if we lost our jobs, etc. I'm willing to pay the payroll tax. It would seem expensive up front, but in the long run it would be cheaper and people could plan their lives a lot better.

I'm sorry, I think the Democratic leadership is out of touch with the country. They are better than the GOP, but they still need to wake up to reality before it is too late.

[Obamanaut]

8. If there is a mandate, and if there is a penalty for not purchasing

the program, and if one's income is under $250K, and even these are req'd to purchase - is there any way this is not a tax increase for those whose income is under $250K?

A tax regardless of how it is sugarcoated?

[SHRED]

11. why yes it is

[Bluenorthwest]

60. yes it is

and that is two promised birds killed with one stone as well. He ran opposed to mandates and saying no tax increase of any kind for those under 250K a year.

[Dirtyhairy]

10. A mandate without a public option seems kinda fascist,

[kenny blankenship]

15. That's the ONE thing you can be completely sure will be in the final bill

[Junkdrawer]

16. Yep. As far as THIS Congress and Administration is concerned...

it's the MAIN reason for the legislation: Rescue Health Insurance

[Kansas Wyatt]

51. At the beginning of the year....

The Democratic Party had high poll numbers, and were already claiming Victory in 2010 and 2012.

Then they decided that, in spite of what the People voted for, if they were going to do anything, it had to be the Republican Lite way. Which means, making contracts with the Insurance Industry to drill up the asses of the American People. 'Don't kick them to the curb if they can't pay Mr. Death Merchant, we'll write a law saying that we'll use a colostomy on them to search out and squeeze more money out of them. Then we'll jam it all the way up to their brain stem for every last dime.' After all, the Democratic Party is clearly looking out for our 'best interests' when it comes to Health Care Reform. Oops... I mean Insurance Reform.

Today... In case they haven't looked lately, those 30% Republicans have made a come-back and are poised to take Seats back in Congress. I wonder if they have realized, why?

If this SELL-OUT to the Insurance Industry (we have not even touched on the Pharmaceutical and Medical Industries yet) becomes law, we will see the Republican Party come roaring back to the White House, House, and Senate. The 'oh so intelligent' Leaders of the Democratic Party will be scratching their heads wondering why the People would vote against their alleged best interests.... AGAIN! And then, it will start all over... 'If we only had control of the House or Senate.....'