There is no way that mandated insurance will EVER pass.

[cali]

thankfully.


It simply won't happen. The surest way to lose your seat almost anywhere in 2010 is to vote for people to be forced to purchase private insurance.

[kenny blankenship]

1. Really? So it's the one thing that is in every bill and it's not going to be there in the end.

We'll see.

[cali]

2. It won't be there in the end. they won't risk their elections over it.

[Old Codger]

3. Not so sure

You are giving them credit for two things here and I am not so sure they are that capable, I do not think they have that much smarts or that much guts, the mandate part is in every bill because it is a poison pill , it will be the one thing they al can agree on "vote no if it is in there" and it is in all of them so the bills will be defeated.... Yes I am a pessimist when it comes to politics ...

[daleanime]

7. Wisdom is often mistaken for pessimism....

.

[theophilus]

4. Way. n/t

[nightrain]

5. I hope that's true. There are MUCH better ways to assure coverage, as plenty

of other countries have discovered. US lags, unfortunately.

[stray cat]

6. No one should be forced to have access to health care - just don't treat them

Why should anyone have to pay for anything?

[cali]

8. no one should be forced to buy private insurance.

[Oregone]

9. I think you are totally wrong

They will pick up more Republican votes for it than currently anticipated because its basically a Republican plan. This entire reform movement is Nixon's old reform in the early 70s dusted off with some fancy dressings on them.

Once the Democrats jumped on board, its a sealed deal (when the right first attempted this, the left, led by Kennedy, responded with Single-Payer).

[angrychair]

10. I respectfully disagree with tone of your post

I fail to see the root of this fear-mongering going on in regard to the mandatory insurance proposal that the President put forth in his speech before Congress. I don't mean this to be a personal attack but I don't consider this any less hysterical nuttery than "death panels". Here is why: do you honestly think that this president and this congress (at least its Dems) would honestly work so to the detriment of the working poor as a means to enrich the executives of big-pharma and health care? Your line of reasoning doesn't make sense in the bigger picture. Again, I don't mean to belittle you I only mean to show you where your line of reasoning may have gone a little off track. This is not the * administration or a rethug controlled congress. Here is where I do give your observations a little credit though, ALWAYS keep your eyes open to any possibilities though. While I do think that this president is working in the working poor's best interest, you should ALWAYS distrust your government enough to NEVER be an un-answering sheep to its efforts.

[cali]

11. it's not nutbaggery to object to mandated purchase of private insurance

sadly, there is ample evidence that many dems would indeed work to the detriment of the working poor. The blue dog coalition is far more concerned about being re-elected than the working poor. And though I don't believe that Obama would do any such thing, I do believe that he'd compromise in order to pass something.

Your line of reasoning is sadly naive. I don't mean to put you down. I mean this with the greatest respect and absolute overflowing good will.

This is a Congress subject to enormous corporate influence and power. far more power than the working poor possess.

With huge respect, you seem to have zero knowledge about politics. Zip, none, nada. I say that with great respect, of course.

[angrychair]

13. Well, Yes indeed

You did spit in my face with the greatest amount of respect and dignity in your pursuit to make your very jaded point. I again respectfully disagree. I am neither naive nor ignorant of how the modern political process works. I still see no difference in this line of reasoning than that of "death panels" and "free health-care for illegals" and so on. My reasons for why I disagree are fact-based and not on conjecture or misplaced emotional outburst. If you listen to the last three speaking engagements given by President Obama he has made his point about how the public option would work and how and under what conditions mandatory insurance would work that his intentions are very clear. He is not "out to get the poor" or to "make big-pharma rich" or "screw the little guy" or any other such absurdity. He clearly stated that if you could not afford it that the public option would be available. He also stated that for the working poor that did not meet the standards set for the public option that there would be subsidies and credits available for the insurance market they would be creating. My last comment on this would be to kindly request you listen to his most three recent speeches on the subject and then give the subject some more thought.

With all due respect, I will not re-engage you on this subject again. I've learned a long time ago that some people's minds will never be changed. We will have to "agree to disagree" and go our separate ways on this matter.
:toast:

[Hello_Kitty]

16. This won't hurt the working poor but it will piss off a lot of middle class voters

All the proposals under considerations subsidize insurance for people at the poverty level but the subsidies are phased out at 400% FPL (about $44K a year for an individual and $88K for a family of 4). They allow for people at 400% FPL to pay up to 12% of their income on premiums alone. Max Baucus' proposal is so atrocious that a family of 4 making $67K a year could conceivably pay over $20K a year out of pocket for health care. If what passes looks anything like that it's not going to look like "reform" to a lot of people and we will lose them to the Republicans. And when the GOP takes over, what do you suppose will happen to the subsidies to the poor?

[Old Codger]

19. I have

Stated before my opinion on the idea that the mandate won't hurt the working poor, the subsidies I have heard of are made out of tax breaks, the working poor rarely if ever have any use for tax breaks they do not really end up paying taxes with the structure as it is now... any additional so called tax breaks are superfluous.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. If they are tax credits they won't be.

That means that even if you don't owe any taxes you still get money. I believe that's what's being proposed. That opens the question of whether the tax credits will be paid to the insurer immediately or if you have to pay the premium up front and wait until you file your taxes to get reimbursed.

[Old Codger]

21. OK

If it is a tax credit no matter who gets the credit it ends up going to the insurance industry and doesn't really become reform in any real sense, it appears to me to give the insurance industry a whole new large amount of people to refuse service to. No matter what they put into the bill in the way of stopping them they will invent new ways to refuse service... I have no trust whatsoever in the industry suddenly doing the "right thing". I honestly and truly believe that without a strong public option separate and apart from the existing insurance industry it will in the end be a bad deal for the people... I am definitely not of the "anything is better than nothing" mindset, if they pass anything now it will be years and years before they visit this again so we will be saddled with whatever happens for a long time.

P.S. I am as my alias states an old codger, I have government run insurance and do not understand why, since they already have the infrastructure in place they do not just open medicare to all and quit the whole debate. Complete coverage for all who wish it at affordable rates.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. I'm with you 100%. I do not trust those crooks at all. eom

[customerserviceguy]

12. Can I ask you a couple of questions?

Do you think that it would be different if one were required to purchase public option insurance instead of private insurance?

If so, why would you think that people who are suspicious of the whole healthcare reform thing would agree with you?

[angrychair]

18. I really don't like to engage in

back and forth debates but out of a sense of goodwill I will answer your questions.
No, I don't think the need or requirement to purchase either type would matter to the suspicious at all. As history has shown us, in this debate in particular, the suspicious and hysterical are going to be that way regardless. No amount of facts or point/counter-point arguments is going to make the difference at all. Either you take facts as facts and reserve judgment for the when there really is an issue or you scream "the sky is falling" as much as possible and see if anyone listens. I say this without the least bit of venom, I only mean it as an observation of how things have evolved within the health care debate so far. People react more to what they think they see or want to see rather than what is written and with total disregard to the spoken words of the architects of the bill itself. I have no reason to suspect our president of any subterfuge or counter-motive at this point and therefore have no reason to believe he is acting in any other way but with the best interest of the majority of Americans in mind, which is not big-pharma or United Death-care.

*edited to correct spelling error

[customerserviceguy]

31. Thanks, I appreciate that

A mandate to buy government-provided health insurance (especially if it covers things you don't think it should cover) will be seen by many people as being as onerous as being forced to buy one from Blue Cross. They won't be making the "government sponsored = good, private bloodsucking insurer = bad" calculation that many of us here are prone to.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. What's really hilarious is people right here on DU who support mandates, except for the "illeguls"

They love to show up on threads where this topic is being discussed and explain to us how necessary it is to force everyone to buy insurance so we'll have "universal" coverage and then you see them in another thread objecting to the 12 million or so undocumented immigrants getting covered.

[dsc]

17. actually I am consistant

I think we should cover undocumented workers and force everyone to buy in provided there is a public function.

[BzaDem]

22. I will bookmark this thread. If a bill passes, there is a 100% chance it will have a mandate.

Not a 99% chance, or a 98% chance, but a 100% chance. Bank on it.

There seems to be a lot of objection here to being forced to buy something from a private company. But what most people want here is to be forced to buy something from the government (Medicare for all). So even here, there is really no objection to the concept of a mandate. It is the recipient of the mandate that seems to cause the most objections here (private vs. public). You will find that outside DU, however, no one really cares about the recipient. A mandate to them is a mandate, whether it is to a private company or to the government. Most people outside of DU would be very confused with this whole private-public distinction, and would wonder why anyone would care.

But the above is irrelevant, since it is going to pass whether or not people like it. There is no way to ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions without a mandate.

[johnaries]

23. Whether it's good or bad, the mandate will pass.

Have you herd one word against the mandate in the town halls, fake ads, or the media? No. Remember, the astroturf movement is backed by the Insurance companies, and they like the mandate. They don't like the Public Option.

I bet if Dems change their message to "no mandate without a public option" they'll shut up and the opposition to the PO will magically disappear.

[dflprincess]

25. The insurance industry has not spent all that money lobbying

and making campaign "contributions" not get the mandate passed. They intend to be the main beneficiaries of "reform" and it sure looks like that's how it will be.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

26. No mandate? I'll just game the system if I get sick and watch everyone else's premiums skyrocket.

No mandates in addition to health insurance regulation would pretty much destroy the health care system in America. Luckily, Obama wouldn't sign such retarded legislation so we don't have to worry about the DU pity party about mandates.

[DrToast]

27. Wanna bet?

How much?

[jeanpalmer]

28. Mandated insurance will be the centerpiece

of the new legislation. As others have pointed out, insurance will be mandated with or without a public option. And with the weak public option under consideration, there probably wouldn't be much difference in cost between a private insurance policy and one issued by the government under a public option, for those few who would avail themselves of it. So why all the fuss about a public option?

Whether people will be unhappy with mandated insurance will depend to some extent on the level of subsidies provided through the tax credit. Will the subsidy be limited to the amount of taxes paid, or will it be allowed to exceed that amount? For example, a person making $20,000 a year gross income pays $1,250 in income taxes. Assuming an insurance policy for such individual costs $5,000 a year, will he/she be reimbursed by the government only up to the $1,250 he/she pays in taxes, or will the reimbursement go beyond that amount closer to the $5,000 cost of the policy? If it's just the $1,250, I don't think that person would be too happy to have to pay the remaining $3,750 cost of the policy out-of-pocket. OTOH, if the person receives a total reimbursement from the government of $4,000 so that his out-of-pocket cost for the policy is just $1,000, he might be happy with that. There undoubtedly will be some unhappy people, probably those right at 400% of the FPL ($44,000) who will be paying the entire $5,000 in premiums out-of-pocket. That represents a huge tax increase on them.

But that's what this healthcare debate has come down to: will people be mandated to buy private insurance to bring about near universal coverage, and what will the subsidy be? I'm guesing some Democrats won't vote for mandatory insurance unless the subsidies are high enough. But the lower the subsidies, the more likely it is that their lost votes will be made up with Republican votes.

Imo, healthcare reform was lost when the politicians refused to take a serious look at what causes healthcare in this country to be so expensive. Instead, they ceded the cost issue, and then the debate turned to how the exorbitant cost could be spread among the people. That's where we are now.

[jason_o]

29. disagree

if dems stop selling out , we win

[BzaDem]

30. The subsidy will not be limited to the amount of taxes paid.

The tax credit will be refundable in all plans that I know of.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Has anyone discussed how this would apply to people from religions like Christian Science?

Being that we bend over backwards to religion in this country--and, frankly, due to the First Amemendment, SHOULD--how does this proposition deal with this little wrinkle?

Laying aside all harangues about the various proposals for health care reform, I'm just curious how or if this has been dealt with.

Anybody know?