Anger over mandates is misplaced

[ncteechur]

public option or not, cost containment is only successful if the greatest possible number of folks are insured.

trips to the emergency room by those without insurance is part of the cost escalation of health care

you will get a subsidy relative to your income

there is also a mandate to collect taxes--taxes are the cost of a civil society (to borrow from Thom Hartmann) the same is true of health insurance

having more people insured is more important than more profits for the insurance companies

[glowing]

1. Its about paying a private company that screws the person that people object to.

[GreenArrow]

2. More than that,

it's about being forced to pay private companies whose whole reason for being is to screw people.

[DrToast]

11. I can certainly understand that and that's why I'm for the public option

But a lot of our tax dollars go to pay private contractors, so it's not unheard of.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. But the government sets the contracts.

They don't make you take out an individual contract with the company that fixes the roads or produces textbooks. If you don't like the way the government is running as a taxpayer, you get the chance to "vote the bums out" in the next election. No such luck with a private corporation, unless you are a major shareholder.

[GinaMaria]

72. yes they do and the gov is badass on Medicare

contracts at least when I worked on one. These contracts have strict rules for their administration. The contract I was on was with a private company, but Medicare contract workers could not receive bonuses like the other employees could. Medicare wouldn't allow it. They dictated and enforced the rules. There were a lot of them. This was a highly regulated government contract.

[phleshdef]

14. The govt buys school textbooks from private companies paid for with tax dollars.

Thats just one example of a mandated payment for something that ultimately involves a private company, I could give you a thousand more. Regardless, this isn't unprecedented at all.

[Birthmark]

23. Your analogy fails

However, if the *government* wants to buy insurance and pass the healthcare on to me, I have no problem. Forcing Americans to buy a product -a product that serves no real purpose, btw- from a private company is wrong. Period.

[glowing]

24. Actually, we would save a lot of money.. AND with one method of paying, it would

be easier for the Govt to regulate things like drugs and hospitals and clinics... Then actual health care issues would be addressed.

The model proposed now engorges these big ins. firms with subsidies along with a mandate. People will be forced to buy a policy.. The cheapest one's being something that has high premiums and co-pays and still allows a family to go under if they are really sick. It also keeps jobs/ living wage tied directly to the health care one recieves... Small businesses will still have problems paying for the ins policies (I haven't heard that an actual exchange has been set up)..

AND non of this takes effect for nearly 4yrs or so. So, like the c.c. companies, the ins. co's will find the way to screw us before mandates and such go into effect.

OH and the millionaire bonus club CEO's will still be pulling in millions of dollars in sallaries a year off of the backs of people they make money off of by denying care.

[Birthmark]

29. That's a reasonable assessment, imo.

[phleshdef]

37. First off, its not an analogy. Its an actual, factual example of this all ready being done.

Whether you like it or not, my example stands 100%.

If you have an income you are mandated to pay taxes. You are unable to refute this.

Those taxes are and have been used to purchase products and services from private companies. You are unable to refute this.

The 2 above statements, which you are unable to refute and the health insurance mandate are exactly the same end result. Americans with an income are required to give up money and that money goes to a private entity for a good or service.

Just because you use the word "FAIL" in your response and put it in all caps doesn't make you right. It just a sign that you were desperate to respond but really had no refuting response. THAT is what we call "fail".

[Cleobulus]

45. Your example fails completely, to make it more like HCR...

What you would do would be to require the parents to purchase the books directly, or even better using a group discount, but still having to buy it directly, like college students do today. I don't see that happening, do you?

[phleshdef]

71. You don't get to decide if it fails. Concrete concepts are not subject to your opinion.

The people with the income to do so are required to submit money that ultimately reaches the pockets of a privately owned company. In both cases, the same is happening. You don't have to like it. But thats how it is and no amount of your denial changes that.

[stray cat]

15. Would there be an objection to paying the same amount of money into Medicare?

[Dinger]

3. UNREC (nt)

[provis99]

4. I'll agree with submitting to a government-run insurance mandate.

But I'm not going to buy insurance from a private company under a mandate; and I will refuse to pay the fine, either. They'll just have to put my ass in jail.


And fuck the government subsidies; that's my tax money going towards a private insurance company, which is immoral.

[Oregone]

20. Well, only it was single tiered, had a 100% actuarial value, and funded by taxes

Even a government system can fail to be fair to everyone.

Well, what I described is basically the Canadian model. Im sure there is a little wiggle room there in though. :)

[mkultra]

56. I bet you do it right now.

[katandmoon]

5. Would you support mandates if Obama didn't?

[Dinger]

7. You Know That Answer To That One (nt)

[Dinger]

6. Fuck It. Send me To Folsom

[Warren Stupidity]

53. It is a tax not a fine.

You could not file your taxes, but that would be stupid. You probably wouldn't go to jail for that, the IRS would just garnish your wages. Besides, most people will not be affected. The mandate only applies to those people who currently do not have insurance.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Would you support a federal mandate for you to buy a Yugo at BMW prices?

That's what we are getting with HCR!

[daleanime]

17. If you truly believe that....

you have my sincerest sympathies.



More like we're getting a Yugo that we can't afford to put on the road:eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

9. Correctamundo. In Canada, everybody chips in. But it's Public Option for all, also. nt

[Oregone]

19. Having everyone in a fair non profit system is different than forcing commerce in a tiered, private

for-profit marketplace (as individual consumers).


Its a terrible comparison to make, in that, the Democrats refused to even discuss the Canadian model in almost every aspect EXCEPT mandatory participation. If we want to start talking about how something is permissible because another system does it, lets start talking about that other system in its entirety.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Yes, it is. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Bull. Fucking. Shit.

You want a large risk pool where everyone is included?

Do it without the fucking criminals who caused the problem in the first place.

Like the rest of the fucking "Democratic" countries (and even some not so Democratic ones) do.

What is so goddamn difficult to comprehend about that?

[brentspeak]

12. How's that cost containment working in Massachussetts, which has the nation's highest premiums?

And a state-wide mandate that everyone purchase a private health insurance policy.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Shhh...don't bring that up. eom

[backwoodsbob]

65. you got that right

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/08/22/bay_state_health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

*Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.*

*Now, the Commonwealth Fund report projects that without significant cost reforms, an annual family premium in Massachusetts will soar to $26,730 by 2020.*

[denimgirly]

13. Mandate with a Public Option makes sense -- Mandate without is a Giveaway.

[meowomon]

16. Mandate if there were real reform

This is just giving the health interests of human beings to corporations who have only the bottom line and profits as interests. Mutually exclusive if you asked me.

[Oregone]

18. What makes you think this is about cost containment?!?

They refuse to take simple, obvious, proven steps to contain cost like eliminating the need for provider billing outsourcing, reducing the pools (thus increases pool size), and eliminating profit from the insurance end.

In your right mind, after you have observed them ignore and reject proven methods of containing costs, how can you claim that this is some intended function of mandates? The mandates may even make more small tiered pools too!

[Hello_Kitty]

46. Because mandates are to (some) Democrats what tort reform is to Republicans

They honestly believe that uninsured people are the main cause of high health care costs, just as Republicans think it's lawsuit abuse.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. I don't think they actually believe it, but they're too compromised to understand

that the government is supposed to make laws to regulate the insurance companies, not ask them what laws they'd be willing to obey.

Can you imagine doing that for any other group?

"OK, here we are at a maximum security prison. How would you guys like the laws on murder to be changed?"

"I think we should just get probation if we killed our victims instantly and they didn't suffer."

"OK. Good idea."

[NYC_SKP]

22. I agree. People need to pay in when they can, and the system will provide if they can't.

I can't imagine anyone who doesn't fall into one of those two categories.

Totally agree.

[ibegurpard]

25. keep telling that to the people voting your asses out

i'm sure it will soothe the sting

[HughMoran]

27. "your" asses? Are you a Republican?

What does that mean?

[ibegurpard]

28. no, i'm a pop-tart head

isn't that funny?

[HughMoran]

30. yeah

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

31. toaster-dome!

:rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

34. *snort*

Well, yeah. :rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Seriously, I'd love to see these people go door to door with these talking points. eom

[HughMoran]

26. Agree completely.

I can see a lot of people want their care for free, but taxes pay for free. I'd prefer a public non-profit or single payer, but that doesn't change the fact that mandates are needed for the system to work. Medicare is mandated & you pay for it every week - look at your paycheck.

[Clio the Leo]

32. Rec for the noble effort....

... but it's hard to reason with libertarians I'm afraid.

[cornermouse]

39. The list of enemies is endless, isn't it...

:eyes:

[izquierdista]

33. Correction

having more people insured is more important than more profits for the insurance companies

Yes, now are a complete tool for their use.

[Gravel Democrat]

35. Obama campaigned against mandates

So no one should tell me I have "misplaced anger".

Every so often I believe one of these CS liars and
Every. Single. TIME. I am the sucker for believing a liar.

No my anger is not "misplaced". If these vampires in suits
force this upon this Republic my anger will be very well
placed. I will spend every single spare minute I have
trying to get this unconstitutional piece of rubbish repealed.
And even if it isn't, I won't take part. Throw me in jail.
I laugh at 10 million dollar bonuses paid to scum sucking
lizard like people with your money.

[grahamhgreen]

36. If its a tax - then the money must go to medicare, duh.

[BlueIdaho]

38. We pay now.

Every uninsured person who needs medical attention and ends up in the emergency room uses resources and that costs money. If they are unable to pay, those costs are absorbed into the "system" and spread across those who do pay. I think everyone deserves to see a doctor - period. But we need a better way to spread the costs. If thirty million more can get medical care without the humiliating indignity of walking into an emergency room - hat in hand - that's ok with me.

[Cleobulus]

40. That only works if those people are insured under a SINGLE plan, not hundreds of private plans...

Jesus, do you think we are stupid?

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Every mandate supporter argues as though it's for single payer.

"Everyone has to be in the system!" Um, what "system" is that?

[Cleobulus]

48. Exactly, it not like there just ONE insurance company in this country. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

41. We will be the first nation ever to mandate purchase of for profit

products. Our peer Democracies who mandate coverage all make it illegal to profit from providing services that are mandated.
Here, they are skimming off the top of every single health care dollar for their own enrichment, and now that will be expedited with the force of law.
It is simply not right. No choice but to donate to companies that have abused us for decades.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. not true. Netherlands.

"The Netherlands operates a national insurance market for its 16 million residents. Plans may operate on a for-profit or nonprofit basis. The insurance market is highly concentrated, with the top five plans accounting for 82 percent of enrollment. Plans typically offer coverage in all areas of the country and include all providers, although selective contracting is allowed. Children are covered in full through public funds. Premiums charged for adults represent 50 percent of the expected annual costs. In addition, plans receive allotments from a national risk equalization fund, financed by income-related contributions. The allocation uses a sophisticated range of risk factors. As a result of this process, the premiums facing Dutch adults when selecting a plan vary within a narrow range."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jan/The-Swiss-and-Dutch-Health-Insurance-Systems--Universal-Coverage-and-Regulated-Competitive-Insurance.aspx

[damonm]

67. Well, well, well...

Thanks for that post. I was unaware of that.

My new thing I learned today!

[mkultra]

57. Car insurance is mandated and private only.

[blue_onyx]

58. and it's optional

You only need car insurance if you want to drive. Everyone, including Obama, needs to stops using this false car insurance comparison.

[mkultra]

59. It holds up as a close model

As it didn't result in increased costs but rather in reduced costs. Healthcare will just need to be heavily regulated like insurance is.


Additionally, if you consider what would happen to insurance costs and value if Everyone in America where forced to carry insurance, im sure you would agree that costs wouldn't sky rocket but rather would continue to stabilize.

Overall, auto insurance works MUCH better than health insurance.

[Cleobulus]

63. You can carry car insurance and never have to use it...

also it only usually covers accidents, if the car breaks down you are shit out of luck and have to fix it and/or get a new one. Not to mention that there is liability only(cheap) auto insurance, which basically only covers what happens to other people, and their vehicles and not necessarily yourself(except bodily injury) when an accident occurs.

Its not even close to being comparable to medical insurance.

ON EDIT: Actually the health care bill would be similar to requiring everyone who buys a car to have to buy the extended warranty offered by the dealerships(usually overpriced pieces of shit).

[mkultra]

66. Comprehensive is not much more than liability

The fact is that unlike cars, everyone has a body. The simplicity of the model is pretty accurate for deriving one thing, which is cost stabilization. It is a private industry that is regulated and functions relatively well.

Insurance companies use actuarial studies to balance cost against revenue. When the revenue goes up(the market expands), competition will drive prices down.

[Cleobulus]

68. Still not very comparable, cost stabilization in car insurance is possible...

because of many factors, the most obvious of which is that cars are devalued, in some cases drastically, as soon as they drive off the lot brand new and they continue to devalue over time. Its a lot cheaper to insure a 20 year old car than a car that was built this year. The same cannot be said with health insurance, everyone eventually will need more medical care as time goes on, and in addition to this, unlike with cars, many people inherit or come down with conditions that greatly increase the costs of their medical care when such things are rare to happen in cars. Cars, in general, do not become more expensive to insure if they break down frequently, because the car insurance companies do not pay for that.

Not to mention that other factors, such as age and sex, in addition to driving habits, affects the cost of car insurance, a 20 year old male pays more for car insurance than a 25 year old female, we consider this fair due to driving statistics that state that the 20 year old male is more likely to be reckless in his driving. Of course, individual driving habits(i.e. no claims) also affects the cost of the insurance coverage as well.

The same cannot be said with medical insurance, with only a few exceptions(smoking, severe obesity) generally people don't think its fair to charge more for health insurance due to factors such as hereditary diseases and/or chronic conditions that people inherit or have no control over. Even in cases where we think it could be due to personal habits, such as certain cases of being overweight or obese could be cause by underlying conditions that the person in question has no control over.

Probably the biggest issue I have is that you think that competition will automatically drive prices down. You just said that revenue will go up when the market for health insurance expands, well, what is the market? Healthy people of course, preferably young healthy people, to add to the risk pool of insurance companies. The problem is that you hit a wall of sorts when the product, or market, is actually people, because we don't roll off an assembly line, even if every single legal resident in this country is insured by some insurance company or another, it will only reduce insurance rates, by itself, about 10-15%(30 to 45 million people added into the risk pools), and this is assuming we have only ONE insurance company in the country.

Since the market is inflexible for health insurance, the cheapest, most cost effective way to reduce premiums and maximize being able to pay claims for people as needed is to have everyone in the country by into one health insurance company, because if you have two, or even multiply it up even more, then you half the risk pool, or divide it up even more, which would DRIVE PRICES UPWARDS. This is one of those cases where competition actually makes things more expensive for everybody.

Not to mention this doesn't mitigate the costs of actual health care, the paying out of claims, unlike car insurance, with the ability to swap parts, find replacements, and even, if the damage is too much, being able to buy a new car as options, there's an actual limit to how much of a claim they will pay for a car, and this can be fixed using market factors. For people, its completely different, for one, we cannot swap parts easily, and for two we are much higher maintenance that even the worst oil burning jalopy out there. We don't even place a value as such on our bodies, and we really can't either, if you contract a disease that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat and/or cure, its going to cost that much, period. There's not much to negotiate there.

Yes, the government, and possibly large plan pools can negotiate, but not the individual because they have no power to do so, and frankly unless they are multimillionaires they will never have the power to do so. Also, medical costs, in many cases, have absolutely no relation to inflation, new cutting edge treatments are going to be expensive as hell, and even procedures that are considered common or at least not cutting edge are, in many cases expensive as hell. And this is just talking about catastrophic coverage, even something as simple as going to a doctor's office, or getting a consultation with a specialist, can in some cases be expensive.

Let me throw a comparison out there just to illustrate my point. You have a car insurance company that has someone trying to get insured through them, they go through his driving record, his age, etc. and they sign him up, no problem. The reason is because they know that they are only going to cover his car and possibly others at a set amount, let's assume that the average American drives a car worth about 10,000 dollars, a reasonable number, after the car is driven off the lot it could be worth that. So the insurance company, on average, if this guy gets into an accident that is his fault, will only have to pay, at maximum, approximately 20 grand, and maybe more for multiple car accidents(those are rarer). And of course, if the guy in question is a bad driver they are free to drop him as well, or put him in a high risk, much more expensive pool.

A medical insurance company, on the other hand has no such assurances, that healthy 20 year old who they just signed up could develop MS, for example, and cost the company hundreds of thousands or even a millions of dollars over his lifetime, or he could be healthy until he's 90 and then die in his sleep. They run a much higher risk, in this sense, and hence are much less likely to take such risks, hence the need to regulate them much more heavily, at the very least.

[mkultra]

70. all of those facts can be easily averaged

by any actuary. The end game will be a net reduction in cost.

[Cleobulus]

74. You seem to be taking that on faith, do you have an figures to back it up with? n/t

[terrell9584]

50. Uh

The mandate is the government telling you that you must use a portion of your income to procure a service from a private company. I can't understand how the hell anyone with even the base respect for liberty can be ok with that.

[Cha]

51. Kick

[Raineyb]

52. Wrong

A mandate is only works for cost containment if there's only one entity paying. A la a single payer system. We don't have a single payer system. We have a proposal for mandates to purchase from one of any of about 5 companies that dominate the field. There IS no cost containment in such a scenario and the companies are free to do whatever the hell they want.

The amount of fail in this OP is pathetic.

[NJmaverick]

55. kick for the truth

[Uncle Joe]

60. The anger is over more than mandates to support dysfunctional, inefficient, corrupt, profit seeking

"health" insurance corporations.

It isn't just the profits, it's the ridiculous enshrining of an unnecessary, redundant, bureaucracy, that can only serve to damage the American People's "general welfare."

General being the whole, not some particular industry and welfare being health, happiness and the economy.

[backscatter712]

61. Don't forget the single-payer-like program that's expanded in the bill.

Remember that Medicaid's getting a significant expansion from this bill.

Medicaid's single-payer (OK, dual-payer - federal government and state government...) and it's getting a significant boost to cover people making up to 133% of the federal poverty line.

That's not an insignificant thing. It'll cover more people, meaning more voters, which will make it that much harder for the Rethugs to give it the Norquist treatment. It may not be Medicare, but Medicaid that expands into America's single-payer system.

[Cleobulus]

62. Medicaid isn't single payer, or even single payer like if not everyone can participate...

My income is a whole 7% above the minimum needed to qualify for medicaid under this bill, how the hell is that like being single payer?

[Cleobulus]

64. In the short term, it may reduce premiums by maybe 10%, overall...

however, the Insurance Companies make money on the stock market using the money they make in premiums, part of the reason premiums are going up is because these companies are trying to reduce the losses to their profit margins through the premiums themselves. I see no provision in this bill that will eliminate premium increases entirely.

[harun]

69. Mandate != Tax. I wish they would simply institute a HC coverage

tax. Big reason it isn't called a tax though. Because it isn't.

[theothersnippywshrub]

73. Misplaced and selfish. A decades long struggle may fail because of that.

Any health care reform law passed now can be modified and improved later if there is sufficient political support for such modification or improvement. But if health care reform fails now it will be dead for many, many years. And the current system will continue.