The "Public Option" has been a red herring all along, to divert you from the real issue: MANDATES

I tried to say this before and was called an Obama hater--that didn't hurt my feelings at all, but it does show how difficult it is to get some people to face facts.

In my thread two days ago, I said that what we would get was a watered-down public option that would, most likely, be a fig leaf and pretty useless against the insurance companies and Big Pharma. That's looks like exactly what we are getting.

The key to this bill was MANDATES: Is it right to expect that everyone be required BY LAW to buy a faulty product from an insurance company just for the privilege of breathing in the US? Everyone said, "Oh we buy car insurance" but I pointed out in my thread here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I only have to buy liability in most states, and I can choose the car I want to insure: old or new, cheap or expensive, and have some control over what I pay. I can also choose to have no car at all.

BUT MANDATES FOR HEALTH INSURANCE ARE DIFFERENT.

The debate over the so-called public option has always been a red herring. Its purpose, night after night, on Rachel or Keith or other news shows, has been to shift the focus to a relatively unimportant part of the bill (at least as far as Congress was concerned, since they planned to tank whatever good it could do anyway) and to take our focus away from the big shock of MANDATES.

Remember, the first thing we all reacted to in the Baucus bill was the mandates. Suddenly, middle class people who are just over the line in terms of income but who are struggling nonetheless are being REQUIRED to add another big budget item BY LAW.

And yes, it's big budget. I went to the Massachusetts health care website and signed in as a family of 4 living in Boston with both parents in their late 30s and two kids, making 67,000 year. Here were my results.

All include prescription drugs.

Bronze plan: deductibles and co-pay necessary: $823.31 - $1,176.00/mo (PER MONTH, folks)

Silver plan: Moderate co-pay. Some deductible maybe. $1,037.65 - $1,690.00/mo

Gold Plan: Low co-pay. No deductible. $1,520.98 - $2,166.00/mo

(Edited to add: Take home pay for this family of four, taking out Federal Income Tax, is about $4000/month. They are required to spend 1/4 to 1/2 of that now on health insurance.)

So what will end up with, ladies and gentlemen, is a LAW that will require us to put aside $1,000-$2000 extra per month (on average) ASIDE for health care--edited to add: not health care, health INSURANCE. Health care costs are on top of that.

If you are making 66K with two kids and two parents and you live in a major metro area like Boston, do you have an extra 1 or 2 GRAND per month to give to the insurance companies?

Now, yes, there is a Commonwealth Care program for people under certain limits. If I make 65K with a spouse and 2 kids, I can apply for that. So far, I have been having a hard time actually figuring out how to navigate the online links. There are some places in MA which only have one company servicing these health needs. In general, though, the health plan is listed here

(If you can figure out how to get quotes for this, the zip code I used was 02116)

At any rate, the Baucus plan was always a giveaway to the insurance companies. The public option drew our focus AWAY from the travesty of mandates to a fight over something that was only going to be a fig leaf.

LOL!

The only hope is that the mandate provisions do not survive the conference comittee.

indeed....

It's a sucky plan.

This has all the bad aspects of that plan and makes it worse and then doesn't cover most people to boot! And people wanna "celebrate" this. Arghh!

Just curious.

not Hillary's 2008 plan.

I know it had mandates and it looked a lot like this one.

It was her 1993 plan that covered everyone, and would have prevented us from dealing with this plan today.

anything would actually work competitively to reign in prices was universal coverage.

is too important to allow to become progressive, would refer to the Obama Adminsitration as the "negotiated solution."

Che would know - he studied how in Banana Republics, after the CIA made a mistake and put in someone so tyranical and so non-persoanble as to have the people about to go off revolting in the streets, that after that mistake, a different type of leader would be selected. And then through elections, supposedly "free," the populace would choose this new person, and he would push through policies so similar to what the despot might have that the policies woul dnot be distinguishable.

Powers that Be Want:

No Indictments or Trials against those who have tortured -- Obama Adminstration CHECK

Huge Government give-aways of Main Street Dollars to Wall Street, with no oversight or meaningful regulation -- Obama Adminstration CHECK

Expansion of the War in Afghanistan - Obama Adminstration CHECK

Passage of A Health Insurance "Reform" Bill that will be a giveaway to Health Insurers, Big Medical Industry and Big Pharma -- Obama Administration (Hiding behind the smoke screen of bipartisianship and "Nobility" of being "concillatory" CHECK

I am very grateful that I never have to see Condi Rice's ferret face again. And ditto that sentiment re: Ashcroft, Rummie, Cheney (Okay Cheney is enough of a weasel that I still am forced to see him)

I really am grateful for those people riding off into oblivion. Really I am. But I wanted policy changes as well.

I so wanted policy changes I can't tell you. The disappointment is making me so angry.

Buying Brand Obama
by Chris Hedges

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush's secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

More at link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/04

And no, for those who are about to suggest it, this doesn't mean that I prefer brand McCain/Palin. Obama will make/has made progress on some social issues. But there will never be a serious contender to the White House, who will challenge the status quo, in terms of American imperialism or the economy. The rich will continue to get richer, even if they have to steal it from the middle class & our sons & daughters will be fed into the war machine, which is quickly becoming our only industry.

How clever to refer to a corporate product as a "brand."
Utterly accurate.
Produced, marketed for consumption, by the corporate PTB.

BHN

apologists. It does not matter a wit if we have a 60 vote "majority" in the Senate and a huge majority in the House if we are not passing legislation to benefit THE PEOPLE.

This is not a public plan: it is a public subsidized (for some) private plan. And private insurance works on numbers. Without everyone buying in by mandate, the plan can't work.

eligible. Seems to work fine.

I support Medicare Part E.

why they signed on from the start.
That's why the single payer advocates were shown the door from day one.

Because this was always about more money for private insurance.

I wrote everybody and despaired when all the coverage in August was about the temper tantrums about a 'government takeover.' My message: they're going to wish the government had taken it over when they see what the insurance companies have in store for them. If a strong public option had made it, there might have been some mitigation of premium costs. But, nothing out there now will provide the kind of competition which could have driven premium costs down a little.

Your post is so right on!

My wife's plan covers us; it is a part of her benefit package.

If you were to leave your wife's plan you would be required to buy private insurance or face a fine.

ask, or you can shop elsewhere and see if someone else will ask less.

Now that insurance companies are expected to cover people with pre-existing conditions i would expect your rates to increase. After all, the insurance company has to pay for their overhead and they have to pay a profit to their investors,

I don't believe there are any kind of price caps in any of the bills, unless you are low income and then you get some kind of subsidy to help you cover whatever the private companies decide to charge.

.

?

Universal, in Canadian healthcare terms, is provided to everyone with NO mandatory transfers of monthly income to the insurance industry.

Surely in such an enlightened society, the conscientious objectors can simply stop paying taxes, right?

Canadians pay taxes and all get the same coverage. Universal uniform coverage.

In the US, we would be paying insurance companies and still not get the same coverage. Notice the three plans in the OP.

Paying taxes to one's government to get equal healthcare across the board is not the same as paying insurance companies so that people get different kinds of coverage: there are at least 5 different kinds of coverage in MA: 3 are based on what you can pay (see the OP) and two are different kinds of subsidized plans that cover less. The plan Obama is willing to settle for won't even be able to cover everyone.

I wish that you were better informed.

If you are surprised that universal care implies a mandate, then I don't think you should throw "misinformed" around so liberally.

Universal=Mandatory. Period.

"universal uniform coverage"? Is that *really* what you think all the fighting has been about?

My expectations have never been all that high, but I know you can do better than this.

Please learn how. And please leave others on this thread alone.

But the "others" thank you for galloping to their rescue.

So, I can't hold you accountable.

But thanks for kicking my thread. I appreciate your keeping it in the spotlight. We all do what we can.

Health care won't be fixed without compelling everyone to participate.

eligible for the public option.

But Jeff here is conflating a true uniform and universal taxpayer funded, government run healthcare with a law requiring everyone to buy insurance, a law which cannot apply to the poor or even much of the working class, and certainly not to the indigent. The law then requires subsidies to be paid by taxpayers for the poor and working class, as well (perhaps) as a public option (whatever that ends up being) for the uninsurable and the indigent. This latter healthcare by mandate does not provide uniform coverage and not even universal coverage since millions are not even covered.

Jeff doesn't think. So I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

..that you merit anything but ridicule.

If mandates are the problem, explain to me how a single payer system is optional.

That simple question is the one you are trying to avoid by seeking to get this part of your thread locked.

He can't explain his position other than conflating two unlike things. But thanks for kicking my thread. You're a sweetheart.

Those who aren't eligible for the public option already have insurance. A mandate isn't a problem for them, right?

I didn't say you could talk yet.

LOL!!!!!!

and they'd rather have a policy that actually COVERED something.

It doesn't take half of your income and the insurance companies can't deny coverage. WTF are you talking about?

He usually doesn't.

I got past the all caps, then within five words I realized that replying to you would be like talking to my chair.

The bills under consideration all prohibit this everything you posit. Read more, post less.

including the repressive Baucus plan, which is why we have to listen to what they say very carefully.

... and then ignore it all in lieu of hysterical speculation, apparently.

Then come back and talk to me.

Until then, enjoy your Kool Aide.

For info on this, check out tonight's Countdown, 1st 51 seconds.

Pelosi's plan leaves 18 million uninsured:; public plan will charge higher premiums than avg private

plans:--Laurence O'Donnell, Oct 30, 2009

On Countdown tonight. Laurence O'Donnell

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdo ...

Story #5, first 51 seconds.

I was denied Mass Health but given an option of several insurance plans. The one I chose has no deductibles and I pay $10 per office visit and prescription. I just Paid $10 for an eye exam and the insurance plan pays up to $125 for my glasses.

I don't know what I'd get if I had a family, but I believe Mass Health would be able to tell you.

Your age and your zip code play an important part in the calculation of those rates.

But the amounts in the OP are for a family of 4.

AFTER Mass Health accepted my application. I have a problem with that website you are using. I don't think you get the true estimate.

And your zip code is probably different. Also, are you on Medicare as well?

I calculated for 2. The other person is on Medicare but did not qualify for Mass Health. He is over 65 and has the VA, which frankly, I wish we all had.

That can change a lot of things. How much did you come up with?

I am keeping my income low to get through school. My point is that I think you need to call Mass Health to see exactly where you'd come in on their scale. If you have kids, it makes a huge difference.

I would have qualified for a lot more if I had kids.

saw on "Frontline", when a Massachusetts family was doing the same calculation on the same website.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundameri...

I finally just ended up making calls and visiting offices. So far, what they've told me in person and on the phone has been correct. I am extremely happy with my coverage. They even pay for my enrollment fee for a health club and 25% of the yearly bill. Plus I qualify for dental...not total, but even part is good, for me.

Oh, and BTW, they told me my co-pay would be $25 a visit. It's $10.

I imagine that you are on the subsidized health care due to your low income.

Check your PM.

The state provides money for that. It's the middle class that will get screwed here. Eventually, there will be two classes: the super rich and the low income.

should have to disclose which criminal insurance bastards payed them to do so.

FUCK corporate mandates. They are blatantly unconstitutional, and fascist.

...are for a plan that includes an individual mandate but no public option. Even a negotiated public option, like the House's bill, should bring costs down considerably.

mostly take the uninsurable and the indigent--everyone the insurance companies don't cover now anyway. It's not an option for everyone: it's a dumping ground.

Also, Mass has two subsidized programs for people below certain income levels.

There is a reason for that, if you are interested. It's because the pool will be charging rates that are no lower than what people can get at an already up and running established private insurance pool who already has reimbursemnt rates and contract with care providers.

The public pool has to attempt to get care providers in thir network, but without any enrolles it's very hard to promise how many patient visits a provider can expect and it's hard to negotiate low rates unless there is volume.

Also, there are a lot of people who aren't allowed to sign up for the public option, because there are builtin firewalls.

The CBO says that at best there will be 9 or 10 million enrolles in the public option (house bill) by 2019.

10 million is a tiny pool, and it won't have any effect at all on insurance pricing, according to the best estimates of the Congressional Budget Office.

now maybe you know something I don't. (Or something the CBO doesn't) Why do you say that the pool should bring prices down considerably?

:thumbup:

The fact is that tens of millions of Americans could never afford those kinds of outlays.

insurance finance reform.

Or even price controls.

it's a BS handout to insurance companies that will not solve the healthcare issue, because INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTH CARE.

Great post.

It all blows my mind.

if our employers don't provide it.

I'm not coming home anytime soon. I honestly couldn't afford that self-employed.

I make a decent living, so I don't qualify for subsidies. But there is no way I could cover the cost of living, my mortgage, my retirement, my children's education funds, taxes, AND, in addition, health care premiums of that amount.

Even if I could do it, I wouldn't have enough to do a damn thing with. What is the cost on the society? Is it worth it? Would you trade being a slave for being able to go to a doctor?

I gave up health insurance for the first 5 years of graduating college and running my own business. I saved up enough to pay off 10 years of my mortgage and immigrate to a single-payer country. Though, it was hell living on the edge and not having great access to doctors (as well as operating on myself on occasion). The choice I made allow me to ensure some degree of upward mobility for my children. I'm not sure what I would of done if my nose was forced down to the grindstone during that time.

I wish I were out of the country right now too.

system?

can you get healthcare?

I don't know all the rules and such regarding marriage. I don't think its that difficult to get your residency if you are married. The moment you are an official resident, you can apply for healthcare.

Not picky about gender....

I can't believe more people don't think of it. After the American people selected (whatever on the terminology) Bush twice (clearly not learning from the Reagan/Bush years), it was obvious where this country was. Despite all the bitching and moaning, everyone stayed put. Maybe those policies of mass murder of others and the theft of the people just made some uncomfortable, but it rocked me to my soul. Plus, I see greener pastures

I checked the immigration site for Canada. I was a couple points short of qualifying...if I'd been fluent in French I may have made it.

Instead, I went back to school for med lab tech, for which there is a ww shortage and which, as a result, has similar pay wherever you go.

Time to revisit Canada and see what I'd need to do to take the cert test there...

They may not want me. If I can sell my house, I'll have enough $$ but I'm getting up in age and they want younger people. But I will have a needed skill, which I didn't have when I checked before.

If you make the points, theyll probably let you in. They really need skilled people, and generally love immigrants.

for a while, but I've since broadened my prospects to include any country that offers some form of socialized healthcare.

Also I'll marry anyone (or be civil unioned in the places that allow it for immigration purposes ) but I'd much prefer the men.

Q3JR4.
Former student with a B.S. in physics and lots of science and math teaching experience who enjoys conversation, long walks on the beach, sex with men, looking for a relationship with a Canadian, European, or other citizen from a country that offers some form of socialized medicine (the sex with men part is mandatory, but will consider all offers).

Do they even have divorce in canada or is everyone in such a perrennial state of bliss that that doesn't happen?

I started to study French late last summer when it wasn't looking that great for Obama. Then I stopped studying it when he was elected and started talking about healthcare, green jobs and energy policy.

I've started once again to study french. I figured I'd move to one of the predominantly French provinces so as not to look suspicious.

Also, what did it cost you. Please answer that. And what are your healthcare premiums?

Is there anyway that an illegal alien to canada can buy an insurance policy there, like a travel policy?

We've also had a baby recently, and I have a surgery scheduled in a few weeks. All legal residents can use their system...you pay into it after all. Its paid through taxes (and in BC a small premium of $108 a month for an entire family). And as I said, my mandated premiums in the US would be more than my total taxes (health-care included) in Canada. In fact, hell, instead of being forced to pay $13K in private premiums, Canada is paying us that this year for our children (daycare benefit, maternity, child tax benefit).

They say you need to prove you have $15K in liquid cash. Honestly, you could so much as borrow it and get a bank statement, though thats probably frowned upon and not really kosher (so Im not recommending it, but heard people have done it).

I think the application & landing fees for me, my wife, and child was around $3 grand maybe. Then medical tests of $400 or so a piece. There is some miscellaneous stuff like FBI background checks, notarized copies and stuff.

If you are organized and do it yourself, you don't need a lawyer and you can save money. They have all the directions on their immigration site (apply as "Skilled Worker")

Sure the Danish pay higher taxes, but look what they get in return - free health care, free education, free childcare & that's just for starters. If the average American would add up these costs along with their current tax bill & compare that figure to a higher tax rate without the costs we pay on our own, I suspect most would come out ahead paying higher taxes & having more government provided benefits & services. But we've been successfully brainwashed to believe that socialism is an evil method to give your money to people who don't deserve it.

on edit: I use Denmark as an example because I recently saw a documentary about their quality of life after a study came out saying they were the happiest nation.

You can't let your liking for someone take away your logic.

If the Democratic do this to the American people, They will pay for this election time, VOTE them all out. They don't have no back bone to stand with the people. They sold their souls, And the poor and the middle class are going to suffer. It's sad,If Obama sign this Bill he will be a one time president.

I'm lucky in that my Dems are good solid populist (well, except for Amy Klobuchar).

However, if I had a Blue Dog Congresscritter, I would do one of two things:

1) Get together with like-minded people and support a primary challenger

2) If that failed, vote third party. Yes, that might bring in a Republican, but IMHO, the difference between a Blue Dog and a Republican is tiny, the difference being that the Blue Dogs PRETEND to be for the people.

I'll definitely support a primary challenger to Amy Klobuchar.

I'll bet Jane Hamshire at Firedoglake.com is keeping track.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

here in this area. But to say they are 'facilities' does not express how vast, Byzantine and vatican-city-esque they are with fully grown palm trees planted in advance lining the approach to admin, receiving, multi-story wings taking off like a university campus but they did pave the parking lot and build the parking structure first put the lights in too so you know they were prolly thinking about people needing some where to park and see where they're going and stuff hello!! They're Kaiser-Permanente!? There's a highly visible red monument sign out front too, on the street, that states in clear, indisputable terms: No Emergency Services

We did we tossed that one around and could not figure how a medical facility would be allowed to frame their services in such a way as to define 'elite' - not even: Emergency Services By Appointment Only - cause it's not like busting onto a military base or medi research facility after a bread knife mishap. They're right there. Using their turn signals to go off & on the same street I drive on

What does figure, especially after watching all this adventurist capital being pumped into the health insur co's world of tomorrow, is that they are deeply invested in mandates and have every reason to conclude that their efforts will be returned several fold as a result

Where is this "no emergencies" facility pray tell?

You can MapQuest at E. Bidwell & Hwy 50, Folsom, CA and follow just up E. Bidwell and see the project from some months back before the palm trees

I'll take a look. How is that area economically?

but i'm sure the judicial branch will join the legislature in FUCKING the citizens out of their money.

..

a huge one.

he was against the private insurance mandates before he fully embraced them.
is he taking lessons from john kerry?

And with any public option that's what we'll have, a weak almost nothing bill...but at least our foot is in the door to move ultimately towards single payer....

I had no confidence in the spineless corporate Dems, it all a smokescreen making it the easiest possible bill for the insurance companies....

But our foot is in the door with a public option, something the republicans and insurance companies dread...they know if we are on it, it can only grow....

If we accept it as that's all we can do then the insurance corporations along with the slime republicans will find ways to weaken it even further and ultimately dump it...

So which do you want...I want a foot in the door, because that's all the Dems were ever going to give us....right now....And we have to force it to grow!!

by the middle class.

And it ain't our foot.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/debbierlus/32...

Thanks for posting it.

Mandates are unconstitutional. We cannot be forced to buy something we cannot afford from people we do not trust.

"OBAMA: That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/09/transcript-o... /

(Yeah, it's Faux, but the transcript is right)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/once-op...

Once Opposed to 'Forcing' Americans to Get Health Insurance, President Obama Now Says His Thinking Has 'Evolved'

"Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy health care," Mr. Obama told Iowa reporters in November 2007. "And unfortunately she hasn't told anybody how she would enforce this mandate."

During a contentious debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, Mr. Obama said "the only difference between Senator Clinton's health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated -- forced -- them to get health care. That's not what I'm seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They -- they desperately want it. But the problem is they can't afford it."

Back then, the person that he used to be, understood that you cannot force money out of people who just don't have it. And he knew back then, that forcing them would have to include a 'punishment' for being poor. That person would never have compared car insurance to Health Care.

He seems to change his mind a lot, I've noticed. Maybe that's what he meant by 'change' after all.

This is fascinating.

I try to pay attention to this "health insurance reform" debate.
Has Obama or any of his spokespeople explained how his mandate
is going to be enforced?

For a couple of days a few weeks ago the subject of IRS enforcement
was discussed. Then dropped. Almost completely.

You'd think if the (R)'s really wanted to kill this bill they'd talk about this.

Try asking people in your daily life if they know they'll have to provide
"acceptable proof of insurance" when they file their 1040's. Few even
know what I'm talking about to begin with. It will be interesting to see the
reaction from those too busy to pay attention.

Obama and his insiders like Emanuel know that most people can't remember
what happened last week, let alone a year and a half ago when O campaigned
against mandates. They must laugh themselves silly when they think about how
they jerk the people around and keep getting away with it.

I haven't heard President Obama explain how they will enforce it yet, although I think he has said before that he is against fines. However, as we can see from other positions he has taken, his thinking may have 'evolved' on this also.

To answer your question though, the Baucus Bill included fines of at least $3000.00 for people who could not afford to buy premiums from the Insurance Industry. From the beginning it was obvious that this was a bill that would further criminalize poverty.

Considering that the Insurance Industry contributed to the writing of this bill, that was no surprise. Progressives objected to these huge fines, and they managed to get them reduced. Not much has been written about this so I do not know what was left in the bill. I do know that the Insurance Industry, despite being handed a windfall in new, mandated customers and without any competition, went wild over the reduction of the fines. Should that surprise anyone, considering how little they care about people?

I have not heard this before. From your post:

Try asking people in your daily life if they know they'll have to provide
"acceptable proof of insurance" when they file their 1040's. Few even
know what I'm talking about to begin with.

Do you have any info on this? If this is true, I foresee possibly millions more Americans going to jail as a result of this bill. Many will go anyhow, if they cannot buy insurance, fail to be included in the 3% eligible to qualify for the miserable 'Public Option' now included in the bill when they cannot pay fines.

It's outrageous to learn that Obama subscribes to the rightwing talking point that compares a life to a car. I just had this argument last week with Rightwingers and even they did not like being accused of comparing the two. I had no idea then that Obama had made the same comparison. I'm glad none of them told me this as I probably would not have believed them. More and more it is looking like we've been fooled.

I know that there isn't a final bill yet but this is what I'm reading-and I find it outrageous that this is ignored by our "media"-

"...Chairman Max Baucus's bill includes the so-called individual mandate, along with what he calls a $1,900 "excise tax" if you don't buy health insurance. (It had been as much as $3,800 but Democrats reduced the amount last week to minimize the political sticker shock.) And, lo, it turns out that if you don't pay that tax, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail, or both...

"...Under questioning last week, Tom Barthold, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, admitted that the individual mandate would become a part of the Internal Revenue Code and that failing to comply "could be criminal, yes, if it were considered an attempt to defraud." Mr. Barthold noted in a follow-up letter that the willful failure to file would be a simple misdemeanor, punishable by the $25,000 fine or jail time under Section 7203..."

"So failure to pay the mandate would be enforced like tax evasion"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504...

"Health care reform means more power for the IRS"

"...if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers..."

The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can't afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it..."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-...

Here's the google string I used for the preceding: obama health care irs

Lots of stuff posted on blogs but above is from actual news orgs.

That this is not discussed is, well, curious to say the least. Especially when contrasted with Obamas statement during the campaign about Hillary not disclosing enforcement mechanisms...They would, under present bills, REWRITE THE TAX CODE and there is silence from those that should be informing the citizens.

"More and more it is looking like we've been fooled."
Bait and switch. Hope and change. It would be one thing if Obama actually campaigned on this mandate thing but the fact that he used it against Hillary and then "changed his mind" is frankly outrageous.

Here is the burning question: Why aren't the (R)'s shouting this from the rooftops?

Because they want a mandate too. And the IRS is the only way to enforce this. I heard Dolt, err, i mean Dole say he's all for the mandates. Maybe he can talk because he's not running. But the silence is deafening.

You ought to make this an OP, this needs to be seen and read.

But coming from the Baucus, Insurance Industry written bill, it is not a surprise although if it were ever to become law, it would make the charges that the so-called Health Care bill would criminalize poverty not only true, but a nightmare for ordinary Americans.

Mandated Insurance IS a Republican idea. Romneycare is Mandated Insurance without a pubic option. In Mass right now, there are still over a half a million uninsured and the costs, as predicted, are rising. Fines are in place in Mass also, although I haven't found any information on how or if they have been enforced.

I have been amazed at the rightwing opposition to the Baucus Bill since it seems to have everything they wished for. Forcing everyone to pay, and punishing those who cannot.

As far as involving the IRS, I would be surprised if Libertarians, like Ron Paul and many of the tea-baggers would not be up in arms over it.

I cannot imagine this passing if it is true. My understanding of the 'subsidies' was that they would go through the private Insurance Industry, where at least one third would be lost in overhead. But I may have misunderstood that.

Thanks for the information. The House bill is nearly 2000 pages long so it's impossible to say what may be hidden in that. I think one thing bloggers could do is divide it up and assign people to read a number of pages to make sure the entire bill is read and understood before anyone signs on to it.

As far as Obama's change of mind on Mandates, I supported him in large part because I did not like Hillary's adaption of Romneycare. Sad to see that in the end it didn't make a difference.

This one's for you:

noticing!

Thanks, CrispyQ, sometimes I think it's just me but that made me laugh.

Coke and Pepsi are pretty much the same.

telling us we'd better like it or else!

Fuck them!!!

don't take any of their bullshit... I know I won't.

My brothers both make around or less than 20,000 a year. Would they have to pay a fine for not being able to afford healthcare?