If the PO is gone, so should the individual mandate

Why?
1- The individual mandate is essentially regressive.
2- Its borderline unconstitutional.
3- Its political suicide.

Tags: Health care (all tags)

Comments

47 Comments

Re: If the PO is gone, so should

Agreed.  Especially since the price controls are gone as well.

by Drummond 2009-12-14 07:30PM | 0 recs
so should the individual mandate

Following the example of the PO, it only takes 1 senator to remove the mandate.

Let's have at it.

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
so should the individual mandate

Totally agree. Lets begin to strip this thing to the bone.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-15 05:30AM | 0 recs
It was already meatless, now Liebermann

is making it boneless, what's left on the plate?

by louisprandtl 2009-12-15 06:17AM | 0 recs
Do you think the individual mandate for driver's

license is also "regressive" and "borderline unconstitutional"?

by louisprandtl 2009-12-15 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: there is a corollary misunderstanding

It seems that many here think that the "PO" meant 'free healthcare'. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion of the finer points when a basic understanding of the fundamentals is clearly lacking.

by QTG 2009-12-15 06:52AM | 0 recs
Are you serious?

Are you kidding me? Are we paying private companies for a license? No. Can a person have a license and not buy car insurance? Yes. I know a lot of my friends living in big cities never bothered to buy a car because they did not need one, but they all have DLs. In this case, whether you are sick or healthy you will be forced by penalty of law to buy health insurance from private companies. I don't know if that is unconstitutional but it is regressive and the Senate bill also has a stiff penalty for people who decide to forgo buying insurance, the so-called Max tax.

by tarheel74 2009-12-15 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you serious?

If you don't own a car then there is no chance you will be involved in a car accident.

There is nothing analogous for health care.  There is no such thing as a "healthy person" who has no risk of being hit by a bus or diagnosed with cancer or what have you.

If one of those things happens to someone without insurance, the government or the hospital will be stuck picking up the tab.  Those costs are real.  Acting like we all have the option to opt out of health problems ignores those very real costs.

by Steve M 2009-12-15 07:20AM | 0 recs
How do you think the coverage for pre-existing

conditions would be affordable? Do you want folks to buy into the insurance pool only they fall sick? Or do you want to continue the current system where pre-existing conditions are not covered and uninsured have only one option to go to emergency rooms when they are critically sick..

by louisprandtl 2009-12-15 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: How do you think the coverage for pre-existing

There is a huge tussle between expanding coverage and providing greater benefits (increases costs) and reducing costs.

The reducing costs side won. People don't want to pay for someone else's pre-exiting conditions to be covered. Let them suffer and we'll all save a few bucks, which is what really matters!

by vecky 2009-12-15 03:26PM | 0 recs
Isn't it sad? I thought it was a progressive

(liberal) thought that we don't mind paying a little more in taxes in case it helps a broader group of people, especially one who need the help. It is really disheartening to read some of the comments here.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-15 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it sad? I thought it was a progressive

Bullshit, I don't mind paying a little more if it's to a government run program. But I am not going to pay extra if it's just lining the pockets of insurance and drug companies and their executives. This is nothing more than a corporate giveaway.

by writestuff 2009-12-15 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't it sad? I thought it was a progressive

What insurance do you have now?

by vecky 2009-12-15 10:32PM | 0 recs
I'm waiting to see the answer to your query!

by louisprandtl 2009-12-17 06:47AM | 0 recs
A driver's license is optional

It would be far more imposing than that of car insurance because driving is optional, whereas the health insurance mandate would be a strict condition of citizenship.  

Also, there is no obligation to purchase car insurance for operating a vehicle on private land.  In this sense, the mandate could obliterate what is left of privacy protections by allowing the feds to inspect someone's property to determine whether that person was in possession of health insurance.

by IndepEnergy 2009-12-15 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: A driver's license is optional

There would be no requirement to have insurance if the government was left to pick up the tab when you fell sick either.

by vecky 2009-12-15 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: If the PO is gone

I feel as though the function of the "recommend" button has essentially become that of the "like" feature on Facebook.  I mean, not to criticize the depth of the analysis here or anything.

by Steve M 2009-12-15 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: If the PO is gone

Yea, it is, which is fine with me, the new platform has the whole "Rec" feature acting much more as a Like feature, and it will encompass fp posts, diaries, comments, and breaking blue posts all together, making the whole site much more fluid. You'll also be able to sort them by the above.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-15 07:47AM | 0 recs
When are we going to have the new platform?

You promised us a new site awhile ago.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-15 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: When are we going to have the new platform?

more broken promises... it's spreading.

by vecky 2009-12-15 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: When are we going to have the new platform?

yea, I (we) realized that we had to rebuild it from scratch (what we were using for OrganizeVirginia.com), so we did... it really is just about finished, I have it up at staging.mydd.com and staging.breakingblue.com The last two weeks have been taken up with migration of the archives and its a lot. 1.3M comments ain't easy to move.

I will have the site up before the HCR gets signed, or I will eat mydd's logo.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-15 04:10PM | 0 recs
Ok..we'll hold you to your promise. :)

by louisprandtl 2009-12-15 04:36PM | 0 recs
A question

Why wasn't anybody screaming about Mandates when there was a PO in the bill. Based on CBO scoring premiums did not go down with the PO. Just saying.

by jsfox 2009-12-15 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

This is not about that.

If liberals have to give up the Public Option, then moderates better give up something too. The mandate it is!

by vecky 2009-12-15 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

Vicky's statements about how anybody who doesn't follow their leaders off a cliff is not a "real" progressive or Democrat or whatever...

it is because we believed that premiums wouldn't go up as fast with a PO, that's why.

the reason why the CBO said premiums would be more expensive is because the PO would disproportionately cover the sickest and most expensive.

if you compared apples to apples (which the CBO did NOT do), the PO would be cheaper for people.

by jeopardy 2009-12-15 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

Won't most people simply choose the cheaper plan though? Except for the sick...

So private insurance companies would be even BETTER off... they would get all the healthy enrolles, and all the sick workers would be dumped on the PO. Then in 5-6 years the GOP would clamor - look, the PO is more expensive, it's not saving any money, kill it! And they and 5-6 conservadems would go along and it would be dead...

by vecky 2009-12-15 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

Part of the issue with the CBO is the set of assumptions it makes are not always true.  One of the early victories of the Conservadems was to argue that they are.

by bruh3 2009-12-15 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

That's true enough, but it cuts both ways. Without the CBO score (which have generally been favorable to our side) there is no independent benchmark to use.

We would then have to base our stats on experts and academia, who take ages to analyze and put out statements, meanwhile we would be going against paid industry groups from the other who shout doom and gloom very loudly and very quickly.

by vecky 2009-12-15 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

There is a plenty of data already  out there on the subject in minute detail. it does not cut both ways unless you mean the CBO has tended to underestimate the value of the PO throughout the process. Wonder why that is the case.

by bruh3 2009-12-15 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

There may be plenty of "data out there" but they're not being brought into the political debate. The CBO numbers are.

by vecky 2009-12-15 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

I can't talk to foolish people anymore,a nd you a very foolish person. Too much useless garbage.

by bruh3 2009-12-16 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

I merely brought up the Facts. You may not have noticed but the CBO numbers are all that seem to matter in a congressional debate.

by vecky 2009-12-16 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

Oligopoly Economics: A mandate with cost containment in the form  of the public option would overtime in theory produce cost savings by adding new people to the roster of insurance enrollees because the public plan would be cheaper, and thus forcing overall market price down. When the plutocrats in Congress were claiming that the Public Option would drive private insurance companies out of business- this was a lie. What they were really saying was that it would eat into their ability to obtain oligopoly pricing.

A mandate without public option would not produce cost containment. Why? Because a) the insurance industry is an oligopoly or monopoly in many regions and b) that means pricing is entirely set by the insurance companies rather than normal market supply-demand.

Increasing the number of consumers without competition that will drive down cost in an oligopoly does not result in reduce pricing because of the reason I just stated. Think of it like Ma Bell with the telecoms or any other public utility. The number of customers will not affect pricing.

Indeed, with subsidies and mandates now, the pricing is more likely to go up. Again, this is according to simply understanding the nature of the market- which is being glossed over.

By the way, among the provisions that are being driven out of the bill includes the attempt to repeal the antitrust exemption that the health insurance industry enjoys as well as other real pricing mechanism like drug re-importation.

by bruh3 2009-12-15 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A question

exactly.

to those supporting this steaming pile of chit,

especially vecky,

can you please stop using false arguments like "it will cover 30 million more people", "the poor will now be able to afford health care", or other arguments that are not true?

can we get some actual legitimate arguments in favor of this bill please?

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

It's the largest middle-class tax break since WW2?

by vecky 2009-12-16 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

ok, i'm game.

explain please

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

? You don't know...

It's 900 billion dollars - going straight to the working poor and lower middle class.

The Bush Tax cut was 1.2 trillion - but most of that went to the top tax bracket, those making 150K or more. In this case everything is going to folk who make less than 60K a year. And it's completely paid for too.

by vecky 2009-12-16 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

no, i mean i want you to elaborate on this $900 billion that is supposedly in the health care bill for the poor.

and this better not be the Subsidies that will go directly to the insurance companies with no restrictions on those same companies from still raising premiums

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

eh? A tax cut to individuals goes directly to whatever private company they choose to spend that money on. Right? I don't see you complaining there.

This subsidy is not going directly to the insurance company - it's going to the individual, who then can choose to spend it. It's the largest tax break any have ever received from the government.

Do you have private insurance?

by vecky 2009-12-16 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

you are trying to have it both ways.

you can't claim both that this bill will insure 30 million more people

AND ALSO

claim that a lot of people are not going to spend it on insurance.

So which is it? Which stance are you taking? You can't take both.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

? Obviously they are going to spend it on insurance. That's how they get insured.

by vecky 2009-12-16 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

didn't you just argue that it's a "tax cut" because it can be spend on other things?

you are trying to have it both ways

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: A question

Where did I say other things? I only said tax cuts go to private companies.

by vecky 2009-12-16 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: If the PO is gone, so should the individual ma

looks like the labor unions might also oppose this bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16 /labor-holds-emergency-mee_n_394070.html

anybody who wants real health care reform should follow suit and oppose this giant giveaway to wealthy insurance execs that doesn't help the people of this country.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: If the PO is gone, so should the individual ma

Who is your insurance provider currently?

by vecky 2009-12-16 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: If the PO is gone, so should the individual ma

i'm not posting personal information on here.

it's irrelevant though. no subsidy is going to help as long as the insurance companies can simply raise their premiums whenever they feel like it.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: If the PO is gone, so should the individual ma

As I understand the current state of play, we willstill have a mandate and a "non-discrimination" rule, which more or less abandons any pretense that insurance is about managing risk (which is to say, that it's actually insurance).

In other words, we're eliminating the rationale for the role private insurance companies play in our system, but insisting that it continue to revolve around them and, even better, handing them an enormous subsidy.  

But we've eliminated the counterweight [the "public option"] designed to check costs, because that part, according to a logic I completely fail to fathom, is especiallysocialist.

What's remarkable about this is how naked and brazen it is. That is, I can't come up with any remotely coherent pretext for thinking this particular policy combination makes sense. Which isn't to say the same system with the public option was much more coherent.  

Contemplate how extraordinary that is: There's almost always at least some fig leaf of an ideological principle or an economic argument strung up in front of even the most naked interest group grab.  

But nobody seems to be even pretending this compromise amounts to anything but an open bribe to the very insurers whose existence it renders unjustifiable.

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2 009/12/15/reverse-stone-soup-saves-lives /

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 08:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads