What this article fails to include in its analysis is that the Public Option WAS the "meeting them half way" middle ground. Conservatives want no government involvement, Liberals want Single Payer. Middle Ground is an insurance based solution with a Public Insurer Option.

Dropping the "Public Option" for the meaningless "Local CooP" option and instead imposing a purchasing mandate on the lowest wage earners is not a compromise. It is the "worst of all worlds". Consider Walmart. The currently have fairly decent healthcare offerings. They USED to not offer healthcare coverage to a parttime workers which made up the bulk of their workforce. They got a lot of flak for that.

So their solution was two fold. They redefined a "full time worker" as anyone working 20hrs/wk or more (3 shifts). THEN they INCREASED the quality of their healthcare insurance so that it was MORE EXPENSIVE. That way these employees were now Eligible, really could not afford it (something like 60% of the worker's salary would have to go to the employee-share of the premium) - which let Walmart not really change who was insured or not.

But under the Baucus plan, all these employees are suddenly REQUIRED to buy this Gold Plated insurance. Why? Because you are not eligible for CooP or pooled insurance if your employer offers healthcare.

This bill is NOT a "compromise". It is a sell out. And if it IS the "WhiteHouse Bill" I damn sure hope it goes down in flames.

I'm beginning to agree with you. Mandated coverage without a public option is nothing but a giveaway to the health insurance industry. They will be free to bend you over and fuck you six ways from Sunday.

The Democrats should stick to their guns on the public option and let the GOP filibuster it.

If this piece of crap makes it through Congress, then it should be vetoed. I could respect that. I'd rather see nothing than to see legislation that only makes the problem worse than it already is.

degsme:

What this article fails to include in its analysis is that the Public Option WAS the "meeting them half way" middle ground. Conservatives want no government involvement, Liberals want Single Payer. Middle Ground is an insurance based solution with a Public Insurer Option.

This isn't middleground public option gives single payer a foothold and is a basis for incremental changes in the future towards single payer.

Dropping the "Public Option" for the meaningless "Local CooP" option and instead imposing a purchasing mandate on the lowest wage earners is not a compromise.

Mandates are WRONG in any plan from Single Payer to insurance reform only.

It is the "worst of all worlds". Consider Walmart. The currently have fairly decent healthcare offerings. They USED to not offer healthcare coverage to a parttime workers which made up the bulk of their workforce. They got a lot of flak for that.

So their solution was two fold. They redefined a "full time worker" as anyone working 20hrs/wk or more (3 shifts). THEN they INCREASED the quality of their healthcare insurance so that it was MORE EXPENSIVE. That way these employees were now Eligible, really could not afford it (something like 60% of the worker's salary would have to go to the employee-share of the premium) - which let Walmart not really change who was insured or not.

Workers who only work 20hrs/wk can afford it if they are working another 20hrs/wk somewhere else. I worked part time retail for year for extra money working 25 - 30 hrs/wk. I know most people depending on the paycheck for a livelyhood work more than 20/wk and if they work retail they are eather a supplemental wage earner for the household, a teenager just starting out in the workforce or a second job to supplement primary income. No matter how you slice it affordable insurance will be equal to or more than a car payment each month.

But under the Baucus plan, all these employees are suddenly REQUIRED to buy this Gold Plated insurance.

I have problems wth requiring anybody to have health insurance it goes against everything America stands for.

Why? Because you are not eligible for CooP or pooled insurance if your employer offers healthcare.

I don't care why the problem with this plan is only in the REQUIREMENT to have insurance. Instead Lets require people to pay for the care they receive and audit the cost of that care.

This bill is NOT a "compromise". It is a sell out. And if it IS the "WhiteHouse Bill" I damn sure hope it goes down in flames.

At this point any bill that REQUIRES or MANDATES individual compliance is a bust for me.

This isn't middleground public option gives single payer a foothold and is a basis for incremental changes in the future towards single payer.

Are you speaking as someone who supports, or as someone who seeks to undermine, single payer?

Degs:

The mandate for everyone to pay up is the backdoor way of raising taxes on the young middle class, without raising taxes. It's a slick move that allows Obama to keep his promise of no taxes on the middle class to pay for the coverage they either don't get by choice or or won't get because they want it for free. So, for $3.8K you get mandated coverage, whether you use it or not. Which, in fact, is essentially the system used in Canada, and Europe, only they call it "taxes," not a "fine."

DvB

@ TexasPete

So, then, you're also opposed to laws requiring all car owners to carry insurance as well?

falcon:

This isn't middleground public option gives single payer a foothold and is a basis for incremental changes in the future towards single payer.

Are you speaking as someone who supports, or as someone who seeks to undermine, single payer?

I am against single payer or any reform that includes a governemnt managed plan.

olethros:

@ TexasPete

So, then, you're also opposed to laws requiring all car owners to carry insurance as well?

Soemhow I don't think I will ever damage sombody else's property if i don't have health insurance. I'll pay whatever bill I need to or it will haunt my credit for the rest of my life. If they told me in my state that to even own my vehicle (even if I never drove it on public roads) that I would have to insure it I would be opposed but since the requirement in my state is in effect only if you drive on public property I have no problem with it. (many ranchers have unregistered trucks they never drive off of their ranck these trucks are not required to be insured nor is the "Garage Queen" project car that never seems to get finished.

I can see the government making insurance requirements for vehicles used in public (it is their property after all) however I am not the property of the US government (which ended when I got out of the military.)

TexasPete:

falcon:

This isn't middleground public option gives single payer a foothold and is a basis for incremental changes in the future towards single payer.

Are you speaking as someone who supports, or as someone who seeks to undermine, single payer?

I am against single payer or any reform that includes a governemnt managed plan.

And conservatives had their chance. For the last 15 years we have been living under conservative theories about healthcare.

• And it has been a collosal disaster.
• And you lost the last election.

Get the fuck out of the way. you had your chance and you fucked it up.

I don't think I will ever damage sombody else's property if i don't have health insurance.

If you don't have insurance, the way big odds are you will. Because even a simple accident like the one I had a few weeks back (broke my bike from useage fatigue) would cost you $10k and the odds are you would have a major event are well above 50%.

And that shoves those costs onto all of us. Because unlike pickmeups, there is no effective way to restrict them to just you. If you are having a heart attack, you will be cared for on the grounds that if you have insurance you would HAVE to be cared for.

So yes, by not having insurance you reduce the pool that the "pooled risk" goes into thereby increasing the net risk of the pool

degsme:

I don't think I will ever damage sombody else's property if i don't have health insurance.

If you don't have insurance, the way big odds are you will. Because even a simple accident like the one I had a few weeks back (broke my bike from useage fatigue) would cost you $10k and the odds are you would have a major event are well above 50%.

And that shoves those costs onto all of us. Because unlike pickmeups, there is no effective way to restrict them to just you. If you are having a heart attack, you will be cared for on the grounds that if you have insurance you would HAVE to be cared for.

So yes, by not having insurance you reduce the pool that the "pooled risk" goes into thereby increasing the net risk of the pool

I simply dont see how it is constitutional to force somebody to buy health insurance. People are "forced" to buy car insurance only if they use their vehicles on public roads people are not public property they are free individuals The constitution has a provision in it that the Government cannot violate your rights even if that right had not been enumerated in the constitution. There is also an amendment outlawing slavery except for punishment of a crime. Isnt it a form of slavery to force sombody to buy insurance? if not it is theft..... either way the government can't do it.

Tyrany is always a bad thing even if the intent is good.

I simply dont see how it is constitutional to force somebody to buy health insurance. People are "forced" to buy car insurance only if they use their vehicles on public roads people are not public property they are free individuals The constitution has a provision in it that the Government cannot violate your rights even if that right had not been enumerated in the constitution. There is also an amendment outlawing slavery except for punishment of a crime. Isnt it a form of slavery to force sombody to buy insurance? if not it is theft..... either way the government can't do it.

Your idea is in direct conflict with the system we have now, everyone gets medical attention at an emergency room, whether you have insurance or not. So not buying any insurance and planning on getting "free" care at an emergency room if you have a major accident or illness is simply gaming the system to your advantage. And there are millions of Americans doing the exact same thing. And our health system is fucked up because of it.

OldGaffer:

Your idea is in direct conflict with the system we have now, everyone gets medical attention at an emergency room, whether you have insurance or not. So not buying any insurance and planning on getting "free" care at an emergency room if you have a major accident or illness is simply gaming the system to your advantage. And there are millions of Americans doing the exact same thing. And our health system is fucked up because of it.

OK then we require payment for services and those that want to "play" the system can do it with full knowlege tehy will have to pay it back with interest. I'll bet with that one change in the law 99% of those who "play the system" will get insurance becuase they will no longer like the odds.

The Tyranny of forcing people to buy insurance is obvious. It will be challenged in the Supreme Court and that requirement will be DOA.

I am extremely uncomfortable with a government mandate to purchase anything. Car insurance is requisite upon using a car, which is optional (one could always opt to carpool or use public transportation or bike). Health insurance is requisite on existing. What if I lose my job? What if money gets tight? It is my right to risk it and stop paying my health insurance so I can buy food... insurance is all about how much risk you want to take (and they want to take on you). I can only imagine the horror of a poor person having very little money, but having to give it to an INSURANCE company instead of whatever personal needs they have (especially the transiently poor who do not qualify for government assistance, like college students trying to find jobs). At least taxes are based on income - how would this sort of requirement play out when some people make very little? An insurance company isn't going to charge you less just because you're broke, like the government would with taxes.

If the government wants money, tax me. But don't even think of trying to tell me how to spend my post-tax income. Once they've taken their share, it's hands-off for the government. You don't get a second shot at it.

Also, I am not buying the "your choices cost me money, therefore I get to tell you what to do" argument. We live in a free society, and everyone has the right to make their own choices, and MONEY should never be a justification for controlling someone's choices. You have the right to tell others not to kill or steal, but you don't have the right to tell them what to spend their money on, or what food they have to eat, or how much exercise they have to get. Living in a free society means living with the fact that sometimes the choices of others negatively affect you, and there's really nothing you can do about it. Unless, of course, you want to switch to a police state.