Of course everybody will buy health insurance! It's the LAW.

[elehhhhna]

Just like they we do with car insurance. Right?


Hey! We should make a law that food-insecure (govtspeak) people buy enough damned groceries every week. Also, the homeless must rent apartments. VOILA! Problems solved!11!!

[Poll_Blind]

1. Obama on mandates:

PB

[pipoman]

5. When does this "high quality, affordable" insurance become available?

It sures the fuck isn't available now..

[tridim]

16. Worry not, you'll be jailed soon pipoman.

The rest of us will use the ACA as the bulk of the law rolls out in 2014.

You have PLENTY of time to read the law (for the first time) between now and then.

[Niceguy1]

26. why shoukd he?

The peopke who voted for it didn't.

[tridim]

27. Same reason my Republican parents should read it for the first time.

Because they don't have a clue what the ACA actually is and how it is helping millions of Americans become healthier.

I know, horrors.

[Niceguy1]

29. it has dine harm, too.

My union non profit health carrier has ro raise rates to fund rhe increased coverage.

[tridim]

30. You can name names. Which provider raised your rates?

And is that the actual reason they gave? What increased coverage are they providing? The free preventative care granted by the ACA?

We already know rates are falling 50% in NY. Fifty fucking percent!

[drhobo]

37. mine went up 15%

And the small business where my father works ( less than 20 full time employees) opted to stop providing healthcare coverage entirely and give them raises to buy it themselves instead.

Stats say one thing but my eyes and wallet sure aren't seeing it.

[tridim]

45. Have you asked your insurer why they raised your premium by 15%?

They have to give you a reason, by law. If they can't, find an insurer that honors the ACA. My guess is they aren't following the 80/20 law either.

Call and demand answers, the ACA gave the people a powerful tool to fight these companies. Use it!

[Niceguy1]

46. no , I will not

Name the name on the internet. The compabny does not make a profit and must raise its rayes to compensate for the increased costs.

[elehhhhna]

20. i love when someone worth millions calls something affordable

[tridim]

31. I'm worth next to nothing and my rates are becoming more affordable, even before 2014.

What are you talking about?

[Safetykitten]

12. Who is this person saying these things?

[geek tragedy]

2. Get over it already. If you get rid of mandates, you also have to get rid of

guaranteed issue and community rating.

Mandates are here, they're constitutional, and the present-term alternative is going back to the old system and screwing millions of poor people.

[pipoman]

7. Because they're constitutional

doesn't mean that the voters have to allow them..they work for us, or that's the way it is supposed to be..what is screwing millions of poor people is jailing them for not going without food in favor of buying mandated insurance.

[geek tragedy]

14. "jailing them" OFFS get a new set of rightwing talking points nt

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

15. The veil comes off. nt

[AndyA]

39. You missed the point. It's not JUST about the mandates.

It's about people not being able to afford to live. Take the frickin' insurance mandate out of the picture, and it's still the same: Congress is ignoring the fact that people CANNOT make ends meet in this country.

[geek tragedy]

40. that's what the subsidies are for nt

[AndyA]

44. Again--it's not just the insurance. It's rent. Food. Clothing.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for people to make ends meet on minimum wage. Pay people a living wage, give them jobs, and they won't need subsidies, they'll be able to afford it on their own.

[hack89]

3. Getting young healthy people to buy insurance is the only way the system will work

I foresee this being a huge problem.

[sharp_stick]

4. I saw an asshole run a red light

in front of me the other day, we should get rid of traffic laws. A body was discovered in a duffel bag, fuck it..get rid of murder laws too.

Brilliant, just brilliant argument.

[tridim]

6. Auto insurance isn't subsidized. So no, not just like we do with car insurance.

In fact, the exact opposite of what we do with car insurance.

I don't understand your post at all. Is there something wrong with poor people getting access to affordable healthcare for the first time in their lives?

[hobbit709]

8. Even subsidized it will be out of reach for some people.

[tridim]

9. Who?

What's the complaint here? I still don't get it.

[hobbit709]

11. Try people that are less than half a paycheck from being homeless?

Next silly question.

I know people who even $20 would put a hardship on.

[tridim]

13. Someone in that position will not be subject to any penalty and will be subsidized by the ACA.

Before the ACA the poor had NO options and NO hope. Now they do, and fucking Democrats are complaining about it on public forums. Why?

I still don't understand the point of this post. At all.

[hobbit709]

17. ACA is NOT healthcare, it's a sop to the insurance industry and always was.

Even with insurance there are many who forego care because they can't afford the copays.

I speak from personal experience. My wife would probably still be alive if she hadn't fretted about the $175 copay for the ER when her doctor advised her to go there. She didn't tell me either when I picked her up at the doctor's office. If she had, I would have made a beeline for the ER. 9 hours later she was dead from the heart attack.

[tridim]

18. I know what the ACA is, I've read the law.

Do you think my insurer was happy to send me (and everyone else) a $200 check last month because they made more profit than the ACA allows?

Hell of a "sop" they got going on there.

[hobbit709]

19. Wonder how much they made to give you 2 C-notes back. Bet it was a lot more than that.

[tridim]

32. Less than they made the year before, because the ACA has a cap on profits.

It is now the LAW.

Did you even know that?

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. This happens more than is being told

So sad and pissed to hear this.

[knitter4democracy]

23. That subsidy is privileged thinking.

Oh, so I'd get a refund with my tax return? You mean the one that most people do the EZ form on or already don't get the money back they're promised because they can't figure out how to deal with thousands of pages of tax code but can't afford an accountant and so fill it out and hope for the best? That one? Yeah, one time a year money back doesn't help with the monthly bottom line until after that money is spent.

[jeff47]

34. Not how it works, but lovely strawman.

The subsidy is paid by the government to the insurer. It is not a tax refund.

Look, the ACA isn't perfect. But it provides the opening to destroy the insurance cartel. Instead of going back through a wasteland full of dead bodies, how 'bout we make it a little better now, and lots better down the road via "government options" in the state exchanges?

[knitter4democracy]

48. It's empowering the insurance companies.

What we needed was single payer.

[jeff47]

49. No, it really doesn't.

It limits their profits, and creates the opening for their destruction: The state exchanges.

Let's take a look at how Canada got single payer: One province started doing single payer. And when the public saw what was going on, they passed it in the other provinces.

There are states doing single payer. And there are states with "government options" in their exchanges. The presence of those will lead to the destruction of the insurance cartel.

Single payer was not going to pass. There were too many corporate Democrats opposed. So the ACA creates the back door through which we will end up with single payer.

[knitter4democracy]

51. You have to be kidding me.

It limits profits only as a percentage but requires everyone to get insurance. Trust me, they're doing just fine.

[jeff47]

52. Nice job reading the first sentence.

How long do you think it will take you to get through the rest of the post?

[knitter4democracy]

53. I dealt with the meat of your post.

If all you want to do is trade insults, you'll have to go some to meet expectations.

[jeff47]

54. No, the meat of the post is pointing out what happened in Canada

And the parallels to the US.

But please, keep hiding behind insults instead. Far easier than trying to discuss the topic.

[knitter4democracy]

55. Re-read our conversation. You started the insults, and I didn't engage.

Canada is not parallel to the US. What happened there is not likely to happen here at all. That's why I didn't deal with it: insurance companies there at the time had nowhere near the political power that insurance companies do here and now.

Do you really think that insurance companies aren't excited about new customers and billions more in profits?

[jeff47]

56. I started no insults. I pointed out your argument was a strawman.

And then pointed out you kept ignoring anything beyond the first sentence or two in my posts.

insurance companies there at the time had nowhere near the political power that insurance companies do here and now

As evidenced by the law that has required them to send refunds to customers. Clearly, that shows incredible power.....or not so much.

Do you really think that insurance companies aren't excited about new customers and billions more in profits?

If that's true, how come they were busting their asses to try and stop the ACA? How come their paid stooges (the Republicans) are busting their asses to get back to the old system? If they're so powerful, and the ACA is so great for them, why are they fighting to go back to the old system? Are they all-powerful morons?

Or perhaps your analysis is a tad off.

My point is once the public sees the reality of single-payer/government-option plans on the state exchanges, the FUD spewed by the insurance cartel will no longer be effective. Just like in Canada, when the FUD spewed by their insurance cartel was no longer effective when one province got single-payer. The insurance cartel was able to hold it off for a little while, but they were overwhelmed by public pressure.

[TheKentuckian]

47. No it won't. "affordable" means about 10% of your income once you get to about

full time hours at minimum wage.

The number of people in the country about two paychecks from the street is no small percentage and includes people well above the maybe medicaid line.

Now, if you want to insist that everyone can afford the 8.5% or whatever then say that but don't claim that anyone it would create a hardship for won't be impacted because you don't know that and may well be blowing smoke because we are stuck on the false premise that somebody making $8/hour is middle class because they aren't they are poor rather than worse than destitute.

Folks are strapped, even folks who pull in those big TEEN bucks (sarcasm sign better not be required) have little fat to deem something to be universally affordable. There have been times in my life where that slice would be the difference between minimal life and pure subsistence, I don't think that is something to get cheeky about to the point where you automatically dismiss mere possibility of hardship. It is pretty arrogant.

I also recall many people on this tact that somehow had the empathy to wring their hands about folks making 200-250 grand facing a much smaller percentage increase and only on the portion above that "middle class" struggling line. I've never been able to reconcile that, high income areas and all there is just no comparison for potential hardship but there a certain subset that only had sympathy for the top of the pile.

[jeff47]

50. If you're going to toss around numbers, you should probably bother to do some math.

The folks you seem to be complaining about are supposed to be getting medicaid, or substantial subsidies.

[TheKentuckian]

57. They aren't getting medicaid, full time hours at $8/hour puts them over that line and

subsidies are designed to keep premiums to approximately 10% of income so because of the cost of the policy the subsidy is substantial in actual dollars but that doesn't mean that person can afford it but rather you are saying that everyone can afford to pay that tithe to the insurance cartel. The design is the design, Jeff. Embrace it, if you are going to embrace it but stop spinning it to be magic rather than just more of the stupid logic that asserts that once one is beyond destitute that they are "middle class" when what they are is fucking poor and that the "middle" then extends well into the top 2% when they are actually upper class at minimum and plausibly rich but just not fabulously wealthy.

The Medicaid expansion is a good thing but let's stop acting like it is a fix for any but the poorest of the poor, based on an absolutely absurd poverty line that is about 2/3 of full time hours at the lowest wages allowed by law. Just let that sink in for a moment, the baseline standard of measurement in indefensible to start with so everything that follows it begins with nonsense. I don't get the argument that sets the baseline for poverty well below the minimum legal pay at a standard work week.

How many real dollars one gets in subsidies doesn't matter to how much meat is on the bone and how much fat there is to trim off of whatever meat is there.

I'm very comfortable in asking you to stick to the real life application of your argument, which logic dictates is that everyone that works full time at minimum wage and above can afford around 10% of their gross adjusted income (this is not net pay, so a much higher percentage of actual take home) but I don't think that is winning spin in a world where most are already between 33-50% of income just to keep a roof over their head and that some may make the connection between this set up and that of a "flat tax" that is designed to limit the contributions of upper tier earners and the wealthy and to kick the burden down to the working class but may actually be closer to the Libertarian Holy Grail of "fee for service".

[elehhhhna]

21. access to a mandated insurance scheme is not equivalent to "affordable healthcare"

[tridim]

33. Certainly it isn't equivalent if you completely ignore the subsidies provided in the ACA.

Your entire post is based on ignoring the bulk of the law.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

10. Obamacare is the law of the land.

[JoePhilly]

22. Just wait until the death panels kick in!

They'll push granny out into the ocean on an ice flow.

[Progressive dog]

25. Most auto insurance covers uninsured motorists,

at least in NY. They never catch every idiot who wants a free ride on the rest of us.

[Motown_Johnny]

41. MI too, and I can't for the life of me figure out what good it does me.

It is mandated that we must carry it. No choice in the matter. Plus we are a no fault state.

Since we are a no fault state, my insurance covers me while your insurance covers you. If you are uninsured then you are screwed. My insurance will still cover me.

I have even asked a couple insurance agents about it but they didn't have a good answer for me either. I think it is just a scam.

I do have a friend who does insurance but I have never thought to ask her about it. Maybe I will next chance I get (if I don't forget, we are friends and don't talk business much).

[AndyA]

28. What needs to happen is legislation requiring a minimum wage in this country

that actually allows people to pay for all the shit they're told they must have.

Health insurance, car insurance, licenses, permits, etc. PLUS pay for expenses necessary to live, like rent or mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, school supplies, etc.

What's immoral and wrong is to legislate ANY financial requirements to the American people when the minimum wage can't possibly cover the cost of living, even if you live in the least expensive county in the country.

Elise Gould, Director of Health Policy Research at Economic Policy Institute:

"...family budget calculations show that the real costs for families to live modest, not even middle class, lives are much higher than conventional estimates show, and for families living on minimum-wage jobs, it is virtually impossible to make ends meet. In fact, the actual amount of money a family needs to provide the most basic necessities exceeds the official poverty threshold, which stood at $23,283 for a two-parent, two-child family in 2012, for all six family types in all 615 family budget areas studied in this report."

Here's a Family Budget Calculator that reveals what actual living wages are: http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/. Try it and see if full time, minimum wage employment cuts it in your area.

[jeff47]

36. You'd have a point if there were no subsidies.

At least for the ACA requirement, those people you are concerned about are not paying the cost.

[jeff47]

35. Insurance, private or public, requires healthy people to pay.

Whether you're talking Medicare or United Health Care, healthy people have to pay to cover the sick.

The way you get healthy people to pay under the ACA (or in Switzerland) is a mandate.
The way you get healthy people to pay in Canada or other "universal healthcare" countries is a mandate. We just call it a tax instead.

The ACA is by no means perfect. But it sets up the mechanism through which we can destroy the insurance cartel - state exchanges. Just need some "blue" states to offer a "government option" or universal health care. And several states are doing so. That will destroy the FUD spewed by the insurance cartel. Over time those options grow and cover more and more states, eventually leading to nationalized care.

It's what happened in Canada. It's what happened with Medicare (coverage started much more limited). There's no reason to believe it won't happen again with the framework created by the ACA.

What you propose is turning back to the corpse-strewn wasteland from which we came, in the hopes that things become so awful that we immediately leap to your preferred goal.

And that is an utterly horrific plan full of pain and suffering to meet your political goals. If it's what you really want, you should probably go join the Republican party - killing people to reach political goals is their style.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. +100 n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

38. Can you get car insurance through Medicaid ?

If not, then your analogy is incorrect.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. If, like HC, the government will reimburse the food-insecure for the costs, I'm all over it. n/t