Health Insurance Mandates -The Bigger Picture

[Bonobo]

Once again, the bigger picture here that should not be missed is (and the same pattern happens over and over again with this Admin)

1. The Obama Admin picked up an overwhelmingly Republican idea -one that had been pushed by the absolute center of the Republican Party bigwigs.

2. The idea is then attacked from the Right as being a liberal Govt. takeover or some other nonsense and the Left is forced to defend a Republican idea --"Why are you attacking us... it was YOUR idea to begin with!?"

3. The Center is pulled far, far to the Right. The Left drops off the map, ground is ceded and lost forever.

4. Rinse, repeat.

Big Question: The Republican idea of an insurance mandate that is now defended by so many not on the "Democratic" side... why is it a good idea when supported by Dems but not when supported by Repubs? WHY were the Repubs for it back then? Who does it really benefit and have we not been played that we are now fighting so hard to defend it?

[Laelth]

1. Excellent synopsis.

The Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act was a bad idea from the get go, and, as I liberal, I can not and will not defend it--not for the significant, strategic reasons you mention, but because the mandate turns my stomach and is, most likely, unconstitutional.

I hope the Supreme Court does us a favor and strikes it down.

-Laelth

[Bonobo]

6. I agree completely.

While it is laudable to hope that everyone be covered and have access to good health care, it is unconscionable to demand that people throw their money into the hands of for-profit health sharks.

If the government has deemed it desirable that everyone have coverage, they were bound to offer a public option.

They didn't and THAT is what makes it a case of wrongful collusion between govt. and private enterprise.

[ProSense]

7. Where have

"The Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act was a bad idea from the get go...I hope the Supreme Court does us a favor and strikes it down. "

...I heard that argument before? Oh yeah: Kill the bill!

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

NCPSSM: Healthcare Reform, Seniors and the Supreme Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002485990

Screw everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, because of a silly argument. Yeah, the mandate was embraced by Republicans in the past, but the left didn't start defending it because it's in the health care law.

Remember, the two other Democratic candidates campaigned on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603

Yeah, it was good enough for some to overlook then, even in its worst form, despite the claims of hypocrisy being leveled now.

[Laelth]

10. There are some good things in the law.

I am of the opinion, as you know, that the bad parts of the law outweigh the good parts. I am not alone in this opinion.

-Laelth

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Here's an additional question. Why do so many third-way Democrats get so angry at other Democrats

who make an effort to discuss this in an intelligent way?

[Bonobo]

3. Because it brings up an uncomfortable question.

"Do you decide your position on issues based on anything other than party loyalty?"

[dflprincess]

4. I think it's because they've sold out and in their hearts they know they're wrong.

BTW Love your sig line & the FDR button

[Laelth]

5. kicking. n/t

-Laelth

[quaker bill]

8. People enjoy carving this bit out

then looking at it in isolation and crying, "What were they thinking?"

Personally, I would have preferred a government run single payer program, some form of medicare for all. This would have solved the "constitutional" problem because everyone would have been mandated to buy in, but the mechanism would have been paying taxes to fund the program. Now fascinatingly, government could have taken the taxes collected and simply contracted with healthcare administrators and providers (insurance cos and HMOs) to deliver the services, at the fairly normal (cost+ 15%) formula for government contracting. This would have put the choice of provider in the hands of government committes that review bids for services.

Instead, they created an individual mandate, a low income subsidy, a public exchange, and a mandated MLR of 85% to participate. In this case, by setting benefit standard packages, the consumer can cost compare between identical benefit packages, the cost becomes progressiviely distributed (like taxes are but through a tax funded subsidy), and the providers must operate at the usual (cost+ 15%) that they would if contracted by government to administrate and provide the service. However the choice of provider remains with the consumer.

So what we are essentially arguing here is over the difference between a mandate to purchase or a mandate to pay taxes. Of course the thing that makes it "constitutional" is to take all choice away from the consumer, collect taxes, have congress appropriate the money, and have committes of civil servants pick your healthcare provider.

Government has the unchalleged ability to collect taxes, appropriate money, and contract for services under the constitution. I would love to see defense contractors and all those other mega corps take issue with how they get all that pork... So the simple mechanism would be to get healthcare using the same process we use to purchase B-2 bombers. I am not really clear why it would be better.

It is important to consider that medicare does not employ doctors, it purchases services from them as private contractors.

[eridani]

9. Government health care is in fact the only way to get your free choice of providers

In Canada you can go to any doctor you want. Naturally there are limitations in thinly populated medically underserved areas, though.

[Kablooie]

11. My question is why are medical costs so ungodly high?

Doctors have always been paid well and no one objects to that but why are there so many 'no one can afford except insurance company' costs? Sure a cat scan machine is an expensive capital expense but how expensive is it to run one person through it?

Someone is feathering their nest quite lushly at the expense of patients but no one ever talks about that.

Americans must pay unbelievable prices for medical care and I believe that unbelievable is the correct adjective.

[Sirveri]

13. That could be calculated with some basic info.

At least for cat scan costs.

cost of the machine (including required maintenance) divided by number of uses before total failure yields a base cost per person.

Then add electricity and labor costs per person (which should be simple to track).

Now add 5% on top for miscellaneous and accounting errors.

Now since you're a for profit business double the current number.

Or since you only have one and more people want access than can be put thru you can pretty much charge however much you feel like until people run out of money and can't afford the procedure at which point the demand drops below the supply point.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. Keep your fingers crossed....

...and the Court may come through yet -- with a massive victory for progressives.

There's still a chance the Court will do the right thing, albeit for the wrong reasons.

In a crisis one can't be choosy about one's allies.

[FarLeftFist]

14. Really, allies? How about the little girl who battled cancer now being doomed to a life of

Discrimination, price-gouging, or denial b/c of pre-existing condition. Choose your allies carefully. This bill is a VICTORY. It is a victory for the people. The reforms in the bill far out-weigh everyone's whiny issues about a mandate. This is what I don't get, progressives sometimes don't even realize that progress is sometimes measured one inch at a time. But most would rather have nothing if the world doesn't fit their perfect ideal little mould. Insurance companies are forced to spend 80% of costs on healthcare, not CEO salaries, the people! And do you know how good it feels as a parent of 2 little boys to know they could be covered until 27? It feels great. Really great. Not to mention crackdowns on price-gouging and discrimination. This bill is the morally right thing to do, for society, for our country. It's progress that can be improved upon. I wish the professional Left stood up for it because it is terrible to think of all those parents, children, students, elderly people that will be negatively impacted if SCOTUS overturns it. It's heart-breaking.