Wake the fuck up! WH:Individual mandate conceived of by the Heritage Foundation (VIDEO)

[Poll_Blind]

Simply watch the first question and White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest's blunt reply. It starts at about the 50 second mark. Transcript is below. This is from last week's press briefing at the White House. Here is a link to the same video at the White House website.

Transcript from the White House website:

Q Sure. Josh, there's been a lot of focus on the health care arguments before the Supreme Court the last few days. Is the administration concerned that the entire health care law may be in jeopardy, and, more specifically, the individual mandate portion of the law?

MR. EARNEST: Ken, I can tell you that the administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. One of the reasons for that is because the individual provision -- individual responsibility provision that you cite was originally a Republican idea.

This is a novel, policy solution that was conceived of by the Heritage Foundation, was promoted by conservative Republicans in Washington D.C. as a solution to difficult health care challenges, and it was an idea that was put forward as the central part of the plan that was advanced by the Republican governor of Massachusetts, who put in place his own health care reform proposal. So the Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan, and it's one that we believe is constitutional.

How big a pair of index fingers do some of you have to jam them in your ears on this issue? I've seen posters here who have been a lot kinder in their attempts to inform you all on this matter, excoriated viciously for their efforts. I say fuck that noise. When somebody takes the time to write an OP giving you all the background on individual mandate and all some people seem to basically respond with is "So you want the PPACA ("Obamacare&quot to be ruled unconstitutional and for people to die?" it's embarrassing beyond belief. Especially for this site.

Wake the fuck up. If you have snookered yourself into believing the individual mandate is a good thing, that this pastiche of deals-with-the-devil named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a salvation or a stepping stone to a salvation of some sort you're being played for a chump.

It's a bit of good medicine wrapped in a poison pill. And what bits of the PPACA are good are going to be slowly stripped out by bought legislators from both parties until there's nothing left but the shackle of the individual mandate.

Like you needed to be told that. Like somehow you couldn't fucking guess that. Apparently not.

The individual mandate is not your cause. It's not Obama's cause. It's a bad decision and a bad deal President Obama made in a tough situation. You are not required to unquestioningly bleat out praise for something that the President himself will acknowledge was the biggest fuckup of his presidency when he inevitably writes a book about the whole ordeal after he leaves office. The President has gone on record many times acknowledging that he rankled many progressive members of his own party to make this shitty deal. None of this is a secret except, possibly, to the grossly uninformed.

When the Supreme Court likely strikes down the mandate here's something else you should know:The difference between Single Payer and the Public Option:

Single-payer is a complete government-run health insurance system under which everyone is covered, e.g., Canada’s system. The "public option" is a single federal insurance plan that would compete with private insurance companies.

It's an election year. You can either sit around moping when the Supreme Court shits all over your precious Heritage Foundation, Repuke, Corporatist solution that the President didn't want anyway or you can do what you can to support REAL FUCKING OPTIONS.

Your choice.



PB

[gratuitous]

1. I can dig it

Republican proposal after conservative brain fart adopted as policy because "it's the best we could do." Now for the big surprise: The Republicans think their own proposals are too liberal and socialistic! Charlie Brown misses the football by a country mile while Lucy laughs. But then we get scolded and prissily informed that we need to support the president and congressional Democrats for their feeble efforts, because they got rolled so badly.

However, on the subject of the PPACA and its constitutional review by the Supremes, I think it's far better to have it ruled constitutional than not. What I worry about is a colossal game of judicial "Button, button, who's got the button?" in which the Supremes say the PPACA is both constitutional and unconstitutional, but they don't have the time, patience or thoroughness to designate what's what. So Congress is left with an unconstitutional bill, and they get to pass another law, crossing their legislative fingers, and waiting to see what the Court will rule this time. Or, Congress just gives up in disgust and the whole magilla just goes down the rathole for another generation.

[JoePhilly]

2. Nixon started the EPA ... let's kill it!!!!

[Poll_Blind]

3. Can't muster anything more substantive?

PB

[JoePhilly]

7. Why? Claiming that an idea is bad because the GOP suggested it first is no more substaintial.

Also ... when the GOP originally proposed it, they did not couple it with:

1) A regulation to prevent insurers from using pre-existing conditions to not cover you.
2) A removal of life time caps.
3) A regulation to prevent insurers from dropping you after you get sick.

The goodness, or badness, of the mandate depends more on what its combined with, and less on which party came up with that specific provision initially.

If our model is always that any idea proposed by the other side is automatically evil, then we won't get far.

How's that?

[Poll_Blind]

9. Riiiiight. It's a great idea that the Repukes just happened to come up with, and ran with until...

...the Democratic Party told them in no uncertain terms to fuck off about it.

But now forcing all of America to purchase these products from the private sector is a great idea because of a few concessions which the insurance lobby will ensure are transitory?

Any kind of individual mandate like this is going to be a dodgy proposition. Even in the best of times. This thing was forged in Mount Shit by the health insurance companies to do one thing only: To make it so every American has to purchase products from the private insurance market. If you really think they won't have this shit stripped out by their pet legislators you're living in a dream world.

You pretend like the insurance industry doesn't base their success model on fucking over anyone and everyone they can.

"Healthcare in our time!"

Indeed.

PB

[SidDithers]

11. Pesky facts...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

14. hey sid, i just found a SCTV Christmas special DVD. vaht? must havebeen an old roomates.. i'll take

it!

[SidDithers]

15. Good stuff...

Sid

[girl gone mad]

13. It's a bad idea because it's a bad idea.

The mandate is a huge giveaway to the health care and insurance industry which comes at the expense of labor, and particularly the young. Do you really think young workers need another tax right now?

[JoePhilly]

23. The ACA let's "young people" stay on their parents plan until they are 26.

You miss that?

And, well ... health insurance is not a TAX on the young. Only an IDIOT who can afford health insurance does not obtain it.

Again ... if you are "young" and can't afford it, you either get a subsidy, you get to stay on your parent's plan, or you are exempt.

That evil Obama. Tell me, how does a "young person" who has no insurance now, and no coverage through their parents, pay for a catastrophic illness without the ACA?

You can call for some other plan, like single payer ... but that is not happening in the near term. So what do you want those folks to do, die?

The ACA builds a bridge. Its not perfect. But it moves us forward.

Or ... we can go back to where we were before Obama, before Bush, before Clinton, before Bush #1. Good plan.

[Uncle Joe]

5. If Nixon's EPA had been a mandate for the people to send money to the polluters, we should.

[JoePhilly]

8. The point of course ...

is that to be against something simply because the other side originally proposed it, is silly.

Also ... when the GOP proposed the mandate, they did not include:

1) No life time caps.
2) No pre-existing conditions
3) No dropping you when you get sick.

The context matters.

[Uncle Joe]

12. You're correct context does matter

1. All of those things you list will be in jeopardy because the mandate and 1/2 trillion in tax money being sent to the for profit "health" insurance industry will make their lobby even more "incredibly powerful" (Potter's description) than it already is.

"1) No life time caps.
2) No pre-existing conditions
3) No dropping you when you get sick."

They will use the Citizens United decision to flood upcoming elections with unlimited issue advocacy money to enable sympathetic politicians to power, people that will immediately work to undercut, erode and/or eliminate those positives you list but they damn sure won't touch the mandate; the goose that lays the Golden Eggs.

On top of using Citizens United to enable corporate loving puppets to power, the for profit "health" insurance industry will lobby and bribe future Congresses until the cows come home with their new found wealth and the American People will be mandated to pay for the fight against themselves.

Those good things you list are the Trojan Horse and the mandate/tax money/captured customers are the hidden Greeks, so wheel that baby in here and admire it.

[JoePhilly]

24. And if they overturn ACA, the GOP will claim that is the precedent for claiming that

Medicare and Social Security are also unconstitutional.

After all, those are both the government making you pay for health care and retirement.

That's what's next. That is the GOP's trojan horse.

Can you defend those programs on Constitutional grounds if the ACA is knocked down?

That's where this is going.

[Uncle Joe]

26. To governmental non-profit agencies, that's an entirely different animal.

However if they uphold the ACA mandate, social security will be threatened from a different angle, because Republicans will start pushing for mandating the people to send their social security money to for profit brokers on Wall Street.

Now we're talking about the Fox guarding the hen house.

[JoePhilly]

29. That does not matter.

The Constitution does not make such distinction.

To overturn ACA, you have to argue that the government can not force you to pay for health care, and by extension Social Security. The mechanisms of how you do it are not described in the constitution, and so, if its "commerce" the Congress can regulate it.

Now ... the GOP has correctly claimed that they can privatize SS because the commerce clause does not prevent them from doing so.

But if the ACA is over turned, they still win, because they will try to kill SS and medicare outright. They'll take the funds, and claim to use them to pay off the debt.

Your argument fails because the GOP already makes the argument that you claim they might make after the over turn of ACA.

They have no problem burning this candle from both ends. Their goal is to kill Medicare and Social Security.

[Uncle Joe]

31. That's not true, social security is "uniform" mandating the purchase

of for profit "health" insurance from the for profit "health" insurance corporations is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

[woo me with science]

4. Of course it was.

The corporate mandate was the goal all along, and the "negotiations" between the one percent on one side and the one percent on the other side were pure theater for our benefit.

They played this for the masses. They purposely revved up one side with the promise of universal healthcare, and revved up the other side with the threat of government health care, and then they came up with a planned "compromise" that mandates every single American to purchase an outrageously overpriced corporate product for their entire lives.

Think about that. Unprecedented, and something that neither side wanted, and they knew it. What a bonanza for the insurance companies. And that was the goal all along.

It was perhaps the most elegantly orchestrated political scam by the one percent in both parties, in recent memory.

[aquart]

6. Yes. It's a gift to the insurance companies. We knew that.

The amusement will be seeing if SCOTUS wants to screw Big Insurance.

You, however, seem to be wiping the sleep from your eyes.

[Xyzse]

10. I agree that the individual mandate was a disaster from the beginning

However, it is currently what we have and is the lynch pin of the current system.
Without it, the other aspects of the bill will begin to unravel.

I disliked the passed bill, even from other sites, they know that I went off on it. However, be it as it may, I do not agree on repeal as there is nothing to replace it. When taken out, it will take another hundred or so years for Health Care to be looked at meaningfully.

I have excoriated Obama's position on Health Care as he took off the Public Option before he even fought for it.

Yes, I would like to have that part of the bill stricken off, however I have to be realistic about the alternatives. The idea of pre-existing conditions to be a reason for denial of coverage will come back, and the loss of coverage for younger individuals who receive it from their parents will be another blow.

The fact is, they are still in the Health Care system and if they don't get to pay in to this, the collective whole does when they end up in the ER.

As much as I don't like the Bill, I don't want the Supreme Court to rule on this yet until they actually know what the Bill does. Most of the bill has not rolled out yet, and it is wrong for the Supreme Court to look at it at this time when there has been no one affected by such a fee as of yet.

[FarLeftFist]

16. YAY! Lets all divebomb the ER's and make someone else pay for it!

While I'm actually FOR single-payer show me the votes. So we actually collect a tax to be used for those who choose to not have health insurance. It's actually quite a centrist idea. It collects taxes & encourages personal responsibility.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Thanks for trying.

No one here gives a shit about it. Obama's in office, didn't you hear?

[OnyxCollie]

18. Hooray bipartisanship! nt

[ProSense]

19. Here are

some things you may not know: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603

[progressoid]

20. I'm awake.

To me, the sad irony that Dems support this, and Repukes hate it is stunning.

But I disagree with you here:

"The individual mandate is not your cause. It's not Obama's cause.... You are not required to unquestioningly bleat out praise for something that the President himself will acknowledge was the biggest fuckup of his presidency when he inevitably writes a book about the whole ordeal after he leaves office."

I think it ISObama's cause. And many here feel we MUST unquestioningly bleat out praise it. No thanks.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I believe the repukes; at least those in power, are playing br-er rabbit,

"please don't throw us in the thorn patch!"

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

21. Keep saying it!

MEDICARE FOR ALL !

[quinnox]

25. but now since the Democrats bought into it, all of a sudden it became a grand idea!

Lets rummage around more in the Heritage Foundation vault, there might be other great ideas we can put into action!


Sucky and terrible right wing idea to begin with, sucky and terrible right wing idea to end with.

[AtomicKitten]

27. This has been discussed here ad nauseam.

DUers are awake and already know this. Did you forget and wake up this morning shocked, I tell you shocked at this already thoroughly probed and dissected bit of information?

Yes, we know you think the Affordable Care Act sucks ass; that is your opinion. However, there are some knowledgeable folks that think the ACA is a precursor to a Medicare For All/single-payer system; that is their opinion. Bernie Sanders is pretty happy with the waiver granted Vermont to set up single-payer.

Medicare didn't start out the way it operates now and neither will the ACA. If you choose to join the rightwing in rallying the SC to strike it down, knock yourself out. Just stop pretending this topic has been neglected here. Some people simply disagree with you. Horrors, right? Apparently.

[mzmolly]

28. Did they conceive of not allowing those with pre-existing conditions to be booted from insurance

rolls? How about remaining on parents insurance until one is 26? Covering sick children?

Because that is what's at stake. I don't give a rip about the mandate.

[ArcticFox]

30. Thank you for posting this

But don't be mistaken. it's not bad because the republicans thought of it. It's bad because it requires us to give our money to insurance companies. it gives tax money to insurance companies. the guarantees a giant market for insurance companies. it makes them stronger, well reducing our options, thus making us weaker.

[abelenkpe]

32. I'm not worried

If the supreme court strikes down the mandate they will energize voters to vote democratic so that no more republican leaning judges are appointed to the court. But striking down the mandate means screwing over insurance companies. Insurance companies want the mandate. They will go bankrupt without it, or require a bailout. (aka nationalization) They have wanted a mandate since the 70s. My father retired from the insurance industry. He's a republican and even he will tell you that the only way to bring down costs is single payer.

I don't think the supreme court will rule the mandate is unconstitutional.

I hate our current system.

[davidthegnome]

33. Still on the fence

I think I'll wait and see what happens. For now I'm going to support it - because flawed or not, the bill provides health insurance for millions of people. While I realize that insurance does not equal health care, it is better than having nothing, which is what I and many others have now. At 27, I'm just over the age where my parents insurance would cover me, I'm hoping I'll be able to get vouchers or something, because as someone with both parents working for a hospital.. I know how much health care costs. No one without a great deal of money can afford regular treatment for any serious illness without some kind of coverage. As someone who has a serious illness (though not life threatening) this rather screws me. If I become chronically ill I have little choice but to go to the ER - as for follow up care? Forget it. For a while I let it slide, kept going to my family physician, to a therapist... and eventually I ended up thousands of dollars in debt.

Health insurance would be great, if it enables me and many others to receive any kind of treatment. Just how adequate it may be I don't know... but honestly, I'll take what I can get, mandate or not. It is entirely likely that I'll be either poor or working class for the rest of my life, entirely unlikely that I'll ever be one of those individuals that can afford to pay out of pocket. So I'll take what I can get.

If that ends up being very little.. it's better than what I have now. If ACA is flawed, perhaps it can be altered in time to be improved. Perhaps it will screw us all in the end, but I'm thinking about right now, about next year, or the next ten years.

Would I prefer single payer or a solid public option? Hell yes - but we aren't going to get one right now. Let's stick with what we've got and fight that battle when we're better prepared.