General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnce Upon a Time, Liberals Hated the Individual Health Insurance Mandate
Once Upon a Time, Liberals Hated the Individual Mandate
by Avik Roy, Contributor
April 2, 2012
Theres a lot of talkmuch of it inaccurateabout the minority of conservatives who supported the individual mandate in the past, but oppose Obamacares requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. But these critics have devoted less attention to the fact that many liberalsincluding President Obamaopposed the individual mandate in the past. The liberals hated it, notes Jonathan Gruber in a recent New York Times profile. People forget that.
This is not real reform, said Howard Dean of Obamacares mandate in December 2009. Youre going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company thats going to take on average 27 percent of your money so they can pay CEOs 20 million dollars a year and theres no choice about that. If you dont buy that insurance, youre going to get a fine. This is a bill that was fundamentally written by staffers who are friendly to the insurance industry, [endorsed] by Senators who take a lot of money from the insurance industry, and its not health care reform. And I think its too bad that it should come to this Id kill the bill entirely.
Dean, to his great credit, has been consistent all along in his criticism of the mandate. Not so for President Obama, who on the campaign trail in 2008 ridiculed Hillary Clintons support of the mandate. I dont think the problem is that people dont want health insurance, he told Ellen DeGeneres in 2008, its that they cant afford it if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesnt. As President Obamas staffers began pushing for a mandate, Ron Suskind reports, Obama expressed concern about Constitutional challenges to the provision. As we know now, he was right to have done so.
Former AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, representing the core Democratic constituency, was even more ardent than the President in his hatred of the individual mandate. In 2006, when Mitt Romney was about to sign his Massachusetts legislation, Sweeney went ballistic. Who would have thought that Massachusettslong considered a bastion of progressive thinkingwould take a page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook for health care reform? he asked. Forcing uninsured workers to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes and fines is the cornerstone of Mr. Gingrichs health care reform proposals. And it is unconscionable that Massachusetts has adopted this misguided individual mandate.
Read the full article at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/02/once-upon-a-time-liberals-hated-the-individual-mandate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In SCOTUS case, Obamacare has industry allies
by Timothy P. Carney
Senior Political Columnist
March 25, 2012
Corporate America's stance on the Obamacare case before the high court this week will surprise those who followed Obama's narrative or most news coverage of the law, which was supposedly a broadside to the special interests. But back then, health-sector lobbies either supported the bill or at least supported its core provisions. Today, industry briefs before the court show the same lack of "special-interest" opposition.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts filed an amicus brief with the court in support of Obama's Department of Health & Human Services. The insurer writes that it played a central role in crafting Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health-care law that served as the prototype of Obamacare, and that it "remains firmly committed to the 2006 health care reform and the individual mandate, and believes that the closely related reforms enacted by Congress in 2010 will further advance important economic and social goals."
The American Hospital Association is a $20-million-a-year lobby (the third-biggest lobbying organization in terms of spending since 1998, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics). The AHA has filed briefs in support of the law, and its amicus brief before the Supreme Court argues that "the court should uphold the individual mandate."
The health-care law provides new taxpayer subsidies to hospitals, and the individual mandate could reduce the "uncompensated care" hospitals now provide for the uninsured. Plus, more universal and subsidized health coverage could allow hospitals to raise prices.
Read the full article at:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/scotus-case-obamacare-has-industry-allies/446831
Cleita
(75,480 posts)since we got stuck with the insurance exchange, we know the only way it will work is with the mandate.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)So let's unstick ourselves and hope the "Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act" mandate goes down in flames.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Back to going to the emergency room with fake ID's??
Liquorice
(2,066 posts)it didn't have the mandate. Obama primary supporters argued strenuously that the mandate itself was wrong, not his insurance plan. I personally had many debates about it as a Clinton supporter, and I always argued that the mandate was important because the plan wouldn't be nearly as good without it. This was a very contentious argument that went on all through the primary. It's somewhat irritating that people don't seem to remember that now.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)facts about the mandate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Do you even check the sources you use? Or is any article that's critical of Obama OK with you?
Forward by Ron Fucking Paul?
Praise for Obamanomics:
"Conservative muckraking at its best ... an indispensible field guide to the Obama years."
-Columnist Jonah Goldberg
"Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people."
-Congressman Ron Paul
"This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works."
-David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama
Awesome.
Sid
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Nine Points About the Republican Budget
Why Paul Ryans Path to Prosperity just might succeed
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=7679
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/roy.htm
Yikes!
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a member of Mitt Romneys Health Care Policy Advisory Group.
http://blogs.forbes.com/people/aroy/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That's fucking classic.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Of course, the Republicans get a pass, as usual.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)way too much misinformation about the mandate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603
Still, now we have OP's pushing articles by Romney advisers?
Yikes!
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)emulatorloo
(44,159 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Did I ever tell you how much I highly respect you?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Fewer benefits at a higher cost in order to enrich the insurance, big pharma and general for-profit hospital industry.
Notice the big increases in health insurance premiums since the "health care reform" was signed into law?
You ain't seen nothin yet!
When the insurance industry gets a lock on our health care system forcing us to buy their crapola insurance you won't be singing "Happy Days Are Here Again"!
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Paying the tax will enable you to help your country & not pay a corporation.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Shitty deal, and not what we elected Obama to fight for.
How about we just work to get Medicare for All, desperately wanted by two-thirds of Americans - but not by the Third Way, I get that.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Any political party that wanted to pass it and wasn't scared of its own shadow could get this through - or destroy the opposing party in the next election if they opposed it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It will still be quite expensive. And it will go up every year just like commercial insurance.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Every other country with single-payer insurance pays far, far less than us - at least 30% less. Heck, we'd save 20% or more just from the reduced "administrative" costs: these are 5% for medicare, 25%+ for private insurers. Add to that the increased leverage of a single payer, and we'd save big.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Someone in their 50s will still be paying $600+ a month.
At some point the whole system has to change and we/patients are going to have to accept some sacrifices. I'm more than ready, but a lot of folks aren't.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)If you don't buy a policy from the insurance industry crooks you'll be fined by their government!
Is that the "tax" you had in mind?
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)mostly because people seem not to recognize the truth.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)It's not like the Govt is taking the money and paying the ins. companies with your tax dollars, they'll be using it to cover healthcare costs of the Nation. I'm FOR single-payer, show me the votes.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)The money will be destroyed, nothing more. The fine is just as stupid as shifting the costs for overpriced health services and health insurance onto young workers is. Hello? We still have a crappy economy here. The government can afford to shoulder these costs much more easily for now than our private sector workers can.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)That is a GOOD thing. And the ppl who can afford to purchase will be able to do so at a reduced rate through exchanges as well, which will in effect balance the cost of millions of new MediCare recipients. Look, it took Canada almost 15yrs before they fully implemented universal care. This is the biggest step in that direction in the past 60yrs.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Fines on people who refuse to give money to profit gouging private insurance parasites is not progressive.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Also, profit-gouging will be regulated due to exchanges/reduced rates. And that is only for ppl that can afford it in the first place. Plus, the new anti-discriminatory regulations put on the industry IS progressive as well.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)dflprincess
(28,081 posts)be taking tax money and paying the insurance companies. Of course, the people who qualify for subsidies will have to pay the premiums first and then apply for a tax credit when the file their 1040s so it won't be a direct transfer of tax money in to the insurance companies' pockets.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)time & you probably won't wind up paying anything but instead getting a slightly less tax refund.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)From the linked article:
The change of mind around the individual mandate is just as telling for Conservatives. I think the story that more Republican politicians were supportive of the individual mandate that rank and file conservatives, and conservative health policy types is likely true. For one thing, there really arent that many Conservative policy types that focus on health policy, and it is not a core issue that most conservative voters think a great deal about. And as Stuart Butler notes, one of the reasons that Republicans likely supported a mandate in the 1990s was so that they would have something with which to argue against the Clinton plan.
Progressives and liberals have shown a clear commitment to using any feasible approach to expand insurance coverage toward their ultimate health policy goal. Conservatives have mostly shown a clear commitment to arguing against the policies of progressives and liberals in the health policy realm. There is nothing about the historical record to suggest that Conservatives will be willing to expend political capital to advance a health reform proposal (briefly: idea, white paper, commerce and ways and means committee hearings and mark ups in the House, CBO, PR and political rallies, parsing of the plan by the other side, bazillion blog posts, full House vote, then to the SENATE!, etc).
Thanks for the article, good stuff.
emulatorloo
(44,159 posts)And hides the positive. All in the service of presenting a distorted picture of the truth.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Clearly.
I read them both. Both right wing hatchet jobs, but at least Roy posted an opposing view.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)different day.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's the Third Way sorts and 24-hour Party people who either love it or don't care either way.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)LOL I can hear it now.
Well said, Better Believe It. Maybe now people will listen.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Global warming right wing anti-government Carney.
emulatorloo
(44,159 posts)Why would DU'ers want to listen to Timothy Carney?
Why would a DU'er be promoting a right wing liar of his caliber?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)History shows Liberals were AGAINST the individual mandate before they were for it.
The individual mandate is a plague of ignorance first launched by the Heritage Foundation.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Like psyops.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)No psyops here.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)you never fail to deliver.
Sid
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)That Insurance is better than what you enjoy, Health Care.
Only a hypocrite would knowingly support a policy for his friends he would not also want his own family to share.
I tried but I could not find anything in my searches when looking for proponents of a Heritage Foundation style blueprint to replace the health care system currently enjoyed in Canada.
It is virgin territory, you can be an active player for change at home rather than an observer of the change you love so much being implemented across the border.
We both know you are no hypocrite (a bit of a child-like joker perhaps, but no hypocrite).
So be the change you wish to see!!! The one you have been waiting for is you!
You can read one of your doctors thoughts and perhaps get his info so that you can reach him to change his mind.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/03/opinion/oe-rachlis3
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I've always had a problem with people who live in a civilized foreign country and enjoy the benefits of Universal Health Care
insisting that we Americans settle for FAR LESS than they take for granted.
That just smells bad.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)That has taken too much LSD for his own good.
Eloquent as only a master debater can be
"he said masterbater didn't he?" not really, but you have your 11 year old humor, that should keep you amused for a while.
My answer to this "." is this ".." now we both smart people!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Try discussion instead of posting smiley men. It would look forward to more than an exchange of graphics that say nothing.
But that is just me.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)when they first proposed it?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)because some Democrat somewhere thinks right wing think tanks are "cool".
I guess I am a bad Democrat now because I haven't moved a mile or two to the right.
So be it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)That's okay, though. I'm a bad ol' Democrat, too!
"That's okay, though. I'm a bad ol' Democrat, too!"
...clearly, smarter. I mean, being duped by Romney advisers makes one a better Democrat.
"I mean, being duped by Romney advisers makes one a better Democrat."
Romney's advisers implemented RomneyCare, so I supposed you have been duped as well.
Don't feel bad, if you squint your eyes hard enough Republican Ideas look Democratic to some.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Romney's advisers implemented RomneyCare, so I supposed you have been duped as well.
Don't feel bad, if you squint your eyes hard enough Republican Ideas look Democratic to some.
I've long argued that Romney vetoed the best parts of the MA health care law and the Democratic legislature overrode his veto. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=503100
His adviser is trying to use Democrats to justify Romney's flip flop.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002514808
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I am simply incapable of supporting Corporate first Republican measures no matter how they are re-branded and dressed up.
I can't do the 180 from progressive ideas without snapping my spine.
Third way Democrats lack a spine so it is much easier for them.
I am simply incapable of supporting Corporate first Republican measures no matter how they are re-branded and dressed up.
I can't do the 180 from progressive ideas without snapping my spine.
Third way Democrats lack a spine so it is much easier for them.
...dancing with common sense.
By Igor Volsky
This morning, single-payer advocate and public option supporter Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) defended the merged Senate bill, arguing that its still worth passing. Its not that they got a bad bill on their hands, its a pretty good bill, Weiner said. I think that Howard Dean is wrong. And I dont think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Asked what is it in this bill thats going to lower costs and provide more choice since Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) insisted on stripping the bill of the public option and the Medicare buy-in provision, Weiner argued that covering more Americans would minimize the cost shift from the uninsured:
ODONNELL: How if there is no public option?
WEINER: I understand there is no public option but there are 30 million people who are going to be getting health insurance who dont have it today. Those people are going to be getting more efficient less expensive care, not passing onto you and me higher costs. Thats a good thing. Thats an unvarnished good thing.
Watch it:
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/12/18/171132/weiner-dean/
Kucinich on the Affordable Care Act: "I hope the law is upheld."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002503243
Bernie Sanders: The Court and Health Care
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496175
Damn "Third way Democrats"
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I am also less surprised that the party sided with the Corporations in this then you may think.
It in no way changes what this law is and where it originated.
I believe it will fail people miserably, I see millions more insured in "bronze plans" as you do, but one thing those that make more than most don't understand (people like politicians) is that they will not go to the doctor very often if at all because the co-pays will not fit in a budget that also has overpriced minimal coverage insurance in it.
Also, the biggest problem will still remain, refusal by insurance (over money) to allow the performance of procedures regardless of what one's physician says, each and every time they can get away with it.
They will have even more opportunity to commit murder by spreadsheet.
"None of that changes the reality that it is a bad Right Wing Idea from 20 years ago"
...continuing to repeat that doesn't change the facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603
Oops!
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Response to Dragonfli (Reply #53)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #53)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #53)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #53)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The Obama admin wasn't duped. They invited them in.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)When Obama ridiculed the individual mandate in 2008, was he being dense or deliberately misleading? If it's so clear that it's necessary now, why didn't this occur to him back then?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"When Obama ridiculed the individual mandate in 2008, was he being dense or deliberately misleading? If it's so clear that it's necessary now, why didn't this occur to him back then?"
...help: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)In fact he proposed fines if it didn't "work as hoped."
Krugman predicted he'd need the mandate to keep cost projections down.
Krugman was wrong that it would kill Health Care's chances (and so was I and a few other people who didn't like Obama's health care plan).
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)&feature=related
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Here's the part about fines: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/26/john-mccain/fines-are-possible-but-for-uninsured/
I can't find the statement where he said that he would maybe implement the mandate but I know he said it, it was in the great mandate debates of 2007.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Political opportunism. He said what the American people wanted to hear.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's already being used by right wingers to discredit him, etc.
msongs
(67,430 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)March 24, 2012
By Avik Roy
Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010. This week, the White House organized activists in an effort to tout the laws alleged benefits: seniors on Monday, women on Tuesday, young adults and kids on Wednesday, health costs on Thursday, and pre-existing conditions on Friday. So lets go through and discuss what the law actually does in these areas.
<...>
Kids: Shoved into the Medicaid ghetto
Four in ten children in America spend some of their childhood on Medicaid or its cousin, CHIP, the worst-run health programs in America. Obamacare massively expands Medicaid, driving up the number of children who will be enrolled in these programs.
Study after study shows that Medicaid has poor health outcomes, and that expanding the program will make it even more difficult for children to gain access to needed care.
<...>
Will Obamacare enjoy a third birthday?
Republicans are certain to repeal the law next winter, if they manage to win the White House and a majority in the Senate. That outcome, of course, is far from assured. Either way, we will all be thinking about American health-care policy very differently come March of 2013.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=7952
I'll help you promote Roy's perspective.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's not the country that won't allow a government solution, it's the politicians and corporate executives forcing an unpopular system on a populace that disagrees with it and would much rather have something else.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Many on Medicare don't even realize it is a government insurance program and vote against keeping for themselves.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Thanks, Sid.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)... boring on message boards.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)It had no effect on my support for one of them over the other.
And it had absolutely zero effect on my selection of Obama versus McCain.
Just one more manufactured outrage widget designed to get Dems to stay home in the fall.
Obama hates us wahhhh!!!!
cali
(114,904 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)That's one hell of an admission from a capitalist publication.
And it's been well documented in many publications including ones that might be far too liberal for your tastes.
And if you wish to dispute any of the facts presented on how big corporate interests are backing the health insurance industry law please post them now along with credible links.
Go ahead.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Hillary and Edwards weren't "liberals"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603
I had my doubts.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32508223/ns/politics-health_care_reform/t/public-option-obscurity-center-stage/
Candidate Obama, after seeing how popular Edward's proposal was,
borrowed it and incorporated it into HIS campaign rhetoric.
Sadly, Americans would later discover that , like the "Renegotiation of NAFTA" and "making EFCA the Law of the Land"
Obama wasn't really serious about actually fighting for one,
and quickly negotiated the Public Option away behind closed doors with the health care Industry.
Though both Obama and Edwards campaigned on a "Public Option",
the one Edwards proposed was much more robust, and would have been based on an National Plan,
not the watered down State Insurance exchanges in the Obama's soon to be dropped proposal.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"John Edwards was the first candidate to propose a "Public Option"."
...proposed this:
Edwards' truly universal health care plan will ensure that every American has health insurance. He will require proof of insurance when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Families without insurance will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or another targeted plan or be assigned a plan within new Health Care Markets.
Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=91170#axzz1qqZ9tZYk
Yikes!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)A MANDATE without a robust, publicly owned/government administered NATIONAL Public Option is The PROBLEM.
Public Options administered by the individual states will be so diluted and burdened with redundant administrative costs that they would not be able to offer marketable cost savings.
The bigger the risk pool,
the greater the savings.
Even Candidate Obama stated that a Public Option was necessary to "Keep the Insurance Companies honest."
Howard dean stated that without a Public Option, there is NO reform.
I agree with Candidate Obama and Dr Dean.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)DLCbeedaGOP
(6 posts)always have, always will.
Single Payer IS the ONLY solution and everyone knows it.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)Sorry, I'm perfectly happy to own my elitism on this one. The individual mandate began life as a conservative republican plan, and it will always be a plan that serves the needs of conservatives and entrenched wealth rather than progressive ideals and real people.
It's still unprecedented and unconstitutional to require private citizens to purchase something (particularly from profit-making, private entities).
And don't give me that auto insurance bullshit. Driving is a choice. Living isn't.
I don't think that's a precedent worth setting, no matter what the short term benefits are in terms of a compromise(d) health care package.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)It'll be less than 1 year before this nation collapses again like it did in 2008 due to unsustainable predatory capitalism.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Alas, now it's run by ambitious politician whose only "principal" is gaining power at any price.
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795
MineralMan
(146,322 posts)I think I'll pass on this thread. Just another bonfire in the making.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I think it's an unprecedented step in a dangerous direction.
On the other hand my partner recently asked me if I had to choose between the status quo and the mandate which would I pick, and I had to reluctantly say the mandate. But it's an evil choice, IMO. I want a single payer system and I want the insurance cartel out of healthcare altogether.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)a lot "changed" when Obama became president.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)I think it's a cop out to avoid a true single payer government run healthcare plan and keep the for profit system in place.
Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #122)
Dragonfli This message was self-deleted by its author.
varelse
(4,062 posts)Response to varelse (Reply #127)
Dragonfli This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #128)
Dragonfli This message was self-deleted by its author.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Previous thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002492799
dionysus
(26,467 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)"The insurance industry and big pharma will have a lock on the for-profit health care system under what I call the "Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act".
The unnecessary insurance industry will add hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the cost of medical care without contributing anything of value that will improve our health.
They are useless parasites feeding off public with the approval and help of the government under the individual mandate."
Perhaps it was way too liberal for your tastes. Is that the problem?