My favorite Obama quote and why I can't feel good about this bill

[Robyn66]

This is paraphrased but during the campaign he said in reference to Hillary's mandate approach to HCR

"Mandating people who can't afford it to buy health care is like solving homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house"

It makes me so angry when they have the balls to say "we are covering 30 million people" THEY aren't doing anything as far as I can see. THEY are adding another bill to these people's already breaking backs!

Even the pre-existing condition part of the bill (which was huge to me because I am a breast cancer survivor) is watered down and there are so many loop holes this is ridiculous.

I really don't see what there is to be happy about.

[Richardo]

1. delete

enough with the snark, Richardo.

Sorry it's not what you were hoping for.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

2. Be happy! The White House is putting HCR on the back burner

At least till Feb.

~The White House privately anticipates health care talks to slip into February — past President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address — and then plans to make a “very hard pivot” to a new jobs bill, according to senior administration officials~

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30925.html

[ProSense]

3. Then he said this:

July 2009

I feel pretty good that I've been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn't afford it. And that remains my position.

I think other than that we've been pretty consistent about how I think we need to approach the problem. And by the way, I in no way want to suggest that cost is more important than coverage. My point has been that those two things go hand in hand. If we can't control costs, then we simply can't afford to expand coverage the way we need to. In turn, if we can expand coverage, that actually gives us some leverage with insurers or pharmaceutical industry or others to do more to help make the health care system more cost-effective.

[LynneSin]

4. Wow, I guess the Alternet people DID read about the mandate

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/144777/in_(very_reluctant)_%22defense%22_of_the_insurance_mandate/

When I read that, I had to think hard about what it is they were talking about -- there's certainly nothing in any bill I've read that says you have to pay 8 percent of your income to the insurance companies whether you want to or not.

It turns out to be some Death-Panel quality spin. What are they actually talking about? The Senate bill requires everyone to have insurance, or pay a penalty. But, if the cost of getting insured exceeded 8 percent of your income, then the fine would be waived.

The maximum penalty is 2 percent of adjusted income, which is probably around 1.4 percent or so of the average person's gross pay. That money would not go to "private insurance corporations," but would in fact defray the costs of the uninsured on our public health system.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Try reading this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x11487

[LynneSin]

6. Oh Pul-lease using LOGIC again and reading stuff?

That won't do in a DU post!!!

( :sarcasm: for those who don't get it)

I found on Alternet (a progressive web blog) a great explaination of the "penalties" and how they work. What's your estimate of how many DUers will ignore it anyways?

[ixion]

7. I don't know why you quote "penalities". The fines are very real. And just because the IRS can't

take your house, doesn't mean they can't make your life miserable.

I can't believe DU'ers are actually supporting mandated consumerism and turning a for-profit vertical almost as evil as the MIC into a quasi federal entity.

The mind boggles.

[LynneSin]

8. Whatever

Just read the parts you like, that's how alot of DU seems to work.

[ixion]

9. I guess I might say the same to you

that seems to be what you're doing as well: Turning a blind eye to a dangerous precedent.

[LynneSin]

11. You did read the part where the fines would be waived if there was financial hardship

or if it exceeded a certain percentage of your yearly income.

Geeez, even Alternet, probably one of the most liberal publications on the net got it.

But hell whatever. I'm not going to explain something to someone who doesn't want to understand

And what 'dangerous precedent'? Doesn't that imply this is something not done before. Geez, and why am I threatened to lose my drivers license and penalized heavily if I'm caught driving without car insurance??!!!

:eyes:

[ixion]

12. It is a precedent: I can choose not to have a car

I cannot choose to breathe.

8% of my salary on healthcare? I don't go to doctors. Why the hell would I want to spend that much on healthcare? Oh yeah, because you say I ought to. Great. Thanks a bunch.

[Robyn66]

10. Thank you for a response

instead of the rude holier than thou bullshit that apparently prevails around here.