an analogy of my objection to the mandate currently in the HCR

[Lerkfish]

If a meal is served to you of filet mignon, cheesecake and arsenic potatoes, and you're forced to eat the potatoes, does it make a good meal?

IMHO, the mandate is the poison of this bill that will negatively affect large numbers of citizens directly.

The indirect poison is the removal of anti-trust restrictions (if they don't appear in the final bill).

People can ooh and aah about the filet mignon and the cheesecake, and I'll agree those are nice, but the force fed poisoned potatoes are my objection to the meal.

[subterranean]

1. I wouldn't mind a mandate for non-profit or government-run insurance.

Every universal health care system in the world has mandatory participation. They wouldn't work otherwise.

The main problem I have with this bill is that it mandates FOR-PROFIT insurance. If I'm going to be required to buy insurance, I want to know that my money is being used for health care, not $20 million bonuses for the CEO, dividends for the company's investors, or an army of claims adjusters whose mission is to deny payment for my health care.

[Lerkfish]

2. exactly, what a good point.

I think that is the problem here.

[kctim]

3. Then you believe the problem

is with WHO is serving the arsenic potatoes, not the potatoes themselves.

[Lerkfish]

4. its important to you to pin down what I believe.

I was commenting that the other poster made a good point, one I had not thought of.

that is different than simply attacking me.


what is your good point you wish to make?

[kctim]

11. Important? No

My point was just pointing out how you're comment, in post #2, goes against what you wrote in the OP:

"IMHO, the mandate is the poison of this bill"

The "good point," which you made, not me, is that you do not object being force fed what you call poison, as long as you agree with who is serving it.

[Lerkfish]

12. nope, nice try.

what makes it poison is who profits from it, and how they are not regulated -- not that it exists.

to go back to my analogy, I have no objection to potatoes. I have an objection to poisoned potatoes.

I am not being inconsistent, you just keep jumping to inconsistent conclusions.

and one wonders at your motivation for doing so.

[kctim]

13. That is not what you first stated

"IMHO, the mandate is the poison of this bill"

You very clearly state that it is the mandate, not who profits from it, which is the poison of this bill. There would be no question of your support of mandates you agree with, IF you would have stated that in the first place.

My 'motivation,' if you want to call it that, was just to clarify if you were against mandates, or just mandates you disagree with. You gave your answer and I thank you for that.

[Lerkfish]

17. by saying the "mandate ... of this bill" its directly implied

that I mean THIS mandate in its form in THIS bill.

if you want to keep splitting semantic hairs, so be it.

[kctim]

19. Oh brother

I acknowledged that you are not against mandates you agree with, just the ones you disagree with. No biggie.
If you think you "directly implied" that you were saying you disagree with this mandate so its poison, then I miss read it. MY bad man. Again, no biggie. MY fault. MY mistake. I am VERY VERY pro-choice, so that probably made me think calling mandates poison, you were too. No biggie.

[Lerkfish]

20. no problemo, my bad as well

I've been getting cantankerous as the day goes on and in little battles with other people so it has made me more contentious than i need to be.
My apologies.

[inna]

6. Every universal health care system in the world is funded by (progressive) taxation.

Universal health care by definition provides universal access to health care, it has nothing to do with "mandatory participation" in absurdly overpriced, discriminating and defective insurance scam by a rapacious, out-of-control industry whose only goal is generating profits.

[subterranean]

9. Not all are.

In some countries - like Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland - the systems are funded primarily by insurance premiums, which are either pegged to income or subsidized by the government. However, none of the insurance systems in these countries are operated for profit. They exist to pay for health care, not to pay investors.

[inna]

15. Non-single-payer universal health care systems are still funded via taxation,

not via "mandated participation".

Like you said yourself, insurance premiums in those countries are "either pegged to income or subsidized by the government".

Insurance premiums are not a mandated levy - they are income-based (via a payroll tax) for working adults and subsidized for children, the retired and the unemployed. The end result is that everyone is covered and has access to universal health care starting at birth. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", so to speak.

Mandates, on the other hand, are all about "individual responsibilty" and amount to an extremely regressive backdoor tax that is going to disproportionately hurt the middle class.

[subterranean]

16. Yes, and I'm near the age and income range that will be gouged the most.

I'm no expert on health care systems, but I feel like I know more than most of our Congresspersons and Senators. And I gain no satisfaction from saying that. I think many people on DU are frustrated because we know we could have come up with something better and fairer than the Senate bill.

Still, despite the many flaws of this plan, we have to start somewhere. At least it will begin to shift the perception in America toward the idea (already taken for granted in other countries) that everyone has the right to good, affordable health care.

[inna]

18. Here's a good old thread on "affordability":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7338574#7342087


"At least it will begin to shift the perception in America toward the idea (already taken for granted in other countries) that everyone has the right to good, affordable health care."

I'm not convinced that this bill will move us in that direction.

I have to say though that I do like some aspects of the bill - it may actually help those under 400% FPL (Federal Poverty Level) who are paying for their own insurance right now. (I ran some calculations based on Senate bill, and the numbers for subsidized premiums and out-of-pocket limits seemed like a vast improvement compared to status quo for self-employed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7338574&mesg_id=7345572 )

[Romulox]

8. And the implicit logic--that the gov't can decide how much of my income to allocate as profit

to the insurance industry--is extremely galling.

Universal participation is something only the government can compel. So what right do corporations have to profit from this? Isn't this the very definition of cronyism, if not fascism?

[Abq_Sarah]

14. If the government

Decided to make for-profit insurance illegal, they would lose billions in tax revenue on the federal and state level. That is not going to happen. They'd rather have the option of levying special taxes on the insurance industry that are passed onto the consumer, figuring we're too stupid to realize we pay the bill.

[el_bryanto]

5. That's the calculation

How bad are the potatoes. Are they bad enough, poisonous enough, that we must chuck the rest of the meal? Or are they just distasteful, something that could be fixed with enough gravy?

Just how poisonous are those potatoes?

Bryant

[hfojvt]

10. I was gonna say they are more like

lima beans. Sure you may really, really hate them, but they are not gonna kill you. Not even close.

[court jester]

7. One other really important thing that's been overlooked by our sycophant media is medical privacy

There will be no more medical privacy in the US.

Anywhere, anytime, each and every citizens entire medical history will be a few mouseclicks away if you have the right clearance.

This is not acceptable. Notice how it hasn't even been discussed to any degree whatsoever. Can't anyone else see the
problems with this? If a Bush administration was selling this like a bunch of used car salesmen, everyone here would be
saying "Pass the Bill"?

The fix was in on this last summer. And the (R)s love the core things, notice how they never talk about the mandate?
That bastard dick morris was trying to tell people why some (D)s themselves hate this and he couldn't form the word
*Mandate*



Bye Bye Privacy