home

Baucus For Health Care Mandates

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Boy, was I ever wrong about Baucus on health care. Steve M., you were right. Baucus proposes:

Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a health-care blueprint released today that only a mandate could ensure people didn't wait until they were ill to buy health insurance, forcing up the price for everyone. The 89-page proposal revives a debate from the Democratic presidential primaries about how to overhaul the U.S. health- care system. Obama supported requiring coverage only for children, saying adults would buy coverage voluntarily if it were affordable. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York said insurance must be mandated for everyone.

[More...]

"Requiring all Americans to have health coverage will help end the shifting of costs of the uninsured to the insured," Baucus said today in his plan. The requirement "would be enforced possibly through the U.S. tax system or some other point of contact between individuals and the government," he said, without spelling out possible penalties.

Whoa! Baucus is proposing the Clinton/Edwards plan for health care? Who'da thunk it? Not me.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Zero Tolerance For Lobbyists? Um . . . | The Cult Responds >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Baucus For Health Care Mandates | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Substantively. . . (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    this is good.

    Stylistically, I'm pissed it isn't, at the very least, the Baucus/Clinton plan.

    Why are you pissed Stylistically? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    it sounds like if it is someone else's plan that is a problem with you. Why should that be a problem? Do all things have to be Obama?

    I said long ago that the Dems in congress were going to differ with Obama on a number of issues. That is a good thing if the policy is a good thing which in this case it is. Obama was wrong on opposing a mandate to have health insurance and it showed he didn't have a real world grasp on how insurance worked.

    I have always loved the mandate idea because it spreads risk better, which is how insurance is supposed to profitably function, and more importantly it puts us a giant step closer to a One Payer system which should be the ultimate goal.

    Parent

    My comment. . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    had nothing whatsoever to do with President Obama.

    Parent
    OK, so then (none / 0) (#38)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    why are you pissed? You didn't make it clear why.

    Parent
    Because. . . (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    Clinton is being cut out of recognition on this issue.

    Parent
    Ah. I agree with you (none / 0) (#62)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00:50 PM EST
    on that. Another poster below suggested that Baucus is working on Obama's behalf. When you factor Clinton in the poster may be on to something because for all the work Clinton did for Obama he is still reluctant to associate himself with any of her ideas. Maybe Ben Nelson will introduce a HOLC plan next week?

    Parent
    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#17)
    by Coral on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    Passage of something like this would be monumental. And far outweighs any hurt feelings.


    Parent
    Agreed. And let's face it, (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by dk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    everyone with a brain knows that it probably wouldn't have happenned without her advocacy for the issue over the last how many years.  If the Democratic leadership doesn't want to give her any of the official credit for it, that just shows their continued petulance.  It's nothing new.

    Parent
    How do you know? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by hairspray on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:52:10 AM EST


    Parent
    He's said that he's willing (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    to put it through budget reconciliation, which means no filibuster would be possible.  

    Only Max Baucus could go to healthcare. heh.

    Ha! Next up: (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    The Lieberman Iraq Withdrawal Plan.

    Parent
    I wonder if he'll join the Republicans (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    in filibustering the HELP appropriations bill after this passes in the budget.

    Parent
    Hallelujah! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    A liberal Congress!

    There you go again. (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    Never admitting it when you are wrong.. O wait.....

    Anyway... I agree with LarryinNYC that Hillary's name should be somewhere on any plan that calls for mandates.  If she has a signature issue that is it.

    Aw! (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    You are too kind to me.  Mind you, I am certainly no Baucus Cultist - he is way too centrist for my liking overall, but he is a legitimate policy wonk who understands that not everything is a question of ideology.  Sometimes there is simply a right answer and a wrong answer, and in my opinion mandates are one of those issues.

    The only problem, of course, is that Obama didn't simply decline to include mandates in his plan, he actively campaigned against them as though they were the worst idea ever.  Those with short memories can click this link.  So now there's an unnecessary divide that can be exploited by the other side, but oh well, we'll just have to deal with it.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    I expect people like eugene to complain vociferously about the mandates.

    Parent
    Check this out (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    Clintonista hack Paul Krugman:

    This is very big news. One of the key questions about the new Democratic majority was whether Congress would try to play it safe, backing down on big ideas about reform, especially on health care. You can view the whole chorus about how we're still a "center-right nation" as an attempt by the usual suspects to scare Democrats into scaling back their ambitions.

    But now Max Baucus -- Max Baucus! -- is leading the charge on a health care plan that, at least at first read, is more like Hillary Clinton's than Barack Obama's; that is, it looks like an attempt at full universality. (The word I hear, by the way, is that Obama's opposition to mandates was tactical politics, not conviction -- so he may well be prepared to do the right thing now that the election is won.)

    So this looks very good for the reformers. There's now a reasonable chance that universal health care will be enacted next year!

    Mind you, I am not one of the Clinton supporters (although they are out there) who gives a fig for "vindicating" her policies at this point.  Who the f cares, as BTD might say.  But I do worry that Obama's "tactical" opposition was sufficiently strident for it to come back to haunt us.

    Parent

    I've got Krugman in my reader (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    I share your concerns about the anti-mandates monster Obama created.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    I think Obama is smooth enough to explain that he has been educated and convinced of the efficacy of mandates (I don't expect him to say it was all just tactics), but it will be fun to see some of his supproters back themselves off the ledge. If they do - maybe they were really more attached to the non-mandate than he was.

    Parent
    Appreciate your analysis and (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    is it saying, basically, that it was about "doing anything to win"?  A lack of guiding ideology -- principles -- that could mean yet more compromise ahead?  On this and many other issues, perhaps.

    Parent
    who the eff are these Obamacans? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    This was the one single policy I hoped he was lying about in order to win media support temporarily.

    everything else can go freaking hang as far as i care.

    Yeah, even Brennan and  Summers--or rubin for that matter.

    Blue dogs supporting UHC?  yiiiipeeeeecyyyyaaayyyoooo!

    Parent

    Oh I'm sure he will be (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Faust on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:55:08 AM EST
    "Overwhelmed" by congress and be "forced" to sign the bil. Do you seriously believe he will expend bully pulpit time to fighting against mandates if blue dogs decide to jump on board the mandate wagon?

    Parent
    I'm glad this is just tactics. (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:20:29 AM EST
    Still, what an a-hole.

    Think Republicans will trot out Joe the Plumber on this one?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:32:08 AM EST
    I would love to see the GOP try to personalize the debate.  Because it might be an effective message to say, "oh no! Big Government is going to force you to buy health insurance!" but when you actually personalize the debate, good luck finding someone who will stand up and demand their God-given right to go through life without any health insurance.

    It's a big country, and I'm sure you can find someone who not only doesn't want health insurance but will happily agree that if something unexpected happens to them, we can just leave them to die in the street.  But the vast majority of Americans will not be able to relate to that person.  Most people want health insurance to be a given.

    Parent

    There were plenty. . . (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    good luck finding someone who will stand up and demand their God-given right to go through life without any health insurance.

    of such people running around the Democratic primary when Obama was against mandates.  So I'm sure whoever opposes the plan that's eventually proposed will suddenly discover that there is, in fact, a god-given right not to carry health insurance.

    Parent

    yeah he's called Eugene (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    you can find him on Dkos.

    Parent
    Jeez, he actually did post what I thought he would (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    but faster than I expected.

    I really hope he and his fellow travelers don't derail this.

    Parent

    I don't understand these people (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    Do they understand that single-payer would be a mandate?  Do they understand that every single government program that gets funded with our tax dollars is, in some sense, a mandate?

    Do they understand that they are making a right-wing argument?

    Parent

    Well, Obama's base in large (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by dk on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    measure is made up of young healthy single people with disposable incomes, and I suppose there may be an argument that individual mandates might disproportionately penalize them economically (i.e. they are the only group for whom it does not make economic sense, from a selfish perspective, to participate, and will thus feel mandated to paticipate).  They are less opposed to single payer, I would imagine, since it appears to them that the cost of their health insurance would be spread out among the entire tax base, as opposed to the individual mandate approach where, from an optics perspective, it seems that they actually have to bear the brunt of their own insurance themselves.

    In other words, it's greed.  But, as you point out, it is odd that they don't understand that there is likely not much difference in how much they would have to contribute whether we have individual mandates or single payer.  Of course, I doubt that the loudest complainers would really support single payer either if it were more than theoretical.  That's why they are fauxgressive.

    Parent

    Well all these Joe Sixpacks (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    are going to need health insurance to eventually help them cope with their liver problems.  

    I think Baucus is getting us off to a great start in this battle.  But I am sure the GOP will smell blood and I have no doubt Joe the Plumber will appear on Fox multiple times regarding this subject before he gets his own 30 minute show.  Plus I think there are still plenty of people who just don't "believe the government can do this right."  (Take two of my coworkers for instance.  No really, take them.)  We will need to sell it and sell it good.  

    Parent

    I hope it is not a repeat of... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    the auto-insurance mandate, where citizens are forced to do business with an insurance company by threat of fine, and yet the insurance company is free to charge low-income working people and minorities more than rich white folks for the exact same service.

    I guess I'm one of the crazies...I'm not thrilled at the thought of being forced to do business with crooked outfits.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    One thing the Clinton/Edwards plan had was a "public option" where if you didn't like what the private insurance companies were offering, you could buy into Medicare or a Medicare-like program from the government.  The result is that if the insurance companies didn't offer a competitive product, they'd find themselves with no customers.

    I happen to think the public option is essential and I agree with you that requiring people to deal with a private, for-profit insurance company under penalty of law can lead to lots of mischief.

    Parent

    There is going to be a public option (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    From the article posted in the main post:

    Echoing Obama's campaign proposals, Baucus said the exchange should include a new government plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private insurance, as well as subsidies to make coverage more affordable. Except for small businesses, employers that don't offer insurance to their workers would have to contribute to a fund to help cover others.

    Even in Obama's health care campaign plan, there was a public option, but it was not mandated.  Now, it looks like there will be a mandate added on.

    (I was a fan of Hillary's plan and now I like Obama's plan too)

    Parent

    That certainly makes... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    the proposal more palatable...depending on what they end up charging for the Medicare.

    Parent
    Arizona had (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lahdee on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    a proposition on it. Prop 101
    "Prohibits laws that: restrict person's choice of private health care systems or private plans; interfere with person's or entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services; impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participatin in any health care system or plan.
    It was defeated, but not by much.

    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    it's a principle with some appeal in the abstract, but not so much when it's personalized.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    Harry and Louise?  It may be their time again, as Paul Krugman warned about the no mandate component.

    Parent
    Bring 'em on (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    Let Harry and Louise explain to the American people why they would rather go without health insurance than be forced to purchase affordable coverage.  Let them tell everyone how they'd rather not have insurance, even if that means they get left to die if something unforeseen happens.  See how many people will relate to them when they tell that story, my guess is not many.

    Parent
    Of course, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    now that Harry and Louise are 15 years older and probably have greater health care needs, the lovely couple may be singing a different tune. The no-mandatory plan for everyone but children never made sense, going against all notions of insurance and spreading the risk, not to mention assuring coverage for all.  You are right, wouldn't it be nice if we could, essentially, retroactively enroll in an insurance program and save all those premiums until a claim actually arose.

    Parent
    Heh, wouldn't that be amusing (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    H&L commercials supporting mandates, lol!~

    Parent
    oh, I hate that bastard. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    I suggested that he ought to find more gainful employment and stop posting/wasting away on the net how he can't afford health coverage--he called that suggestion a rightwing 'meme'. Me a tireless advocate of the NHS style system.

    when my kids snap back at me when I tell them to get jobs that have a good wage, so they can look after themselves and enjoy life, I'll be disappointed if they call me a right winger.  "These are not the children I once knew" I will quietly think to myself.

    Parent

    Oh, and didn't Kerry (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    say universal healthcare was a non-starter?

    As Tom Friedman might say, "Suck...on..."

    Yes he did, said it was DOA when he (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by nulee on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    was acting as one of Obama's attackers against Clinton in the primary.  I think it was on one of the Sunday shows.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, insurance companies are an integral (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by imhotep on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    part of the plan.  They make money by denying claims and premiums are high because their administrative costs are very high.
    If the government is going to subsidize those who can't 'afford' to 'buy' insurance, why not just put them under the Medicare umbrella.  Lower admin costs and more fair treatment of the client under Medicare.
    Someone mentioned that taking insurance companies out of the health care biz would really increase unemployment and cause a meltdown in that biz.  However, Germany has a thriving non-profit health care insurance industry.

    here's why (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    once you drill into the voters mind that they are supposed to be covered--it will eventually lead to single payer.

    That's partly why obama played to the media.

    Parent

    cont.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    ....by saying he opposed mandates, because the media are partly owned by the private insurance system. They know mandates are the thin end of the wedge that will lead to something like a single payer system.

    Parent
    The Obama plan (like the Clinton plan) (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    prohibits insurance companies from denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

    Mandates were the biggest difference between the two plans and now it looks like all the UHC plans are converging!

    Parent

    Not denying for pre-existing and not charging (none / 0) (#61)
    by imhotep on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    higher premiums for age are parts of Baucus plan.  Ins lobbyists will not go for that and whether Congress can get that into final passage is debatable.
    However, denying claims for new illnesses based on physician-recommended treatments is something that the ins biz does routinely.  Their employees get bonuses for saving the company money that way.

    Parent
    That's definitely something to look into (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    Contact your congress person right away so we can get UHC right.  We have a big window of opportunity to take advantage of and we should definitely take advantage of it.  

    Parent
    Yes, I fear a repeat of what happened in CA (none / 0) (#59)
    by cenobite on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    Mandates are necessary, but the devil is in the details -- they can be just a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

    Here in California we had a legislative effort for UHC that died, and many supporters of UHC, like me, were glad that it did.

    If you legally require everyone to have health insurance, but there are little controls on what that insurance costs or what it has to cover... well, doing nothing is probably better.

    Parent

    The Clinton plan allowed people who (none / 0) (#66)
    by hairspray on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    couldn't/didn't want private insurance an option to join a medicare/like plan.  Is this also in the so called Baucus plan?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    from the article in the main post


    Echoing Obama's campaign proposals, Baucus said the exchange should include a new government plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private insurance, as well as subsidies to make coverage more affordable. Except for small businesses, employers that don't offer insurance to their workers would have to contribute to a fund to help cover others.

    The NYT also has an article on the Baucus plan that is a bit more detailed than the Bloomberg article.  

    Parent

    Sounds just like the Clinton plan. (none / 0) (#96)
    by hairspray on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 07:56:22 PM EST
    So not only did she lose(?) the race, lose the opportunity to spearhead her signature piece as well, but she won't have her name on it either.  That will show her.

    Parent
    To be fair (none / 0) (#99)
    by WS on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    the old (or primary) Obama plan did have a public option but it didn't have a mandate for adults.  It looks like he's revised his position closer to Hillary's plan on mandates and that's a good thing.  

    Parent
    Medicare for all (none / 0) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    makes the most economic and health care delivery sense: wide acceptance by those covered, few complaints from users, years of experience with it, and easily modified for preventative care, and if need be, for universality. However, for political sense, we have to find a way for more people to "profit".

    Parent
    Good for Baucus ... (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    and everyone with half a brain knows you can't get to UHC without mandates.

    Just as SS wouldn't work without mandates.  

    And that's why those of us who care about UHC felt Obama couldn't be serious about the issue if he didn't support mandates.

    now that the man is president elect (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM EST
    do I still have to be polite about him here?
    Obama is serious about one thing...Obama's ambition.  
    It will be interesting to see if he has any real convictions.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    Politeness is always called for.  We should follow the precepts of our Dear Leader BTD in this matter.

    Parent
    all the grown ups are for mandates (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    they know what works.  Will the Obamabots have a fit when Obama goes along with a real plan for Universal healthcare.
    I am predicting no, they will conveniently forget Obama was wrong and pretend it was his idea all along.

    hope so... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST


    Parent
    I predict "no" (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    but we may still mock you for being wrong. And chastise you for not paying close enough attention and being willing to challenge your candidate during the primary.

    Parent
    Mindless support is just that, mindless (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    I didn't agree with Clinton on everything -- I think she's wrong to be against free trade and I think she should stand up more for gay rights by favoring marriage -- and I wrote her letters to tell her so. Candidates and elected officeholders should be able to stand up to criticism.  I hate how people seem to think that Sen. Obama is some delicate flower that needs to be sheltered.

    Parent
    to Obot dmd76 (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    You threw down the gauntlet.  Don't be surprised if someone picks it up.

    Parent
    Obama's position (none / 0) (#85)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    was designed to prevent Republicans to scare people about mandates.  Very waffly, yes, but now the election is over we can support a Democratic plan for health care (not just for Obama and Hillary supporters.)  Democrats are all Obama supporters now (or at least should be) and there's no need to be a sore winner.

    Just acknowledge that Obama (or Obama's primary position) was wrong on health care.  You should be glad that Obama is open to revising his stances especially when he is wrong or took a position for political expedience.  

    Parent

    "we are all Obama supporters" (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    no, we are not and I am still a democrat.

    Parent
    let's talk about the sexism (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST
    caucus cheating and race baiting done by Obama's team during the primary.  Then you can call me anything you like dear, but I am a democrat and for the first time ever I did not vote for the democratic candidate and I will not vote for him again if I ever get the chance.  In fact I will campaign against him in the future (though I will not do it here).  From now on the democrats can NOT take the vote of this woman for granted no matter how much they chant at me about choice.

    Parent
    So very very excited (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    In the article posted, it looks like they just want one mega bill where all ideas are put in instead of competing bills.

    Are we finally getting UHC after all these years?

    Wow, this is great news! (none / 0) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    I hope it means that I was right---that Baucus is acting for Obama, who has changed his mind,  rather than trying to preempt Obama's weak plan.

    Can anyone point me too... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    where I can find the proposals for penalties for non-compliance?  Or the definition of "affordable"?  They never seem to get around to mentioning that.

    Ahh yes (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    I can't wait for the "veto it!" caucus to emerge.

    If the plan gives everyone an option to buy into Medicare, I'm onboard.

    Parent

    it may be affordable (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    and there will be many people who will complain about what the costs are.
    I work in the insurance field, most people do NOT want to buy the insurance when they think they can get along without it, but let them get sick and suddenly "I can't believe no one will give me life insurance just because I now have lung cancer.  I can't believe I can't get  good medicare suppliment and got stuck in this lousy advantage program now that I have had a heart attack"....

    I am sorry, but I am out of sympathy.  You want to be taken care of later by younger healthier people paying for your medical insurance..but you don't want to pay now.  Whatever it is, you can afford it or your will be penalized later when you do try to get in, that is how it works now for medicare.  don't want to pay that 96.40 from your SS check for part B?  Great, try and get it in a few years when you are sick and need a doctor, it's a 10 percent penalty for every year you did not have other creditable coverage.


    Parent

    I understand the reasoning... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    behind forcing everyone to buy insurance, I just question the righteousness of it.  

    A firm answer on what the penalities will be for non-compliance would be nice in order to make a decision as to whether to support a plan such as this or to try and come up with a better one that doesn't involve punitive fines and/or (sun god forbid) jail time.

    A definition of affordable as well would be nice...I know quite a few people living check to check and uninsured, they would have a hard time coming up with $100 per month, or even less.  Throwing a fine on top of it solves nothing..just add the fine to the list of sh*t they are not able to afford.

    Parent

    There will be subsidies (none / 0) (#68)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    based on income.  Putting payment caps as percentage of income would be wise too like in Hillary's plan.

    Parent
    Sounds like... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM EST
    we will need spending cuts in other areas to pay for this plan...steep cuts.

    Parent
    Can be considered (none / 0) (#75)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    a stimulus too.  Its been broken for so long so the costs can seem intimidating but fixing the broken health care system is a major priority.  Like Obama said, these types of programs are an investment on the American people that will reap rewards later on.  

    Parent
    Like I always say... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    if we absolutely must have a massive government doing more than the founders' ever dreamed, I'd rather the money go to things like health-care, education, social services, etc...instead of bombs, prisons, and the DEA.

    We certainly can't pay for it all though...time to make choices.  I could get on board with the NHC stuff if the DEA was abolished and the drug war surrendered.  I can't get behind it if we're just gonna take another loan from China to fund it all.

    Parent

    speculation (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Nasarius on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    where I can find the proposals for penalties for non-compliance?

    On the individual (rather than employer) level, I'd assume the "penalties" would be limited to paying back premiums once you finally need health care of some kind. Need treatment -> get treatment. No insurance? Your details are passed to the public insurance provider, which can then start billing you as appropriate. Of course, it would be simpler if it was just a tax.

    Or the definition of "affordable"? They never seem to get around to mentioning that.

    You're quite right, and that's disturbing. Even John Edwards was pretty vague in that regard. I would hope that the system winds up being similar to Germany, where the public health plan(s) are available for a percentage of your income, or simply free if your income is very low.

    Parent
    Not everyone files tax returns (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpa1 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    So, I don't think the healthcare system can be linked to the IRS.

    Social Security numbers (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    and tax filings aren't hand and glove. So social security numbers could easily be used as everyone has one.

    Or big brother has been trying to figure out how to impose a national ID card on all of us. This may be their big break. :(

    Parent

    that was one problem I always had with (none / 0) (#88)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    H. Clinton's proposal...it seemed like a ripe fruit for the nation ID card people to pick...

    that will probably be part of the compromise...we'll see if the national ID card is for everyone or just people below the top 5-10% of the country's income...

    Parent

    Hope the gu is clean as a whistle. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    The media will attempt to annihilate the poor chap.

    So if this the paid through the IRS (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    would this mean taxes would go up on people making under 250, 150, or 100,000?

    It depends (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    Are you talking about people who have health insurance already, or those who don't?

    If you already have insurance, you're not going to have to change anything unless you want to.

    If you don't have health insurance, then yeah, it's not gonna be free, although it will be subsidized if you're low-income but not quite low enough to qualify for Medicaid.  It won't be paid for by raising taxes, though.  This is each person paying the cost of their own insurance, not some kind of collective effort where we all chip in.

    Parent

    What do you call (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    tax credits if not a collective effort where we all chip in?

    Of course we all chip in. And that chip in should be across the board not just on people who make a lot of money.

    Parent

    Each person paying the (none / 0) (#97)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:15:44 AM EST
    cost of their own insurance.  Yeah, right.

    Parent
    of course that's not possible (none / 0) (#102)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:44:08 PM EST
    when the cost of insurance is too high for many because the pay they receive from their upper class or elite-class employer is not enough...

    the employer keeps more money than maybe they should, thus having a ton of money to pay for insurance and doctors at an extremely high rate, thus driving insurance premiums even higher...

    thus making it harder for your average joe to pay for a doctor or premiums...

    so bottom line?  having corporations and employers pay more money to their employees outside of the President or Administrative offices...
    oh but wait, you'll never find a CEO who can even think about working for less than 1M a year...how could anyone even think about living on that kind of income, it's just not possible with the cost of fuel on a private jet these days...

    Parent

    I realize that there are a whole (none / 0) (#23)
    by eric on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    host of practical and political reasons that this health care mandate is the option being pursued, but I have always thought it was going about things backwards.

    It shouldn't be about forcing everyone to buy into the program, it should be about the government offering a program to everyone.  If the end goal is to get everyone the health care they need, why not just offer it to them?

    Yes, I know, the realities of the way the health care and insurance industries make it impossible, but it still sounds backwards to me.

    not so (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    if the goal is single payer this is a great half way step. Universality should be the core concept. everyone must be covered. this will also allow single payer people to speak up and make UHC look like the centrist position.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    as Baucus said, you need to do something about the problem of people who won't accept the offer until they're actually in need of health care.  Insurance doesn't work if you can wait to buy it until you know you'll need it.

    Let's say we give people the option to buy insurance or not buy it, because freedom's cool, right?  Okay, so I decide that I'm healthy and I'm not going to bother with insurance right now, and tomorrow I get hit by a bus.

    So will society leave me to die in the street - since I made the voluntary decision not to buy health insurance - or is it going to say fine, you made a dumb decision, but we're going to treat you anyway.  Because if the answer is the latter, and in our society I think it is, that's the reason why government has to force me into the system from the get-go.  You can't give people a choice unless we're all willing to let them bear the consequences of that choice, and in this case I don't think we are.

    Parent

    insurance is about spreading out the risk (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    among people.  When only those at high risk buy in the system fails.  You have to get in and pay when you are young and healthy, otherwise why the hell should I help to cover your butt when you are older and sicker?  

    Parent
    it is the basic formulation... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    ....that can also be used later on to argue for single payer too.  

    Parent
    and this is the reason why (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    insurance of all sorts should just be non-profit...

    Parent
    I challenge you (none / 0) (#98)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:17:12 AM EST
    to start an non-profit auto insurance company, co-op or collective.

    Parent
    if it's required then it probably shouldn't be (none / 0) (#103)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:44:58 PM EST
    started by a private investor...

    the government would obviously have to be involved...

    duh...

    Parent

    you want gov't (none / 0) (#104)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    controlled Auto insurance?

    Parent
    Does UHC make a distinction (none / 0) (#53)
    by ding7777 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    between hospitalization, doctor services, and drugs (like Medicare Part A, B, D) ?

    I don't know if Medicare Part D reform (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    will be part of a UHC bill or a separate bill.  But there are plans to significantly reform Medicare Part D.  Also, plans for government negotiations for drug prices are underway as well.  

    Parent
    Part D reform? (none / 0) (#67)
    by imhotep on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    I'd like to see that!
    Do you have a link?

    Parent
    Read about it in a different article (none / 0) (#73)
    by WS on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:28:59 PM EST
    but I found this;

    Part D reform

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#87)
    by imhotep on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    I emailed Waxman about his efforts to overhaul Plan D and put a stop to the drug companies' windfall profits.

    Parent
    Baucus For Health Care Mandates | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment