I withdraw any support or indication of such in regards to the mandates in the Baucus bill

[TheKentuckian]

Not for ideological reasons though they certainly weigh in to all our decisions and color all perceptions but I believe that it always brings a serious element of danger to critical thinking, discourse, and connection with reality. That is something that I personally have to keep in mind every step of the way because at the center of my political belief galaxy there is a super-massive black hole of near anarchist individual freedom which then has every structure and the sense of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one built around it that.

As a person I fight against the "you can't tell me what to do" urges and ideology so over the years it has become important for me to strongly counterweight the natural reactionary response to an idea like mandates for individuals of any sort.
Well, I tried this one on and have come to the conclusion that it doesn't fit.

This is for two principle reasons. The first is that it is contextually illogical. The whole background thought process and politics of this measure has been that it would be unwise and tumultuous to abandon the employer based model.
A model that creates a lot of problems and lack of self determination issues for hardworking citizens and appears to be an onerous burden for companies struggling to compete with their counterparts in lower wage and less regulated countries that have universal health care systems but that isn't the discussion at this time so we'll deal with the matters at hand, an employer based system.

If the system is EMPLOYER based then shouldn't employers be the one with the mandates and dictated to what levels of plans are acceptable? I haven't thought of or heard anything like a coherent argument of why citizens should be the ones mandated when the system is based around employers and employers get to make the choices on the coverage that the individual is forced to buy or be fined for breathing. I could tolerate the mandate if the system is built around the individual and gives us the ability to choose from quality options that I control and don't need to pray that my next job will offer or will have the size to negotiate reasonable pricing.

So, NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES ON AN EMPLOYER BASED SYSTEM.

Secondly, there is a serious issue of function. Being mandated by the government to buy a product that they refuse to regulate pricing on in any real and immediate way. Sure, there is about a 10% percentage (hopefully) cap for premiums but that is a best case scenario that still leaves the individual on the hook for co-pays, deductibles, and out of pocket is fucking unacceptable. Locking people into contributing 10% of their income just for the chance for a discount if they need health services but noticeably a dollar amount as a cap rather than the percentage allowed to set the baseline.

Unacceptable for the citizen and unacceptable for the common good because the government is saddling its self with the burden of subsidizing to varying degrees the entire population up to a fair bit past the median income to to make it even possible to make minimal plan premiums which rise at three or so times inflation.


So, NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE PRICE AND QUALITY OF COVERAGE.

Without choice and independence hand in hand with affordability and dependability a mandate is pretty much a form of slavery.

***Edit***
Edited to reflect a more complete thought that it is the mandates in the plan that I can't support so unrec as needed and the misspell. Thanks

[ddeclue]

1. Well said +1! K&R n/t

[derby378]

2. Along the lines of mandates to buy coverage...

My current health insurance plan from BlueCross BlueShield has made a little adjustment. Now, if I want to choose my own doctor, I cannot - I can only choose a "group," such as an individual clinic, that is covered under the BCBS network, and then I am assigned a doctor out of that group. If that doctor doesn't do a good job of looking after my health, my only recourse is typically to seek out another group.

What must be preserved is the ability to choose one's own doctor. No ifs, ands, or buts. Fortunately, my doctor is pretty cool, but I'm one of the lucky ones.

[DireStrike]

3. My position exactly.

Excellent points I hadn't considered about the employer based system.

WHY are we saying its a good thing to trap people in their job, for need of whatever meager benefits they get compared to the rest?

[truedelphi]

4. Glad you have found some reasons to scrap your support or interest in

This Insurance company give away.

however, the fact of the matter is that the real reason that the Baucus model is bad is this one - It is not single payer universal health care.

Why does it make sense for a President to stand around saying that "I have always thought that the "Single Payer Universal Health Care Approach" was the best, but and however, SINCE we are already plugged into a system, then we have to work with that system."

That statement doesn't make any sense. Obama is basically saying "We have a bad system and it's killing people and it's hard on the people it doesn't outright kill, but it's the one we are using, so let's keep using it, with a few modifications here and there."

We either need reform, or we don't. Like another DU'er said, "If it's a crisis, then we do need to upset the apple cart." And to me it seems to be a Cover Story so that we can watch the Lobbyists for the Insurers get away with this.

[Oregone]

6. I disagree

"the real reason that the Baucus model is bad is this one - It is not single payer universal health care"

There are many successful health care models aside from single-payer. Single-payer, itself, is a centrist compromise position anyway, being that it still allows profit in the delivery of the healthcare (just not the insurance). Some countries have moved beyond that, and some have not move yet to it but still have good results. It isn't the ONLY good alternative, as this sentence suggests (though it would work particularly well with the current US delivery model).

That talk aside, any small improvements and regulations on the industry should be welcomed. Any. If thats the best they can do, it should be at least embraced. BUT...when you pair minor improvements with a mandate that forces people to buy into private insurance, its a complete game changer.

[bvar22]

5. You can't.

You have to be from Texas to "withdrawl" something.

Other than that, I agree.

I would also apply this to the current bill in the House (HR 3200).

[TheKentuckian]

7. You haven't heard me talk. I am from Kentucky (nt)