The individual mandate: I and others warned that this was coming, too.

[Zalatix]

The ACA isn't what's going to destroy the finances of the working poor. It's the Individual Mandate. And this, too.

People were warned this was coming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html

BY LOUISE RADNOFSKY

Around one in 10 employers in the U.S. plans to drop health coverage for workers in the next few years as the bulk of the federal health-care law begins, and more indicated they may do so over time, according to a study to be released Tuesday by consulting company Deloitte.

It is also safe to add that everyone responding to this will die of old age before Medicare for All is ever passed in America. That is, assuming it is ever passed in America.

[DURHAM D]

1. Wow - what a well researched and lengthy article.

[Zalatix]

2. What a copout response. Are you saying it's wrong or not?

Ah, I don't expect a direct answer to that.

[DURHAM D]

8. I don't know if it is wrong or not, neither do you, and neither does Louise.

I understand what you are doing.

[Zalatix]

9. Oh I know it's not wrong. I'd bet my ass on that.

And you don't know what I'm doing. I'm advocating for all the working poor folks who are going to be unable to meet their basic living expenses because they'll be FORCED to pay for health insurance on pain of a nasty tax penalty.

Those people are going to be hurt by the individual mandate, which was a Heritage Foundation idea to begin with.

[southernyankeebelle]

57. THERE IS NO MANDATE, PERIOD.

[Zalatix]

80. THERE IS NO MOON. PERIOD.

[Voice for Peace]

105. if people can't afford it, they won't have to pay it.

[XemaSab]

126. Who's going to decide if we can or can't afford it?

[freedom fighter jh]

152. There must be something in writing, whether in the ACA . . .

. . . or in regulations written to implement it, indicating who has to pay the whole thing and who gets help. A lot of DU people seem to know a lot about the ACA. Can anyone say something about this?

[Voice for Peace]

170. me, I will decide. just give me all your bank information.

[XemaSab]

247. You going to put some money in there?

[southernyankeebelle]

348. Darn and here I thought Newty Fruity was going to put families on the moon. Oh well.

[bvar22]

341. There may be no Mandate on YOUR planet,

but here in the United States on Planet Earth,
there is indeed a Mandate to Buy Health Insurance.
It is THE LAW.

[southernyankeebelle]

347. Well maybe it is or not but it should be mandated. Buy what you can afford and the government

should makeup what you can't.

[bvar22]

358. No! I support a Democratic Party plan for HealthCare over your Republican approach.

The Traditional Democratic Party Approach:
A Publicly Owned, Government Administered National Health Insurance Plan.
Everybody IN at birth.


Republican Plan:
Everybody forced to buy Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations
on a State by State basis with government panels deciding who can afford what in 50 different states.
No sale.


I have been on DU since early 2000,
and your post insisting there is no Mandate is one of the most absurd, completely wrong posts I have ever read on this board.

[southernyankeebelle]

359. I believe we are all having a conversation.

So I'm suppose to think because you have been on DU since 2000 that your opinion is more than anyoneelses?

[cthulu2016]

3. What % would drop coverage in the next five years without the ACA?

I do not know the answer to that question.

[Zalatix]

6. Well, we do know that McDonald's and a few others got WAIVERS

after threatening to drop their employees if they didn't get the waivers.

(McDonald's is listed further down in this article)

http://www.lvrj.com/business/businesses-get-waivers-to-opt-out-of-health-care-mandate-122412389.html

Nearly 20 businesses with Las Vegas ties have obtained waivers exempting them from an insurance-coverage mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

It's hard to determine how many locals fall under the waived plans, though, because few local operations would discuss the exemptions.

Waivers are temporary and are granted a year at a time to businesses, labor groups and government agencies that say they can't offer employees affordable insurance based on the reform law's mandates.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

All these workers are getting SCREWED by the Individual Mandate. Badly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. You forgot ...

to mention that Papa John's owner said ObamaCare would add 14 cents to the cost of its pizza.

OH wait ... 90+ % of the businesses of the companies that you mention are franchises which typically do not provide health insurance coverage for their, largely Part-time, staff.

And, even if they did ... they would be exempt under Obamacare because they employ far less than the 50 full-time employee number.

[Zalatix]

20. McDonald's corporate has more than 50 employees. Just ONE of the mistakes in your argument.

And Papa John's has no relevance here.

If McDonald's didn't have employees they wouldn't be asking for a waiver.

There are consultants out there ADVISING companies to drop their coverage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577367833267990666.html

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. I know the McDonald's corporation has more than 50 employees ...

But the number of McDonald's Corporate employees is dwarfed by the number of employees that work under the franchises. And if it dropped every single one of its corporate employees ... that number would be dwarfed, to the point of irrelevance, by the number of people benefitted by Obamacare.

There are consultants out there ADVISING companies to drop their coverage.

And Deloitte is one of them ... and that was the point of my post regarding their study.

But my larger point is ... WE GET IT! YOU DON'T LIKE OBAMACARE ... BUT, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING; INCLUDING WHAT WE HAD.

[Zalatix]

101. WTF... I didn't say I don't like OBAMACARE. Stop pushing that lie.

I said, I don't like the Individual Mandate. That is NOT the entire ACA. Know the difference.

Let me explain to you how this plays out.

You have lots of McDonald's franchise employees who will never see employer coverage. They are, as of 2014, being told to pay for health insurance, which will EASILY hit the ceiling of $80 a month if they are working full time minimum wage, which comes out to ~$20K in California.

Seeing this big extra $80 a month hit on their budget, they won't pay for insurance.

So they'll be assessed a $695 a month tax penalty come 2016.

But some dreamy folks on here insist the IRS can't enforce that.

The good part of the ACA says that no pre existing conditions can be denied. Guess what that means? That means people who have no insurance will try to GET insurance for a short while when they get sick. And they will be able to because pre-existing conditions aren't cause for denial.

I'm sure you know what that leads to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. I didn't say I don't like wine ... I just don't like the grapes ...

stop pushing that lie!

[Zalatix]

122. The Individual Mandate isn't the grape. It's the worm inside the grape.

The Individual Mandate was first proposed by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

President Obama built his CAMPAIGN upon opposing the Mandate.

Please, learn your history.

[On the Road]

208. The Individual Mandate Comes with the Territory

Without an individual mandate, you can't really require coverage of preexisting conditions.

This is something Romney, for example, appears not to understand.

[Zalatix]

212. Doesn't matter regardless if what is said downthread is true.

It is claimed that the IRS cannot enforce the tax penalty for non-compliance.

You know what that means.

[dkf]

238. Howard Dean says they did it in Vermont.

[jeff47]

276. So you're claiming we can't read?

I said, I don't like the Individual Mandate. That is NOT the entire ACA

The individual mandate is one of the key features of the ACA. To dislike it means you dislike the ACA.

The good part of the ACA says that no pre existing conditions can be denied. Guess what that means? That means people who have no insurance will try to GET insurance for a short while when they get sick. And they will be able to because pre-existing conditions aren't cause for denial.

Why would ANYONE buy insurance without the mandate?

They'd also just wait until they got sick to buy it. Even if they've got Mitt Romney's wealth.

[Zalatix]

282. "The individual mandate is one of the key features of the ACA." Uh, NO IT IS NOT.

There are many more important and critical parts of the ACA - like the law against discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Among many others.

Why would ANYONE buy insurance without the mandate?

Why would they buy it WITH the mandate? Many people - like those earning 20K a year - don't have the money to buy insurance, but they're being told to buy it. What do you expect them to do, bounce checks? Eat cat food?

Nope, they'll do neither. Even with the mandate they won't buy insurance. They won't even pay the tax penalty if the fantasy story posted downthread about the IRS being unable to enforce it ever comes true.

They'd also just wait until they got sick to buy it. Even if they've got Mitt Romney's wealth.

You must not have read the law, did you? The new law allows exactly that. If you don't pay for health insurance you can go buy it after you get sick. Sorry but that is the new law. What's worse? You've got pro-Mandate people downthread saying that you don't even have to pay the tax penalty if you decline to pay for insurance. According to their fantasy world, the IRS can't enforce the penalty.

Sorry to break that to you...

[LiberalAndProud]

281. Is it necessarily a bad thing to untie health insurance / employment?

I haven't studied this, but my intuition tells me that breaking that symbiosis is a necessary step in the evolution of our health care policy. Employer-provided healthcare insurance isn't my concept of ideal. Am I wrong?

[Honeycombe8]

142. Employers started decreasing ins. for empees several years ago. They started charging employees

for part of the premium, decreasing the quality of the coverage, or both.

It's because of the increasing costs of providing health care to employees. It's a huge expense. Now, with birth control coverage, the expense will grow (I guesstimated that would cost my former employer's ins. carrier about $12,000 a year in claims...every year...without fail...a guaranteed claim amount, except the amount would cont. to go up). That will add to premiums, of course.

I warned about the birth control thing. It will be a huge cost. It was not part of the ACA.

[Fawke Em]

177. But, GIVING birth is cheaper?

How?

[Mojorabbit]

284. A forbes article in may had this to say

"The Ways and Means report, prepared for chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.), surveyed companies in the Fortune 100, receiving 71 timely responses. The survey asked Fortune 100 CEOs how many full-time and part-time employees they had, and how much they spend on health insurance for those workers, among other questions. Based on this data, the Ways and Means staff calculated that these 71 companies could save $28.6 billion in 2014, and $422.4 billion between 2014 and 2023, if they paid Obamacare’s fines and dumped all of their workers onto the subsidized exchanges.

In addition, the survey found that 84 percent of respondents believe that “future health costs will increase at rates that are greater than those they’ve experienced over the past five years.” They expect insurance costs to grow at 7.6 percent, on average, over the next five years, compared to 5.9 percent for the previous period."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/01/fortune-100-survey-employers-could-save-422-billion-by-dropping-health-coverage/

That being said. Employers have been dumping insurance coverage for workers for years. I saw a chart a while back and it was an alarming decrease.

[BenzoDia]

4. The ACA originally had provisions to try and pry people away from employer-based health insurance.

In fact, the idea was that employers just give their end of the premiums to the employee, and the employees go and get their own insurance. If I'm not mistaken, Obama traded that away to Boehner during last year's debt ceiling negotiations.

Anyways, if the employee is having trouble affording their premiums, they'll get subsidies from the government. And ideally, they'll be purchasing insurance from the same insurance pools. This is possible in part due to the individual responsibility clause.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. There was talk of ...

"employers just giving their end of the premiums to the employee, and the employees go and get their own insurance."

And it probably was traded away by Obama during last year's debt ceiling negotiations.

But that was like trading away "the player to be named later", because there is no mechanism that would allow/require employers give their cost savings of no longer having to pay for healthcare coverage to their employees.

[HiPointDem]

125. Pry them away? It's employers who want to get free of their healthcare obligation.

[BenzoDia]

130. Well, employers who offer insurance want to get a better deal with insurance companies by bringing a

a larger pool of people to the negotiation table.

Letting people opt out weakens those employer's hand.

[HiPointDem]

145. i'm not clear on what you mean.

[BenzoDia]

157. Employers get a better deal on insurance plans if they offer a larger number of people.

[HiPointDem]

160. no, that part i understand. it's the way you're using "opt out" i don't understand. it's not

individuals opting out, it's employers.

[BenzoDia]

175. Oh, I see what you're asking.

I don't have time to find more substantial info, but check this link and click on the third bar after 2014:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Workers meeting certain requirements who cannot afford the coverage provided by their employer may take whatever funds their employer might have contributed to their insurance and use these resources to help purchase a more affordable plan in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges. These new competitive marketplaces will allow individuals and small businesses to buy qualified health benefit plans.

This ties back into my original comment that one of the goals of the ACA is to get people away from employer-based coverage.

[HiPointDem]

184. ok, now i get it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Stop it ...

Just stop!

Did you miss (or just ignore) the frequently reported fact that the Deloitte study was produced to support the strategies that it is charging its clients?

Did you miss (or just ignore) the frequently reported fact that the Deloitte study only surveyed its current clients ... and then when called on its sample bias, extended the study to Chamber of Commerce members?

Did you miss (or just ignore) the frequently reported fact that the Deloitte study was a marketing piece/strategy that was conducted much like "push polling"? ... And when called on that, Deloitte admitted it?

So please post this B.S. elsewhere ... might I suggest freerepublic, the blaze or the fox network?

[Zalatix]

7. I'll stop when you can show how people earning just $20k a year won't get socked with an extra

$80 or more per month in MANDATORY expenses to pay for health insurance.

No, I will never stop. Not until I am DEAD.

Deloitte is irrelevant. McDonald's and other companies have been cited by numerous publications as bullying their way into WAIVERS out of the ACA. It is sheer logic to deduce that many companies that DIDN'T get the waivers, just dumped their health care benefits altogether.

Arguing that is like arguing over whether a wolf ponders eating a lamb.

[ProSense]

10. Let em dump 'em

It's the fastest way to the government taking over health care altogether.

[Zalatix]

12. I don't think humanity itself will live to see Single Payer in America.

The only way that's happening in America is for America itself to collapse and be re-organized... with the Republican-dominated states being part of another country.

[ProSense]

13. You're conflating issues. n/t

[Zalatix]

16. Not at all.

You said: "It's the fastest way to the government taking over health care altogether."

I said, quite plainly and relevantly: "There will be no single payer in America. Period."

[ProSense]

21. Wait

You said: "It's the fastest way to the government taking over health care altogether."

I said, quite plainly and relevantly: "There will be no single payer in America. Period."

...where does it say that government-run is single payer? The exchanges qualify, as does a public option.

[Zalatix]

29. Public option will never happen. Not unless we split up the country.

I'm quite sure the Kaiser Foundation figures count in exchanges.

It may be less if you are in a state that opts to expand Medicaid. Which means it sucks to live in Texas.

[ProSense]

38. "Not unless we split up the country."

Since that's fucking unrealistic. What's your point?

Just throwing shit out there?

[Zalatix]

56. What, you couldn't read what was posted?

What part of "there will never be Medicare for All in America" did you not understand?

You will not live to see it. I will not live to see it. None of our children will live to see it. America will not live to see it.

Have I made my point clear enough? It's not happening. It's not happening. Medicare for All is NEVER happening in THIS United States of America.

[ProSense]

64. You have no point.

This is pure shit stirring base on fact-free nonsense.

[Zalatix]

69. You're living in denial. Medicare for All isn't happening in America. You're living a fantasy.

[ProSense]

82. Again, you have no point. n/t

[Zalatix]

85. Again, you are living in denial. I have a perfect and error-free point, you just have no case here.

[RegieRocker]

219. First of all you will only live for no more than 110 years

many things come and go. You make a statement that is ludicrous. This country was formed and went through many changes before you even existed. It will go through many more after you're gone. So..... Your statement that it will never happen is mental folly.

[Zalatix]

233. Keep dreaming. Feel free to serve up crow if it EVER happens.

I'm not saying I won't be pushing for it, but I am realistic: the last time we tried to put up even the pale Public Option, we had hundreds of thousands of men out in a zombie horde ragefest, some packing assault rifles.

[RegieRocker]

269. Most will die in the next few years

[eridani]

256. There is another option here--single payer state by state

There is no reason why VT, CA, OR, WA etc should wait for MS and WV to act.

[Zalatix]

257. Finally, a voice of reason.

[BenzoDia]

11. People that can't afford insurance will be provided federal subsidies.

[Zalatix]

14. As I said, if you earn only $20K a year you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance.

Plug it in right here, the numbers don't lie.

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

[ProSense]

19. It doesn't say that. n/t

[Zalatix]

23. Yes it does. And since you denied it, I'll end this debate with a screencap.

[img][/img]

$1,019 divided by 12 months equals ~$84 a month.

So, yes, it does say that.

[ProSense]

34. Where does it say

"you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"?

You can opt out. Pay the less $95 annual penalty. What does a person earning $20,000 with an employer's plan pay now?

You better believe some can't afford it, and those who choose to are like paying a lot more than $80.

[Zalatix]

39. You yourself admit there is a tax penalty for non-compliance.

A mandate to pay upon pain of a monetary penalty is the definition of compulsion. It may not mean that you'll be killed by a drone strike if you don't pay, but it is still force. And those tax penalties per person are UGLY, especially after 2016. Unlike their wages, those penalties grow with the cost of living, too!

It is still a Mandate that Obama was RAILROADED into. The Mandate is still the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation and originally a law that Mitt Romney passed. It is a Republican idea through and through.

Somehow I suspect you believe criticizing the Mandate is the same as criticizing the entire ACA? It is not.

[ProSense]

42. Nice try. You said: "you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"

You will not!

[Zalatix]

70. Uh, yes you will. And there's a PENALTY for non-compliance to serve as enforcement.

[Zalatix]

213. Oh but haven't you heard? The IRS can't enforce that penalty with levies or criminal proceedings.

I know, it's absurd bordering on silly hour, but someone claims this to be true downthread.

[dflprincess]

114. It says in 2014 the penalty is $95 per adult or 1% of family income, whichever is greater

1% of $20,000 is $200. In 2015 the penalty goes to 2% (or $400 on a $20,000) and 2.5% in 2016 ($500).

The maximum penalty starts at $285 but by 2016 it's $2,085.

[Zalatix]

141. Holy shit that's worse than I thought.

[ProSense]

148. It's $95 per adult

the 1 percent is for a family income. The individual charge is $95.

A family earning $20,000 would not pay a penalty.

[Zalatix]

151. A family of 4 would not get the penalty. They get Medicaid.

A family of 2 is majorly screwed.

[ProSense]

159. Huh?

If a two people each earn up to $15,000, they still qualify for Medicaid.

[Zalatix]

161. The question is about one who's unemployed and one who's earning $20K

My girlfriend (now wife) and I were JUST THAT scenario in the late 1990s before fortune smiled upon us.

[ProSense]

203. Wow, that's some argument.

I made $20,000 in the 1990s.

That's like seeing Russia from your house.

[Zalatix]

215. To call that response 'tangential' is to be charitable.

What it really is, is something I can't say for fear of a jury action.

[BenzoDia]

24. You are exempted from the mandate if you cannot afford it.

http://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/i/individualresponsibility.html

[Zalatix]

27. $20k a month ain't low enough.

[BenzoDia]

45. The law says "no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don’t pay the fine"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html#comments

So no, you don't have to pony up if money is tight.

[ProSense]

48. "You can also apply for a waiver asking not to pay an assessment if you don't qualify automatically"

That's from the statement at at the link provided.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're taking estimates and calculators that don't factor in variables to make ridiculous statements.

On top of that, you're stuck on a $20,000 and pretending that anyone earning that amount now is able to afford health care.

[Zalatix]

53. If you're earning above the poverty level you won't succeed in applying for a waiver. Give it up.

You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. There'll be NO WAIVERS for anyone earning $20K a year. Period. Will not happen. Mark my words on that. It's a red herring.

And you totally did not read me at all if you think I'm saying people earning that little money are able to afford health care now. They can't. They can't afford the Individual Mandate premium limits, they can't afford health insurance under today's rules, and they can't afford the ER. They can't afford any of those extra expenses.

[ProSense]

55. Nonsense. n/t

[treestar]

26. Well then shouldn't you?

What if you get sick? And there are subsidies so it's not supposed to work out to more than you can pay.

[Zalatix]

28. See the chart above. $20k/month income = you get gouged $84 a month.

If you don't pay, you get a tax penalty.

If you get sick it doesn't matter either way, a person earning only $20k a month can't afford health care premiums or a medical bill. Neither is affordable. Both will put you under... unless you live in a place with no lights and eating cat food.

[ProSense]

36. Nonsense.

You're spreading all types of misinformation in the name of single payer, as if anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer. Medicare for all? Do you really think that it's going to be less than subsidized coverage?

[Zalatix]

43. You're making up things I did not say.

I never said single payer would be totally free.

It would, however, cost FAR LESS than private or even statewide health insurance.

First of all, Single Payer, aka Medicare for All, would be nationwide. That's an insurance pool of roughly 300 million. That means the premium will be smaller because the costs would be smaller. The insurance rule of large numbers applies.

Second of all, Medicare for All runs with lower overhead. Less than 5%, versus 20% for private companies. Fewer CEOs to pay and all that.

Third of all, Medicare for All will never happen. No universal single payer is going to happen unless America is split in two, with the baggers going their separate ways.

[ProSense]

51. Really?

"It would, however, cost FAR LESS than private or even statewide health insurance."

How much would a person earning $20,000 have to pay?

You have no idea!

[Zalatix]

60. No, first you apologize for falsely accusing me of something I never said.

Show me where I ever said that "anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer."

Put the quoted text where I said ANYTHING like that right here:

.

Then you said: "Do you really think that it's going to be less than subsidized coverage?"

You did not ask exactly how much a person would pay for Medicare for All. You asked me if I think it's going to be less.

I gave you a solid explanation for why it would be less. You either accept that the insurance law of large numbers is valid or not. You either accept that Medicare has a lower overhead than private insurance or not. But I did in fact give you solid points on why M4A would cost less than what we have now.

[ProSense]

63. Apologize for disagreeing with you?

For having a discussion with you?

You sound like Mitt.

Your argument is flawed. Face it.

[Zalatix]

73. What part of "You accused me of something I did not say" do you NOT understand?

You want to be brazenly dishonest about what I said then that's on you, but don't go whining about how you're being "Mitt Romney'd".

You lied about me, and I am challenging you on that lie. Persistently, because I do not appreciate someone making up falsehoods about my comments.

Show me where I ever said that "anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer." You cannot, and you know it.

[ProSense]

91. I think your

credibility took a hit in this thread.

Yes, it did.

[Zalatix]

94. Again: What part of "You accused me of something I did not say" do you NOT understand?

You want to be brazenly dishonest about what I said then that's on you, but don't go whining about how you're being "Mitt Romney'd".

You lied about me, and I am challenging you on that lie. Persistently, because I do not appreciate someone making up falsehoods about my comments.

Show me where I ever said that "anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer." You cannot, and you know it.

I'm going to keep repeating this no matter how many people dislike me because of it. Because I am right and you are flat out wrong.

My credibility is undamaged.

[treestar]

131. I've made less than 20K as a self employed person

And my insurance is more than that. $400 a quarter. And I pay it now without government subsidy. It has a high deductible and pays for nothing so far, well, thank God I've never been sick enough yet for it to pay, but I have the peace of mine that if something horrid happens, it is there.

[eridani]

266. With that kind of skimpy coverage, you are guaranteed to go bankrupt if you have seious expenses

It is actual sick people in your situation who account for most of the ongoing medical bankruptcies in MA--80% of whom have insurance.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/massachusetts/2012/09/09/medical-debt-massachusetts-persists-despite-health-law/QztpbflGjmUfVcf8J8tjbI/story.html


Architects of the pioneering 2006 Massachusetts health law, which required most residents to have insurance, expected it would reduce families’ medical debt. But the most recent data suggest the scope of medical debt has remained largely unchanged.

Temporary lapses in insurance coverage and increasingly common plans with high deductibles and copayments have contributed to medical debt, leaving some people struggling to pay bills for hospitals, doctors, and ambulance companies. Rising health costs and the recession also probably played a role.

[treestar]

297. When they had no insurance at all, those bills were much higher

I'm all for single payer or Medicare for all if we can get it. So far the right wingers have enough power they can stop it.

[eridani]

360. When they had no insurance, they could at least pay for routine care n/t

[darkangel218]

352. I make less than 20k a year, working full time

And my hmo montly premium is $160!!!! And that's with no pre existing condition. I can only imagine what premiums those who have chronic ailments pay, if they have any coverage at all!

Stop bringing silly arguments against the best thing that ever happpend to our country! It's sickening!

[TheKentuckian]

355. Afford is subjective. As defined some will be able to afford it and others won't.

It will vary according to actual individual expenses and cost of living in a given area.

I've made under 20k and could afford it and have made over when it would be tight.

I also wonder why one person making 20k is thought to be able to afford it, while another under the exact same circumstances but who has parents that will carry them cannot. Why would that eligibility not also be income based?

[Honeycombe8]

146. The Republican WSJ article is WRONG. Since when do empers "care" about employee health coverage?

Don't you get it? It's a scare tactic.

Employers have NEVER based business decisions, like the cost of health care, on whether their employees can easily get it elsewhere and be taken care of. Employers don't care about that. It's strictly a MONEY decision.

They've been dropping ins. and changing it for several years now. Has your head been in the sand?

If this comes to pass - and I suspect it will, because it has in the past already - it will have nothing to do with the mandate. That does not affect an employer's decision about health care one bit.

[Honeycombe8]

155. That person can take a penalty, instead. It won't be much. But 'm guessing the person will be GLAD

I'm guessing the person earning $20,000 in a medium-COLA area will be happy to be able to have coverage for that amount. It's much better than not having any health care at all, which is currently the case.

How much do you think one hospital stay for a diabetes-related complication will cost him? More than $80, I bet. If he gets an annual exam (those are FREE under the ACA), he will be able to get treatment for his condition and avoid a complication.

This is a very, very good thing.

You wouldn't be so upset if you spent the time to research and learn about this more, and apply it to specific situations, so you can see the good effects. And ask a few people if they want coverage for $80 a month.

They will have several options: they can get a job where an employer provides coverage; they can scrape together the $ to pay the premium of $80/month (they'll get FREE annual exams, free mammagrams, etc.); they can pay the penalty. But as adults, we ALL must pay at least something for our own health care. It's like food, gas for your car, rent.

They are so lucky to have a subsidy to pay part of their health care. Most people won't get that. Like me.

[Zalatix]

166. "They can get a job where an employer provides coverage"? and you call the WSJ Republican??

I'm not sure if you're up on current events as of late, but a job is rare to begin with. A job where you get benefits? Really? Surely you jest. If you had done even a minute's worth of research on this economy you'd know that.

It doesn't matter if today's health insurance is more expensive than it will be in 2014. It doesn't matter what it costs to go to the hospital for a diabetes-related complication. The working poor are in over their heads with paying for insurance, financially speaking they're dead long before there's a hospital stay involved.

The working poor will have to bounce checks to pay for this.

What will happen is that they'll be unable to pay for insurance and they'll be unable to pay the added tax penalty. And according to some here, the IRS can't even enforce the tax penalty. So guess what? Nothing changes for millions of people. They will still just go to the ER.

[ProSense]

172. Yes, the WSJ is Republican, and you posted the article.

And yes, Republicans are freaking out over the mandate. In fact, this whole argument reeks of centrist fear mongering, an attempt to claim the ACA is a bad thing that's going to ruin the status quo.

[Zalatix]

180. Republicans were the ones who first PUSHED THE MANDATE.

Learn your history!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-individual-mandates-c_b_1386716.html

The Individual Mandate's Conservative Origins

Stuart M. Butler, who at the time was Heritage's Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, wrote the second chapter of a position paper with the title "A National Health System for America." (Heritage has a PDF version of this document you can download from their website.) The document was over 100 pages long, and envisioned a "consumer-oriented, market-based, comprehensive American health system" that would become "the model for the entire industrialized world." It was a strictly conservative plan, as evidenced by the inclusion of the idea of replacing Medicare with a voucher system (the same thing Paul Ryan is now championing, in other words).

Opposition to the mandate was a part of (then) Presidential candidate Obama's campaign!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/candidate-obama-opposed-health-care-mandate/

Barack Obama strongly opposed the idea of forcing people to buy health insurance (the so-called individual mandate at the center of this week’s Supreme Court case) when it was proposed by Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Oh but I'm sure you're going to deny this and call all these sources Republican, too.

[Honeycombe8]

305. Everyone knows that. Common knowledge. Republicans also started the child credit, even for those

even for those who don't pay any taxes at all. They get back $ from the IRS, as an entitlement benefit, even though they paid nothing in. Reagan and the Republicans did that.

Look, my sister is on Medicaid in a nursing home, having had a major stroke at a young age, coming on the heels of complications from undiagnosed diabetes, after not having access to health care previously. I was very poor, when I was younger. I get the money thing. But getting SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE is a wonderful thing. I'm perplexed why you would want to take that away from people, who right now have NO MEDICAL CARE AT ALL.

I mentioned get another job where the employer provides insurance, because that IS an option. It's not an option many will be able to do, but it is nonetheless an option for some.

But letting these people go without any health care at all because YOU don't like it is not an option.

[enlightenment]

201. I think you need to

learn the difference between the words 'insurance' and 'care'.

[Honeycombe8]

310. I think you need learn reality. We don't have single payer. We have an ins. system.

Letting people who have no health care at all right now go without subsidized health care because YOU don't like it, is not an option. We have to deal with reality.

I have people in my family who could've used subsidized health care. There was a time when I would have welcomed it. Thank goodness I was young and was able to go without health care without running into too much trouble. It's too late for me and my relatives, now. But there are millions who will welcome this benefit. It IS a benefit. It's a very good thing.

And there's nothing wrong with having people who can afford it contribute towards their health care. If you earn $20k a year in a medium-COLA area, with no children, it'll be rough, but you can manage $80/month. I know this because I lived it (of course I got paid a lot less than $20k, since it was many years ago). It's a cost of living, like food, car gas, rent. And like food, it is susidized, if you can't afford it.

We need everyone in the medical care wagon. Why? Because they are already in it. EVERYONE is in the medical care wagon, whether they want to be or not. If anyone has ever been to a doctor or will ever go to a doctor or care provider, that person is in the medical care wagon. They need care (or in our system, that means coverage).

Having this coverage will prevent them from losing everything because of one hospital stay or one long illness, which happens.

[Nye Bevan]

17. A little over 30 days to the election, and DUers are posting Wall Street Journal articles

slamming Obama's signature achievement?

I'm not alerting, but I'm not sure that this is appropriate at this time.

[CitizenPatriot]

31. Given that the WJS has Romney strategists

undisclosed writing articles for it, I would have to agree that it's not the best source.

I'd also say that 80 dollars a month (re Kaiser) for health insurance is a lot less than what I pay now, via an employee package, and a hell of a lot less than I would pay for one doctor's visit without health insurance.

[Zalatix]

35. The ACA isn't the problem, it's the Mandate. That's a Mitt Romney idea, a Heritage Foundation idea.

I'm not sure how slamming a Heritage Foundation idea is attacking Obama.

Obama was railroaded into the Mandate.

[BenzoDia]

52. It's also a Swiss idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

[Zalatix]

187. It's a sucky idea. I wish we were more like England or Canada.

[jeff47]

278. You've yet to explain how it works without a mandate.

Since the rest of the bill means there's no reason to buy insurance until you are sick.

And, btw, single-payer is also a mandate.

[JoePhilly]

93. Standard GOP ... WSJ says it ... some Democrate sees it, and dispairs.

The WSJ goal is to get Dems to stay home.

And some knowingly, or unknowingly, push the WSJ nonsense into the Dem internet sites.

The GOP needs to get their base angry enough to vote, and get our Dem voters discouraged enough to stay home.

Been going on for months now.

[freshwest]

345. Yup, quietly cede the country to the Koches or revolt, which is their plan...

All the easier for them to take over faster. The revolution is in process, and belongs to the rich.

Apply liberally where needed:

[bhikkhu]

18. Using the Oregon Health Plan Exchange calculator -

the worst case is for a middle-aged single man living alone, who would be liable for $85 a month. I think if I made $20k a year and lived alone I'd be ok with that. If there are any dependents, the amount drops to zero at that income level.

I checked for my co-workers back when the supreme court first upheld the law, as there was plenty of hoopla. Nobody with dependents actually wound up with a payment, while one person whose family had two incomes - so making $35k combined and no kids at home - wound up with a $200 a month payment. Which also seems reasonable...

[Zalatix]

25. People earning $20k a year can't afford another $84-85 a month expense on their budget

What do you think they are, Mitt Romney?

And $200 a month for 35K? That's highway robbery.

I guess you could do that if you lived on CAT FOOD...

[cthulu2016]

30. Are we assuming a current health expenditure level of $0?

If all the money is considered to be in addition to current expenditures, does that mean that nobody in that group would be saving any money whatsoever due to being covered?

[Zalatix]

33. Yes. A lot of people spend $0 on health care right now because their budgets are already overburdene

Now we're asking them to add $80+ when they already have basic living expenses that they can't pay.

It's going to come as a huge shock to everyone when people simply don't pay and just keep going to the ER.

A huge shock. But I warned you about companies dropping coverage and no one listened... I'm warning about this one, too, and I expect a bunch of naysaying.

Shit just keeps going wrong and either no one believes it will, or they don't care.

[ProSense]

58. More nonsense

Yes. A lot of people spend $0 on health care right now because their budgets are already overburdene

Now we're asking them to add $80+ when they already have basic living expenses that they can't pay.

No one is asking anyone to spend anything they don't want to. If they don't have health care now and don't want it in the future, they don't have to take it. They do not have to pay $80 per month.

[Zalatix]

66. More denials on your part.

Yes, the government is telling people to spend money that many do not want to. They will be assessed an increasingly UGLY tax penalty for non-compliance. $695 after 2016, that's pretty nasty to throw at a working poor person.

And that joke about the IRS not enforcing the $695 penalty...? LOL I can see it now... "Dear IRS, my taxes were normally $0 for $20k but you're telling me to pay a $695 penalty... I ain't paying." Yeah, you think that's going to fly???

[ProSense]

74. You're laughing?

"Yes, the government is telling people to spend money that many do not want to. They will be assessed an increasingly UGLY tax penalty for non-compliance. $695 after 2016, that's pretty nasty to throw at a working poor person. "

You know that ridiculous claim you made: "you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1438975

Even after 2016, a person will only be liable for $58 per montn ($695/12). In 2014, it $8 per month. And even then, it's not taken out of their paycheck, but assessed at tax time.

You don't know what you're talking about. So stop laughing and learn something.

[Zalatix]

78. You will be ordered to pay over $80 a month. Failure to comply means a monetary PENALTY.

Zero error. Your argument is downright laughable.

Pay up. $80 a month. Or get slapped with a tax penalty. Period.

It is you who don't know what you're talking about. It is you who are in denial.

[ProSense]

84. "Failure to comply means a monetary PENALTY" of $8/mo assessed at tax time.

You're out of your league spreading nonsense.

[Zalatix]

87. You're out of your league with basic mathematics.

By 2016 the penalty will rise to $695, which is far above $8 a month. Get a calculator and divide 695 by 12.

[ProSense]

90. Psst:

"By 2016 the penalty will rise to $695, which is far above $8 a month. Get a calculator and divide 695 by 12."

Read this again and see what you're missing:

You know that ridiculous claim you made: "you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1438975

Even after 2016, a person will only be liable for $58 per montn ($695/12). In 2014, it $8 per month. And even then, it's not taken out of their paycheck, but assessed at tax time.

You don't know what you're talking about. So stop laughing and learn something.

[Zalatix]

95. Once again you fail basic mathematics.

You will in fact be ordered to pay $80 a month or more for insurance.

That is a fact.

If you do not pay, you will be assessed a tax PENALTY of $695 a month as of 2016, for non-compliance.

That is also indisputable.


Your ridiculous denials prove that you clearly do not understand what you read.

[ProSense]

100. What's the

You will in fact be ordered to pay $80 a month or more for insurance.

That is a fact.


If you do not pay, you will be assessed a tax PENALTY of $695 a month as of 2016, for non-compliance.

That is also indisputable.

...penalty in 2014?

Do you think these nonsensical definitive statements amounting to obfuscation and a circular argument bolsters your flawed point?

No. They. Don't.

[Zalatix]

107. Ah, I see what your problem is.

You think the world ends in 2014. Which is better than the ones who believe it ends in 2012, of course.

The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014, so you just want to deny that it'll RISE to just under $58 a month or $695 a year in 2016.

You just can't see as far as 2016, can you? 2016 is irrelevant in your world, isn't it?


Of course it is.

Allow me to repeat, since I am absolutely correct in what I say: If you do not pay, you will be assessed a tax PENALTY of $695 a month as of 2016, for non-compliance.

I would cite the passage in the law where it says this but you would just come up with some new type of denial.

[ProSense]

116. "The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014"

Ah, I see what your problem is.

You think the world ends in 2014. Which is better than the ones who believe it ends in 2012, of course.

The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014, so you just want to deny that it'll RISE to just under $58 a month or $695 a year in 2016.

Nope, but your argument just fell apart.

[Zalatix]

119. The only way I can be wrong is if the tax penalty is not $695 in 2016. Otherwise... you lose.

[ProSense]

137. It's $95 in 2014, and you're wrong long before 2016. n/t

[Zalatix]

143. $695 or higher in 2016 is not wrong. Sorry, you're just off-base here. $695 in 2016!

[eridani]

274. Insurance is not care. At that level of payment for useless crap, the money--

--they would otherwise use for out of pocket medical expenses is gone.

[bhikkhu]

71. I raise a family of four on 28k a year

not that its all smooth sailing or easy, but its not a big deal where I live, and we don't get food assistance or anything. If I were single, it would be a breeze, and in any case health insurance is well worth it. If you look at it like a tax that allows everyone to have health care, its a huge thing.

I think people get used to spending whatever money they do have. I wouldn't criticize anyone for spending their extra money on cable tv, or car payments, or dining out, or booze or cigarettes or golf or whatever, but I think it would be reasonable to look at whether a person could afford healthcare before those expenses, and go from there.

[Zalatix]

75. That is impossible in America. Unless you are homeless.

You cannot add rent, keeping the lights on, and basic nutrition, and come up with less than 28K.

28K and a family of 4 means no lights on in America.

It's about time we buried that fairy tale.

[ProSense]

77. Don't be callous and ridiculous! n/t

[Zalatix]

79. Callous? You guys are the ones talking about slapping the working poor

with BIG additional living expenses, not me.

That word 'callous', it doesn't mean what you think it does.

[ProSense]

88. No, that's your imagination.

Clearly it's very active.

The ACA makes health care more affordable for low income workers.



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/

[Zalatix]

97. You still don't grasp reality here.

Many of the people earning $20k a month now don't have insurance at all. They can't afford it.

They won't be able to afford an EXTRA $80 a month as of 2014. They won't be able to afford a $695 a year tax penalty as of 2016.

Your chart is utterly tangential to that.

[ProSense]

109. They don't have to, and

you know it, but to admit it after boxing yourself in, appears not a good thing.

I suspect that's why you've taken to insisting on the $80 in 2014 and the penalty in 2016.

"They won't be able to afford an EXTRA $80 a month as of 2014. They won't be able to afford a $695 a year tax penalty as of 2016. "

Can't admit that the penalty in 2014 is only $8 per month, but assessed as a one-time annual fee at tax time.

[Zalatix]

123. You still don't comprehend.

The Individual Mandate puts $80 a month of expenses on the backs of the working poor in 2014 when the tax penalty for noncompliance is $8 a month.

The Individual Mandate ALSO puts $80 a month of expenses on the backs of the working poor in 2016 when the tax penalty for noncompliance is $58 a month.

Please show where I am wrong.

You cannot.

You fail.

[ProSense]

128. How much is a person earning $20,000 paying now? n/t

[Zalatix]

133. Nothing. Because they can't afford to.

[ProSense]

135. So your argument is that

they should continue not having insurance because they can't afford it rather than be given a choice to pay $80 for coverage?

[Zalatix]

139. "Should continue not having insurance"? More like, they have no choice but not to have it.

unless, of course, they choose to bounce checks to meet their newly-assigned obligations. Or resort to digging in the trash while cutting out their electricity, food budget and of course walking 20 miles to their minimum wage McDonald's job which, at a full time schedule, would put them past the poverty level, and in some places could get them close to 20K a year.

Oh, I'm sorry, you don't like the word obligation. Because on your planet the word "tax penalty for non-compliance" means, well, a ball of cotton candy floating in the sky.

[ProSense]

153. They

"More like, they have no choice but not to have it. unless, of course, they choose to bounce checks to meet their newly-assigned obligations. "

...have a choice. They can still remain uninsured, which is what you seem to be advocating: their right to remain uninsured.

[Zalatix]

156. It's not a choice. It's a mathematical certainty.

Pigs cannot fly, and the working poor cannot afford these new obligations.

BTW upthread, you accused me of saying that single payer would be totally free.

I am still demanding you show where I said that.

[ProSense]

167. Would it

"BTW upthread, you accused me of saying that single payer would be totally free."

be more than $80 a month?

BTW, here's what I said:

You're spreading all types of misinformation in the name of single payer, as if anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer. Medicare for all? Do you really think that it's going to be less than subsidized coverage?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1439070

You can stop pretending that you were wronged.

And purchasing health care is a choice, now and when ACA is implemented. Your self-righteous denials don't change that.

[Zalatix]

176. You can now admit that you twisted what I said.

as if anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer.

I never, ever said that. And my argument was not in favor of single payer, because single payer would never happen.

You will not ever show where I said that.

You made up lies about what I said.

Purchasing health care is not a choice when all you can do is bounce checks to pay for it. Your Right Wing "make the poor pay!" arguments don't change that.

[ProSense]

179. Comprehension: "As if" doesn't mean you said it.

"I never, ever said that. And my argument was not in favor of single payer, because single payer would never happen. "

Right, you have no point.

[Zalatix]

181. Backpedaling: "Uh, I didn't mean it that way"

I have a point - the problem is you don't understand what you're reading.

You still think 2016 will never come.

[ProSense]

182. No, single payer isn't free and baseless shit stirring isn't a valid argument. n/t

[Zalatix]

185. Nobody said or implied single payer was free, and bullshit lies aren't valid arguments either.

[ProSense]

188. What will it cost a person earning $20,000

let's say "we split up the country"?

[Zalatix]

190. A LOT less than it costs now.

But I've already explained to you why. Look up the insurance law of large numbers, and then get back to me.

Also look up Medicare overhead versus private insurance overhead.

The clues are out there... and I've even given them to you!

[ProSense]

198. Medicare is minimum $99 per month.

That's more than $80.

"The clues are out there..."

You haven't found them.

[Zalatix]

211. No, that's not what Medicare for All would cost. Not even close. Your facts are way off.

[freshwest]

271. What am I missing here, ProSense? I wish I only had to pay $80/month.

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Out of an income less than $20K/year. Am I missing something? Is it time to panic or not?

Isn't a single payer program literally an individual mandate? If everyone is paying, singly, paying, isn't that a mandate on individuals?

I would like to see a program such as Europe has, where it seems to be 'free' to go to the doctor. But it isn't free. They pay income taxes and they don't scream for blood to water the tree of liberty because of it. They accept it as part of the social contract.

Some pay a lot, others don't, but they pay taxes, and the government finances healthcare from income taxes, not premiums. But there is no free healthcare. Insurance is not healthcare. it's a way of financing it, which Europe does with income taxes.

Are those complaining about the price of premiums for insurance ready to pay higher taxes? Our for-profit system sucks, and always has.

Conyers introduced HR 676, which is 'Medicare for all,' and he even terms it as 'single payer.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021439126#post5

We don't have enough Democratic power to get it done right now, but might if we don't give in to the Randians and let them make everyone go after each other. But nothing's free. Never.

[ProSense]

275. Good post. Thanks.

You're right. People forget that no one cares if single payer cost a little more out of pocket, it's the accessibility, efficiency, portability and quality of the care that's important.

[bhikkhu]

320. And what if an employer had to pay only $80 a month

and could get a tax credit for most of that?

I know my employer would sign up and get us all health insurance in a second; one of his worries is the same as mine - if one of us gets injured, we're both screwed without insurance.

Currently, the cost for a single individual to get employee-provided insurance where we live is about $300 a month, which neither employer nor employee is able to afford.

[freshwest]

344. I wonder if this is the same $80 figure that this OP is about? I don't understand what is happening.

But your scenario may be the reason why in my blue state, employers wanted the ACA enforced here, to save them money. It would be wonderful to have the insurance most employees have for $80 a month.

But single payer from income taxes paid as a nation, is why it is said many start-up companies like to locate in Europe. That, and their income tax-funded educational system where anyone who can make the grade can go to college, get ahead and eventually pay more taxes. Also their highly unionized work force makes for productivity and loyalty to their jobs, in theory. We used to be that way here. The USA seems to be operated now on the use 'em and lose 'em theory.

I know of employers like yours, who do want to keep their people able to work and even have wellness programs. The OP seems to be about people at McDonald's, who must be offering some perks to work there, or they wouldn't keep their work force for long. On my occasional forays through the Golden Arches for coffee, the same faces seem to be there year in and year out. But we also have a minimum wage of $9+ an hour.

I don't think I can adequately answer your query, but I think ProSense can. Did you see her chart in this thread? There are older threads by the OP writer about this subject that have a lot of rebuttals and charts. There are so many variables in these insurance plans and the way that people's lives are constructed, I can't begin to give the best answers on this. There is a website that may help:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

Good luck to everyone on this.

[bhikkhu]

81. I'm sure it varies depending on where you live, but it is very possible where I live

we do pretty well so far, and it has been easier the past couple of years than 2008/09.

On edit - a rough monthly budget is: 1300 for mortgage and debt service, 600 for food, 200 for power, gas, water and garbage, 60 for cellphones and internet.

We're in the process of getting the whole debt redone under a new loan which will make things easier, but so far so good. There's very little room for extras, but we've been pretty good about finding things 2nd hand, and I can fix just about anything myself. One trick to living within your means is to really not want things very much. The kids have more trouble with that than me, but we do pretty well.

The one big thing is health insurance, which we don't have. Any bad luck on that front and we'd be pretty thoroughly screwed in a hurry, so I'm looking forward to finally getting health insurance as a "waiting to exhale" type of relief. We'll finally be secure in our home, and know that some little health problem won't cost us everything.

[Zalatix]

149. Wait a second.

$1300 for a mortgage is $15600 a year.
$600 for food is $7200 a year... that's a grand total of over $20K right there.
$200 for utilities is 2400 a year.

If you're making $20K a year and you've got 1 other person in the house you can cut the food budget down to $300 a month, so that's $3600 a year. That's $19,200 a year.

2 people still means $80 per month. PER ADULT. Oh, snap.

Like I said, the lights gotta go off.

[bhikkhu]

163. My income of $28k supports 4, the other example is for a single adult living alone

The "worst case scenario" for a person earning 20K a year is $85 per year, according to my state's estimates (here again: http://www.orhix.org/calculator/index.php ).

By the same calculator, a person making $20k who supports a household of 2 pays nothing for health insurance. Two people doesn't mean $80 per month, two people means fully subsidized at that income level.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. You're not getting Medicare for all, so just stop harping on that...

at a time when the Republican plan is to eliminate it entirely.

We barely got Obamacare and just one vote on the Supreme Court kept it as law of the land, and to be trashing it at this point in the election cycle is something only Republicans or morons would do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Prior to ACA, your 20k a year worker would have been on the hook for $3400.

With ACA, he or she gets a 70% discount.
Further, if he or she *does* get sick, they get the opportunity to buy coverage at that time, without risk of being rejected for having a prexisting condition.
FURTHER, the "mandate" isn't. If you don't get coverage, and don't pay the penalty... nothing happens.

This hyperventilation is foolish.

[Zalatix]

47. Not true. And who are you fooling with the "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? LOL!!!

Some workers would just not pay for insurance, because whether they're paying $3,400 a year or $1,000 a year, they just can't afford it regardless. Unless they plan on bouncing checks.

And... "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? Really? Do you know what you actually implied when you wrote this? You're implying that people could get away with saying "I'm paying my taxes but NOT this tax penalty." That's just... hilariously wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Fooling? Only the illiterate, I guess.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/47898977#47898977

[ProSense]

62. What the hell are you talking about?

The poster was absolutely correct.

Some workers would just not pay for insurance, because whether they're paying $3,400 a year or $1,000 a year, they just can't afford it regardless. Unless they plan on bouncing checks.

And... "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? Really? Do you know what you actually implied when you wrote this? You're implying that people could get away with saying "I'm paying my taxes but NOT this tax penalty." That's just... hilariously wrong.

And they can still do that. If the $95 a year is too much, nothing happens. The penalty is assessed at tax time, and most low-income Americans get exemptions.

[Zalatix]

83. Wow, you didn't even read over what you posted.

"don't pay the penalty... nothing happens" is total nonsense. If you don't pay the tax penalty you will eventually get a visit from the IRS. You yourself admit, the penalty is assessed at tax time. You admit there is a penalty! Do you not even read what you write???

And you're not getting exemptions from the Mandate at $20k a year.

[BenzoDia]

89. Wrong. See post #65

[Zalatix]

136. And if your fantasyland rebuttal has any basis in reality, the consequences will be DIRE.

The working poor will avoid paying the tax penalty AND avoid paying for insurance, and AFTER they get sick IF they decide to buy insurance, they'll do it for a few months just to get coverage to get to the hospital.

That will be utterly disastrous.

It will be even worse than what I outlined in my OP.

But in all likelihood you're flat out wrong.

[BenzoDia]

140. Nothing "fantasyland" about it. It's right there in the law and the Supreme Court ruling.

The US isn't unique in having an individual mandate. Other countries have it as well. A few people game the system, but most will not.

And you saying "in all likelihood" means you don't actually know. Therefore, you were unaware of this aspect of the law before you began your fear mongering here.

[Zalatix]

144. Fantasyland or Dystopia, pick it. You're either wrong, or you'll wish you were.

Other countries are not America. The system, as YOU describe it, will get gamed in America, to highly disastrous outcomes.

Remember I warned you.

[hughee99]

86. How do they get a 70% discount if they still can't afford the $80 a month?

If they can't afford that, they then have to pay the tax for not having insurance, and then pay if something happens as well.

[NashvilleLefty]

40. Companies were ALREADY planning on dropping employee plans.

The costs were getting out of control. They were looking at cutting plans long before the ACA. Blaming it on the ACA is something the RW likes to do, and is totally disingenuous.

As far as the mandate is concerned, there is no way the ACA would ever work unless everyone is in, one way or the other.

I want single-payer, but our country simply won't go for it under present conditions. However, people are slowing waking up to the idea. After the ACA is fully implemented, it will be a major step towards single-payer, and people will warm to the idea even more.

[Zalatix]

49. You will see Medicare for All here in America when America is dead and gone.

As in, split in half. Permanently.

[NashvilleLefty]

162. I disagree. But in the meantime we have the ACA.

I'm upset we couldn't even get Public Option, but it's definitely better than it was.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Since most working families ...

earning under $20,000 don't pay/receive most if not all of any federal income tax back as a refund ... I wonder how the tax-penalty would figure in?

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Please provide one single piece of legislation that has been enacted ...

in the past 100 years that does not have "losers."

[KoKo]

50. It's a mixed bag...Many of us will have to suffer while others will see a relief...

but it will be hell for those of us wanting to have access to the the health care we used to have and expected until it al sorts out.

It's going to cause misery and pain for some...while some will see it as a good thing.

Sad thing is that they designed this with compromises that would cause "pain" as an unintended consequence...and that so many will suffer in the transition...maybe die, or be caused stress that causes illness because of the way this is set up to transition.

Many of us will be the Collateral Damage for the good of the system in place that won't be known until many years down the road when the effects and unintended consequences show up in studies.

Whatever....it's supposed to be a GOOD THING...as long as you aren't caught up in the MIDDLE TRANSITION..though.

[ProSense]

54. "it will be hell for those of us wanting to have access to the the health care we used to have"

You "used to have" something good that ACA destroyed?

Really?

[KoKo]

356. The Change Over from the Status Quo through 2014 when the rest kicks in

will be hard on a group of Americans being thrown off their "Employee based Health Insurance" where they are now forced to choose a plan. It requires some thought and not all will be able to deal with this huge change as well as one might be able to expect.

There are already problems with the Generic Drug Makers shifting programs and ability for "average Americans" to be able to comply with the new changes and the "generics" aren't giving the same satisfactions for delivery of standard prescribed drugs ...because everything is to save money...and the patient is caught in a catch all and older American's will have trouble dealing with it all.

That's just a taste of what "Radical Change" does. It helps some or many...but harms, hurts others caught in the transition.

But, given that we are a Nation that believes that Collateral Damage of any of our policies is just the "Price of Change" that will help the Majority (Voters) going forward... this is not unexpected.

I don't know how old you are...but, sometimes it seems you really don't have experience with "Life Changes" and how hard this is on a populace and what the ramifications can be.

Just saying....

[robinlynne]

61. They have been dropping coverage steadily for years. as we all know.

[BenzoDia]

65. Hey everyone, OP is just fear whipping. In the Supreme Court's ruling...

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2012/11-393c3a2.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies."

No one is being forced to buy anything.

[ProSense]

68. It's self-aggrandizing shit stirring. n/t

[derby378]

72. All it takes is a stroke of a pen...

...and the prohibition on those enforcement tools goes bye-bye.

[BenzoDia]

76. All it takes is a stroke of a pen to change any law in effect.

Not really a good argument if I'm understanding you correctly.

[Zalatix]

92. Hey everyone, BenzoDia just explained how ludicrous the Individual Mandate is!

Let's assume we're really living in the dream world you just described. Here is what happens as a result:

People who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014, and if the IRS won't inflict levies or criminal action then they also won't pay the tax penalty, and when they get sick, they'll get insurance for a while since they can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and they'll go to the hospital.

Millions of people will do exactly this. They will crush the system.

[BenzoDia]

102. Very few people gamed the Massachusett's, The Netherlands' or Switzerland's mandate

Most people want insurance of some kind and most people will follow the rules.

[eridani]

277. Low income people in MA go bankrupt or die

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/massachusetts/2012/09/09/medical-debt-massachusetts-persists-despite-health-law/QztpbflGjmUfVcf8J8tjbI/story.html

Architects of the pioneering 2006 Massachusetts health law, which required most residents to have insurance, expected it would reduce families’ medical debt. But the most recent data suggest the scope of medical debt has remained largely unchanged.

Temporary lapses in insurance coverage and increasingly common plans with high deductibles and copayments have contributed to medical debt, leaving some people struggling to pay bills for hospitals, doctors, and ambulance companies. Rising health costs and the recession also probably played a role

.

In the Netherlands, the government dictates health care prices, which is why my husband got a root canal there for $25 American in 1996.

[ProSense]

104. No, I think you got pwn'd. n/t

[Zalatix]

108. You think a lot of things, all of which have been wrong today.

If the law says the IRS can't enforce the tax penalty, people will wait until they get sick to get insurance to go to the hospital.

You have no counter argument to that. That is reality here on Earth. It's going to happen, if BenzoDia is at all correct.

[ProSense]

120. The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies."

Doesn't say anything about not assessing the fee. There will be people who opt out and pay the penalty.

Reading comprehension is good.

[Zalatix]

127. And as I said, if that fantasyland assessment is true, these consequences are unavoidable.

Millions of people who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014. This is basic human nature.

And if the IRS won't inflict levies or criminal action then they also won't pay the tax penalty. Again, basic human nature. The poor won't pay more than they're obliged to. They simply cannot, except by bouncing checks.

And when they get sick, IF they get insurance at all, they will get insurance for a while since they can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and they'll go to the hospital.

Reading comprehension is indeed good, but you have not mastered it.

BTW you accused me of implying that Single Payer would be totally free. You dodged me when I asked you to show where I said that. Have you found where I said that yet? Do expect me to keep bringing up this question, since you did falsely accuse me.

[ProSense]

164. "Millions of people who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014."

That's just absurd. Millions of people will qualify for Medicaid, 16 million more people to be exact.

You're making a flawed argument nitpicking over a mandate that will amount to $8 for an individual or about $22 for a family, assessed as a one-time fee at tax time.

[Zalatix]

174. Why do you keep arguing that the penalty won't go up to $695 in 2016?

A single person doing 20K a year won't qualify for Medicaid. There's millions of them, too. You are still not able to process that basic fact.

And the penalty will skyrocket to $58 per person in 2016... unless you are arguing that 2016 will never come.

BTW upthread, you accused me of saying that single payer would be totally free.

I am still demanding you show where I said that.

[ProSense]

178. 16 million more will qualify for Medicaid

That's a fact.

The ACA is the best thing to happen to low income Americans in this country since Medicaid was enacted.

[Zalatix]

186. Why don't you believe that the tax penalty will go up to $695 in 2016?

And what does "16 million more will qualify for Medicaid" mean to those working poor who won't quality for Medicaid?

If you're a single person doing a measley 20K a year you don't get Medicaid under normal circumstances. Your argument lacks relevance.

[ProSense]

191. What does it

And what does "16 million more will qualify for Medicaid" mean to those working poor who won't quality for Medicaid?

...mean to you? You apparently picked a group and decided to be its spokesperson, even deciding whether or not they will choose to pay $80 for coverage instead of remaining uninsured.

[Hoyt]

293. There will be those who cheat society, but I think most of us will contribute to a fair system.

Hope you will too.

[Swede Atlanta]

67. Of course any move toward a public health insurance program will lead to.....

some employers reducing or eliminating their programs. Some employers will keep them over time but likely only for executives.

But that has two effects.....

(1) Employers will lose the tax deduction for these programs
(2) Employers will be under pressure to pay out at least some of those savings in the form of wages

Personally I am not opposed to the elimination of employer-provided health insurance provided insurance can be purchased by all at an affordable rate and employers don't just pocket the entire savings from the elimination of these programs.

It must be noted that U.S. employers are at a competitive disadvantage to other companies because of the burden they carry for health insurance. That is one reason, according to several studies, vacation time is so limited in this country. It must be noted, however, that employers in other countries do pay higher taxes per employee that help offset the cost of national insurance programs.

Don't get me wrong......I see significant issues on the horizon as many companies just screw their employees. Once "no insurance" is the norm then there is no competitive disadvantage for employees with gutting or eliminating these programs. And of course executives will always get their proverbial balls licked at everyone else's expense.

But at some point we have to eliminate the notion that your health insurance is tied to your job. It is what keeps many people in jobs they don't like or people working beyond when they would like to retire (such as my sister) because of health insurance.

[patrice]

96. Individual states can get waivers and do their own thing, like Single Payer, as Vermont is doing. nt

[Zalatix]

99. So... move out of places like Texas?

[ProSense]

103. You could move here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1439213

[Zalatix]

112. Sorry, but I don't want to be your neighbor.

[bhikkhu]

204. Oregon's nice, and has its own very good ACA-compliant system in the works

Plus its a beautiful place to live, with an excellent state government!

[patrice]

113. No, quit your bitching and take some responsibility for what happens in your state. Even a moderate

amount of effort can be something to build on and, then, at least instead of waiting for the best plan for you to spring fully clothed from the forehead of Zeus, you'll have earned the right to raise some authentic hell.

[Zalatix]

117. Quit your bitching at me! Unless you think I can INDOCTRINATE the whole state by myself.

And I live in California, which will be nicer to the working poor than, say, Texas.

Excuse me for worrying about those who live outside of comfy California.

And if building upon efforts actually worked, I'd have fixed things by now.

[patrice]

121. Yep. Don't bother. Whatever you do is nothing anyway. There is no effect that you can have that is

worth any effort you put into it.

[Zalatix]

124. Contrary to popular belief, one person cannot change the world. It takes the help of millions.

I
cannot
build
that
ALONE.

President Obama couldn't even do it and he PUSHED for the Public Option!

I ain't President Obama.

Edited to add: not that I'll get a response, but what have you achieved?

[patrice]

129. And you have no clue about how you might become more than one? No wonder you are

waiting for the old authoritarian power structure to deliver what you desire and bitching about it when it can't or gets it wrong.

[Zalatix]

134. Okay so what have you done to change the world, and how successful have you been?

You're sitting here bitching at me to do all the work to save the world, what have YOU done?

I've protested in the face of potentially getting my ass kicked and arrested in Oakland and other California locations, I've gotten out the voter registrations in both Obama campaigns, I've been donating like CRAZY...

What the hell do you want me to do? My magic wand is broken. How's yours doing?

[patrice]

158. I have done more than I can tell, some small things, some not so small things, ever since

the early '70s, though I was aware before that as it happened that the National Forensic League topic for the first year that I debated in high school was about controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I don't feel like going into all of it, but it ranges from tracking the White Train from weapons plants near Amarillo, to organizing a parade, with Plowshares, down Kansas Avenue in Topeka, Ks., chartering and filling multiple busses to D.C., going to Iowa for Howard Dean, grassroots environmental publishing and activism in and around Tulsa, Ok., Social Justice Chair in a couple of parishes when I still used to go to church, actively with and working for our local Occupy . . . are a few of the things that I've done.

I let loose of the idea of success a long time ago. You do your best, WITH OTHERS because it's NOT just about you, to figure out the best stuff to do and you all do that stuff as well as you can do it, always looking for somekind of concrete effect, but, though we all want success, you learn not to want it too much, because you can get discouraged at not seeing it and, thus, miss the very worthy, and perhaps even MORE worthy, things that you are pushing forward. So most of the people I know who do this kind of stuff steer toward large goals, but FOCUS on shorter range concrete results and do the work for the love of doing it with others who love it too.

[Zalatix]

183. And with all that effort, have you been able to get Medicare for All passed?

If not, why are you putting all the burden of making it pass, on my shoulders?

BTW did Howard Dean win?

I've been working a lot over the years to make change happen. It hasn't always worked. Why? Because other people have free will and I can beat some of the walls of ignorance out there, but I can't beat them all. Apparently neither can you.

[patrice]

196. Nevermind. You are either too ignorant or too incapable of understanding. Carry on with your whine.

Bitch about how daddy hasn't delivered your pony and see how successful you get.

end of "conversation".

[Zalatix]

220. You're just too confused and irrational to do anything but bitch aimlessly at me.

And I do mean AIMLESSLY.

Go find someone else to lecture.

[patrice]

169. If you think it's only about success as you define it, you are an authoritarian, apparently without

power, so no wonder you're frustrated. You need authentic revolution, which is more about yourself than it is about others.

I think just about everything that is wrong right now can in one way or another be ascribed to authoritarian, top down, learned helplessness. Small things are not assumed to be valuable, so no one does them and great deficits of personal responsibility accrue until something really big breaks. And since it's something big, everyone looks once more to authority/daddy to fix it and kicks and screams when s/he doesn't get it what they think of as "right".

[Zalatix]

193. You throw around some big words without knowing their meaning.

I define success as changing the status quo, particularly from a profits-over-people system to a people-over-profits system. If that's authoritarian in your confused universe then I've got no interest in trying to convince you otherwise.

You've achieved precious little, certainly not any more than me, so you're not one to lecture me on getting out and doing anything.

[jberryhill]

209. That's the problem with ideologically driven results

I define success as changing the status quo, particularly from a profits-over-people system to a people-over-profits system.

In the context of defining "success" of a national healthcare or health insurance system, there is only one rational way to define success - does the system provide coverage to people who didn't or couldn't obtain it previously, and at lower net cost?

Any move in the right direction in that parameter space is a positive step, which the ACA is.

[Zalatix]

216. And for those who choose not to pay for insurance or pay the tax penalty, there is no step forward.

[jberryhill]

287. Bullshit

[Zalatix]

298. Then by all means wake me up when Medicare for All happens. LOL.

[jberryhill]

210. Clinton had a good line on Jon Stewart's program

Paraphrasing from memory... "The problem with ideologically driven solutions is that you already know the solution, and you go forth in search of facts to support it; instead of looking at the facts and finding the solution from there."

[jeff47]

279. Yes.

The crappy insurance provides a disincentive for living there. Whether that's important enough to you is up to you to decide.

[patrice]

106. You way over estimate your own perspicacity not only in thinking no one else expected that effect

of the ACA & that includes amongst its engineers and proponents, but also in your predictions about what can happen in the next decade.

[Zalatix]

111. Wow. I said "I and others". How did that come out to me thinking no one else saw this?

[patrice]

118. I am merely pointing out that to those, whom you may think it is news, it isn't. nt

[porphyrian]

110. AAAAHHHH! The Individual Mandate gonna git us!!!

Fearmongering.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/28/fact-checking-claims-about-individual-mandate/

[Zalatix]

132. Speaking of fail, from your own cite:

In some ways, the furor over the mandate was ironic: President Barack Obama had actually opposed the mandate in the 2008 Democratic primary.

[porphyrian]

296. OH NO! President Obama changed his mind about something since he became...

...the Presidential candidate of the 2008 race!

Nope, the fail is yours. The Individual Mandate doesn't even have a penalty for not paying. It isn't the best way of doing things, it got multiple states to challenge it in the Supreme Court, but it got health care passed, which no other President of your life time has been able to do. And, once we regain control of Congress, I'm sure they will fix the broken part, like this. Nice second try, though. This is for you...

[Honeycombe8]

138. That has nothing to do with the mandate. It has to do with perceived increase costs for the ACA...

I don't know if those costs are real or imagined.

But it doesn't have anything to do with the mandate. The mandate applies to people whose employers do not provide ins.

Employers were already headed this way because of the increased cost of providing health care. They have been starting to make employees pay part of the premium, some have stopped providing ins. already, or they've lowered the quality of the plan.

[Samantha]

147. The reality is employers have been dropping health insurance as a benefit for years

It really started to get rolling when Elaine Chao was Secretary of Labor under Bush* who re-wrote and skewed requirements that would allow employers to overall pay less per employee.

The last statistic I heard was that only 52 percent of employers currently offer it now. And it has nothing to do with the ACA; it has everything to do with the true white collar crime in the United States -- what health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals get away with overcharging.

Sam

[Sekhmets Daughter]

154. Exactly...

it's always nice to read something written by someone who understands the issue.

[ProSense]

150. It's fascinating

how people only seem interested in the BS talking points about health care reform.

How Small Business Owners Get Health Insurance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021439415

Fact's don't count?

[ecstatic]

165. Many employers, at least small business owners, were going to end

coverage regardless. They're really trying to do the right thing, but the costs are unreal. That is the problem.

[patrice]

173. And the costs are the result of a FOR PROFIT insurance system. Control the profit = begin to

control the costs. Plus there are authentic health care reforms implemented in the ACA to further bring down costs. Nonetheless, it's going to take at least a few years.

[Loudestlib]

168. Fear mongering.

This is a waste of time.

[Zalatix]

189. You won't be saying that when the working poor get socked hard in 2014.

[ProSense]

194. "Socked hard" because they still can't afford insurance?

You say they can't afford it now and choose to go without, but they're going to be "socked hard" by being given the choice to get coverage for $80 per month?

[Zalatix]

199. Oh yeah, you still believe they'll only have to pay a $8/month tax penalty for non-compliance

in 2014 and forever!

Or worse, that they won't need to pay anything at all because of that whole "the IRS can't enforce the tax penalty" fantasy, in which case there's no reason to buy insurance at all UNTIL YOU ARE SICK, which will bankrupt the insurance companies out of existence!

[Loudestlib]

235. Let's set aside the fact that you don't seem to know the ACA.

What's is your plan here? It's done the Supreme Court of the United States said it's law. You want PO? So do I! It's not likely to happen for some time.

When Regan passed emtala WITHOUT a way to pay for it this set our healthcare system on a death spiral. We had two ways to cover the cost. One, the ACA a Republican plan or two single payer a Democratic plan.

Healthcare was 18% of GDP and rising. This will slow it down some.

I appreciate your energy. I just think it's misdirected.

[Zalatix]

251. Speaking of not knowing the ACA, you just called the ACA a REPUBLICAN PLAN!!!

You probably even wrote that with a straight face!

[notadmblnd]

192. it's my understanding that employers that dont offer health insurance will be required to pay a fine

so there is a disincentive for this action. Your best bet is to go read all the particulars of the Health care act before saying, "see, I told you so"

[Zalatix]

195. They'll save money by paying the tax penalty instead of paying for health care benefits

ASSUMING they even pay the tax penalty, since someone upthread claimed the IRS can't enforce the tax penalty.

[Lex]

202. Bullshit. You're just guessing. Period.

[ProSense]

205. And fooling a lot of people.

Fun to watch.

[Zalatix]

206. You fail basic math. Period. I'm not guessing, I am absolutely CERTAIN.

The tax penalty is cheaper than paying for health insurance. I am absolutely CERTAIN that employers will choose the cheaper option. ESPECIALLY small businesses.

[ProSense]

207. Stop

"The tax penalty is cheaper than paying for health insurance. I am absolutely CERTAIN that employers will choose the cheaper option. ESPECIALLY small businesses."

...guessing:

How Small Business Owners Get Health Insurance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021439415

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Zalatix]

217. No guesswork here, you still don't read your own cites.

Small businesses won't get coverage for free for their employees or themselves, they still have to pay. And since upthread it is said that the tax penalty can't be enforced, they'll just choose the tax penalty.

Learn to read!!!

[Lex]

222. You cite nothing.

[Zalatix]

224. Why should I, when ProSense's own cites contradict him?

[ProSense]

226. Leave me out of the clownish argument. n/t

[Zalatix]

228. You leave this clownish argument and it will stop being clownish.

[ProSense]

225. Evidently, you're in denial and

now arguing whatever you want to with red herrings unrelated to the point.

[Zalatix]

227. No denial here, your facts are flat out wrong and you're trying to force feed me nonsense

and no matter how much you try to force feed it to me, I will keep rejecting it. Forever.

[ProSense]

231. Here:

How Small Business Owners Get Health Insurance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021439415

Save face!

You're embarrassing yourself.

[Zalatix]

234. How Small Business Owners Get Health Insurance: they PAY for it, like everyone else.

Telling ME to save face? You're missing all your toes.

Keep posting that cite and I'll keep reminding you of reality: small businesses they PAY for coverage, just like everyone else. And they'll be JUST as likely to forego it.

Go on, post it again.

[ProSense]

239. Your comments are now hilarious

Fact free noise of someone trapped in a flawed argument, spewing nonsense and defending that crap with aggressive nonsensical statements.

Really funny stuff.

[Zalatix]

242. Your comments are now silly hour.

Increasingly misinformed rants interrupted by the loud bang of bullets taking out your toes one at a time. I hope you do have insurance to cover that!

[Lex]

221. Wrong. Sorry. You are guessing at this. AGAIN.

[Zalatix]

223. No, the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Come 2014, employers WILL choose the tax penalty over paying for coverage.

I am NOT guessing. This is an absolute MATHEMATICAL certainty.

[notadmblnd]

237. that's right, there will be no enforcement of the tax penalty

And those that can't afford the premiums, will either be subsidized or free. So the gnashing of teeth and the wailing over all of this is just wasted energy. Go read the ACA and learn the facts before yelling that the sky is falling.

[Zalatix]

244. I said, someone upthread CLAIMED there will be no enforcement. That is, of course, wrong.

What you are in fact trying to sell here is the idea that people can just go get insurance coverage AFTER THEY GET SICK.

I'm not sure you realize that this is the consequence of what you're arguing.

[notadmblnd]

346. No, I never mentioned it.

You are the one making all the claims. Again, go read the act and inform yourself.

[ProSense]

200. Absurd! n/t

[ProSense]

232. That has nothing to do with the ACA.

Ludicrous.

[Zalatix]

248. It certainly has something to do with the individual mandate.

[ProSense]

250. Nothing, absolutely nothing. n/t

[Zalatix]

252. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, ya know.

"If you doubt that the IRS will do this, let's meet back here in 3 years and compare notes as to whether the IRS collects money which some people claim will be un-collectible."

That's a pretty solid connection to the Individual Mandate right there. Perhaps you rush-read the post and didn't read it for comprehension?

[ProSense]

254. You're quoting the

poster's opinion?

Oh my.

[Zalatix]

255. Are you okay?

You seem to be falling behind here. I was citing the poster's opinion to explain the part that was most relevant.

You kept saying it's not relevant. Of all the reasons you were wrong, that quoted text was the biggest.

Really, please try to keep up!

[ProSense]

259. LOL! It's irrelevant to the IRS' actions as they relate to ACA.

Still, if you want to meet the poster in three years and compare nonsense, go right ahead.

[Zalatix]

261. Yeah, you're tired.

I can understand what with you having spent hours going at me, LOL.

In case you missed it, the poster was explaining why claims that the IRS can't enforce the tax penalty for the Individual Mandate are bullshit.

You, of course, failed to understand my explanation that the claim is bullshit because if the IRS can't enforce it, people will game it to death.

[ProSense]

263. No, I think you're spinning.

I understood what was posted, and said it was nonsense, and it still is.

[Zalatix]

301. There's no spin here, you just don't understand human nature.

[bvar22]

370. Claiming that the IRS is powerless to collect money....

...is one of the most preposterous things I have ever read on DU.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
DU used to be a place for good information.
These Dishonest Brokers have inflicted a lot of damage to this place.

My hope is that the lurkers can see them for what they are.

[Zalatix]

236. I'm not sure which is more absurd - if they're wrong, or if they're right.

If they're wrong, then the IRS is going to have a lot of working poor people to prey on.

If they're RIGHT, and the IRS is powerless to deal with this, then people will game the system right out of existence. Because millions will wait until they get sick to get insured.

[Le Taz Hot]

290. Well THAT'S interesting.

So if/when you expect a refund your MANDATED health insurance will scoop that up if you haven't paid the FORCED premium. If you owe the IRS and pay the amount owed, that amount can go to the penalty and you're now without insurance and still owe the gummit.

Well that sucks.

Thanks for clearing up the I.R.S. angle. Way too many blind supporters are living in fantasy land.

[4lbs]

214. All this woe-is-me talk about the individual mandate. Let's take a look at the #1 rated healthcare

system in the world:

France's

This is a universal healthcare system. It is Single-payer. It pays for 80 to 85% of a person's healthcare costs. It is also an individually mandated system. Yes, EVERYONE in France must pay for it.

What is a person taxed in France for such a healthcare system?

5.25% of their income.

For a person making the equivalent of $20,000 US Dollars annually, that means a "tax" for the individually-mandated system of $1050 US Dollars per year. That comes out to $87.50 US Dollars per month.

Also, unlike our ACA in the US, France DOES prosecute those individuals that don't want to pay the 5.25% annual tax.

And some people are whining about the ACA's individual mandate of $80 per year in 2014 and $695 per year in 2016 for ACA?

Furthermore, since France's system covers about 85% of a person's healthcare costs, many of the French still purchase additional private health insurance that covers the other ~15%.

Now, let us take a look at Medicare.

My retired parents (both in their 70s) pay $250 monthly for their Medicare. That is $125 monthly each. Or $1500 per year EACH. This Medicare covers 70% of their healthcare costs.
They also pay another $200 monthly for private supplemental insurance, for both, through Kaiser Permanente, which covers the other 30%.

So, they pay a grand total of $5400 annually for 100% coverage for both of them.


Now, if we moved to a Medicare-for-all system, it would likely be funded through...

wait for it....

AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

A mandate paid for through.... an annual tax applied to income! Probably 6 to 10%. Let's use 8% as an example.

My parents get $30000 annually combined in retirement. What is 8% of $30000? That would be $2400.

This Medicare-for-all, because it is expanded, would likely cover more than the 70% that Medicare does now. It probably could cover the same 85% that France's system does. So, then my parents would only need to find private insurance that covers the other 15%. Because such insurance would only have to cover 15% instead of 30% now, it would actually cost less. Instead of $200 monthly they would probably only have to pay about $125 monthly.

So, $2400 annually + ($125 * 12) = $3900 for 100% healthcare coverage for both..

My parents would save $1500 annually by going to such a Medicare-for-all, INDIVIDUALLY MANDATED, and taxed at 8% of income.


Finally, for the OP, even if we had Medicare for all, or some other single-payer solution, YOU WOULD STILL BE MANDATED TO HAVE IT.

That means you MUST pay some monthly fee for it.

The world's best healthcare systems don't work properly unless you have an individual mandate and people pay an annual fee or tax rate for it.

[Zalatix]

240. Math, math, math! The population of France is 65 million. America? 300 million.

5.25% of their income.

For a person making the equivalent of $20,000 US Dollars annually, that means a "tax" for the individually-mandated system of $1050 US Dollars per year. That comes out to $87.50 US Dollars per month.

The insurance Law of Large Numbers says that the cost of nationwide care would be FAR lower than in France. The larger the insurance pool the lower the costs. 300 million vs 65 million means a HUGE drop in costs compared to France, especially when you consider America's Medicare operates with under 5% overhead.

Yeah, you're comparing lemons to oranges.

Your parents would save far more than $1500 annually.

Why didn't you compare us to Canada's Medicare system or the NHS in England?

[ProSense]

243. You need to stop

"Math, math, math! The population of France is 65 million. America? 300 million.

5.25% of their income.

For a person making the equivalent of $20,000 US Dollars annually, that means a "tax" for the individually-mandated system of $1050 US Dollars per year. That comes out to $87.50 US Dollars per month.

The insurance Law of Large Numbers says that the cost of nationwide care would be FAR lower than in France. The larger the insurance pool the lower the costs. 300 million vs 65 million means a HUGE drop in costs compared to France, especially when you consider America's Medicare operates with under 5% overhead.

Yeah, you're comparing lemons to oranges.

Your parents would save far more than $1500 annually.

Why didn't you compare us to Canada's Medicare system or the NHS in England?

...stop insulting people because you have no idea what you're talking about.


This was a proposal by John Conyers.

<...>

How will the transition to the new system work?

The full conversion to a non-profit, single-payer universal health care program will not take place overnight once the bill is passed. The total transition time will be roughly a 15-year period. Important elements of the transition will include:

• Private health insurance companies will be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates any benefits included in the universal national health care program. The private companies will, however, still be able to sell coverage for services that are not deemed medically necessary, such as many cosmetic surgery procedures.
  
• Private insurance company workers who are displaced as a result of the transition will be the first to be hired and retained by the new single-payer entity. Any of the displaced workers who are not rehired will receive two years of unemployment benefits.

How will the universal program be paid for?

First, switching to a single-payer system will lead to billions of dollars saved in reduced administrative costs. Those savings will be passed on through the system and allow coverage for all Americans. Additional savings in the overall cost of health care will come from annual reimbursement rate negotiations with physicians and negotiated prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment.

Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created to ensure a dedicated source of funding in addition to annual appropriations. Sources of funding will include:

• Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
  
• Closing corporate tax loopholes
  
• Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
  
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
  
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
  
• One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

Obviously, this would be a hard sell in the current political environment, but single payer is more efficient and saves billions in the long run.

Here's another:

Financing

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. Employers would pay a 7.0 percent payroll tax and employees would pay 2.0 percent, essentially converting premium payments to a health care payroll tax. 90 to 95 percent of people would pay less overall for health care. Financing includes a $2 per pack cigarette tax.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

[Zalatix]

246. So which part are you confused about here?

France has only 65 million people. America has over 300 million. Do you dispute this?
300 million people is a more stable risk pool than 65 million. Do you dispute this?
Medicare operates with under 5% overhead. Do you dispute this?

Of course you don't. You are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Worst of all, your own cite makes a fool of you:

Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)

France's tax is 5.5%. Last I heard, 4.75 is less than 5.5%, and this includes the existing 1.45% tax. As I said previously, it'll cost workers here less than it costs them in France.

The tax on the top earners is also a damned good idea.

Now you're just disagreeing with me because your feelings have been repeatedly hurt.

[ProSense]

249. Sure,

leave out the rest of the details. It's not an apples to apples comparison. There is still significant financing required.

<...>

Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created to ensure a dedicated source of funding in addition to annual appropriations. Sources of funding will include:

• Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
  
• Closing corporate tax loopholes
  
• Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
  
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
  
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
  
• One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

[Zalatix]

253. Do you know what I said when I said "The tax on the top earners is also a damned good idea"?

That means I agree with

Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners

And I would also go further: end the wars overseas and funnel THAT money into the health care (and educational) system. Plus end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, too.

Conyers's goals don't factor those ideas in (rightfully so).

[ProSense]

258. And it's still apple to apples.

Fact: Unless you tax the top 5 percent in addition to increasing the payroll tax, the funding has to be made up elsewhere. If it's straight payroll tax, it'll be a higher percentage.

No way around it. Single payer is more efficient, no one can say it's going to cost the individual less out of pocket.

[Zalatix]

262. It'll cost less than in France, and less than $84 a month.

France is an extra $85 a month at 5.5%. Perhaps you don't understand that 4.75% is less than 5.5%, just like you don't understand that the tax penalty goes up to $695 in 2016!

[ProSense]

268. Will it be less than the 2014 penalty of $8

Or the 2016 penalty of $58?

Are you saying that those you claim can't afford $80 per month can afford another $60 to $79 per month?

What are you saying?

[Zalatix]

270. Dear God, you don't even do math right.

The $60 to $79 per month includes the existing Medicare tax, which means

wait for it

Workers are seeing even less of a cut from their paycheck than $60 to $79 a month.

BTW I see you're slowly expanding your view of the universe past the year 2014!

With that, really, I've wasted way too much time on you in particular today. Don't worry, though, I'll be back tomorrow! I'm sure you are nearly as relentless as me!

[ProSense]

272. No it doesn't.

Dear God, you don't even do math right.

The $60 to $79 per month includes the existing Medicare tax, which means

wait for it

Workers are seeing even less of a cut from their paycheck than $60 to $79 a month

There you go not making sense with another aggressive assertion. The $60 is without the current payroll amount.

So what are you saying?

Are you claiming that a person who cannot afford $80 can afford $60? That they will not be "socked hard" having that taken out of their paycheck without choice?

Remember France prosecutes.

[Zalatix]

300. Yeah, your math is not strong here, ProSense.

The $60 is without the current payroll amount.

That's just not true.

And why do you keep trying to force this into a discussion about France? There's also Canada and England, you know.

[ProSense]

304. This was fun

No, the math is fine.

Bottom line. The handwringing isn't going to change the facts.

The mandate will impact about 1.9 percent of the population (across incomes) who will have to pay an idividual minimum of about $8 per month in 2014 climbing to about $58 per month in 2016, assessed as a one-time fee at tax time.

The health care law expanded Medicaid to 5 percent of the population, or 16 million people.

All in all, math says that the health care law was the best thing that happened to low income Americans since Medicaid was implemented.

Cheer up. It's a start and it only gets better from here.

[Zalatix]

317. People will game the system to death. Enjoy!

[Hoyt]

295. I think whatever "savings" there are from "large numbers" occurs well before 65 million insured.

Give it up.

Clearly ACA is not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than anything we've had and can be improved over time.

[DevonRex]

264. The OP won't stop his fearmongering no matter what.

We already know that from past experience. This is election season and he's doing it now, using WSJ talking points. The WSJ that has Romney staffers writing pieces for it without disclosing their ties.

Seems to be a conflict with DU TOS during the election season to me.

[eridani]

280. France also subsidizes low income people, and the government DICTATES health care prices

--and coverage. Medicare for All would be able to eliminate dealing with private insurance (except for those who wanted extra bells and whistles), and control costs via global budgeting.

Also, though there are co-pays, THERE ARE NO DEDUCTIBLES, period.

[leftstreet]

331. +1

[4lbs]

336. True. I support all that. But the OP's main whine is about the individual mandate.

Even with a Medicare-for-all or any other single-payer, there will still be an individual mandate.

The current ACA also subsidizes low-income people. Something the OP forgets.

[eridani]

361. No, the OP was about a mandate to enrich private insurance companies

A mandate to pay a tax in return for a service is an entirely different matter. Under single payer, low-income people will not need direct subsidies unless they somehow are still in a bracket that requires income tax. Subsidies would be subsumed under progressive taxation.

[pnwmom]

229. Employers have steadily been dropping healthcare ANYWAY, because costs have been rising.

So those numbers could be even worse without Obamacare, which at least has started to bend the cost curve down.

The working poor won't have to worry about the mandate because they'll be getting subsidies.

Don't believe everything you read, especially if it's written in the Wall Street Journal.

[gateley]

241. If a LOT of employers stop providing plans, I can't help but think the

Gov would step in and maybe get a "pool" that everyone could access at an affordable price? The insurance companies would be up in arms and might welcome something like that. When I had insurance through work, my premium wasn't cheap -- maybe deals could be made so that employees could get coverage for the same cost as when their employers offered it?

[deathrind]

245. Healthcare...

In 1980 healthcare cost per person was around $1,100 in 2010 that cost has gone up to over $8000. Employers have been dropping HC as a benefit for a longtime and willrealize continue toto do soa because of their bottomline not because of a law that has not even taken effect yet. That is a false equivalency.

[SoCalDem]

260. Employers dropping coverage is what will GET us true universal health care

When the "briefcase-brigade" gets their coverage yanked, there will be such an outcry, that the only solution will be to kick the insurance companies off the gravy train, and put everyone into medicare.

Right now there are still too many people who have "okay" coverage that is still sort-of affordable, so they do not take to the streets to assure that someone somewhere (who they don't know) gets coverage for a fair price.

When they have to go home & tell the wife/husband that their coverage ends on xx/xx/xx, the shit will hit the fan.

I have no doubt, that once most of us Boomers are dead & gone, there WILL be universal coverage..

[sakibsust]

265. Good

This is fine

[DevonRex]

267. You may not give a shit if this hurts Obama's election chances

but many of us here do. Using the WSJ as a source to hurt Obama is just not cool at all.

There are other boards that might welcome your constant criticism and RW sources.

[Zalatix]

273. Seriously? I need a list of banned sites that I should not cite.

Everything now is a RW publication especially if it discusses problems with a law* that the RIGHT WING Heritage Foundation first proposed decades ago.

Now you want me to go away to a RW site to protest a RW law** originally passed in MASSACHUSETTS by none other than MITT ROMNEY, who is running against Obama?

* That law being the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, not the ACA.

** That law, once again, being the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, not the ACA.

[cali]

289. I disagree with the OP but

the WSJ is frequently used as a source here.

Furthermore, though I frequently disagree strongly with the OP, he's made it clear that he supports Obama and will vote for him. Criticism of the President is not de facto a bad thing.

[KG]

283. DURec

[renie408]

285. "People were warned this was coming."...Ok, confess...you wear skinny jeans.

And a lot of black. Do you have longish hair and an intense gaze?

Cause DAMN, you sure post Emo enough.


What kills me is that you managed to crank out 286 responses to your brief, factless article from the WSJ that is ....*GASP*...critical of the mandate! Now that IS a shocker! Well, maybe it was on June 24.

Or maybe not.

[Zalatix]

286. Factless? Emo? Oh I see, you lack for a coherent argument so instead you have to throw a tantrum.

Your post ended because the random insult generator crashed on you.

I hope the Heritage Foundation appreciates your slavish defense of the Individual Mandate law that they invented, Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts, and which Obama opposed during his campaign.

No doubt in your irrational and wrong-headed attempt to call WSJ factless, you didn't realize any of that.

[renie408]

288. LOL...you are the only person throwing a tantrum.

Thanks for proving my point about the emo thing, though!

NO, I realized ALL of that. I also realized that I AM part of the working poor and I can tell you, having government subsidized health insurance is NOT going to harm my finances at all. Now, that is anecdotal, but it is the truth. I just checked about a week ago and once we get our subsidy, we will FINALLY be able to get insurance coverage again. We cannot afford it right now. And which do you think is more damaging to my finances, you overblown drama queen? Not having insurance coverage at all or having the government give me the money to pay for it?


BTW...what are the statistics on the percentage of the working poor who actually HAVE employer paid health insurance? I only know a very few people who fall into that category who have health insurance at all.

"I and others warned about this..." Really?? LOL!! Sincere advice...you have GOT to stop taking yourself so seriously. Cause, obviously nobody else is if they are ignoring your dire warnings. But you are damn entertaining at 4 in the morning when I can't sleep!!

[Zalatix]

299. There you go, throwing another damned hissyfit.

Plenty of working poor are going to choose to sit this out, simply because they can't afford it. Nothing's going to change for a LOT of them, your admittedly anecdotal story aside. If you weren't being such an insensitive jerk hell bent upon calling others "DRAMA QUEEN" and throwing around words you don't understand (like "emo&quot , you would have figured that out by now.

And you know what, I certainly don't take YOUR nonsense seriously.

[renie408]

343. I think you forgot "nahney nahney boo boo"

[Zalatix]

351. I sure did. And then you went and did it instead!

[quaker bill]

291. Employers have used any and no excuse to cut pay and benefits

for decades now. Once the private sector cuts benefits it suddenly becomes unfair for the public sector to offer them. The plutocrats will provide some rationale for why it is necessary, who knows, perhaps Yak herders in Nepal have no pension plan, do we think we are better people than they are? There are people around the world who work for $2 a day and have no health insurance benefits, why do we think we are so special? (the plutocrats will ask)

In a growing economy with a tight labor market salary enhancements and benefits are offered. In a slow economy with high unemployment, salaries and benefits are cut. Usually the FED does not allow a heated economy to last long enough to make up the difference. The FED has been very aggressive inflation fighters for the past 30 years, accordlingly salaries and benefits have suffered. There has been a calls on the right to eliminate the minimum wage.... These guys did not need the ACA to go there, it would have been even cheaper for them to drop healthcare without ACA.

[coldwaterintheface]

294. The ONLY reason why I and many of my friends voted for Obama was because he was against the

individual mandate without a public option. We knew and undrstood what the result would be if the GOP Healthcare Plan was implemented.

It is also why, in informal surverys of Dems I know, are not excited at all about voting this year.

The only motivation is rMoney and his puke pals are worse.

Being a realist the individual mandate with no public option will be around for a long time and it will bankrupt this country to the point that SS is cut and Medicare goes to vouchers.

Mission Accomplished

[Zalatix]

302. I wouldn't say that's cause to be less excited to vote this year.

Obama was railroaded into the Individual Mandate. I'm not putting the lion's share of the blame on Obama for this mess.

[ProSense]

306. "Obama was railroaded into the Individual Mandate."

" I'm not putting the lion's share of the blame on Obama for this mess."

[Zalatix]

308. You do remember that Obama OPPOSED the Individual Mandate during his campaign, right?

Or are you ignorant of that fact, too?

[ProSense]

311. After your comments

You do remember that Obama OPPOSED the Individual Mandate during his campaign, right?

Or are you ignorant of that fact, too?

...and incessant guessing in this thread, you should refrain from calling anyone "ignorant"

Mandate facts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603

[Zalatix]

313. "Guessing". You do not understand what that word actually means.

Since you do not understand where Obama stood on the Individual Mandate during his campaign, allow me to remind you, with cites:

&feature=player_embedded

You can even watch a VIDEO here of Obama voicing his reasoning about why he opposes the Individual Mandate.

Are you done making a fool of yourself now? Obama opposed the mandate during his campaign. Salvage what little remains of your dignity and just admit it.

Edited: to remove link that looked like cbsnews but was actually "Cnsnews".

[ProSense]

323. Wow, you're linking to a wingnut site? Really?

I think you're the one who doesn't understand what the hell anything means.

President Obama never stated that the mandate was unconstitutional or that he was completely opposed to any mandate. His argument was always affordability before a mandate. In fact, the statement about homelessness was specifically to reiterate the affordability point.

<...>

OBAMA: Let's break down what she really means by a mandate. What's meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she's suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That's what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html

Mandate facts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603

[Zalatix]

327. Bah, I thought it said CBS news. The rest of your argument was refuted in #316.

[ProSense]

328. And your BS was smacked down in #325.

You have no point except silly spin.

[Zalatix]

335. You seem to like to confuse spin doctoring with "smacking down".

[coldwaterintheface]

349. Railroaded my Ass, he did not even fight

at least not in public
.

[Safetykitten]

303. Another Thank God It Passed!

Look for another result.

Trapped in a low wage job, just because the meager benefits are the only thing a person can get. No mobility, completely trapped.

[bvar22]

307. I'll let this guy explain why The Mandate is a BAD idea for America.

Argue with him.

[ProSense]

312. Why would anyone argue? Here's what he said

President Obama never stated that the mandate was unconstitutional or that he was completely opposed to any mandate. His argument was always affordability before a mandate. In fact, the statement about homelessness was specifically to reiterate the affordability point.

<...>

OBAMA: Let's break down what she really means by a mandate. What's meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she's suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That's what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html

Mandate facts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002512603

[Zalatix]

316. Wow, you woke up as confused as you were last night.

President Obama never stated that he was completely opposed to any mandate? Your own cite shows absolutely no support for the mandate.

He is saying that he wants to make health care affordable. You seem to think that he supports a mandate IF he can make it affordable. He did not say that. You're just making things up.

[ProSense]

325. Bullshit!

"Your own cite shows absolutely no support for the mandate."

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --

SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

[bvar22]

319. Candidate Obama was very clear that he opposed The Mandate during Campaign 2008.

He ridiculed Hillary for supporting The Mandate during the debates.
One of the reasons he got my support at that time was his open opposition to The Mandate.

[Zalatix]

321. He might have sank Hillary over just that issue.

[ProSense]

326. Here's the part

Candidate Obama was very clear that he opposed The Mandate during Campaign 2008.

He ridiculed Hillary for supporting The Mandate during the debates.

...where he "ridiculed Hillary." Oh, and the part where he admits to supporting a mandate for children.

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --

SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

[bvar22]

338. I KNOW what he said, and how he said it.

I paid attention,
and kept track of clear policy statements which were few and far between, so they were easy to track.
It appears you are resurrecting the depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is defense (Muddy-the-Water Defense) for your disjointed campaign in this thread.

If you say it loud enough, and often enough,
maybe somebody, somewhere will believe you.
I guess that would be enough for Mission Accomplished.

But these arguments are really a waste of time at this point.
We will ALL know soon enough exactly what will happen when The Mandate is enacted in 2014,
and Tens of MILLIONS of already hard pressed Working Class Americans are forced to BUY
"Bronze" (junk) Health Insurance that most won't be able to afford to use due to high Co-Pays and High Deductibles. Even with subsidies, most of these MILLIONS will have to dig deep into empty pockets to come up with their part of the tithe to the giant For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.
I don't believe these MILLIONS are going to be happy,
especially after Romneyesque photos of Health Insurance CEOs and Execs with their new Summer Homes and New Jets start showing up on the Nets.

Do you know that the term "Medical Bankruptcy" is practically unknown in civilized countries,
but will STILL be BIG BUSINESS even after every part of the ACA is enacted?
In fact, it will probably be even BIGGER BUSINESS as Working Class Americans try to convert their "Bronze" Insurance Policies into actual Health CARE.
These Medical Bankruptcies WILL directly impact the already struggling Working Class Americans who did everything right and sacrificed to buy their "Bronze" policies,
and they will STILL get crushed by "The Uniquely American Solution."

I believe this one thing could lead to the resurrection of the Republican Party,
and sweeps for them in 2016.
ALL they have to do is say, "Yep. We voted against it"
and Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.
I believe we are facing THAT BIG of a disaster, and base my prediction on my knowledge of America's Working Class,
and what happens when you force them to come-out-of-their-pocket to BUY something they don't want, can't afford, and can't use.

Maybe if you had spent more time with Working Class People ,
you would understand what I am saying.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Poll_Blind]

333. That's absolutely correct. He ridiculed her for supporting the Mandate. And rightly. nt

PB

[Warren Stupidity]

309. Right wing bullshit from the wsj and a jury voted 5-1 keep it.

Shame on the jurors. Shame on the op. please stop.

[Zalatix]

342. He has won on one point. I will look for sources in the future that are not the WSJ.

I just need to know what the list of right wing rags are, I don't go purposefully hunting for them.

However, WarrenStupidity would have raised holy hell even if it came from DailyKOS or HuffPo or Alternet. His yapping about the WSJ is merely an excuse.

Even if you posted an interview with then-candidate Obama when he trashed the Individual Mandate, WarrenStupidity would raise hell.

[rDigital]

372. Sources don't matter if they are accurate. The content and character of your posts is what matters.

: )

[MjolnirTime]

314. Nobody cares about your "warnings".

[Zalatix]

318. Big whoop, you don't HAVE TO CARE!!! The consequences will happen regardless.

Considerable numbers of employers are dumping health care plans. People will game the system. Your not caring will not change that at all.

[ProSense]

330. Yes,

"Big whoop, you don't HAVE TO CARE!!! The consequences will happen regardless."

...they will.

Bottom line: Despite your handwringing, the facts aren't going to change.

The mandate will impact about 1.9 percent of the population (across incomes) who will have to pay an idividual minimum of about $8 per month in 2014 climbing to about $58 per month in 2016, assessed as a one-time fee at tax time.

The health care law expanded Medicaid to 5 percent of the population, or 16 million people.

All in all, math says that the health care law was the best thing that happened to low income Americans since Medicaid was implemented.

Cheer up. It's a start and it only gets better from here.

[Zalatix]

334. Denial is sometimes a comforting thing. I won't deny you that comfort.

[ProSense]

337. Here

take "comfort" in this:

The health care law was the biggest positive for low income Americans since Medicaid was implemented
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021441139

[bvar22]

339. That post, and your statement here about Medicaid is obsolete.

The mandated Medicaid Expansion referenced in your post was Struck Down
by the Supreme Court at the same time they upheld the Mandate to Buy Insurance.
The SC has declared the Medicaid Expansion as "optional".
Many of us predicted that the conservative corporate wet dream Mandate to Purchase would be upheld while the more Progressive elements would be marginalized or stuck down.

I know you wouldn't intentionally post erroneous or misleading information on DU,
so you must not be keeping up with important information.

[ProSense]

353. Actually,

The mandated Medicaid Expansion referenced in your post was Struck Down
by the Supreme Court at the same time they upheld the Mandate to Buy Insurance.
The SC has declared the Medicaid Expansion as "optional".
Many of us predicted that the conservative corporate wet dream Mandate to Purchase would be upheld while the more Progressive elements would be marginalized or stuck down.

I know you wouldn't intentionally post erroneous or misleading information on DU,
so you must not be keeping up with important information.

...you're wrong: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1441468

[bvar22]

362. You're declaring victory for something that hasn't happened.

Things we KNOW:
The mandate to expand Medicaid was Struck Down by the Supreme Court.

Things we do NOT know:
What will actually happen in 2014.

Claim that is not valid:
Medicaid Expansion is the best thing that has happened for low income people.

Declaring VICTORY for something that had NOT happened is.....
well, the province of propagandists.

If you are concerned with the truth, integrity, or your own credibility on DU,
you can go back and edit your post declaring VICTORY,
or add qualifiers like "hopefully", or "some people think that possibly..."

Personally, I am praying that every single state will Opt In the Medicaid Expansion.
That WOULD be the best thing that has happened FOR the low end of the Working Class in a LONG time,
but 2014 is STILL a ways off, and a lot of austerity can and WILL happen in the interim.
I expect the Medicaid Expansion to be On-the-Block as part of the Grand Bargain immediately after the election. The SC decision replacing the "Mandatory" with "Optional" will make this MUCH easier to compromise away, like the mythological Public Option..

My wife and I are too young for Medicare, live below 133% of the poverty line,
but own our own house and property so we can't currently apply for Medicaid.
We would qualify along with MILLIONS of others approaching retirement and early retirement with some assets,
and THAT is what has me worried.
Neither Party has done much for this demographic in a LONG time.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Zalatix]

363. His imagination is stronger than your reality.

[ProSense]

365. My (her) knowledge of the facts is stronger than your guessing.

You're agreeing with inaccurate information, proving that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Zalatix]

368. There you go again, declaring victory after blowing off all your toes!

[ProSense]

364. Wrong

"Things we KNOW:
The mandate to expand Medicaid was Struck Down by the Supreme Court. "

All the ruling did was remove a penalty it saw as an overreach.

The votes for this outcome are divided among several opinions. Three Justices – the Chief, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer – took the position that depriving a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion would exceed Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. Although Congress may attach conditions to federal funds, they concluded, it may not coerce states into accepting those conditions. And in this case, taking away all the states’ funds for the entirety of its Medicaid program just because it disagreed with a piece of the program would be coercive. But the remedy for that constitutional violation is not to declare the expansion unconstitutional – such that even states that want to participate would not have the option. Instead, the plurality held that the provision of the statute that authorized the Government to cut off all funds for non-compliance with the expansion was unconstitutional. The result is that states can choose to participate in the expansion, must comply with the conditions attached to the new expansion funds if they take that new money, but states can also choose to continue to participate only in the unexpanded version of the program if they want.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/

It did not strike down the mandate. It did give states an opt out. If states want to participate in the expanson and receive the additional funding, that requires full compliance with the "conditions attached."

Thus far, only a handful of Republican governers are balking, and it's mostly bluster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021441139

[bvar22]

366. Do you know what the word "MANDATE" means?

...and what happens when the word "MANDATE" is replaced with the word "OPTIONAL"?

[font size=4]"Supreme Court strikes down Medicaid expansion"[/font]
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413192n

This is NOT a matter of opinion.
The Supreme Court DID INDEED declare that the provision in the ACA to mandate the expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional.
That is TRUTH.
That is FACT.
There is NO Gray Area.
There is NO Room-for-Interpretation.
There is NO discussion of the meaning of the word "is".

There is only one valid and honest response to my post:
"Yes, bvar22. You are correct."

I am being charitable and assuming you have simply made a mistake.
You can go back and edit your mistakes,
or choose to willfully leave False & Misleading information posted on DU.
The choice is yours.

[ProSense]

367. Do you know

"Supreme Court strikes down Medicaid expansion"
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413192n

...MSM spin means? Seriously, you have the opinion analysis right there and you're supporting your false assumption with an MSM headline.

The expansion was not struck down, the excessive penalty was. The expansion is moving forward, and only a handful of Republican Governors are objecting.

[bvar22]

369. Nobody needs the MSM to explain THIS:

When the Affordable Care Act went TO the Supreme Court,
it contained a MANDATE for ALL states to expand their medicaid Coverage.

When the Affordable Care Act came OUT of the Supreme Court,
it contain NO SUCH MANDATE.
They very carefully stated that if some states wanted to expand Medicaid, they could do so,
but they did not have to.
The Supreme Court Struck Down the Mandate to Expand Medicaid.
Period!


You can use all the twisted and tortured il-logic you want to.
You can continue to Deny Reality and insist that the Mandate to Expand medicaid was NOT struck down in your frantic and embarrassing attempts to make the False appear True,
but you can NOT righteously declare VICTORY for something that hasn't happened,
and may not happen.
That is WHY we have to suit up and play the game.

Things are so much simpler in ProSense World.
"We create our own reality/"---attributed to the Political Propagandist Karl Rove

Edit: To correct a really funny typo.

[Iggo]

315. Not this shit again.

[Savannahmann]

324. Here is the problem, stated simply.

First, we know that businesses are greedy and only concerned about the bottom line. We know that. It is a truth that stares us in the face everywhere. When we increased the minimum wage, McDonald's created machines to replace workers. Now a machine selects a cup, fills it with ice, and then the premeasured amount of soda. Costs remained about the same, but the number of workers dropped. We have all seen examples of that, from the auto industry where machines replaced humans, to the local gas station where there is often one person to oversee all self service operations, from gas to soda.

So we KNOW that the businesses are merely concerned about the bottom line, which is why they hire tons of accountants to find every loophole possible to keep from paying taxes. They put up a Poster about carpooling, and then get a tax credit for it. So those same accountants are even now working the numbers. When they find that it is cheaper to pay the fine for not offering insurance, than it is to offer the insurance, what do we think they will do? They will drop the benefits, tell the employees that the times are tough, and we have to do this. The employees get the shaft, like that is new.

Some will quit, and still have to purchase insurance through the mandate. Others will purchase the insurance, but because the average citizen doesn't have an army of tax lawyers and accounts, won't know how to properly deduct the expenses from their taxes. So the rich get the benefits, while we poor slobs get the shaft, again.

Why do you think they almost never audit the rich people? Is it because we Democrats love them? No, its because when the rich guy shows up, it's with four tax attorneys, and three former agents of the IRS. They can argue the law, and win the argument a vast majority of the time. When we poor slobs get audited, what happens? We show up with a shoe box full of receipts, praying that we don't get screwed too badly. We don't know what rule 9867.5.j.3 says, and we have no idea what the heck all that means. The IRS agent smiles sadly as he pulls the gotcha form from his desk. The rich guys attorney calmly points to the book and tells the IRS auditor "True, but rule 8709.1.a.5 states that there is allowance for a one time deduction for the depreciation of the expendable item.

Do any of you think that all those additional IRS agents are going to be sent out to punish the rich? The rich are still going to have their attorneys and their accountants and the former IRS agents who know the laws. Those agents are coming after us. We will have more requirements to meet, and less money to do it with.

We were screwed by the blue dogs who were afraid of going home and running for re-election. Now we get to be screwed a lot more so that we will get angry enough to demand single payer. In the end, we suffer because our elected officials took the easy way out, and still lost those seats they were worried about. The Repugs still took the house, and we get the stinky end of the stick. If you have an opportunity to score a touchdown, go for it. Don't settle for a field goal. We settled for a field goal, and we had an open playing field, nobody else was on the field. We danced and declared the day of the republican was over. We may win this election, we may not. It depends on a number of things, but you can bet your ass if we lose, then the last four years will be wiped out in four months.

[Zalatix]

329. Yup. The wolf will hunt an unprotected lamb, it's as simple as that.

[gulliver]

332. Left wing concern post from right-wing Murdoch paper.

Divisive, discouraging, bummer post sourced from a right wing paper. Yeah, I won't be reading it.

[Odin2005]

340. Why are you posting WSJ propaganda?

[randome]

350. I and others warned that this was coming, too: another panic post.

[Lint Head]

354. This will just make universal health care more probable.

[2ndAmForComputers]

357. It's no use.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021443240

[arely staircase]

371. stop the presses!

a right wing rag doesn't like the Affordable Care Act? Say it ain't so!

[Capt. Obvious]

373. I for one look forward to your gloating thread

about how you warned us all when robots take over our jobs.