When did DUers suddenly become conservatives?

"I won't buy insurance if it's MANDATED to me!" You know what that sounds like to me? The teabagger that cries about social security (People should be responsible for their own retirement) and medicare (why should I pay for other peoples illness). You know those already mandated programs that if you work, you have to pay for and will break the law if you decide you're above paying them. Let's not forget the number one hated mandated program you have to pay for, the federal government. Really I don't see the big deal of a program that forces people to insure themselves. Even if the Dems passed universal health care it would come with a mandate that you be in it and pay for it. It's not like other western countries let you skate along until you get sick and then say "hey guys (cough, cough) I'm opting in now".

Did people really think health care was going to be free? The bill(s) sound like they will have many exemptions and stipends for those that can't afford or need assistance, or better yet the mandate will hopefully push the many people already eligible for full government assistance to sign up for it. Really the bill sounds progressive; since progressives have already produced many programs that are mandated, yet have clauses that help the poor and small business owners pay.

Oh I get some anger if the mandated insurance you have to buy is from a for profit private company, instead of an option for at least one not-for profit company or a government run program. But the anger over the word mandate. I don't get it. That sounds so... so teabag W America I can help but laugh.

If you think you're a liberal yet you're angry about a government mandated social program then you probably want to rethink if you're actually a liberal. More likely it's not the mandated part of the program that really makes you unhappy. I imagine it's more the convoluted back door manner of the program, the rather unbold way it tries to produce universal coverage and the fact as is the program run by Republicans can easily turn into an insurance industry cash cow. But anger over it being mandated? When health care reform finally arrived that it was going to arrive with a mandated social program. I thought was pretty much a given. I mean haven't you listen to the nutty teabaggers? Even they understood this.

you and I pay from our taxes to produce them.

And if you wish universal coverage you need universal participation in the system. You can have that through taxes, see Canada and UK... or through the private sector, see Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland. It appears to me, we are going for system number two.

I'd rather use my taxes to pay for healthcare for all

but you said they were free. I just corrected you. They are not free. In fact, they are more expensive than any other good or service produce by government... for every bomb we use, means less schools. Ike got it, I get it... but free, they are not.

They are freely given (from our tax dollars) to the military to blow shit up

Ike got it.

Now this is the blind point from liberals. Also in the real world we cannot get rid of the military. I'd like to reduce the budget they get to play with, but in the real world, I don't want to get rid of them.

Finacially, that is. Until we take their resources of course. I guess nothing is free, not even bombs dropping on your family that you didn't want to begin with.

If it is mandated that I have to buy insurance from a private company (lets assume no public option for the moment) AND that coverage is pretty standard (even if I get to "choose" the level of coverage), then no matter what my income level (so long as I'm above some poverty minimum) then this will look like a regressive tax.

Now, one can point out that it looks like buying insurance for your car, which is mandated by most (if not all) states.

And this is true, sort of.

Even with that, we have a choice, not to do without the insurance, but we can do without the car. We can't do without the health care.

And, on a more practical note, car insurance is fairly reasonable, so that it's a form of regressive tax, we don't squawk about it because it can be as low as a few hundred dollars every 6 months. Only if you insure the CAR against accidents (which is required by banks, not the government, which only requires that you insure against accidents), the amount of premiums is related to the value of the car and you can always choose not to drive the Buggatti Veyron, and drive a 15 year old minivan instead. None of this is true for mandated health care insurance. It will cost a lot, even for a very basic plan, and you can't (as of yet) pick the kind of body you wish to insure.

Nevertheless, I'm for mandates IF we get a strong public option which is open to everyone. Hell, I'll even throw in some tort reform too. But only if we get a public option which is open to everyone.

I am serious.

The first time they released any smidgen of a bill I was pissed... no, not because of the insurance... it WAS a bad copy of the Mexican health care system

This is the beginnings of something akin to the Frankfurt system.

It works, but in order to get to that point of efficiency, you and I will have to get involved and demand it is strengthened and streamlines.

By the way. Germans are happy with it. It works very well. And truly, for many cultural reasons, even if my preferred system would be the Canadian system, I am aware that even if we got to the Canadian system, it will not be NOW... it will take decades.

And I would prefer taxes. If we had a universal system, people could afford a small increase in taxes, as they would not be paying premiums, one third of which goes to a middle man who is doing nothing that cannot be done and is being done much cheaper (by Medicare eg whose overhead is 3% compared to 30% for private insurance) already. And businesses could afford to pay their employees a little more in salary, as they too would not be saddled with premiums for their workers.

as some of us who know tactics and strategy are want of saying... those who understand logistics, understand the true cost.

By the way, logistics is not only military... I got to do quite a bit of it for disasters... trust me, my backboards were not cheap, and nether is the gas in Kabul, or for that matter the 500 ton bomb.

Now I agree with you, in an ideal world I'd rather beat my swords, and have a Canadian system... that said... realize... the idea of you and I and everybody getting insurance the intend is to get as close to universal as you want. You want universal coverage, well you need universal participation. We are arguing over how to get there. IN my preferred world yes, it would be public, but I know that will not happen AT THIS TIME. Hell the reason we are getting what we are getting is all the screaming we have been doing. You want more? This is the beginning of the fight, not the end.

where I partially corrected my statement. I know well the tragic cost to those people and wasn't trying to be flippant, as it breaks my heart and has for eight long years, that we have been unable to stop it. I should have explained it more though, it was a response to 'paying taxes'.

Yes, we are arguing over how to get there ... my objection mostly is to mandatory premiums which, if implemented will be a real hardship on millions of people while further enriching those who care nothing about life, certainly not enough to let it interfere with their profit margins. I know Obama was against them during the primary, except for children. I liked his plan then.

I can't pretend to like something I never liked just because I like the guy who is doing it now. I didn't like Romney's plan, it would be hypocritical of me to say I suddenly changed my mind because now we have a president I support.

I know we can't get everything we want, but I think we should be getting more than is being offered. If you aim for the sky, you might hit a tree. But if you're only aiming for a tree, well that's how I feel.

Always enjoy your posts, btw. :-)

it is the Frankfurt model...

And I wish people read on that and realized what is going on here.

It is going to suck... like SS did in 1935 and Medicare did in 1965 and SCHIP did in the 1990s when the Republicans presented it.

It has taken now decades for all of these to improve and get better over the years.

And if the way to participate is having people paying fees to insurance companies... the Germans are VERY happy with that system and it has almost 100% participation... why the hell not?

For many cultural reasons, though it would be my preference, single payer will NOT happen in the US... overall. It will happen on a few states and then expand... but this is the beginning, not the end. and people have to understand this. And yes, there are states where you will NEVER see single payer... no way, no how. And we know who they are.

As to us being at war, you think I don't think about both civies and military personnel involved?

It's only fairly inefficient to mandate that we pay a public entity.

And currently around 90% of Germans are on the public, non-profit, "statutory" plans--not private for-profit plans?

Since 90% of Germans are not on for-profit private insurance, they must have something against it - or vice versa.

and we need to fight to improve it?

This is the BEGINNING not the end


Read a little history on SS, Medicare and SCHIP

But these are the foundations of very much a German system...

Should I mention it took the Germans over 100 years to get from those initials coops set up by the Kaiser to the modern system?

The only way to achieve Universal Health Care is through a mandate. Everybody in. Everybody pays their share. Edwards said it. Hillary said it. The only one who disagreed was Obama, but he finally realized the truth. Universal = mandate. Period.

another 45 million captive customers to overcharge and screw.

:puke:

Do you have insurance now? If not, then why should I be paying for you if you get sick?

So yeah, you're paying for me. You got a problem with that?

ETA -- And just an FYI, the essence of liberalism is we all take care of the weakest among us. It's a part of the package to care for each other. So your question "why should I pay for you if you get sick" is very telling.

That was a fun winning cross shot.

:evilgrin:

And I still pay for health insurance through my employer.

My point is that if we are all going to benefit from Health Care then we should all contribute. By virtue of your service the government considers that you have contributed and I fully agree. I just never have much luck with the VA myself.

What I don't appreciate is people who want to benefit without contributing. Here, Krugman said it much better than I back when Obama was against a mandate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1

Too many of the posters I have seen here are wanting Universal Health Care but only because they believe it will simply be "granted" to them. They are wanting the benefits without the participation, and using the "mandate" as a straw man argument.

By "why should I pay for you if you get sick" I simply mean "if everyone benefits, then everyone should contribute".

Bottom line, it only works if everyone is in. If too many people try to game the system and try to receive benefits they didn't contribute to, then the system falls apart and no one benefits. Period.

Now, does that make sense?

Not one person here wants anything "granted" to them. Everyone that advocates public option or even better single payer wants to pay in. You're either being deliberately misleading or outright lying.

Now I will admit that if we simply pass a mandate without a Public Option or strict regulation it would be a "giveaway" to the Insurance companies. But that is NOT what these people are arguing about.

Read some of these posts. Some of them may have merit, but a lot of them simply don't want to contribute.

For instance, the "poutrage" post last night that said that if they would be mandated to buy insurance then seniors should have to pay for Medicare. Obiously not knowing that seniors have paid for Medicare all their lives and STILL have to pay premiums once they get it (depending on income). REad some of the posts claiming it's not "Constitutional" and using some of the same lame arguments that Libertarians use.

FUCKING READ THEM!

sorry for the outburst, but I will give as good as I get.

Not one person on DU who is upset with the President's plan as he laid it out last night wants something for nothing. Everybody wants a strong public option we can buy into. Thanks for the continued smear, though.

Of course, you would believe that since they support your stance. You wouldn't care "why" they support it, just that they do.

But at least we can agree that we want a strong public option. I would prefer one stronger than what Obama outlined, myself. But at least it's a start.

But why don't you tell me why you think some people should benefit without having to contribute, if they are able?

and if doing the right thing benefits a couple freeloaders here and there I'm cool with it. I can't imagine being so miserly and bitter as some of the O-pologists spouting right wing "why should I have to pay for you" dreck the last day.

me a good reason why I should pay for you then I will do so, gladly. If you are a veteran, for instance - then you have more than contributed. If you are disabled, then I will be happy to help. If you are homeless or poor, then I am happy to help.

But, if indeed you ARE a Liberal, then you should be happy to contribute if you are able.

Let me ask another way, without a mandate or increased taxes, how would you propose that we get everyone who is capable of participating to participate? Seriously, if you have a good idea I am more than willing and happy to consider it.

No one who is upset with the plan the President laid out last night wants something for nothing. We want single-payer, or barring that, a strong public option that we can buy in to. It does keep your thread going, though.

Can you give me a viable alternative?

I've stated an alternative multiple times on this thread. We want at the minimum, a strong public option we can buy in to. A single-payer system everybody contributes to through a payroll tax similar to FICA would be best. But please feel free to imagine that we're all deadbeats who want something for nothing. Keeps your vanity threads here going.

It won't pass. It hasn't passed in forty years. And I think you're right, I am arguing with air. Because you don't seem to grasp the situation.

Well, here's a little reality for you. By your stubborn "all or nothing" mentality you are being just as much of an obstructionist as the Republicans or Blue Dogs.

I was hoping maybe we could have some meaningful dialogue, but I see now that is simply impossible.

Good night, "air".

And standing up for the corporations. Understand the anger and betrayal yet? It would pass if he wanted it...he's got a majority in both houses and the pen in his hand.

I refuse to give a single dime to private insurers. I pay my doctors out of pocket. I have negotiated elective hospitalizations up front. I can travel outside of America for less expensive treatment, if necessary. Private insurers are parasitic and have no real place in health care. The government has no business forcing me to buy a product I disapprove of from a private corporation. This is corporatism, not Democracy. Single payer? Yes. Strong public option? Ok. Mandated private insurance? Forget about it.

But I am loathe to use it in connection with our President our his administration.

Have you had cancer? have you had extended hospital stays? Not everyone can afford to pay out-of-pocket or fly out of the country for cheaper procedures.

And, once again, I don't support a mandate without a Public Option.

because they might get cancer is not a reasonable solution to the health care crisis. We need to lower costs, not increase health insurance profits.

We pay for roads, bridges, clean air, schools, blah, blah, blah. We need to add healthcare to the list as a part of the commons that we all agree belongs there.

Your contribution argument has no credibility when the bulk of the healthcare dollar "contribution" will be going to profits and private jets and shareholder dividends, not healthcare.

Make sense?

I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, that won't get passed.

So, we will have to pay the "tax" in another way. At least this way we have more choice in what we are "taxed" and what our taxes pay for.

Trust me, I would be more than willing to go for single-payer and have my taxes raised to pay for it. I think that would be a much more efficient system. But as Obama pointed out single-payer has been proposed in every single ession for the past forty years. It ain't gonna pass. So (unfortunately) we have to settle for the next best thing. Which only works if there is a mandate for everyone to contribute, just as if they were paying taxes.

Does that make sense?

Wealthcare not healthcare.

some kind of understanding.

You're still talking about a mandate to force people to contribute to the profit margins of an industry that should not be for profit in the first place, arguing that it's the right thing when said industry is already engaged in near-criminal practices of recision and gouging.

And excuse me, but that argument doesn't hold up despite the supposed realpolitik you're spouting of what will and won't pass.

I repeat, forcing people to pay for an inferior product where part of their contributions pays for gold bathroom toilets is a recipe for insurrection.

Listen to the rest of the speech. Not just the PO and mandate parts. There is a lot more involved. Granted, not as much I would like, but not nearly so dire as you portray.

And in case you haven't noticed, not "everyone" here is as upset as you portray them to be. That's because many of us paid attention to the whole plan, not just the soundbites.

Yah, sure, uh-huh, right. You heard the secret message the rest of us missed. :eyes:

I did pay attention. I'm not a conservative because I think the mandate is unconscionable while the insurance companies are for-profit. Period. End of story.

I'm one of those "real liberals" where I'm not going to be happy with things until the insurance companies are all wither not-for-profit or out of business because everyone's on Medicare.

You're just one of those "fake" corporate Democrats, DINOs they're called, who don't mind that our Congress is bought and paid for by these bloodsuckers.

-----

So there, I think I threw more "I'm superior to and smarter than you" jabs than you did.

You got yours. Good on ya.

I am simply saying that if you are going to benefit, then you should be willing to contribute.

Now, if there is some hardship that keeps you from contributing, then that is another matter. Which is why I also support subsudies, tax breaks, etc.

But if you are perfectly capable of contributing and simply refuse to - then I don't think you should benefit either.

Does that still sound freeperish?

It sounds freeperish because you are attacking a straw man of your own device. No one here wants something for nothing. That's a gross mischaracterization on your part and you owe lots of DUers apologies for your continued smearing these last 24 hours.

apologize. But I firmly believe that many of them by their arguments simply expected something for nothing and are "outraged" because they aren't getting it.

But, again, if we have the Public Option then their arguments that this is nothing but a "corporatist giveaway" is moot. That is not a strawman.

And, again, the only way to ensure Universal Coverage is through some sort of mandate - be it taxes or otherwise. Edwards said it, Hillary said it, and now Obama realizes it.

Why do you think everyone is upset here? The plan as the President laid it out doesn't give anyone the choice to buy in to a public option..that's reserved for people with no insurance. The rest of us stay beholden to our corporate overlords in a lifelong servitude of extortion.

can I get into the public option?

No?

Well, fuck that right in the ear, then.

It is about mandating people buy PRIVATE insurance and NOT about the word mandate. Few here would argue against single payer, which would be a mandated program.

:shrug:

Nice!

not the change we were promised. You're also not supposed to call out other DUers, fyi...it's against the rules.

I'm sick of this fucking forum turning into a fascist regime. I live in fucking China and I'm sick and fucking tired of it in real life, I don't fucking need it online.

A true public health program that spreads the risk and covers everyone like Medicare would have people taxed according to their ability to pay, not forced to buy an overpriced product from a private company that they can't afford. This is causing problems with the overly praised Dutch system of private insurance. An underclass of uninsured is growing because they are too poor to be able to afford to buy the private insurance that is mandated. Fining them for not being able to buy it only makes the problem worse.

doesn't exactly scream "compassion".

Nobody, Democrat or otherwise, likes having some know-it-all telling them what to do.

Who among us has the $3500/year of extra money to pay the penalty for not carrying insurance? If we had that kind of extra money, wouldn't we already have insurance? How exactly is the government going to decide who can't pay, and gets care for free, and who can pay, and therefore has to pay for others?

If this process is like the other processes the IRS is involved in, no thanks.

For once I would like to see this government accountable for how it spends money before telling the rest of us how to spend what is left of the dwindling amount of money we have, that has not already been stolen by their banker friends.

We could pay for everything proposed and more simply by bringing home the war machine. How come nobody is talking about that?

a gatekeeper. They "hold the money" people pay to have access to the system, but around 30% of it ends up stuck to their fingers. Now if the govt takes your property it is obliged to compensate you for the monetary value of the property --so says the Constitution. (I am aware that as a Canadian you are not obliged to be Wowed by the US Constitution, and that you have many reasons to be thankful that you are not shackled to it- but we are.) That's because your property -your money- is considered to be your lifeline in this world. You accumulate property to secure daily necessities like food, shelter but also to stave off death and make your life more comfortable as you decline into old age and infirmity. You have an absolute right to your body and thus to the property which sustains its life. And when the govt takes your property as it may do to build roads etc. it is supposed to compensate you for the FULL value of your property. Not 50%, not 66%, not 33% of the value but all of it according to rates prevailing in the market. Nobody ever agrees with the compensation they receive but then sellers and buyers never agree, they just make deals. So why would mandating a purchase be any different? If the govt compels you to part with your property you should receive full value for it. And the insurance company as a middle man par excellence cannot give you full value for it and also pay himself and his shareholders. And it's not like the thought would ever enter his mind either. 30% of the money forced from individuals' hands and awarded to insurance corporations would not go to healing injuries or sickness or preventing disease or averting deaths. ALMOST A THIRD OF ALL MONEY OSTENSIBLY SPENT TO SAVE LIFE WOULD IN FACT BE AWARDED TO A COMPLETELY NON-PRODUCTIVE BUT FAVORED CLASS. If money is in a general sense a store of value that we store up against the ravages of time on our bodies and to delay the inevitable as long as we can, this money that we're talking about here, is all of it EXACTLY for that function and nearly a third of it will be essentially stolen from every citizen. It will go to a class of businessman that has plied the government with hundreds of millions of lobbying dollars and against which each of the robbed citizens stands no taller than an ant. The sheer immorality of the scheme is breathtaking.

Make the corporations NON-PROFIT and the piracy aspect goes away. There are different objections to co-op proposals but they primarily based on efficacy rather than objections to criminal pillaging.

But I would go back to the beginning: if this issue is so important that the government has decided it has a right and a duty to compel every adult citizen to give up their money, then this is clearly an essential function of government, and therefore only government should be carrying it out. Government should not be allowed to hide behind a third party and evade its responsibility. And no one should be granted a monopoly right to profiteer on this governmental function in exchange for campaign donations. The citizen who is from now on going to have no choice over their participation in this project is at least entitled to have the government administer and be directly responsible for the performance of this task. Because as much as people complain about the government, the government is in theory accountable to the citizen. The insurance corporation is answerable only to its owners the profit seeking shareholders - the citizen is a nonentity before it unless he owns large amounts of stock.

And yet having said all this -mandates are a scheme of breathtaking immorality, a giant skimming operation for favorites of the Senate, yadda yadda - I want to be for the plan. I want it to pass and be a success. Or at least a part of me does. The thing is mandates are an evil which might be accepted as necessary evil IF

IF

If the compensatory features of the plan were in place. But at this point ONLY THE MANDATES ARE A SURE THING. The other features that go on the other side of the scale and which compensate for this evil - cost containment for the overall system, guarantees of affordability, a Public Option plan that is ALLOWED TO COMPETE- all those things are up in the air. And signs indicate that a deal with mandates but no public option would get signed. Just to get "something." Why is it that mandates are the one certain feature, and mandates are going to be approved before the approval of anything that ensures insurance companies will have to reduce their profits? Profit is the snake in this garden. Profit in primary care insurance is what makes our system the disaster that it is. Profit in primary care insurance is what all the countries whose healthcare we envy have abolished. If you don't take an axe to profit in the broadest part of the health care market, which is primary care, you are going to fail to deliver universal coverage. The only gesture at cost containment is the public option idea - but that has been watered down now to less than 5% of the market so as not to offend insurers. The idea that 5% of the market which wasn't even part the market previously will drive the other 95% is a tall tale only a DC politician or a carnival barker could tell with a straight face.

I would like to be on board but the disappointment I feel, and the suspicion that at the end of the day we'll get mandated profit skimming, and none of the other action promised us is just too strong.

Health care reform should be paid for by taxing the rich.

forcibly writing a check to a private for-profit insurance company.

:wtf:

is very stiff indeed.

Whatever....

or at least they were hoping it would just be a program you sign up for and Voila!

Frankly I see this as a wedge in the door. Start out with a minimal public option and grow it to proper levels over time.

Julie