In Some States, a Push to Ban Mandate on Insurance

[Thickasabrick]

Source: New York Times

ST. PAUL — In more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers are pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.

Approval of the measures, the lawmakers suggest, would set off a legal battle over the rights of states versus the reach of federal power — an issue that is, for some, central to the current health care debate but also one that has tentacles stretching into a broad range of other matters, including education and drug policy.

Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run. But they acknowledge the measures could create legal collisions that would be both costly and cause delays to health care changes, and could be a rallying point for opponents in the increasingly tense debate.

“This does head us for a legal showdown,” said Christie Herrera, an official at the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group in Washington that advocates limited government and free markets, and which on Sept. 16 offered guidance to lawmakers in more than a dozen states during a conference call on the state amendments.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29states.html?ref=us

[BlooInBloo]

1. Cool. Another opportunity for DUers to side with republicans.

[liskddksil]

2. If the final bill

is force people to buy private health insurance and no public plan, then count me on the side of these states.

[tblue]

3. People without private insurance should automatically fall into a public plan

paid for with taxes, if possible, as public insurance premiums. The 'force' concept is radical and, even with tax rebates or subsidies, to have the gov't hand money to Big Insurance to cover all those people is the stupidest, most wasteful proposal yet.

[napi21]

4. Why? If you can't afford it, the feds will help you pay for it, and

if you can't afford anything you are eligible for medicaid which costs you nothing.

[amandabeech]

5. The subsidies will be inadequate.

There were several good threads over the weekend discussing this.

I suggest that you check them out over on GDP.

[quiet.american]

9. I have a friend who's currently doing well with COBRA subsidies from the stimulus package.

It reduced her costs by over half per month.

I'll withhold judgment on this for a bit.

[amandabeech]

14. The subsidies on the stimulus package for those unemployed who are forunate

enough to be eligible for COBRA are completely different from the subsidies that will be offered to those forced to buy individual health care insurance.

I urge you to investigate the extent of the subsidies further.

[quiet.american]

20. At the moment, the noise around this remains at high decibel level.

Here's my bottom line: Wading into all the theories, leaks, rumors, models, projections and he says/she says right now is akin to trying to grasp a handful of fog. Everyone seems to be afraid of **something** about what the final bill will entail.

Obama has stated many times his objective is to provide affordable healthcare and reign in the worst practices of the insurance industry.

He has staked his presidency on it. If he's willing to do that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that when the smoke clears, I will be able to afford health insurance.

Now, does that mean I do nothing at all? No. However, there's still too much noise around this for me to make pronouncements like subsidies won't be enough, etc.

(Especially when I can see that policies Obama has already enacted are financially helping those around me.)

[Bluenorthwest]

32. My questions for all forced purchase subsidiy apologists

1. What do you do for a living?
2. Why do you support a plan that will discriminate against millions of Americans, that defines my family as legal strangers to each other? Why are you happy to pad your own nest with feathers stolen from my nest?

[Frosty cupcake]

16. the problem with the subsidies

Is that they are inadequate, which is why Big Insurance is lobbying for higher payments.

That means more of our taxes will go to these companies-- the comapnies that caused this crisis in the first place.

Why should the American taxpayer be forced to give these corporations money up front for forced insurance and money out the backdoor to cover forced insurance for the poor and not-so-poor? With fully one third of that money going for nothing but profits?

Please sign me up for a business that everyone in America is required by law to have.

[quiet.american]

22. Someone may be putting this out there, but I really don't think this theory is accurate. nt

[amandabeech]

25. Here is a link to a DU discussion that you might find interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user

FYI, Obama's policies aren't helping me as yet. I'm glad your friend getting something for her vote. I'm not.

[quiet.american]

27. Thread title, please? Link doesn't work. nt

[amandabeech]

29. Here you go.

"A non hysterical explanation of mandates" started by grantcart.

I don't agree with all opinions there, but it's not a bad start.

[quiet.american]

31. Thanks. I'll take a look this evening. nt

[prolesunited]

33. It only lasts 9 months

and missed a huge group of people who were laid off prior to Sept. 1.

[strategery blunder]

8. Because private health insurance exists to collect premiums and deny claims.

With as much hoopla there is about "no more pre-existing conditions" and "insurers cannot deny you a policy," I see nothing in the current healthcare debate addressing 20+% claims denial rates. I see nothing to force health insurers to actually pay bona fide claims instead of delaying them and denying payment.

The insurance companies would be allowed to say "sure, we'll cover you!" but refuse payment when you actually file a claim. That is not acceptable to me, and that is why I will not support a mandate without either 1) a complete ban on insurance company death panels (all bona fide claims MUST be paid without delaying tactics), or 2) a public option open to all.

Sadly, 1) is not brought up at all in the HCR discussion and 2) has already been bought and paid for by death care industry lobbyists.

[Thickasabrick]

13. It's my understanding that the insurance companies will not be

allowed to do that anymore - and that is in all the bills. The one thing they will still be allowed to do is charge premiums based on age...which sucks for me being old.

[Alcibiades]

21. Based on "pre-existing conditions"

I am curious to see if they invent a new reason to deny claims.

[strategery blunder]

26. That is exactly my concern.

All the debate I hear concerning this concerns the initial issuance of policies. The current proposals require insurance cos to ISSUE policies to all takers.

When it comes to actually paying claims on those policies...crickets.

[Iowa]

18. This is not correct...

One does not qualify for Medicaid based solely on income. An able-bodied 45 year old (for example) who is unemployed and has zero income or savings cannot simply walk in and get Medicaid. There is a common misconception that a safety net exists for people who have no income. If you're under 65 and not disabled (and by disabled I mean unable to perform ANY substantial gainful activity), you're pretty much on your own in this country.

At this point, we simply do not have the details to know what type of subsidies the feds will provide for those unable to afford to buy insurance, nor is there any assurance that the subsidies provided in the original bill will not be reduced or eliminated in the future; the feds have a long history of creating unfunded mandates. Forcing all citizens to buy a very expensive, shoddy product from a group of especially sleazy (and sometimes criminal) private corps is something one would expect to see from a Republican Congress and WH, not a Democratic one. This is shaping up to be a massive sell-out of the citizens and a hand-out to the insurance industry, and when the final details are out, we may all find ourselves opposed to it.

[Thickasabrick]

24. Yes, but don't forget out past president's assurances; "everyone

can walk into a emergency room - so everyone's covered!"

:sarcasm:

The good thing is I haven't heard many republicans saying that during these discussions so maybe that argument went away.

Thanks for the info on Medicaid....I did not know it was so difficult.

[pattmarty]

28. What I have been saying the last couple of months with the Republicans...........

..........being against any "reform", the Baucus bill at least looks like it was written by ALL Republicans. Most here know that with "Medicare for all" it would cost A LOT less and everyone would be covered. To pay for it just return the tax rates to what there were under st ronnie. Also Medicare for all would eliminate all this bullshit arguing over all the ifs, ands or buts that is taking up all the media, both houses of Congress, and countless others time.

[Q3JR4]

19. Ditto... n/t.

[quiet.american]

6. One photo caption is worth a thousand words - this is same ole' GOP nonsense.

“All I’m trying to do is protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions,” said State Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota. “I just don’t want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors.”
-------
Notice how Emmer pushes the same old misinformation about "government panels," etc. Same old shameless GOP propaganda.

[kirby]

7. A picture worth a thousand words?

Is it that his mouth appears next to the name 'Loon'?

[Thickasabrick]

10. LOL....good one. nt

[quiet.american]

11. Dupe. nt

[quiet.american]

12. Oh, missed the joke -- okay, that was funny! nt

[tonekat]

30. What Emmer really meant:

He's quoted as saying: “I just don’t want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors.”

What he really went on to say was: "That's what I pay insurance companies for!"

Duh. Ever hear of rescission, Emmet Kelly? How about caps on services? What if your doctor isn't in your network? How about non-covered services? Nah, no one gets in the way now...sure.

Anyone notice the word on the board to the left of Emmer's mouth? "LOON" !!!

[SandWalker1984]

15. Paul Craig Roberts article on why mandates & subsidies won't work

I came across this great article by Paul Craig Roberts that said it better than I could as to why we should be discussing SINGLE PAYER not mandates to buy private, corporate insurance and why subsidies to buy private insurance won't work:

It is the War in Afghanistan Obama Declared a "Necessity," Not Health Care
The Health Care Deceit
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

"The current health care “debate” shows how far gone representative government is in the United States. Members of Congress represent the powerful interest groups that fill their campaign coffers, not the people who vote for them.

The health care bill is not about health care. It is about protecting and increasing the profits of the insurance companies. The main feature of the health care bill is the “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in America to buy health insurance. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont), a recipient of millions in contributions over his career from the insurance industry, proposes to impose up to a $3,800 fine on Americans who fail to purchase health insurance.

The determination of “our” elected representatives to serve the insurance industry is so compelling that Congress is incapable of recognizing the absurdity of these proposals.

The reason there is a health care crisis in the US is that the cumulative loss of jobs and benefits has swollen the uninsured to approximately 50 million Americans. They cannot afford health insurance any more than employers can afford to provide it.

It is absurd to mandate that people purchase what they cannot afford and to fine them for failing to do so. A person who cannot pay a health insurance premium cannot pay the fine.

These proposals are like solving the homeless problem by requiring the homeless to purchase a house."

snip...

Roberts goes on to explain why the Baucus bill and "credits" to help purchase private insurance won't work.

Roberts states: "The private sector is no longer the answer, because the income levels of the vast majority of Americans are insufficient to bear the cost of health insurance today."

Roberts concludes: "The system is no longer functional and no longer makes sense. Health care has become an incidental rather than primary purpose of the health care system. Health care plays second fiddle to insurance company profits and salaries to bureaucrats engaged in fraud prevention and discovery. There is no point in denying coverage to one-sixth of the population in the name of saving a nonexistent private free market health care system."

WHY DO ALL OF THE BILLS CONTAIN MANDATES TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE FROM THE VERY CORPORATIONS WHO CREATED THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS IN THE NAME OF GREED?


To read the rest of the excellent article, go to
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09142009.html

[Thickasabrick]

17. +1 Good article!! nt

[newscott]

23. I am against required insurance

But I am for Healthcare for all. Screw the insurance companies completely!!!!