Why do you want a federal Mandate for HCR reform?

  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Feb 03, 2011 5:57 AM GMT
    I know I am others are in the minority here as for wanting this CURRENT bill repealed (not HCR in total). I want to understand why those who support the mandate, not reform, but the mandate itself. I would really like to hear why people support this. Personally I think it is wrong for our government to mandate people carry insurance and if they can't afford private they have no choice but to be rolled into a federal backed plan or pay a penalty. Healthcare is not like car insurance because with car you have the possibility of hurting someone else but that is obsolete with HCR.

    Also I have a huge problem with states taking on the increased debt of more people added to Medicaid/care programs because of the mandate.

    Thirdly i fear what the loopholes may be to allowing illegals to buy into HCR and having the taxpayers pay for it..

    Seriously please give me your views on this topic only. Not NCR in general as I support that, but just this part of the bill.

    Thanks
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 03, 2011 6:55 AM GMT
    rioriz saidI know I am others are in the minority here as for wanting this CURRENT bill repealed (not HCR in total). I want to understand why those who support the mandate, not reform, but the mandate itself. I would really like to hear why people support this. Personally I think it is wrong for our government to mandate people carry insurance and if they can't afford private they have no choice but to be rolled into a federal backed plan or pay a penalty. Healthcare is not like car insurance because with car you have the possibility of hurting someone else but that is obsolete with HCR.

    Also I have a huge problem with states taking on the increased debt of more people added to Medicaid/care programs because of the mandate.

    Thirdly i fear what the loopholes may be to allowing illegals to buy into HCR and having the taxpayers pay for it..

    Seriously please give me your views on this topic only. Not NCR in general as I support that, but just this part of the bill.

    Thanks


    Some believe that the ends justify the means. Simply even if I thought if it was better for everyone that people buy insurance the constitution doesn't give Congress the power to force people to buy anything.

    Regarding health care and health insurance. We really need to re educate the masses on the meaning of insurance. It is to protect against a future event. If you have the event as a disease or a problem and seek to buy insurance ( you arent really trying to get insurance, more like healthcare)

    That being said the government has a hand in making healthcare more costly. If you spend money on your health, your own income the governement shouldn't tax that at all.

    There is such a disparity in coverage there are truly the haves and have nots.

    There should be a emphasis on catastrophic coverage for hospital care.

    The no co payment ( i have good insurance I can request any test or procedure) insurance model has to end.
    These models came out many of the union worker plans. The free health care for life scenarios that are unsustainable.

    This creates inflated prices for the people who would self -pay.

    Last the government could have allowed a buy into medicare for all. For people who are uninsured.
    With automatic medicare for the uninsured for an event, but when triggered they would have to buy into it retroactively back 1 year. And 1 year after.

    And if they cannot pay it gets removed from any entitlement welfare or SSI they would receive in the future.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 03, 2011 10:39 AM GMT
    Because the aim s to bring the cost of over all healthcare down
    and without forming a truly governmental healthcare system
    which I am for by the way
    healthcare systems like those in Europe and Canada

    The only way to preserve the private insurance model is to increase the current enrollment population
    right now because it has become SO expensive the healthy people are opting out and deciding to risk it and not buy health insurance in the first place
    What's left is a sicker population that costs more
    The death spiral ... if you will
    So if you want to maintain the status quo
    meaning the private health insurance model ....... this is it
    there ain't no more

    and if you THINK the republicans are gonna magically come up with something else? Sorry to say you're likely to be diagnosed in the DSM-IV
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 12:02 PM GMT
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.htmlThe theory behind the mandate is simple: It's there to protect against an insurance death spiral. Now that insurers can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, it would be entirely possible for people to forgo insurance until, well, they develop a medical condition. In that world, the bulk of the people buying insurance on the exchanges are sick, and that makes the average premiums terrifically expensive. The mandate is there to bring healthy people into the pool, which keeps average costs down and also ensures that people aren't riding free on the system by letting society pay when they get hit by a bus.

    The irony of the mandate is that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax on decent, hardworking people who don't want to purchase insurance. In reality, it's the best deal in the bill: A cynical consumer would be smart to pay the modest penalty rather than pay thousands of dollars a year for insurance. In the current system, that's a bad idea because insurers won't let them buy insurance if they get sick later. In the reformed system, there's no consequence for that behavior. You could pay the penalty for five years and then buy insurance the day you felt a lump.

    Luckily, consumers aren't usually that cynical, and the experience of places such as Massachusetts suggests that individual mandates encourage people to buy insurance even when it might make sense for people to simply pay the penalty. But for all the furor over the individual mandate, the danger in the bill is much more that it is too weak and too good a deal than that it is too strong and too punitive a tax.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 12:26 PM GMT
    rioriz saidI want to understand why those who support the mandate, not reform, but the mandate itself. I would really like to hear why people support this. Personally I think it is wrong for our government to mandate people carry insurance and if they can't afford private they have no choice but to be rolled into a federal backed plan or pay a penalty.


    This already happens with car insurance. Might as well happen with health insurance. Though I don't quite agree with it 100%. I stopped paying for insurance and thought nothing of it in 2007. Within two months California sent me a letter threatening to impound my car if I didn't get insurance. That would suck if the government fines you or tries to impound YOU for not getting health insurance.

    But it makes sense to be forced to pay for your own health insurance above other things. You're already forced to pay for social security, medicare, and a million of other things you may or may not reap the benefits of in your lifetime. At least it makes sense to be forced to pay for something that for once directly applies to yourself. Although in the end not everyone can afford heath insurance and I don't think that the lack of insurance should be treated like a crime but more like a vaccine shot that you're constantly reminded that you need to get.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 2:56 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThe Federal government can not force you to purchase a good or service from a private entity.

    The argument that JakeBenson makes:

    You're already forced to pay for social security, medicare, and a million of other things you may or may not reap the benefits of in your lifetime

    is quite different, as those are paid for by taxes and the "good or service" you are receiving is from the government.

    As for the car insurance argument (or flood insurance requirements), those are state requirements.

    Much of the opposition out there is because the Federal government has no constitutional power to force you to purchase a good or service from a private entity and that if Obamacare's mandate is allowed to stand, then there is nothing that the Federal government can't force you to purchase, i.e. a future President Palin requiring all citizens purchase high-powered rifles, etc.



    LOL @ President Palin (shivers)...but I agree 100%. Social Security, medicare etc are taxing powers for the general welfare, which is explicitly an enumerated power of Congress in the Constitution, unlike the health care mandate which is regulation of a purely intrastate activity. Madison and the framers of the Constitution will be pissed. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 3:04 PM GMT
    I agree to a very large degree with, JQjock and Jake, but also, SB makes a good point, insurance Co's are private Co's and that part bugs me too, but then back to Jakes point, so are car insurance Co's private.

    The answer should be the "PUBLIC OPTION" but Obama whom I voted for disappointed all of us by putting the big corps interests out front since they support politicians and we lost the better choice. Obama chose to go with the republican Idea of the Mandate, which amounts to a giveaway to the INS CO's. See what following the Ins Corp money to Obama's doorstep did for the Health Care System !!!!


    Still, whether aggravated with how the Health Care Bill turned out, its far better than the Status quo. In the long run even this flawed bill is better and lest costly than continuing in the direction we were headed.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 03, 2011 3:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said I agree to a very large degree with, JQjock and Jake, but also, SB makes a good point, insurance Co's are private Co's and that part bugs me too, but then back to Jakes point, so are car insurance Co's private.


    OK, you're almost there. You recognize that part of the problem is the government requiring you to purchase something from a private company.

    Good.

    Now, let's finish the deal. When you make the statement that you are required to purchase car insurance from private companies, please recognize this very crucial difference: the state governments have such requirements. What we are talking about with the health insurance mandate is coming from the Federal government and the Federal government has powers that are limited by the Constitution and nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal government has the power to force a citizen to purchase a good or service from a private company.

    If you can follow that line of thinking, then I will be quite happy to see I finally got through to someone on here! icon_biggrin.gif



    precisely they simply have to figure out another way for it to be accomplished.

    If you wanted to live in the mountains and live off the land you wouldn't be required to pay SSDI or taxes. But you would be required to buy health insurance.
    The Amish for example would have to buy into Obamacare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 3:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said I agree to a very large degree with, JQjock and Jake, but also, SB makes a good point, insurance Co's are private Co's and that part bugs me too, but then back to Jakes point, so are car insurance Co's private.


    OK, you're almost there. You recognize that part of the problem is the government requiring you to purchase something from a private company.

    Good.

    Now, let's finish the deal. When you make the statement that you are required to purchase car insurance from private companies, please recognize this very crucial difference: the state governments have such requirements. What we are talking about with the health insurance mandate is coming from the Federal government and the Federal government has powers that are limited by the Constitution and nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal government has the power to force a citizen to purchase a good or service from a private company.

    If you can follow that line of thinking, then I will be quite happy to see I finally got through to someone on here! icon_biggrin.gif

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Well there is a well defined difference, So more than likely the Supreme Court will get this and decide for us, but did you notice that Reagans Solicitor General, said that there is precedence for this ? I don't like this mandate crap either because god knows what all else could follow, taking one freedom after another away from us and locking us into a very narrow system covering God only knows what else, so it pays to be wary about mandates. I don't have the answers to it all.

    But all this aside we are much better off with a wide program of health coverage for the masses sake, and doing so brings costs down. So how about joining in pushing for a public option is this mandate is ruled unconstitutional ?? After all we should have the good of the masses at the forefront rather than what happened in this health care of putting the interests of Private Ins. Co's first by the mandate.

    So how about the Public Option Idea ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 4:30 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    The Amish for example would have to buy into Obamacare.


    not true. Conscientious objections by a member of a recognized religious sect are included in the religious conscience exemption clause which references section 1402(g)(1) of the IRS code. The Amish do not buy insurance which has been an established history for them, including declining SS benefits.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Feb 03, 2011 4:53 PM GMT
    Mandated insurance, which I support until we have true public option, is simply risk-sharing. We already have shared-risk "insurance", in many forms:

    1) If an uninsured person goes to the ER, we all pay.
    2) If you buy a product from a company that provides its employees with insurance, you are paying for that insurance, too.
    3) If my insurance pays for an operation, part of that payment covers the overhead of the hospital, which again has to cover expenses incurred in treating non-insured patients.

    So at the moment, I am paying for shared-risk in my private insurance, and when I buy certain products, and through my taxes. Constitutional considerations aside, a one-payer system could potentially be more efficient and a good deal cheaper for the individual tax-payer, and it would mean savings in three ways:

    1) No more need for huge payments for private insurance
    2) Lower commodity prices in certain areas
    3) Lower hospital overhead, thus lower costs passed to the tax-payer.

    In addition, single-payer health care could leverage lower costs for drugs. The friends I have that live where there is national health care are pleased with the care they get - and statistics show that our system, in addition to being the most expensive in the world, also results in over-all statistically poor health care - too many people fall through the very many cracks. Our system as it now stands is inefficient, grossly expensive, and vastly complex.

    Nat
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2011 6:12 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    musclmed said
    The Amish for example would have to buy into Obamacare.


    not true. Conscientious objections by a member of a recognized religious sect are included in the religious conscience exemption clause which references section 1402(g)(1) of the IRS code. The Amish do not buy insurance which has been an established history for them, including declining SS benefits.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    There you go SB !!! you can convert to Amish !!! You'd look cool in a long beard, black cloths and hat !! Just keep sexuality in the closet because they may not let you join them. But at least you'd get out of the mandate !!!!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Feb 03, 2011 6:35 PM GMT
    I think it's just a colossal problem and I'm not sure there is an answer that is going to please everybody. People will be pissed regardless of which way you go. That said, I suspect the one's most annoyed are the ones who are forced to purchase Health Insurance who would rather just freeload off the system and walk into an emergency room and expect health care whenever they need it. My biggest pet peeve is the million$ (maybe even billion$) we spend every year on the health care of illegal aliens. Not sure how we cease this practice without seeming inhumane, however, as long as we are not turning them away, they're just going to keep draining the system. I would much rather see those dollars spent on American citizens who cannot afford health insurance and who need health care. The bottomline: We can't continue to do it all indefinitely. At some point, someone needs t stop getting free health care -- and I think that should start with people who are here illegally.