Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mandated Healthcare is NOT a "tax."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:18 PM
Original message
Mandated Healthcare is NOT a "tax."
Alright folks, let's just take a breath here. We ALL need to get auto insurance. Is that a "tax"? No. It is right to get everyone into the system as that spreads the risk and reduces premiums. (Further, think of all the things people and businesses are MANDATED to do: motorcycle and bike helmets, car seats for kiddies, anti-pollution equipment and practices, buildings built to safety specs, cars with airbags and other safety features, OSHA requirements of all kinds, paying workman's comp insurance, getting flood insurance, etc. etc. - are these ALL taxes???? No, they are the cost of minimizing broader social costs, reducing risks, etc.)

Now, I agree that for-profit healthcare and the entire insurance racket as it is now basically stinks. HOWEVER, we can't get single payer nationally now (but can keep pushing at the state level and can keep pushing enough of a national movement to hopefully eventually get it), so the best we can do is market reforms with public option. Now, let's just not panic here. The goal is UNIVERSAL coverage. Agreed? (And it is not happening with single payer for all, so forget that. Sorry, but there isn't enough of a national movement for that yet.) Those, who with subsidies and/or public option, should be in the system. That means if you can, you should get a basic health plan. (Young people should be allowed to remain longer on family plans, but should contribute something. Many now stay on family auto plans through college. The same should be done here. Maybe someone can help me with the status of this issue as young people are often those who opt out of healthcare.)
So, with the right bill including a public option, subsidies, an exchange market, etc. let's make the goal getting everyone into the system as it should be (yes, affordably, but EVERYONE IN), and stop naysaying with RePUKE charges of "taxation, taxation" because that is just pure BS. You don't see a single re-PUKE or anyone against the mandate bitching about he auto insurance mandate, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. nope, my aunt doesnt have to get auto ins because she doesnt drive
If the government should force us ALL to become customers of a private corporation or face a fine I believe that is a sort of tax.

Auto insurance is mandated FOR ALL DRIVERS, the health insurance mandate would be for EVERYONE WHO BREATHES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. No it's mandated for car OWNERS
and the mandate is for liability only which does not cover the car owner or that owner's car.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. ?? Fine, liability and it covers the other person's damage. And, if you are financed you must have
collision as well. Either way, the point is universal coverage for all vehicle owners. It is not a tax. You need everyone in the system. Period. That gets costs further down. Sorry, but this shit about healthy, able-to-pay-something people just opting out is wrong. Give the reform a chance, and if done right we get an advance and everyone into the system. I agree with everyone that it needs to be affordable. Getting everyone in makes it more affordable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. People are not required to own a car
Those who don't want to purchase auto insurance can opt to find other means of transportation. I have yet to figure out a way to opt out of my body without upsetting my loved ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. We are already "taxed" by emergency rooms for those without ins. Let's get them covered somehow.
Better to do something with market changes and public option than nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. We've been thru this. Auto ins is not at all the same as health ins. -eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. gawd
Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 06:26 PM by Skittles
if I hear one more person compare CARS to HEALTHCARE :puke:

and by the way, my car insurance did NOT go down with mandated insurance - it acutally went up, along with their profits I am sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. It is the principal of risk-spread, not cars vs. healthcare, though car ins. covers injury as well.
Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 09:31 PM by RBInMaine
Also, getting everyone into the system has stabilized prices in many areas. Geography always matters. Other states have had to do additional auto insurance reforms as well to get prices down, much as is being proposed here with healthcar. But no matter what, everyone needs to be in and covered. As I clearly said, I agree the insurance racket sucks as is, but if the market reforms and public option are passed and given a chance, hopefully we can make it affordable enough for everyone to purchase (while continuing to work toward the longer-term goal of universal single payer which I support - I just am too grounded in reality to know it won't happen now, so we take the next best thing. It is called REALITY.) I simply disagree that all mandated costs are "taxes." If that was the case, we might as well shut down OSHA and EPA. How about the cost of food? We all need it. Whether you buy it in a store or raise it yourself it costs in a market economy. Is that a tax? You need a place to live. Most of us have to pay rent or a mortgage with interest. Are those taxes? Housing and food are essential, basic needs without which you die. And even low income people have to pay something after subsidies. In a market economy, you pay one way or the other. I agree an I wish we had the more efficient and fairer Medicare for all plan. Short of that, market reform and single payer is our best shot of getting an advance. It is worth it, and we must get everyone covered once it is affordable. GAWD, I get so sick of hearing everything being called a "tax." All it does is stoke the RePUKElican fires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #36
53. Private insurance companies are in the business of AVOIDING risk spreading
No one should be forced to help them profit from that agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
39. Gawd, if I hear one more person call every cost necessity a "tax" I think I'LL puke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. what does it matter what the fuck it is called?
it's the insurance industry's wet dream and it is sickening beyond belief
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. It's a tax...
...puke away if you want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. To pass constitutional muster, it actually is:
Congress cannot delegate its taxing authority to a private entity. So...

What they do is tax everyone the "fine" amount and then give a tax credit equal to the "fine" amount to everyone who shows they have a qualified health insurance plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. for instance.. motor cycle helmets were required because the "State" decided it cheaper
than having to give life long intensive care for increasing numbers of Brain dead Motorcyclists. who quickly become indigent and the taxpayers end up taking care of them for life in hidden costs,..

at some point something must be done.. the tax payers end up paying much more to maintain the status Quo, in this case about 71% more than other countries.. whatever we end up paying it will be cheaper in the end,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. Exactly. Same for the cost of airbags passed to the consumer. And many other things in life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gravel Democrat Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Those of us that believed Obama when he campaigned against mandates should
just pound sand, I guess





from the campaign trail 2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. What happened to single payer which Obama suported in summer 2008? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Obama CONCEDED single payer before they ever got started.
Just so he could concede Public Option in favor of this giveaway to the Insurance Industry shit, called MANDATED INSURANCE for health care. Some think he is playing multidimensional chess, but he's really getting his ass kicked at checkers.

Republicans are getting a hard-on just thinking about the idea of the Democratic Congress and White House making it the law of the land. If the Democrats cave into this bullshit, they will officially declare that they no longer represent the Working People of America.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. No, Dems knew Medicare For All couldn't pass right now. Let's be positive. Reform+Public Option
deserves at least a chance to work. If it doesn't, we can still go for single payer down the line. Politics is the art of the possible, and Obama/Dems are trying to do what is possible. And no, PUKES want HANDS OFF THE INS. Co's ENTIRELY, which this is NOT !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
54. There is no fucking way that a public option that is postponed until 2013 can work
It leaves Dems two full election cycles to explain to their constituents why "reform" has not prevented the further deterioration of their health care situations. This could be avoided by allowing voluntary buy-in to Medicare for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. So when did all of the OUTRAGE against Medicare happen?
Medicare was the best and easiest way for the Democrats to get it, but they blew it right from the start.

For what?

So we don't drive the Insurance Industry out of business? Which was not only a Republican concern.

The Democrats have just shown their asses to the American People and exactly who they work for and represent, after the American People GAVE them Congress and the White House in a landslide.

The Democrats just made sure that those 30% Republicans are solid contenders against them in 2010 & 2012.

Enjoy scratching your head after those elections trying to figure out how people could vote against their alleged 'best interests.'

Oh, and once you get your BAD bill passed, it will be a Hell of a lot harder to ever correct it in the future and actually get Health Care Reform!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-28-09 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #58
67. Read posts above this one ^^^
Edited on Mon Sep-28-09 03:42 AM by Mimosa
That is one of my concerns: a bad law, a bad plan which will be set in concrete, more or less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. thanks for the photo, that just about says it all... so sad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't really care if it's a tax or not. Insurance companies getting potentially more customers...
in return for the lowered prices of a competitive public option seems like a reasonable trade to me - whether it be implemented via a tax or some other method.

(In addition to the various other pieces of the reform package.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
55. The proposed public options heavily restrict who can join
If anyone could join it might be worth it--otherwise most definitely not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. True, not a tax. It's a payback to
the insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes it is. I can chose not to own or operate a motor vehicle.
Mandates will fail after a constitutional challenge claiming they are a form of capitation. sorry, I'm for single-payer but think mandates are a dead end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yes,
but you cannot choose to stay healthy forever. It just does not work that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. It is a form of tax, but so what? The question is whether the plan is just.
If it has a vigorous public option open to EVERYONE, and helps reduce the total spent on health care while covering everyone (something that other countries manage), and offers help to make sure it's affordable, then it's a good thing. Most people would be paying less in taxes plus premiums than they do now.

If it has no public option but mandates private for-profit health insurance: Fuck that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Some kinds of tax are constitutional, others are not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax#United_States

Note the bit about Rush Limbaugh & teabaggers being rather in favor of such direct taxes rather than income tax. That ought to be a warning sign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I don't see how this applies, however...
Okay, it's not technically a tax. It's a mandatory service requirement in which the person is free to take the service from the government among other providers (assuming a public option). It's not actually covered in the Constitution, is it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
64. If it's mandatory it's a form of capitation, and yes it is a kind of tax
There's a basic flaw in the idea you can be compelled into entering a contract of fiscal obligation just by virtue of being alive. First you said it is a kind of tax, which I agree with. Now you're saying it's not really a tax, something I haven't argued to begin with.

Like I said, I am pro single payer. I am 100% anti mandate however. It's wrong in principle, wasteful in practice, and politically radioactive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Codger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
12. LOL
WOW talk about apples and oranges, this doesn't even get that close, at least they are both fruit....anything that is mandated, is the same as a tax....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. It does not matter.
Any plan that is anything short of a utter pipe dream will feature some form of mandatory payment coming from the currently uninsured. Some plans have it as taxes, others as subsidized premiums. Call it whatever you want, but reform only works, if it ever works at all, by getting the uninsured to contribute to the system. Even "medicare for all" will involve collection of revenue to support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
59. Of course n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
16. So the tax law is discriminatory against my family
Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 07:19 PM by Bluenorthwest
And therefore, your 'reform' and your 'subsidies' and 'tax credits' are bigoted to the core. Forcing those who are not treated equally under the applicable laws to buy products from companies we hate, under unfair and unequal discriminatory law is pure indefensible bullshit. And the 'people are cars' analogy smells especially self serving and false to me, because although my partner and I share a car, and a single insurance policy on that car, we are not allowed to share an income tax return, nor the health insurance that I have already. So I guess if one is a 'real Christian Citizen' that 'auto insurance' routine might make sense but for some of us, man, is smells. Oh, and of course if we wanted to, we could rid ourselves of the car, and use the public transportation option, right on the corner, and viola, no auto insurance needed. We must however, breath.
Mediocrity is what it is. Mandates in a for profit system are worse than a tax, they are theft by private interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #16
51. You said it well.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
17. Mandated health INSURANCE is!!
This shit has nothing to do with health CARE.

That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. No, it's just another screw-the-consumer bill
Socialize the risk but privatize the profits.

Plus all it will buy is shitty coverage that covers nothing. Why should anybody be forced to pay for that? They will be throwing their money away, since they will get NOTHING in return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
22. How do you plan to enforce mandated insurance against homeless people?
A guy loses his job and everything he has, as our modern society chews him up and spits him out on the streets.
I could understand how a guy would go postal against the government, because obeying the mandatory health insurance law was not on his priority list.

I am AGAINST any law that requires people to have a contract with an Insurance Company for the right to exist in this country.

Remove the leeches (Insurance Companies) from health care, then we can have a reasonable understanding about it. Until then, Hell no!

A BAD bill is NOT better than no bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Debtors prison
And you solve two birds with one stone: they aren't homeless anymore. In fact, it won't cost a penny. Mandate they pay for the incarceration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
61. And they can do stuff while in prison, like pick crops. There, illegal
immigrant problem solved too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
25. Let's go over this again
Car insurance (or a posted bond in some states) is required for LIABILITY if you have a car/drive. If you have a loan on the car, you need insurance to protect that collateral for the people who lent you the money for it.

Fire and Flood Insurance (if you live in a flood zone) required on your house if you have a mortgage It is a condition of a loan, to protect the collateral in the loan so the lenders' investment is protected. They loan you $$ for house, you have to protect house. Liability insurance, with or without a mortgage is just common sense to protect your ass.

Mandated health insurance has nothing to do with a car or a loan on real property. It is basically required if you breathe or at least work. That is a tax. Only you pay it to private corporations instead of the government THAT smacks of fascism, the marriage of government (makes you pay because you are alive) and private business (cashes check and sends donation to politicians with many thanks)

There is no legitimate comparison between car insurance, insurance on mortgaged property, mandated health insurance for the privilege of breathing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
26. No. But its stupid
Hey, my children don't have to get auto insurance because they can't even ride a bike yet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. Plenty of people don't own a car, can I disown my body?
Your argument sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeCanWorkItOut Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
29. Mandated insurance is a "poll tax," falling heavily on the working poor
It's much more of a problem than the insurance mandate
because as has been noted, many poor people save money
by not owning a car.

So I sympathize with your view and ultimate goal.
But I have to agree with Howard Dean. This mandate is wrong.
It is mainly a boon to the insurance companies.

Moreover, why is there suddenly a need to add
to the regressiveness, the unfairness of our economy,
after years of letting health care costs run wild,
by now demanding that the working poor have to pay extra?
That's an easy answer, not a good one.
I think that instead, we need to go back to Obama's idea last year,
and spend more time working out, very openly, how to reduce costs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chisox08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
30. you're right it is not a tax
It is giving billions of more dollars to the insurance industry that has ripped us off for years. I don't need auto insurance because I don't own a car. So that mandate doesn't affect me. There is a 100% chance of me getting sick and needing to go to a doctor. I can barely afford my current plan and the co-pays are getting ridiculous.
Passing anything and calling it health care reform will only make things worst for some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Singlepayer isn't happening, so give the public option and market reforms a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. Which public option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. The one that is going to
discussed and voted on in the Senate Finance Committee this Tuesday. More than one proposal, ROckefeller (the strongest), Schumer, and I think a third one as well. And while it is not clear any will pass, it is NOT clear that they will fail either, especially in light of the recent CBO estimate that shows that the PO is likely to SAVE money. And even if all proposals fail in the committee (a committee that has a higher proportion of conservative dems than overall in the Senate), it's likely that at least one proposal will be brought up again when the bill is discussed on the Senate floor.

THAT public option. Thanks for asking, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fading Captain Donating Member (895 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
33. Stop supporting Democratic Politicians and Start supporting Democratic Principles
Fuck this fucking hole of a plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
35. Just for you, RBinMaine: a repost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
42. Do you still say the same thing if there's no public option...?
Because, quite honestly, your arguments apply if there's no public option and no affordable health care -- and, personally, that's what the fight is over right now. Like it or not, some form of health-care bill is going to pass and be signed into law this year, and it will have an individual mandate as part of it. The only issues right now are a) the public option, b) an employer mandate or not, c) the cut-off income level for subsidies, and d) the amount of those subsidies. Right now, it would appear the new law will contain a) no public option, b) no employer mandate, c) a relatively low income cut-off ($66,000 for a family of four) and d) relatively skimpy subsidies (even for those under the cut-off, subsidies that only take effect after you've spent 13% -- more than one dollar out of every eight you earn -- out-of-pocket on annual medical expenses). With all those terms, would you still stick to your insistence that mandated insurance "is NOT a tax"...?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
62. Good post. I would like to add
that another important issue is Wyden's amendment about opening up the exchanges, which would make them available to a much larger pool of potential customers and may lead to significant competition even without the PO. It would work much, much batter though with the PO. Actually I think that when Wyden suggests combined with a PO as part of the exchange is the best we can realistically hope for.

This amendment is also supposed to come up on Tuesday, together with the various PO proposals. I may call in sick :-).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
43. You are WAY off track.
Mandated health insurance would be a financial requirement for the MERE FACT OF BEING ALIVE.

It is NOT like car insurance, so get that false analogy out of your head.

It is like a poll tax, which is outlawed in the Twenty Fourth Amendment of the Constitution - EXCEPT IT'S EVEN WORSE. It's a forced financial purchase from a private industry for every single citizen. IT'S BULLSHIT AND IT BETTER FAIL.

Single Payer is the only way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
45. So people who refuse to pay big fees to the insurance industry should be fined?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
48. No we don't ALL need auto insurance, and to say that we do is disingenuous.
LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people in this country DO NOT OWN CARS.

How many New Yorkers own cars as a percentage?

GET the the fuck out of town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
49. There are only five relevant words in this Post.
Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 09:51 PM by TheWatcher
"that is just pure BS."

That pretty much sums up the entire Post, quite nicely.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-26-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
50. I don't think anybody should be born with an obligation for the money we spent, either.
If you're going to mandate insurance and pay as you go, make it universal across the board.

Mandate a balanced budget, it's the progressive thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
52. The ACLU doesn't believe mandatory health insurance is a tax.
Edited on Sun Sep-27-09 12:35 AM by MilesColtrane
In a statement about why they haven't challenged the State of Massachusetts' mandatory health insurance law, they say:

http://www.aclum.org/health/pdf/aclum_individual_mandates_statement.pdf

Only the Legislature has the authority to tax Massachusetts residents, and some people have suggested that requiring individuals to purchase health insurance - presumably from private third party insurance companies that set and collect premiums - constitutes an impermissible delegation of the Legislature's constitutional taxing authority to insurers.

However the individual mandate does not exhibit a key feature of a tax.

The failure to pay a tax both carries a penalty (such as a fine) and also requires the taxpayer to pay the underlying tax owed. In contrast, the mandate statute only imposes a fine if an individual decides not to purchase insurance; it does not require an individual to purchase insurance after having paid this penalty. Because of this distinction, a court would be unlikely to view the individual mandate as a "tax".


There are some very sharp lawyers working in the ACLU. I tend to believe their assessment in this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
56. Is Social Security a "tax"?
Because I heard that one of the plans floating around out there calls for a payroll tax for health insurance, just like the payroll tax which exists for Social Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
57. WHy is this statement so controversial???
The issue of course is not whether it's a tax or a fine or whatever, it the idea of a mandate. Combined with HOPEFULLY a public option and a good set of rules that help those who just cannot afford insurance on their own, it is not a bad idea at all. The fines and the rules currently in the Baucus bill, combined with the absence of a PO make mandates difficult to swallow, I agree. But the PO is anything but dead (though anything but a sure bet as well) and there are several proposals AFAIK to modify the amount of the fines, subsidies, etc. So do not confuse the concept of mandates with the suggested implementation in the original Baucus plan (I think he even modified the related specifics before the markup even began and made them somewhat more acceptable).

And one more thing: the comparison with auto insurance, imperfect and over-used as it may be, is still a VALID one. Yes, if you live in NY you probably do not have a car hence no insurance. I lived in Manhattan for quite a few years, and of course did not have a car nor missed having one. The moment I moved to NJ things changed. I now live in a completely rural area with the closest food store some 12 miles away. Do you think I can afford NOT to have a car? Or that I should move back to NY just to prove my independence and refusal to feed the insurance fat cats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sl8 Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
63. "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax."
It sure looks like failure to buy insurance would result in a tax, at least under the Baucus plan.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Futue_Act.pdf (page 29)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lifesbeautifulmagic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
65. if mandated coverage is passed
to be bought only from for profit companies, that will become THE issue in the next few election cycles, and that won't play well for the Dems, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-27-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
66. From the first line of the OP, no we do not all need to get auto
insurance.

You can drive around on your property all day every day and not need to get insurance. You do if you register it and take it out onto the road.

You do not need to get a car/truck/van. You can walk, ride a bus, bum a ride with a neighbor, and you don't need to register anything to do that.

No one that I've seen is proposing mandated healthcare (from the OP subject line.) People are discussing mandated health insurance. If it is mandated insurance, and if one chooses not to accept it, and one is penalized for not doing so, and if the government can seize your assets to pay for it - it is a tax.

But remember, one can have an auto without insurance, simply avoid public roads - stay in your yard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC