E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSVisit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Carrie Dann writes: On MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, former DNC Chairman Howard Dean told Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie that a key part of the federal health care bill – the requirement that almost all Americans must purchase insurance or pay a fine – is not essential to the overhaul.
He predicted that the so-called “individual mandate” – which has been called unconstitutional by a group of state Attorneys General who are challenging the new reform law – will be stripped out before the legislation goes into effect in 2014.
“By the time this thing goes into effect in 2014, the mandate will be gone, either through the courts, or because it’s unpopular,” he said. "You don't need it."
Backers of the bill argue that the requirement that all Americans purchase insurance is a central tenet of the overhauled system that brought and kept insurance companies at the negotiating table during the protracted health care debate.
But Dean argued that the mandate only benefits insurance companies, not consumers.
“The truth is that the mandate’s not essential to the plan, anyway,” he said. “It never was essential to the plan.”
Dean, who served as a spokesman for progressive Democrats who advocated unsuccessfully for a public option, was a vocal critic of several parts of the health reform bill throughout the overhaul effort.
He penned an op-ed in the Washington Post in December 2009 blasting the Senate version of the bill, including the formulation of the individual mandate. He wrote then:
“The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders.”
Leave a Comment:
One thing you have to love about Howard Dean is how he can always manage to say something that the media will run with for weeks at a time when he is not responsible for governing anything.
Howard Dean is media catnip personified! ;o)
Sounds alot like some moron from Alaska!
Insurance companies make about 3% profit so just where in hades did he come up with that 30% figure. Insurance has always been about flattening risk over a wide audience. If the young and healthy opt out and all that is left are the unhealthy that have previously been cnsidered too high of a risk costs will skyrocket. The guy is an utter moron.
I love all of you idiots who know nothing about the topic posting on here like you do. Switzerland has one of the best insurance systems in the world and it doesn't have a public health care plan. The countries that do have one have plans that are going broke and it is breaking the country financially. Government health care plans have bloated administrations and politically popular services not necessary to health. The one thing they do tend to do is keep costs down but they also tend to limit care and they are still going broke. Any of you ever had a government plan? I have and unlike most of you I speak from experience......
Sorry Chris- 335678, but you're off base. Insurance companies may post a 3% profit, but that is after they spend 30% or more of our premiums in executive pay & perks, death-panelists whose main job is to look for opportunities to deny coverage, advertising and of course, lobbying activities. That 3% figure is actually the percentage of expenditures that inefficient government run program called Medicare spends on overhead. The other 97% goes to pay health care providers. I'm willing to bet that no Medicare executive would rank anywhere near the top of the compensation charts, which are usually dominated by Health Care and Big Oil executives.
People listen to him because he is smart and sensible. I know that is not something that is high on the priority list of positive qualities for conservatives or teabaggers, but it is something that I, personally, appreciate.
What he's really saying is that, when the mandate is stripped out, the only thing that will save it is a "public option", which is what he wants all along.
With nothing but cost increases, which means premium increases between now and 2014, this will be a real turkey. When the insurance companies are forced to accept unhealthy people, and the young and healthy opt out because they don't want to pay extra to help cover sick people, premiums will skyrocket.
Howard Dean has never been very good at his predictions.
No, most morons from Alaska are smarter than that. Trig Palin would be a genius in this administation. As for Howard Dean, he has a firm grasp of the obvious there.
The beauty of the internet is it gives voice to anyone that equates the ability to move their fingers and type to actual coherent, well thought out, cogent arguments. I thought name calling was only for 7th graders or is this now the national norm for discourse on important issues.
Anonymous finger moving does not qualify a person to have an opinion. I say everyone quit commenting and go read a book or ten then come back when you've moved past 7th grade banter.
Exactly what does your rant qualify as? If you have something substantive to offer, please do so, otherwise read your own post!!!
This is about the bill that will, if unaltered, move us to a socialized healthcare system. It, therefore must be recalled!!
Let's see now. The government can force you to buy health insurance or you will pay a fine (tax). What's next?
The government can force you to buy, and wear, a hat to prevent you from getting skin cancer.
The government can fine you if you eat beef, because cows are bad for the environment (They emit methane, which is 21 times worse than Carbon Dioxide as a greenhouse gas).
The government can fine you if you don't buy an electric car - from GM of course.
The government can require that you ride a bicycle to save on gas.
The government can require you to but solar panels for your house.
Ad infinitum.
There's no limit to what the government can "require" you to buy if the government says it's "good for us" if this is upheld in the Supreme Court.
This system already works in Australia - if you don't buy Private Health Insurance until certain age you have to pay Medicare Levy...
I guess Dean expects that rather then have people being forced to buy insurance, the government can just pay the way through more deficit spending. Either that, or pass a law that makes doctors work for free.
Unfortuately Dean is right. And what that means is no one has to buy health insurance until they get sick and do the math to decide if it's cheaper to pay the medical bills or the insurance premium bills. That will cause the health insurance market to collapse and then the lefty liberals will have achieved their dream: govt run health care with the efficiency of the DMV and the compassion of the IRS. Of course, the rich will still be able to go to the best doctors and hospitals because they can afford to pay for it. It's only the middle class and the poor that will have to go to the civil servant doctors and govt hospitals.
Joe,
I hate to tell you this, but the service provided by health insurance companies collapsed long ago.
So if you mean the current for-profit health insurance company boon doggle we have today will collapse, then that day can't come soon enough.
The only way to make money off of sick people is to deny them care.
Not a good look.
Not sure who thought making money off of sick folks was a good plan in the first place . . . hasn't turned out so well.
As always, your concern lies more with the welfare of behemoth insurance companies than with all of the folks that they are supposed to be serving.
You never did give me that conservative solution to corporate misconduct . . . love to hear your ideas.
Well now, this is an interesting concept from somone who previously posts to point out that democrats are stupid now admitting that--wait for it--democrats are brilliant.
I always wonder what your vision of the future health care system is Nash. There are no good options to get from where we are to what? We have an aging population so the demand will increase. Is the funding? Is anybody going to make the hard decision that $100 invested in health of children is better than $100 invested in the health of the elderly.
For the life of me I cannot understand why you think a command and control system with a fixed budget and regulated by bureaucrats will be superior to the current system. I am no fan of the current system but your wish to tear it down is pretty depressing when you don't put anything in its place. The current reforms as envisaged in the HCR are no improvement overall, too much lee way to government regulators which will come back to bite you when a different administration is in charge. Although there are parts that i would keep overall the bill is a bust.
Alan,
A "command and control" system with a "fixed budget"?
Isn't that what we have now?
I mean our current system features for profit health insurance companies, many receiving government subsidies (also known as MY MONEY), who can legally and without fear of retribution ration care, decide which drugs you can and cannot receive, decide which doctors you can and cannot see, decide not to pay your claim just because they don't want to, even if you have paid your premiums faithfully for years, decide to prevent you from purchasing insurance in the first place if they see no opportunity to profit from you, raise your rates by any percentage they want, cut your services by any percentage they want, and no matter what the state of the economy is, somehow they ALWAYS make a profit.
Please describe a system that is worse than that Alan?
We have nowhere to go but up.
Joe
Actually, I've never had bad experiences with either. And last year I forgot I was eligible for Obama's tax cut when I filed my 1040 and they sent me a check for the amount I overpaid without my asking for it. But go ahead, Joe, continue to demonize governmnet agencies doing the work necessary to keep the United States funcitoning as a nation.
"Well now, this is an interesting concept from somone who previously posts to point out that democrats are stupid now admitting that--wait for it--democrats are brilliant."
Jody, if you consider your beloved Democrats being devious, underhanded, and the Democrat President of the United States lying to the American people ("If you like your insurance and your doctor, you can keep them under my plan"), "brilliant", I"m going to have to ask you once again:
What kind of drugs are you on?
BTW, why do you think the word "rat" is included in the word "DemocRAT??
"who can legally and without fear of retribution ration care, decide which drugs you can and cannot receive, decide which doctors you can and cannot see, decide not to pay your claim just because they don't want to, even if you have paid your premiums faithfully for years, decide to prevent you from purchasing insurance in the first place if they see no opportunity to profit from you, raise your rates by any percentage they want, cut your services by any percentage they want, and no matter what the state of the economy"
I thought for a minute you were describing the British NHS, but on closer inspection you are worried about how to pay for treatment not like the British system where you are denied treatment.
Alan,
Our current system denies folks access to care . . . so what is your point?
There you go Joe, can't see who's actually pulling the levers. If someone makes you change doctors it won't be Barack Obama, it will be your insurance company. If someone decides to change insurance providers it won't be Barack Obama, it'll be your employer. Those things happen every day in our present world, but with much lower levels of accountability and responsibility on the part of the insurance companies. There's no lie there--the government WON'T make you change doctors. The government WON'T make you send your premium checks to a different company.
Those things might be considered "socialized medicine."
According to Dean, the only part of the law that needs to go is the mandate that everyone buy coverage or be fined?
The HCRA removes pre-existing conditions and makes health insurance guaranteed to issue....so take a chance, don't get coverage, then, if you start feeling sick or become symptomatic of some disease, run out, buy the coverage and the insurance company will have to pay the claims. Then, when you're better, quit paying? And that is going to be affordable?
An outpatient surgery can easily hit $40,000 in bills. You're going to promote it so that someone can pay 2 months premium (and you all expect that premium to be $90/month) and ring up $40k in bills? How long can that system sustain itself?
Dean either didn't pass 3rd grade math or he's a complete idiot
"Dean either didn't pass 3rd grade math or he's a complete idiot"
Dean is a highly educated Medical Doctor. He is also a lefty liberal Democrat. Which only proves you can be highly educated and still be an idiot. Further proof of this concept is our current President.
Joe in Albany-1902257:
You prove every time you post here that far-out fringe rightwingers like you are always idiots.
Dear Joe in Albany:
Are you suggesting that the insurance companies are more efficient than Medicare? Check the stats; only about 70% of what they spend goes to health care providers. The figure for Medicare is 97%. Are you suggesting those companies are more compassionate? Their profitablilty is based on denying coverage; Medicare does not have any pre-exisiting condition exclusion policy. You are buying the myth that the free market is always better, when in fact there are times when it is far worse.
W.N. Are you aware that Medicare's own actuaries say it's payment liabilities owe $38 TRILLION more than the money it has coming in??
Got a TRILLION or two dollars to put in the pot for that??
Medicare and Social Security are two govt sponsored Ponzi schemes that would make Bernie Madoff blush with shame.
The Democrats aren't brilliant. But if you spin the roullet wheel enough times it will eventual come up red 7. But look at the optimistic side. If the Health Care Bill is rejected the Democrats will have more money for those useless Stimulus Bill studies for their college professor buddies. We don't have one to study skunk (congressional) mating habits. We will need at least $42 million and it should create or save at least 1,000 jobs.
Wrong. Your insurance company doesn't decide which doctors you can and can't see.....the doctors themselves decide which negotiated rates they wish to accept.
Medicare has the lowest negotiated rate per service of any agreement a doctor accepts. It is estimated that hospitals have to overcharge insurance carriers 20-25% to make up for the loss they take by treating medicare patients.
Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the crooks in Washington have decided that doctors and hospitals should be paid LESS for treating someone with Medicare.
Doctors do NOT have to accept medicare...and, at least in my state, we're seeing doctors already opt out of seeing medicare patients.
So John in Des Moines.....you're statement is incorrect. Obama is to blame for the seniors losing access to their doctors.
Ironic, the mandate was a GOP concept going back years, Grassley played a big part in getting it in the Senate Finance bill, some but not all democrats supported it. Pres Obama did not compaign on a mandate but listened to the concept during the debate, determined it reasonable, and decided that if it took a mandate to get it passed, he could live with it.
What I find amusing is republicans WANTED the mandate UNTIL they decided it was a great election weapon--how dare government force anyone to buy something. Grassley is on tape in 2009 cheering the aspects of mandated health care he fought to include; in 2010, on tape he declared it an evil socialist, government plot.
You beat me to that comment Jody. Grassley worked really hard to get that component into a plan that he never intended to vote for. I'm not sure that wasn't a poison bill from the beginning. If they could get a nice gift for their pals in the insurance industry that's great, otherwise at least they'll have a club with which to beat the Democrats. Maybe both.
I'd be interested to know how many of this week's Missouri voters are in favor of HCR but against that particular aspect.
The irony is that, when it was first proposed in January of 2009, the bill contained a strong government OPTION. There was no mandate. There was just a government-run alternative that would provide more competition in the market. Public opinion then was two to one in favor. As the bill was watered down and viral factoids spread through the media ("death panels," etc.), support eroded.
Imagination is a wonderful thing. Now the Republicans were for the insurance mandate. Ok and they are really for the Cap and Trade bill too. A good fantasy life can be a wonderful thing for some people
As an attorney who is very well versed in constitutional law, I can't see how the mandate will survive a court challenge. It is a huge stretch to rely on the commerce clause. It's even a bigger stretch to rely on the general welfare statement too. Also, cannot call this a tax, because ultimately, we all have a choice whether to pay taxes, in that you have a choice whether to work and hence pay income tax, whether to buy something and pay sales tax, or own a home and pay property taxes. Also, can't rely on the auto insurance analogy, because you have a choice there too...don't own a car and therefore don't have to pay car insurance. At no time in US history, has the gov't said, you gotta buy X, or else you get fined. Therefore, the only real solution to health care reform is the scrap the entire current insurance system, and go single payor.
Interesting take Pat . . .
I'm not sure I understand the part about having a "choice" about whether to pay taxes, seeing as most folks don't grow their own crops and such, we are forced to purchase things and need an income to make such purchases.
It is the rare human who never requires medical care. . . and illness does not care whether you are insured or uninsured, rich or poor.
Under the health care reform measures, if you cannot afford to pay, you will not only NOT be penalized but receive access to highly subsized, affordable care not currently available.
The penalties being incurred are less than it would cost you to buy insurance.
I find the concept of this being "unconstitutional" somewhat of a stretch.
If we are going to be uber technical and go down the "choice" road, then I suppose you could choose to live in another country if you found these minimal requirements so incredibly onerous.
So there is your choice.
Pat, I couldn't agree more. There are consequences of using any means to reach an end. If this passes constitutional muster then as I see it there are no limits on federal power. Why stop at a health care mandate? Why not fine people for being obese as that affects the economics of health care premiums.
It is interesting in an era where an out of control private sector as brought this country to its knees, it is the specter of the government trying to offer relief with some of the most incremental changes in history that is scary for some.
Incredible.
Pat, it appears that we are in agreement that the ClunkerCare HCR law is unconstitutional. I'm just curious as to why you think the Dem brain trust in Washington would pass an unconstitutional law that 60 percent of the country didn't support?
Joe - they only added the insurance mandate to please the repugnants, none of us cared if that was in the bill. And if you are worried about rationed healthcare you must have been worried quite sick over the past 20 or so years, because that is exactly how long it has taken the insurance industry to ration every bit of care you receive - they tell your doctor what tests, treatment, and medicine they will pay for, so if your doctor is a good doctor (and mine is) he explains to you that there are other treatments, tests, and medicine if you prefer to pay out of pocket, if not then you have to go the insurance route - which most of us choose, even if it is not in the best interest of our health because we can't afford to pay the out of pocket for the best care that the insurance company will almost always deny you. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the devil may be an attorney but the attorney's handmaden is the health insuance industry and their children are repugnants!
"Why not fine people for being obese as that affects the economics of health care premiums."
Alan,
Better yet fine the food industry for poisoning our food with chemicals and additives that causes obesity. For people with a moderate income level you could argue that it is a matter of choice but for poor it is rarely a choice. I suggest a few documentaries to enlighten you on the subject.
Killer at Large: Why Obesity is America's Greatest Threat
Food Inc.
If you take the time to learn a bit more about this you will in turn understand the correlation between the Health Care Industry and the Food Industry
Tell me counselor, how can you use a clause which governs commerce to force people who are not engaged in health insurance (commerce) to do so. That is like saying you can use the traffic laws to force a person who has no automobile to buy one. You can not use a law that regulates commerce to force someone who is not engaging in commerce in a certain area to engage in that commerce. That is the major point of the judge in Virginia. You are right that there is nothing in the Constitution that permits the government to compel you to buy something in order to life in the US. The compulsion to buy something has always been for a privilege granted. Health Care was sold to us by the Democrats as a right. If is a right, how can you be required to purchase something to get it.
yup. single payor. hide the premium. everybody gets care. it's the only way it'll work. the current system is unsustainable.
we fund the army that way. something we all need. hard to convince individuals to pay for.
Howard Dean is correct that the stinking corrupt conservative insurance mandate is as good as Dead Before Arrival. I never ever wanted the insurance mandate because it was the corrupt conservative concept that only would allow the thieving insurance companies to steal from all of us to pump up the bonuses of the corrupt conservative insurance executives. Better believe that in 2014 if the insurance mandate kicked in insurance companies would not pass along the savings to us consumers.
As a Liberal from California I'm just waiting for there to be an anti-insurance mandate proposition here so I can vote to kill the insurance industry's big ripoff insurance mandate. I voted for Obama over Clinton mainly because she was for the insurance mandate while Barack backed universal health care and in the end Obama wimped out on universal health care and the public option compromise while allowing the insurance mandate to fly through. Sorry Obama but I won't be forgetting that broken campaign promise anytime soon nor will Liberals and Labor who he has taken for granted too many times.
I'm surprised that the corrupt conservative insurance industry isn't ramping up lobbying afforts to save the insurance mandate considering what a windfall profit it would represent. Bet that the insurance industry thieves will wake up before long and push for it to remain.
Eric, you mention the "corrupt conservative concept". Did you forget that Republicans were left out of the process? It was done behind closed doors in the WH and in Democratic closed door sessions. So, put the blame where it belongs.
I guess people see only what they want to see. If there was not Republican input on the HCR bill we would have ended up with a public option and a much stronger reform bill. There were many compromises made in order to get Republican votes. Then the Republicans said "gotcha!" and didn't vote for it anyway. Same goes for the Financial Reform bill. And then people like you forget about all that and whine about not being included.
Dear dirt - I'm really tired of the old Republican whining about how they were left out of the process. The Senate Committe that drafted the bill was made up of equal number of senators from both parties. This, despite the fact that the Democrats had the majority and could have stacked the committee in their favor. Many of the amendments offered by Republicans, incluiding the mandate first proposed by Grassley wound up on the final bill. The President invited the Republican leaders to a televised workshop in the White House to get their ideas. In the end, they all voted against it. The reason is that the Insurance companies opposed it, and besides they did not want to give Obama political capital. It's perfectly o.k. to disagree with the bill, but it was passed by a majority of the people we elect to make laws, including 60% of the Senate. Elections have consequences; one of which is that the party that wins gets to govern.
Dirt, don't you know that this is an election year. If the Democrats propose something and it is a huge flop then it becomes a conservative or Republican idea. If that does not work then you blame it on Bush.
Sanabria, your need to check your facts. The Senate subcommittee does not have an equal number of senator from both parties. There are more Democratic senators, the Democrats control the witness list before the committee, and all Republican amendment suggestion were either turned down or table by the chairman. The President's workshop did not include any "give and take", the Republicans were there to listen only. They had NO input into the legislation. The same bill which Obama said during his campaign should not include a government option. Then once elected he went back on. Many of the deal for this bill were done behind closed doors. During the election, Obama promised that all the negotitaions would be televised. The reality was none of them were televised. This has been a sneaky back room deal. Then when the people showed they obviously did not want THIS bill, the Democrats still crammed it down the collective throats of the American people. So when the American people rebel, we are told we are being unfair.
Doctor Dean is just telling the truth. The mandate is basically unenforceable. Of course this means that premiums will go through the roof as there are now less healthy people to offset the increase in costs from patients with pre-existing conditions.
Even with all the "health people to offset the increase in costs", the costs continue to skyrocket, and fewer and fewer people have access.
So that doesn't really seem like a cause and effect relationship to me.
Cause - pre-existing condition mandate in effect. Effect - premiums rise. Cause - Kids on Parent insurance until 26. Effect - Premiums rise for all in family plans. Cause - Breast Cancer Diagnostics mandated to be "free" with no-copays for all woman over 40 (even though science has come to the opinion that it should be 50). Effect - all premiums rise to cover mandate
The dumb thing is Nash is that somehow this has to be paid for whether its in the private sector or in a single payer system.
Alan,
I agree, it does have to be paid for, thus the mandate to insure yourself or pay a penalty.
If they take out the insurance mandate for individuals, they also have to take out the mandate that emergency rooms have to treat the uninsured. I wonder who has the stomach for that??
Just because you think it is a good idea. It does not mean you can pass something unconstitutional.
It was funny last week watching Republican Senator Chuck Grassley against himself on the individual mandate. On one side of a split screen, showed him arguing in favor of the mandate a few years ago when the REPUBLICANS proposed it, and on the other side it showed him attacking the mandate as a sinister government overreach.
It was kind of like watching Steven Colbert when he does his "Formidable Opponent" routine. I can't remember if Grassley was wearing different color ties like Colbert does so you can tell the opponents apart. Maybe all Republicans should do that so we know which side of their mouths they're talking out of at any given time.
BTW: Last year, I, too, pointed out that the individual mandate was for the benefit of the insurance companies, which are the clients of the Republican Party. So if the Republicans want to deprive their clients of this benefit, I wouldn't particularly object. But it would make a public option absolutely necessary to keep insurance rates from skyrocketing.
Gee Houston! maybe we could do the same for President Obama arguing against the mandate before he signed into law. Wouldn't that be a riot on the Daily Show?
It would be, except Obama came out and stated he changed his mind and gave reasons why. The Republicans act like they never wanted a mandate. Obama owned up to his flop. Republicans aren't.
Obama was opposed to the mandate but accepted it as part of a compromise. He was bargaining in good faith. Grassley, who lied about Death Panels like Sarah Palin did, was bargaining in bad faith throughout the negotiations on the health care bill.
And Yeah? is right: Republicans don't seem to have caught on yet that somebody invented video and audio recording devices that can capture them flatly contradicting themselves.
I support universal healthcare, but what good is a mandated coverage clause if there is no control on the amount that an insurer can charge for the coverage or limit on what deductible that they can demand? My employer bought an insurance coverage that requres me to pay $3500 up front before my insurance pays a single dime and if I had family coverage, the amount would be $7000 and even then, they will only pay 80% of usual and customary charges, what ever that means.....and for that honor, I pay a couple hundred dollars a month. No wonder the kids say....I'll take my chances. That is why they don't buy insurance - there is very little possibility that they will get anything back for the money that they pay in.
Better than wasting time on enforcing a mandate would be to enact legislation to limit the deductible that an insurance company can demand, eliminate annual maximums and make sure that "reasonable and customary" calculations are both reasonable and customary. Then kids would see the value of paying in to something that they currently get nothing out of unless they have a major illness.
As for the constitutionality of it all....the argument is nonsense. We pay MEDICARE - an insurance plan - out of our paychecks every week and we won't see th value back from that for years.
I reallydon't care if they paid for health care by a tax or let private insurance handle it, but I want everyone to be able to be secure in the knowledge that if they become ill, all they have to worry about getting better. I want a system where the ill don't suffer the double hit - lost portion of their lives while they are ill along wiht lost wages, and then tons of debt afterwards from medical expenses not paid by insurance - even though they had insurance.
Solve that Mr. President. Work on that Congress. Then neither of you have anything to worry about in the next election. You will all be elected by acclamation. But keep expending time and efffort on silliness like how you are going to collect the money with silly "mandates" and we will lose all patience the the lot of you and elect a crew that will get the job done.
Well said Pat.
Pat:
That's an excellent point that I haven't heard raised before. If the Supreme Court throws out the mandate on constitutional grounds, then Medicare would have to go, too. I don't think that would be a very popular move.
I absolutely agree that the mandate benefits insurance companies and not conusumers. What's getting lost here is that SOMETHING needed to be done, so they did what they had to do. Hopefully the mandate comes out and the public option goes in. That is the way it should have been done in the first place but there was so much going on through the whole health care debacle with the death panels and what not that they needed to get some key elements in place.
Health care should be a right not a privilege.
You people are not very bright
"Health care should be a right not a privilege."
Actually it is a service like any other. Just because you think it should be a right doesn't make it so. Here try this Owning a 52 inch flat screen should be a right not a privilege. See now the government should mandate that all you libs have to subsidize my 52 inch flat screen.
I've said it once and I'll say it again to all the brain dead out there health insurance does not equal healthcare you can get care without insurance.
"ve said it once, and I'll say it again to all the brain dead out there health insurance does not equal healthcare you can get care without insurance."
This remark simply exemplifies, just how full of it you really are. I don't have insurance. I don't have a job and can't afford it. When visiting my mother, I passed out for lack of food and exhaustion when I came too my mother in a panic had called for an ambulance. I argued with the paramedics that I didn't want the care because I couldn't pay for it. I refused to sign a statement allowing them to take me to a hospital. When I refused, they called the sheriff, who said either I went to the hospital willingly or he would arrest me. Not wishing to be arrested, I went to the hospital, I was too weak to argue. At the hospital I asked to be discharged so not to receive treatment and an expensive bill. I was eventually let go after half an hour, but not until after I was billed about $2500, which I didn't have and had to spend months finding the money to pay for. I never received medical care, just a bill.
The present system is designed to protect vested interests not the sick or the poor. Buy into the republican bullsh_t at your peril.
So even without insurance or a job you could've gotten healthcare even you admit it. Just because you refused it doesn't mean you couldn't get it. Yet I am the one who is full of it. The bills from a hospital can be paid in small increments so don't give me the whole I can't afford it sob story. I never said I was a rebublican anyway I am a libertarian and think both parties are a joke I just think the repubs were on the right side of this issue.
The mandate idea was a badly cobbled-together and ill-conceived substitute for the public option. It would take a heck of a stretch for a judge who is reasonably familiar with commerce clause jurisprudence to find in it the authority for congress to require that I make a contract, as distinguished from the regulation of interstate contracts already in existence. If such judge exists (probably in the Ninth circuit, where the crazy ones are found) our right-wing Supremes will have no trouble reversing the decision.
The only solution to our dysfunctional health care system is to do what every other civilized nation has done-- universal health care.
Are the states suing because of the mandate clause, going to include Medicare in the lawsuit? The law mandates that money for Medicare comes out of every paycheck whether we want it or not.
Not essential? Forcing all those healthy 20-40 year olds was just a major part of paying for the "overhaul". By forcing this group to get insurance instead of paying directly to doctor (much cheaper for them) was how the "poor" were to be paid for. Not to mention the rate hikes and taxes on the "rich."
Why then did DEMS take this to the wire over this "force"provision? LOLOL Mr. Dean. From the DEM point of view. The "pre-existing conditions" ban could have been bi-partisan. Without it, it will bankrupt us just that much sooner.
Steven, good point. We needed to start somewhere. The HCR is not perfect, but it's a start to be built upon. A profit based healthcare system will always care more about the bottom line. Radical maybe, but if you took the massive profit out of the system, costs would go down. As Americans, we don't seem to like changes, but healthcare is area that needs change. We're all one major illness away from bankruptcy even if we have insurance. That's a travesty. It's scary.
That's really disappointing.
Every time some schmuck goes to the Emergency Room because they failed to invest in insurance, who pays the bill? I do--along with all the other responsible (i.e., stupid) citizens who do the right thing by safeguarding our financial well being in the event of illness.
Remove the mandate and you essentially strip the only substantive part of the bill. It's back to square one, thanks to the bloviating teabaggers.
Smart thinking, Gary. Put aside $10,000 in case you break an arm. Set aside $30,000 in case you need heart surgery. And save up a million just in case you get a brain tumor.
So every person that goes to the emergency room without insurance doesn't pay the bill? Where do you get these statistics? I have no insurance and have been to the emergency room before but I did a little thing called paying the bill. It was nice it was only a one time payment for a service rendered instead of a monthly fee to an insurance company. I don't care if you think it is irresponsible to not have insurance I refuse to give my money to something I don't want or need.
Without the insurance mandate the economics of the whole program collapse, and they were not good to begin with.
Insurers cannot exclude for pre-existing conditions. So now people will simply wait until they're being driven to the hospital to obtain insurance. For the uninitiated, the concept of insurance is in simplistic terms a pooling of funds by everyone in the group to cover the costs of the few who encounter a problem. It is not to cover people who do not have funds in the pool. Dean certainly should know this.
Yet another Dem total disaster.
You mean yet another Republican disaster, since they're the ones who not only were FOR the mandate before they were against it; they were the ones who proposed it in the first place.
I am a Republican and I was never for socialized health care and mandated coverage. I'd just as soon see the weak piled up by the roadside like all good conservatives would. Hell, with all of the starvation, homelessness and medical issues, I'd have figured the pile of dead bodies to be much larger by now.
I am about as fiscal conservative as they come social moderate so my views reflect that moderate view and fiscal responsibility view. The truth is you can not cover all people and not have a single payer system it just can not be done. So if you want universal health care which 70 % of Americans say they do not want then there are two choices. You are obligated by law to carry health insurance with out exception and everyone pays into a system either run via private company that America an own stock in and receive a payout from or you turn it over to the GOV which has never ran any program ever in the history of the USA either effectively or efficiently or within a promised budget. Now to afford this it would require every one to pay an income tax not just the 40 % that pay it now but everyone. That extra money would insure the soundness of the system. Not like Social Security which is a total fraud and ponsi scheme. But insurance in the hands of the GOV and you are guaranteed to have a failed system. Find one just one system of the GOV that actually works either efficiently or effectively. You will never be able to force Americans to buy a product they do not want to buy. It is unconstitutional and they and everyone else knows it.
We are a free market based society we are not socialist so if you have single payer and universal coverage which is by the way a disaster in every country it has been attempted in you would have to change the US Constitution to allow the GOV to Dictate the purchase of something you do not want to buy. It isn't going to happen.
If insurance companies must offer coverage to all individuals, we cannot let them wait until they get sick and buy in until they recover and then drop out as Dean would like. For this to work all people have to be covered . Its like leeting a person diagnosed as terminally ill buy all the life insurance he wants.
It is sort of strange that insurance companies, who have the most to gain from a law requiring people to buy their product, are so adamantly opposed to it. Even if they can't pull all the dirty tricks they want to, they'll still make a fortune. Is insurance really just a scam, one that can't survive if forced to behave ethically?
Sharks have survived a long long time, with narry a dental plan. Squirrels thrive without the capacity to protect their nuts, ON PAPER. Armies of ants realize a healthy existence without a concept of "insurance," and though their homes are routinely trodden on by beasts such as us.
Our grandparents and great-grandparents; how many of those proud, respected, contributing, community-minded souls were SHACKLED by the obscene concept that is "insurance?"
When those things good and natural find and embrace "insurance" that is likewise good, natural, balanced, sustainable, and couched in the concept of TRUE reciprocity, then, and only then, may others suggest--with any semblance of credibility, and stewardship--that we might consider joining that sound and proven system. But unless and until such is made manifest, get serious! Even lemmings balk when they KNOW they are in a line that leads to oblivion.
my car insurance is a good value. my home insurance is a good value. my term life insurance is a fairly good value. my health insurance is a good value, especially when i look at the $14,000 bills from my recently broken foot. if multiple parts of my body had been broken, all my savings, home and cars would be a risk. insurance puts stability in my future at a reasonable cost.
without insurance, we would see many many cold blooded scenes that one only sees in the slums of 3rd world countries.
as a species squirrels thrive. for the individual squirrel it's survival of the fittest and where am i on the food chain? you probably haven't seen too many fur piles where a fox had a meal, but you have likely seen road kill.
you jk, are not a species, but an individual squirrel.
you may take your chances, but don't look to me to scrape together the pieces.
People should not be forced to buy health insurace. On the condition that when they turn up at hospital fro free treatment, they only get treatment upto the amount of cash they have in their pockets and/or the amount they have on their credit cards.
If the fox wins his meal at my expense, then so be it. That's natural--and healthy. But if my fellow squirrels craft to EXTORT the fruits of my labors, auspiciously so that I may retain SOME of those honorably acquired fruits, do not expect me to quietly acquiesce.
As for me taking chances, then looking to you "to scrape together the pieces," I'm quite certain I have never asked.
When the only air available is polluted, yes, I will breathe that air until I succumb. But I will not delude myself that it is a healthy existence. And I will do what I am able to rid myself of the source of that pollution.
test
Have had healthinsurance going back to when I started working.
Have had various plans from various companies.
They have all worked effortlessly paid the bills that had to be paid explained anything that we didn't understand etc.
I think this is how health insurance works for most which is why doing this debate most people who have health insurance didn't want Obama care as they were satisfied with what they have.
The fixes should not only included helping the uninsured but also a program to reduce the cost as the big issue with our medical care system is the cost.
If the cost curve was lower more individuals would be able to get health insurance and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
When I was growing up virtually everyone had medical insurance as business could give it to all their employees and pay it 100% the cost structure has gotten way out of whack.
I was with a friend who was a Dr and he said that due to the fear of litigation he as a Dr is forced to order extra tests to cover himself even though they are not needed.
Yes some fixes needed to happen which is where I government should have concentrated in the first place not a wholesale revamp and possibly ultimate takeover.
As is evidenced by Massachusetts the current law will totally bust the federal budget just as it has in Mass.
Fine, do away with the mandate. Here's what should happen to people who won't buy coverage, as it's not a high priority for them. No more free health care at the ER. They would not be allowed to file for bankruptcy and their paychecks will be attached to pay their debt. seize any assets they own for payment. Many of us are sick of picking up the tab for irresponsible young people who would rather take a cruise then buy health insurance. If they get sick or hurt in accident, we'll they lost the gamble. Let their credit be ruined for life.
Fine also do away with medicare and social security because we young people are tired of paying for a bunch of old geezers who are taking up space. You make the point that the reason people don't have health insurance is because they are irresponsible however the simple fact is some people can't afford it. You do realize that the young people you are refering to are the ones that pay for anyone who is on social security now and will see no benefit for it when they get old enough to collect. Many of us are sick of douche bags who think they know what's best for everyone else. As far as credit goes who needs it? People like you might think a credit score determines a persons worth but it is just a meaningless number so get bent douche bag.
It must suck to be at the bottom of the socio-economic pond. That mud vein full yet?