Obama's biggest problem will be Mandates. There is no selling this to the country

Everyone wants the pre-existing condition problem fixed, but nobody including myself wants to be mandated. Especially w/o a public option.

:thumbsup:

I wonder where people get this idea that everyone is against mandates?

It is a hugely unpopular idea.

And in that same poll, people also say they do not favor monetary penalties to enforce mandate.

Essentially, they are saying they favor a "suggestion", not a "mandate".

Regardless, poll results don't define good or bad policy.

Which is a complete contradiction.

Only 28% favor Obama's fine.

and then everyone who's a citizen is presumed to be eligible by virtue of being a citizen.

I wonder how many people go to court/jail in France for the "offense" of not carrying health insurance? Probably the same number that go bankrupt from medical expenses : none. Only America would contrive to make "Universal Healthcare Reform" into an opportunity to put poor people in jail.

Oh, and people will STILL go bankrupt from medical expenses in this country right and left, but they'll have Johnny Laws to worry about as well. Uniquely American.

...so why ya gotta be all reasonable and shit?
:P

Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the gov providing financial help to those who can't afford it.

If it was worded:

Requiring that all Americans purchase health insurance, with the gov providing financial help to those who can't afford it.

I don't think those numbers would be that positive.

If the subsidies are large enough and the caps on premiums are strong enough, then people will have no problem with the mandate. But if it isn't affordable, it doesn't matter whether it's for profit, non profit, government, or nazi socialism. If people can't afford it, it will be repealed. That's the one and only problem Obama faces.

And if insurance is unexpectedly unaffordable, I don't think the mandates will be enforced, there will be some kind of a fix.

The people who think they are going to have to give an outrageous amount of their income to mean insurance companies are just wrong, but it's hard to get through to them.

cheap characterizations of those who do not agree with you, instead you could offer up facts, numbers, figures and the like. Your form belies your function.

So a person making $44K a year will be required to pay an outrageous amount of their income to the mean insurance companies, and that's just for the premium.

What good is a policy you can afford if you can't afford to use it? That's just giving money to insurance companies and getting no where near what you paid for in return.

then again when you use that very word in your argument that it has to be more than affordable, it is unclear what your actual objection to 'it has to be affordable' is.

thank you for making this clear. The whole point of this entire mess was to make health care affordable for everyone. Any proposals that fail to do that, fail.

because they don't have insurance.

Everyone knows that everyone has to pitch in. And the penalties are so light, and the help the government gives to buy, for anyone that needs help, so strong, that this is a non-issue.

Can't let anyone skimp on contributing to shareholder dividends, eh?



Fuck that. I don't think you can quantify the amount of disdain I have for your post.

as usual...

And Ive thought Ive heard it all.

Under this bill, both your premiums and your taxes (by way of subsidies) will in some part be divied up, put into a check, and sent to private nonworking individuals who have inherited the right to profit off of other's misfortune. And to not want this to happen is selfish? What a fucking joke.

anyone who already pays for their own insurance knows that those policies come with a 5-12k deductible..and even after the deductible is met the insurance company will STILL try to weasel out of their end of the deal. It's f*cking criminal!

Nobody likes the insurance companies, but that is a separate argument from the need for having healthy people paying for the sick.

The problem here is your argument is entirely fictitious. The very function of insurance (private & public) is to have the healthy/unaffected pay for the sick. If the vast majority of the population did not believe in this concept, insurance would not exist. Virtually everyone is already on board with this general idea, so this is not an argument at all.

But this "solution"--this outright rejection of socialism (the purported end goal)--is directly bringing into light the quandary of forcing people to contribute to private shareholder's wealth for owning (not providing) services that the government could run itself. Its institutionalizing multi-tiered benefits from non-heterogeneous risk pools across the population, and rewarding those that have private ownership rights with vast sums subsidized by public money. Its an inefficient approach that rewards those who have been practicing bad behavior, and will likely continue to do so after studying every loophole available to them. Its absurdity that is wholly "uniquely American"

You can keep trying to hide the problems of this reform with your simplistic talking point about selfishness, but some are not so easily fooled. The real questions are how much people are going to have to contribute, what does everyone really get guaranteed, how much it costs the country (including national competitiveness), and how much are private people going to get to take from the treasury with this legislation. And something else I wonder...after you institutionalize for-profit private insurance and all its inefficiencies, is a socialistic answer ever eventually attainable to fix this mess? Its not always so cut and dry.

They need to be paid for. Whether it's a public plan (which I prefer, of course) or a private plan, these new people will be the most sick people, the only way to cover these new costs is to have healthy young people contributing. It's the most basic "balance my checkbook" math ever. We know the current system sucks and I fantasize about offing ins. execs., but let this not cloud one's common sense.

in a non egaltarian system. Thats not a wonderful tradeoff at all.

There will still be pain, inequalities, and suffering as a result of this new system, so I do not think you can use any measure to really justify forcing people to participate in it and contribute further to the wealth of the rich.

Look, we're not going to shut-down the insurance-murderers overnight - can we at least allow more people to have some sense of stability in knowing that one sickness will not leave them bankrupt and on the street?

Honestly, I think many would be happy with a pragmatic centrist compromise solution like single-payer to address the health care crisis. I wouldn't even be asking for "all" to get started.

I'm not sure why you want to prioritize giving people a *sense* of stability without prioritizing government run insurance to *guarantee* everyone real stability and health care. When a purported solution introduces a whole slew of problems, then maybe it isn't a solution at all.

How can you be so oblivious to the realities of the political climate in this country? Pull your head out of that rabbit hole for a minute and try to imagine what IS achievable versus what we all would prefer. Reality bites...

You think I don't understand what is achievable? Bah, how would you know if you are too afraid to try. Kennedy knew. At least he tried. At least he fought against subsidized and mandated private insurance.

The Kennedy-Mills bill was absolutely achievable. It was perfectly viable. If the unions threw their support its way, it would of been game over.

Enjoy your false pragmatism (capitulation).

Kennedy was a person who understood the art of compromise like no other - you keep spewing your fairy-tale platitudes and I'll keep rolling my eyes.

You are willing to capitulate from the get-go, just to have something called "health care reform" get passed. Not a strong position to negotiate from.

If paying for the sick is the need, then the profits are in the way. It is not about 'liking' insurance companies, it is about wanting the money spent to go to the sick, not to lavish lifestyles and huge bonuses.

I'd be thrilled to "pitch in" for everyone's health CARE if we were pooling our money in a universal single payer system. I don't care to pitch in to pay the CEO of United Health care $120,000 an HOUR to deny benefits to a dying teen in need of a kidney transplant. Screw that!

...no matter what system we can get at this time. Politics is the art of compromise - or of taking an unyielding stance and being perpetually miserable and appearing selfish - your choice.

I won't be mandated to pay for private health insurance and I won't pay the fines. I will go to court and I will go to jail, if necessary.

I've paid over $78,000.00 out of my own pocket for my insurance since the late 1990's. What have I gotten in return? $200.00 on benefits. That's right; $200.00. ER visits weren't covered, life saving surgery wasn't covered. I LOST my LIFE SAVINGS to health care costs-and I HAD insurance! Do you understand this? NO ONE should "sacrifice" for the profits of the few at the cost of the LIVES of tens of thousands. Compromise my ass!! We can get any damn system we desire; all it takes is a little spine, common sense, an a willingness to close the door on lobbyists. It ain't climbing mount Everest...or even the Grand Tetons. We have a bigger majority than we've had in generations. There are NO EXCUSES. And yours are utterly pathetic. Stand up and DEMAND medicare for all, a robust public option, or better yet; universal single payer. The kind that the civilized world has had working for them for decades.

Im very sorry for your experience. I understand the pain US health insurance can cause (Ive been the victim of that, as well as not been insured for some time too)

But Ive gotten more benefits out of my Canadian healthcare in the last month that you have gotten out of your plan in two decades.

Hell, today I saw a doctor, got a prescription, and an x-ray (no-copays included). My family has been to the doctor 6 times in the last month--its been a hard month between food posioning and pnemonia in our kids.

The last year and a half that Ive lived her, I couldn't be more fortunate. Ive had a surgery & diagnostic tests and my wife has had a baby. Never have we ever been denied care or forced to pay. If only Americans can wrap their head around this and say fuck it to bipartisanship and false pragmatism, then this "centrist" approach to health care could be their own.

More Amreicans who have received health care in other countries should tell their stories far and wide!

Gotta counter all the frickin' LIES that the right-wingers spew.

No need to be an ass about it. You know we need the youth to participate - stop acting like you have no sense at all.

Create a non-profit system while you are at it. You sit here only looking at one part of the problem (the spreading of the burden) but completely ignore the other part (the corrupt, inegalitarian system they will be forced to contribute to). I'm not sure why you think addressing one thing is more important than the other (especially when simple solutions do both)

Right now young people are rejecting health insurance in large numbers. Why are they rejecting it? Because it's a defective product which doesn't serve their interests. It's too expensive and complicated. It's often more of a burden to file claims than it's worth. Fighting the denials is too time-consuming.

So rather than try and fix what's wrong with the insurers model, your solution is to force people to buy this crappy, defective product.

This fails basic logic, which is why consumers will revolt if such a bill is passed.

I guess I was, repeat WAS, on the other end of the spectrum.

I paid $200 monthly for a private health insurance plan when I was in my 20s. For about 10 years I paid this premium. In all, it was about $24,000 out of my pocket.

Then I got very sick and required hospitalization off and on for about 6 months for many blood transfusions, several surgeries, and about 4 months worth of hospital stays, including one month in the ICU.

The total cost was about $500,000. My health care insurance took care of 95% of that cost. Still, I had to pay the other 5%, which on $500K is $25,000.

So, $24,000 in premiums plus $25,000 is $49,000.

I paid $49,000 for $500,000 worth of health care. That's about a 90% savings in what I would have had to pay without health insurance.

Now, however, I am no longer on that plan because my employer at the time is no longer in existence and I currently am self-employed (own my own business).

I can't find adequate health coverage now that I'm 40, because my illness left me with a pre-existing condition.

I was 'lucky' enough to gain acceptance on California's MRMIP health coverage plan, which is ironically administered by Blue Shield of CA (related to Anthem Blue Cross, the people that hiked rates 39%). It only covers 70% of my costs however, and has a lifetime $3 million coverage.

My monthly premiums were $320 last year, but this year, they were increased 25% to $400 monthly. Same 70% coverage, 25% higher premiums.

All this is just for me, no one else. I pay $400 monthly just for me, for 70% coverage, when in the past I was paying half that monthly for nearly full coverage.

They have a predatory business model that has been declared obsolete around the world. Every dollar diverted from the practice of medicine to the profits of insurance companies is a dollar of unnecessary pain, suffering and death. When this nation lived high on the hog, we could pretend that we could afford the inefficiency of these parasitical companies. But now it is time for them to go.

What's next? We're selfish because we don't want to go to McDonald's or shop at WalMart?

Hint: Insulting people will not sell them on the bill.

Jobless for over a year and over 55 would make it impossible to afford even with a large subsidy and no I don't qualify for medicaid.

I want a JOB with health benefits...then I can afford to pay my share of employer subsidized insurance.

So, I agree regarding mandates.

Worst idea ever.

He said Vermont doesn't have mandates and yet almost everyone has coverage. Can anyone tell me how Vermont is able to pull that off?

a killer whale. The insurance companies will gleefully accept people and will jack prices "to combat escalating medical costs" (and turn an extra billion $$ profit). Sure there may be an oversight board at some much later date, maybe, but what good is the board when it is made up of insurance friendly lobbyists. This is how the game works. But considering the US government corruption perhaps this is the best you can get and at a later time (read +20 years) the next baby step will be made or perhaps even an epiphany like non-profit insurance will come with a POTUS who will actually use the bully pulpit for the people rather than for re-election.

He used to make fun of people who supported mandates. He said trying to solve the health care crisis by mandating purchase is like trying to solve homelessness by passing a law that everybody has to buy a house. And he was right. He unmercifully attacked Hillary Clinton's support of mandates, he ran commercials claiming she'd take earned money by force, he sent mailers, he make wise cracks in debates.

The ones who are suddenly against it.

He recognizes the complexities of the issue and is accommodating what is actually the liberal part of the party. Liberals like Krugman support the mandates.

Most Obama supporters didn't support mandates and still don't. We just understand the reality of getting this legislation passed. It's sad that others are putting ideology, and primary politics, ahead of saving lives.

in the Primaries.



(this pic was difficult to find in a google search, but it was an attack ad from the Obama campaign against Hillary)

What don't the apologists understand about this?

A mandate that is tied to actual public coverage that is affordable and based on income might not be an easy sell, either. But it would make sense, and people would actually see a banafit at least.

But NOT this monstrosity, which is nothing but an enforced extortion that forces people to become customers of private entities.

He'll still have support despite the mandates. The mandates will come with subsidies on top of that.

across a wide media platform. He said mandates were only needed if the Insurance was a poor value and unaffordable. He said trying to solve the health care crisis by imposing mandates is like trying to solve the homeless problem by passing a law that everybody has to buy a house. He sent mailers that claimed Hillary's mandates would take money families had earned and force them to give it to private companies.
His current position is the opposite of all he ran on, the opposite of what I voted for. He did a bait and switch, and add to that his anti equal rights stances and he is a hypocrite shouting about religion as he lies with ease. He mocked those who supported what he now supports. And that is what it is. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd double check before agreeing with him. He has a very casual relationship with the truth.
"Any bill I sign must contain a public option." Or not, I guess.

And as such they supported her mandates. I went to his side because I don't want mandates and still don't want it if it's with these weird punitive measures. But overall the assessment by the OP is a bit off.

(apologies for the website, but it's difficult to find in a google search)

Maybe people should have that independent spirit, but they don't.

Taxes are mandated. You get something in return.

If people are convinced they will get something in return, it's good enough. Not everyone believes that insurance is useless or constitutes "nothing."

The poor and the sick should be sacrificed because young rich people don't want to pay a $600 fine in six years.

I want a public option too, but I don't see that happening unfortunately.

Otherwise, it's not universal coverage.

publicly owned universal healthcare system rather than being forced to purchase insurance from largely unaccountable private insurance companies. I'm for the first type of "mandate" and oppose the second type.

You're paying money for healthcare. As long as the private insurance conforms to the standards set forth by the covernment (i.e., it provides the same basic coverage as the government-run plan), then there's no difference.

second, there is no government run plan, and there's doubt its ever going to be included either. In addition, who knows how effective oversight will be? So insurance companies will no longer deny coverage or claims due to preexisting conditions, but what's to stop them from denying claims for other equally bullshit reasons? Not to mention that people seem to have funny ideas as to what constitutes "affordable" and where subsidies will kick in.

Even with hard set caps on premiums, deducts, and claims payments(another thing that's up in the air) we are still going to have problems, without a means for negotiating lower drug prices, for example, how are we to reduce costs for these companies? Soon enough, under this type of plan, these companies will run into debt and be forced out of business, without a public option, or any type of universal government run system, what are people supposed to do then?

Everything your positing is based on a worst-case scenario and under the assumption that the government will not regulate the program. I work for a healthcare provider, and I can assure that the Medicare/Medicaid program is very tightly regulated.

Let me say again, if you have an insurance program that has coverage defined by law and premiums established by law, there's no difference between a government-run plan and a private carrier. It's six of one and a half dozen the other.

In addition, more recent "reforms" to these programs have lead to an outsourcing of some services to private companies which has, in turn, lead to an increase in fraud and costs.

Or are you just plain ignorant?

The Medicare/Medicaid outsourcing is back-office IT and billing services (the same things that a private carrier outsources). The increase in Medicare/Medicaid fraud comes primarly from stepped up enforcement. And the President's 2010 budget is proposing and extra $300 million to root out fraud - so there's more of that to come. The increase in fraud has little to do with the private companies who provide services to the government.

If your argument is that we shouldn't allow options where there is the possibility of fraud, then you pretty much have to eliminate BOTH public and private insurance, because fraud occurs everywhere.

At the same time, institute cost controls. Yeah, I want a public option, but doesn't the mandate take aspects of a public option by making insurance more affordable and by placing caps on what insurance companies can charge? I think so...

Sorry.

premiums.

Obama is not proposing a cap on rates.

They changed their tune.

Exactly. But this is the only part of the bill that has been consistent throughout.

and the independents will vote against anyone that voted for this travesty.

Any more ideas about things we're simply required to do, and do anyways, on a national level?

not to private companies that are not answerable to the people of this country.

Co-op and non-profits, are they excluded?

and do you really need to be reminded that BCBS is a non-profit? They still operate as an unethical, unaccountable corporate entity being looted from within.

Most of the country has health insurance. Most of the people who don't would buy it if they could afford it. The people who have an ideological issue with buying insurance are a small minority, IMO.

That's a pretty sizable minority.

100% of people oppose taxes.

I like paying taxes as long as I get some bang for my bucks--and that doesn't mean supporting wars so some global corporations can make a stealing. For highways, emergency services, libraries, public schools, senior citizens, children and the needy--and yes, even health care-I'm more than willing to pay taxes!

People may oppose mandates but I doubt they are going to get up in arms about the government making them do something that they already do.

forcing anyone to buy a certain product from a private corporation. Because it's involuntary servitude. I'm appalled that so many here don't see that.

I was in California when they made auto insurance mandatory--knowing that they were forcing people to buy a corporate product (especially the working poor), a proposition was put on the ballot, stating that minimum insurance coverage would be for all drivers through a tax at the pump. Extra insurance would be provided by private insurance. The insurance industry spent millions to defeat the proposition.

My question to you is "do you feel that access to health care as a "right" or a "privilege"? Also, if I cannot afford the privilege of owning a vehicle, I have other options, like public transportation or riding a bike (my son who could not afford the insurance, did this for years). What are my options if I can't afford shitty for profit insurance, die?

My hubby once had a great job, with great insurance benefits. Unfortunately, he and other managers lost their great job after thirty years of service. Now, he has long hours and minimal pay with minimum insurance (since that's all we can afford). How many others are in the same fix in this country today? So, what are we going to get with this bill? I have no problem paying into a public system (which apparently isn't going to happen)--but I have very strong feelings about allowing corporations even having more power over our lives. I mean they've done such a bang up job so far. A corporation has no conscience, they're main priority is making profit and using that gain to seek more influence and power. Accountability and responsibility doesn't seem to be one of their strong traits. All I have to do is look at the corruption and unaccountability of those who have been awarded contracts in our wars, who have been awarded contracts to rebuild NOLA--and what has transpired with *'s glorious privatized medicare rip off.

Again, I am more than willing to pay more for a strong public option--at least a choice for us--instead of selling us to for profit insurance.

I'm not saying that people should or should not be forced to purchase health insurnace, I'm giving a political assessment of the situation.

mandating everyone be covered if they roll back premium hikes that have been going in effect in anticipation of coming HCR and freeze them. Folks should not be forced to buy insurance if premiums are not regulated. It's immoral to allow people to be gouged for health care services IMO.

I'm all for government regulating business when it is for protecting the people. They also need to implement strong financial sector reform. Right now there is nothing in place to prevent another financial market "crisis".

Mandates appear to be working just fine in Mass, by the way.

link.

:shrug:

I've been shaking my head all day as I read these threads about watching the counter.

:crazy:

public option is, essentially being forced to buy something that you can't use, look at, or touch.

it being harder on Insurance Companies.

:eyes:

What private for profit companies are these that offer social security to us all at a mandated price.

A government health care program controlled by the people through their representatives and their votes or a more expensive private for profit health ins. program controlled by private shareholders looking to make maximum buck for minimum investment.

With government we are talking about health care. With the private choice we are talking about health ins which in many cases has nothing to do with access to care.

If you think private business for profit ins. can do a better job than government controlled care most of the rest of the world is laughing at your ignorance and stupidity. The rest are shaking their heads in pity.