Mandatory insurance--legislatively enacting a permanent jobless recession/recovery

[eridani]

That is because huge amounts of everyone's otherwise discretionary income will be diverted from buying real products to subsidize a totally unproductive part of the economy. The sociopaths who are really running the country don't even bother talking in terms of recession/recovery anymore. They are talking about a "reset." The language they like to use to refer to the future is "the new normal," which means far fewer jobs in general, more productivity for lower wages, greatly reduced consumer spending over the long term (because they don't intend to hire people if they can help it), increasing business in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), and in general looking to accelerate the cheap labor race to the bottom. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2009/gb20090513_256354.htm

What I will be required to pay will wipe out most of my discretionary income, and there are millions in the same situation. I know because I've used the Kaiser Family Foundation to calculate $450/month that still leaves me with 30% of medical expenses to pay.

We are talking 8-12% of income for premiums alone, not even counting co-pays and deductibles. This is an unmitigated disaster for an economy consisting of 70% consumer spending. The subsidies reducing the cost for those lower on the income scale will come from money that could have gone to the productive economy of rebuilding our infrastructure or creating new green collar jobs. And that is assuming that the subsidies don't get cut--the legislation says that they will if national deficit targets are not met.

Congress and the president seem almost to be from another planet when they talk about "affordable choices." To them it seems to mean that if income minus food minus rent/mortage/utilities minus transportation minus health insurance costs equals a number slightly greater than zero--VIOLA! Affordability! I'm not going to be homeless or starve, and may even be able to pay medical bills. I just won't be buying much else.

What this means for the economy at large is that more of the businesses dealing in non-essentials like bookstores, restaurants, etc. that I patronize are more likely to close. I have had to become more frugal during retirement, and that means we eat out once or twice a month, as opposed to once or twice a week when I was working. I'm letting magazine subscriptions run out and buying fewer books. Political donations have been cut in half. Already two restaurants where we used to eat have gone down. Elliott Bay Books will be moving from Pioneer Square, and is in serious financial trouble. This is a store that was founded during a major recession in 1973.

Wnen I start getting nailed for $450/month, plus the $60 for DH's Medicare Part B, a lot of things are going to end. Buying any books or magazines at all. Eating out. No online clothing shopping, just St. Vinnies and the like. Get rid of the CREDO cell phone. I might be able to spare $5 a year for DU, but no political contributions. No donations to Dem party organizations or candidates other than my volunteer time, not out of spite against Blue Dogs, but just because the money won't be there. Since DH is handy at electronics and programming, we'll probably stay connected to cyberspace, but if something craps out it will get repaired with stuff on hand or other people's cast-offs or we do without.

Multiply this by a few tens of millions for a picture of the "new normal" after insurance "reform." Still enthusiastic?

[ixion]

1. mandated insurance is not reform, it's a huge giveaway to the insurance companies

pure and simple.

[Kolesar]

2. I had planned to retire* before age 65 when I would become "Medicare eligible"

I had expected to pay >$7000/year to buy medical insurance through the professional society I belong to. If I developed any preexisting conditions, that insurance should be available. I am worried that they would exclude me on a technicality.

I am not sure what your second paragraph means.

You are so correct that the "insurance industry" contributes about nothing to our society.

*retire, travel, and do activist work.

[eridani]

3. The Kaiser foundation has a calculator that you can use to estimate your payments

--on any of the Senate or House bill. With single payer, you'd pay $1500 a year before Medicare and $600 a year after.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. K&R

[salguine]

5. I don't have the money, period. I guess it's prison for me.

[ProleNoMore]

6. Yes - Where Is Our Vaunted Congressional And Presidential Leadership On This Issue

As Progressives have pointed out so many times, they are missing in action.

[NorthCarolina]

7. Since the PO is only available to a sliver of the population, and offers zero competition, then

any form of insurance mandate is criminal. It seems to me that the 'reform' as proposed will do little more than place extreme financial burden on those least able to afford it.

Perhaps the issue of health care reform is not prudent at this time given the current corporate-conservative make-up of the Democratic Party. Perhaps if we can pursue limits and campaign finance reform, and work diligently to replace corporate owned DLC and Blue Dogs with traditional Democrats, we could then revisit the issue of health care reform and be on more solid ground with legislators that actually give a shit about whats in the best interest of their constituents. It's a dream I have anyway.

[eridani]

12. Did everyone notice that little thing about the widely quoted Pelosi press release?

Not a single mention of mandatory private insurance. You'd think they were ashamed of it or something. :sarcasm:

[nightrain]

8. it's scary, sickening, and disgusting.... I'm sad to hear about Elliot Bay Books--one of my prev

favorite haunts years ago...

Please keep up with the writing. We need to get/keep the word out about this travesty of a bill.

[Hannah Bell]

20. what happened to elliot bay books? please tell me they're not going out of business?

[PHIMG]

9. The REAL SOLUTION : Medicare for All

This p.o.s. bill is going to harm the Democratic Party and the country.

[MisterP]

14. might even be the whole idea: pass a poison pill, lose in '10, blame the progressives for not voting

for them

I have no idea of how likely this scenario is, mind you...

[eridani]

15. True. But for the time being we could lobby for opening Medicare

--to voluntary enrollment. We could also strip the useful parts out of the submitted legislation and resubmit them separately.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Finally, somebody gets the problem with mandates!

Thanks!

[leftstreet]

11. K&R

[debbierlus]

13. This is a disaster.

[Kolesar]

16. Health Reform Subsidy Calculator -- Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges/Gateways

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Has options to select the House plan or the Senate plan

[slipslidingaway]

17. knr nt

[inna]

18. I frankly cannot believe that the *Democrats* are doing this to us.

This bill is a Republican wet dream, it's nothing but Kabuki theater.

[Kitsune]

19. It occurs to me that a large number of people are either not going to comply or not be ABLE to.

In which case, wouldn't this turn into an enforcement nightmare on the order of Prohibition?

I can't see this bill being viable law given the current economics circumstances, and you point it out pretty well.

Which just goes to prove that 90% of the Dems are just as bad as the Republicans, not having any goddamn clue how a functioning society works.

[G_j]

22. in what year do the 'mandates' kick in? nt

[slipslidingaway]

21. eridani - this article talks about the changes in consumer spending...

and your observations on HC spending add to this article. I've read this site since late 1999 when it was first published so I value their big picture perspective FWIW.


Dear Prudence, Won't You Come Out To Play?

http://contraryinvestor.com/mo.htm

"...When it comes to the macro credit and conjoined economic cycle, we suggest an important item to keep in mind is that historically; US economic recoveries of the last half-century have had similar “fingerprints”. Those being pent up demand for auto’s, housing and accelerating credit usage by the private sector. Every single one. They all look the same. But what we are seeing at the current time that is completely different than anything seen over the last six decades is net private sector credit contraction. The following chart could not be more clear on the issue. Remember, the private sector is made up of households and corporations (including the financial sector)....

We know we are going to sound like pessimists and doom and gloomers with a few of these comments. We also know that we risk looking like idiots down the road by suggesting we buck the longstanding Street truism of “do not bet against the US consumer”. But every dog has its day, and we believe the consumer/household dog is barking, and loudly. Is it the end of the world? Of course not, but we believe changing patterns of behavior at the household level will have very meaningful consequence for investment outcomes ahead. As it applies to US households, two themes emerge from the numbers. First, we are currently in the beginning stages of a household balance sheet reconciliation cycle that we feel will be of a magnitude greater than anything we have seen in the post War era. Secondly, and we’re still early in this, household behavior regarding consumption is likewise in the midst of necessarily important change directly linked to the balance sheet reconciliation phenomenon. Lastly, we believe these two forces will be greater in magnitude than Wall Street may be discounting and will play out over a longer time period than the consensus now expects. Let’s get to the numbers and trends relative to historical precedent..."