Health Care

[loserbob 11]

"What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change," said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "From an employer's point of view that's a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they're good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost."Imagine my surprise at this coming from the worker friendly Chamber of Commerce.

PLANS WILL HAVE TO CHANGE!!!! This is my point. Obama said they wouldn't. He lied! These changes,whether for the good or not, will cost us more. You and I will both be paying more for our insurance coverage, another broken promise from Obama! He is a LIAR!!!!

I went through the Chamber of Commerce. Lets not forget, they make money when you buy insurance through their high risk program. So its not that theyre trying to be "Worker friendly", they have a vested interest in this! They have an insurance salesman just like everyone else!

[loserbob 11]

Again, it's if your EMPLOYER likes it, unless you buy it privately.

No kidding! And everyone knew they wouldn't like it. This is why before the vote came into being people were pissed and knew that Obama was full of Crap when he told the people their plan wouldn't change! LIAR!!!!

What benefit would any president get from coming up with a healthcare plan that purposely screws the people? On all the polls only the older(medicare age)people overwhelmingly disagree with the plan. So to say the majority of people disagree is way off track, the polls prove my point.

[pattygreen 5]

When the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis of power was selling ObamaCare

to the American people, they were adamant that the individual

mandate to buy government approved health insurance was NOT

a tax.

You probably remember at least one of the President's many

strong denials that healthcare "reform" would involve ANY

adverse tax consequences.

But now that many have challenged the individual mandate as being

unconstitutional, the administration has changed their tune

by declaring that, in fact, the individual mandate IS a tax!

Why? Because the Constitution gives Congress the power to

enact taxes but NOT to mandate insurance purchases! The

"facts" they presented in their response to Virginia have

suddenly changed to suit their latest convenience!

This is yet another Obama tactic to bypass our

constitutional form of government and to FORCE

an unwanted mandate upon the American people.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Everyone who owns a car is "forced" to buy car insurance because to be without insurance would force the cost of an accident onto the rest of us. You may never have an accident in all your years of owning a car but you are still required to have insurance.

If you have a pulse, however, there is an almost 100% certainty that you will need healthcare at some point in your life. To be without healthcare would then shift your cost onto the rest of us.

I don't want to pay more for those who don't want to do the responsible thing and purchase health insurance.

So, the government has mandated insurance before, in the form of car insurance. Plus, you can't get a mortgage unless you have homeowner's insurance. The bank requires it. So there are many examples of times when we are mandated to buy insurance. It is only fair that all people share in the cost and not get a free ride.

Didn't someone on here just make a statement that nothing is free? Hmmm. Let me think who that was.

And btw, the mandate is not a tax, the penalty is and they are enforced under different parts of the constitution. When Pres. Obama was talking about the mandate not being a tax, that was true.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea

In ’90s, GOP saw an alternative to Clinton plan

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Associated Press / March 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Obama’s requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. (What a shock! More hypocrisy)

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that has been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as “a personal responsibility principle’’ and Massachusetts’ newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama’s plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program, or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants, and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship.(This is why it's considered a tax) Fines will vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives say that is unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most specialists agree some requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance does not work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

“The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,’’ said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama’s law. Pauly’s paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

“It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn’t,’’ said Pauly. “Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it.’’

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly’s proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans.

Romney’s success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama’s plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts, and federal overreach on a matter that he says should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker. “In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care,’’ Brown said.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

patty: "This is yet another Obama tactic to bypass our

constitutional form of government and to FORCE

an unwanted mandate upon the American people."

Which American people feel forced by it? Not me. None of the people I know feel that way. We're all American people.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

patty: "This is yet another Obama tactic to bypass our

constitutional form of government and to FORCE

an unwanted mandate upon the American people."

Which American people feel forced by it? Not me. None of the people I know feel that way. We're all American people.

Only those who want a free ride and expect the rest of us to pay for their healthcare would consider themselves "forced". And as for the mandate and penalty, like I said, both are provided for in the constitution.

[BJean 16]

Amen, sister!

[pattygreen 5]

Everyone who owns a car is "forced" to buy car insurance because to be without insurance would force the cost of an accident onto the rest of us. You may never have an accident in all your years of owning a car but you are still required to have insurance.

Car insurance is to protect others. HI is to protect me only. Does my neighbor care if I can't pay my hospital bill because I didn't purchase health insurance? Or does anyone care that I have medical bills to pay? It effects noone but ME if I don't carry insurance. Not carrying car ins. effects the one you run into, therefore, it should be required by law. If you don't want to abide by the law of purchasing car ins., you don't have to own a car. You can walk or take the bus.

If you have a pulse, however, there is an almost 100% certainty that you will need healthcare at some point in your life. To be without healthcare would then shift your cost onto the rest of us.

My daughter didn't have HC for a while there and when she went to the ER for stitches, the bill was sent to her, not you. Once, many years ago, when my husband was out of work and we had no HI, the hospital put a lean on OUR home till we paid it, not YOURS or anyone elses. The fact is, that we pay high premiums anyway. They will not go down because others will be mandated by law to purchase HI.

I don't want to pay more for those who don't want to do the responsible thing and purchase health insurance.

So, the government has mandated insurance before, in the form of car insurance. Plus, you can't get a mortgage unless you have homeowner's insurance. The bank requires it.

The bank requires it for you to have a loan. They're not forcing you to buy it. If you don't want to purchase it in order for them to loan you money for a house, then save your money till you can buy it yourself. I wouldn't give you a loan either unless there was a reassurance that if anything happened to it I would be repaid. They are not the government forcing you to purchase anything you didn't want to buy.

So there are many examples of times when we are mandated to buy insurance. It is only fair that all people share in the cost and not get a free ride.

That's NOT fair at all. Why should I pay for YOUR Health insurance? It's not your right! If it is, then it's your right to have food on your table and it's your right to not be homeless. And it's your right....etc. Why don't we all just pay for everything you need.

Didn't someone on here just make a statement that nothing is free? Hmmm. Let me think who that was.

Nothing IS free. You want HI? Purchase it!

And btw, the mandate is not a tax, the penalty is and they are enforced under different parts of the constitution. When Pres. Obama was talking about the mandate not being a tax, that was true.

....................

[pattygreen 5]

patty: "This is yet another Obama tactic to bypass our

constitutional form of government and to FORCE

an unwanted mandate upon the American people."

Which American people feel forced by it? Not me. None of the people I know feel that way. We're all American people.

There were many google searches that showed polls where the majority of the people do not like being forced to purchase HI.

Missouri Voters Reject Individual Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance

Peter Suderman | August 4, 2010

In January, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a polling report showing that, of the various headline provisions in new health care law (which at the time had not yet passed), the least popular was the requirement that every American to purchase private health insurance or face a penalty. Throughout the health care debate, most polls on the subject found that the individual mandate, a key feature in the law’s nearly universal insurance scheme, was among the least popular provisions. And the fact that the electorate opposed such a provision by a significant margins had been well understood for years; as a candidate for president, Obama specifically opposed the mandate, saying,“If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.” But once in office, Obama flipped his position. The bill passed with the insurance-purchase requirement intact. It’s currently scheduled to take effect in 2014.

But that doesn’t mean people like it any better. Turns out that in Missouri, at least, the individual mandate remains deeply unpopular. Yesterday, reports the New York Times, the state’s voters “strongly approved a new law that rejects a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.” By a 71 percent to 29 percent margin, voters approved Proposition C, which, according to the ballot text, “will amend Missouri law to deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.”

What’s still unknown is whether the ban on insurance mandates will stand up to legal challenge. Federal law usually trumps state law, and even amongst experts critical of the individual mandate, few think states are likely to win in court. But as the Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick has argued, it’s not a foregone conclusion that laws like the one approved by Missouri’s voters will be struck down. And either way, votes like these serve as a reminder that one of the key provisions of the president’s signature achievement remains deeply unpopular.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It's a long-established practice for medical providers such as hospitals and physicians to charge uninsured patients higher prices than patients with health coverage for the same care. (Insurers can negotiate cheaper prices through contracts and because of volume.) What the new study suggests, though, is that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills. That amounts to as much as 8% higher premiums due to the lack of universal health care in the U.S.

Read more:

Do Your Premiums Help Cover the Uninsured? - TIME

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

Everyone who owns a car is "forced" to buy car insurance because to be without insurance would force the cost of an accident onto the rest of us. You may never have an accident in all your years of owning a car but you are still required to have insurance.

Car insurance is to protect others. HI is to protect me only. Does my neighbor care if I can't pay my hospital bill because I didn't purchase health insurance? Or does anyone care that I have medical bills to pay? It effects noone but ME if I don't carry insurance. Not carrying car ins. effects the one you run into, therefore, it should be required by law. If you don't want to abide by the law of purchasing car ins., you don't have to own a car. You can walk or take the bus. You still don't get it, do you? If you don't have car insurance and you hit someone's car and you and the other person are hurt, each will require medical care and their car will have to be fixed/replaced and all this costs money - and the cost is passed on to the rest of us. Sometimes I think you don't live in the world the rest of us live in. But if you do want the privledge of owning a car, you are mandated to buy insurance.

If you have a pulse, however, there is an almost 100% certainty that you will need healthcare at some point in your life. To be without healthcare would then shift your cost onto the rest of us.

My daughter didn't have HC for a while there and when she went to the ER for stitches, the bill was sent to her, not you. Once, many years ago, when my husband was out of work and we had no HI, the hospital put a lean on OUR home till we paid it, not YOURS or anyone elses. The fact is, that we pay high premiums anyway. They will not go down because others will be mandated by law to purchase HI.

We do pay high premiums for insurance because the insurance companies are greedy and they have no public option to compete. Additionally, when you get ER treatment and don't pay the hospital has to get the money somewhere, so the rest of us pay higher premiums. See the article above.

I don't want to pay more for those who don't want to do the responsible thing and purchase health insurance.

So, the government has mandated insurance before, in the form of car insurance. Plus, you can't get a mortgage unless you have homeowner's insurance. The bank requires it.

The bank requires it for you to have a loan. They're not forcing you to buy it. If you don't want to purchase it in order for them to loan you money for a house, then save your money till you can buy it yourself. I wouldn't give you a loan either unless there was a reassurance that if anything happened to it I would be repaid. They are not the government forcing you to purchase anything you didn't want to buy. If you want healthcare, you need to pay for it. Period. And since there is a 100% chance you'll need healthcare at some point in your life, you should be required to have it.

So there are many examples of times when we are mandated to buy insurance. It is only fair that all people share in the cost and not get a free ride.

That's NOT fair at all. Why should I pay for YOUR Health insurance? Why should I pay more in yearly insurance premiums because some want a free ride?It's not your right! If it is, then it's your right to have food on your table and it's your right to not be homeless. And it's your right....etc. Why don't we all just pay for everything you need.

Didn't someone on here just make a statement that nothing is free? Hmmm. Let me think who that was.

Nothing IS free. You want HI? Purchase it!That's exactly what the government is saying. Since you WILL require healthcare at some point in your life, then you need to purchase it and not pass on that cost to other americans who are insured.

And btw, the mandate is not a tax, the penalty is and they are enforced under different parts of the constitution. When Pres. Obama was talking about the mandate not being a tax, that was true.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

There were many google searches that showed polls where the majority of the people do not like being forced to purchase HI.

Missouri Voters Reject Individual Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance

Peter Suderman | August 4, 2010

In January, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a polling report showing that, of the various headline provisions in new health care law (which at the time had not yet passed), the least popular was the requirement that every American to purchase private health insurance or face a penalty. Throughout the health care debate, most polls on the subject found that the individual mandate, a key feature in the law’s nearly universal insurance scheme, was among the least popular provisions. And the fact that the electorate opposed such a provision by a significant margins had been well understood for years; as a candidate for president, Obama specifically opposed the mandate, saying,“If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.” But once in office, Obama flipped his position. The bill passed with the insurance-purchase requirement intact. It’s currently scheduled to take effect in 2014.

But that doesn’t mean people like it any better. Turns out that in Missouri, at least, the individual mandate remains deeply unpopular. Yesterday, reports the New York Times, the state’s voters “strongly approved a new law that rejects a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.” By a 71 percent to 29 percent margin, voters approved Proposition C, which, according to the ballot text, “will amend Missouri law to deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.”

What’s still unknown is whether the ban on insurance mandates will stand up to legal challenge. Federal law usually trumps state law, and even amongst experts critical of the individual mandate, few think states are likely to win in court. But as the Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick has argued, it’s not a foregone conclusion that laws like the one approved by Missouri’s voters will be struck down. And either way, votes like these serve as a reminder that one of the key provisions of the president’s signature achievement remains deeply unpopular.

Health insurance mandates are a REPUBLICAN idea but of course as soon as it was proposed by a democratic, progressive president, then all the anti-Obama people were against it. Typical hypocrisy.

[BJean 16]

patty: "Car insurance is to protect others. HI is to protect me only. Does my neighbor care if I can't pay my hospital bill because I didn't purchase health insurance? Or does anyone care that I have medical bills to pay? It effects noone but ME if I don't carry insurance. Not carrying car ins. effects the one you run into, therefore, it should be required by law. If you don't want to abide by the law of purchasing car ins., you don't have to own a car. You can walk or take the bus."

I'm sure someone has already explained this to you but I haven't read all the posts yet that followed this one. I cannot believe that you are really this obtuse! Why, other than outright greed which is the biggest reason, but why do you think our health insurance premiums are so high anyway.

And with this kind of thinking why would you complain if illegals get free medical care at our hospitals if it didn't affect you?

[BJean 16]

patty: "My daughter didn't have HC for a while there and when she went to the ER for stitches, the bill was sent to her, not you. Once, many years ago, when my husband was out of work and we had no HI, the hospital put a lean on OUR home till we paid it, not YOURS or anyone elses. The fact is, that we pay high premiums anyway. They will not go down because others will be mandated by law to purchase HI."

It's people like your husband and daughter who've made the requirement of insurance by lenders and doctors a reality for the rest of us hard working, on-time bill paying folks.

[BJean 16]

patty: "The bank requires it for you to have a loan. They're not forcing you to buy it. If you don't want to purchase it in order for them to loan you money for a house, then save your money till you can buy it yourself. I wouldn't give you a loan either unless there was a reassurance that if anything happened to it I would be repaid. They are not the government forcing you to purchase anything you didn't want to buy. "

If this is actually a valid argument you won't mind telling us how many homes you own and how many you've purchased in your lifetime and how many of them you purchased without a loan... hmmmm?