Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was a Republican idea, not a conservative one, so stop mixing the two. Being a conservative not not mean you are a Republican, and being a Republican does not mean you are a conservative.
Many of us Independents and Democrats are confused as to who is actually what.
Used to be that they were the same. When did it change and why? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Right. Pay for something that you can't pay for because you don't earn enough to pay for it.
Sounds like a great solution.
That's what you've been spoon-fed by the media.
Except for exceptional circumstances, like being 70 and having 3 types of cancer, health insurance is available and affordable. I have shopped around for the hell of it using several different states for comparison and all of the plans were quite affordable. (ie. $80-250 month). Is it the best insurance on the planet? Not neccessarily, but with out of pocket maximums, it was much better than nothing.
Are there exceptions? Of course. But I don't buy the whole "its not affordable" argument. It's all about priorities. If insurance costs $150 per month, and you really need health insurance, then you prioritize your spending accordingly.
Millions of American's don't even know how to budget. That they also don't understand their priorities is of no concern to me.
An Individual or Corporate mandate is completely different than what Obama implemented. I have car insurance - it is compulsory. My premiums are based on my driving record and the value of my car. If I am a safe driver and have a 20 year old truck my rates will be lower than a 23 year old kid with tickets and a Porsche. The premiums are independent of income; Allstate doesn't care how much I earn. If I want to participate in their pool I pay their rates.
Health insurance is different. The price of a heart attack is the same for a day laborer as it is for a CEO. Treating a broken arm on a 18 year old kid costs the same as 60 year old man. What is different is that wages fluctuate widely. In a true market economy we could all afford healthcare because the price would equalize to the median income. Individuals would be responsible for the "gas and oil and tires" and insurance would cover the major wrecks. The only way to get to that point is to make participation compulsory. Obama didn't want access for the uninsured, he wanted FREE coverage for the uninsured paid for by the "rich". This is well documented.
That's where it gets tricky. I see a couple of solutions.
First, you can enact a national plan via payroll taxes that covers the big items. Payroll tax based, with lifetime participation. People "change their own oil and replace their tires", and if they get in a "wreck" the national plan kicks in. Anyone could belong to a private plan also. I'd tie the payroll rates to both income as well as controllable medical factors. For example, if you have a high BMI your premiums are higher. That seems fair.
The second is that you offer a national plan but make it optional. However, if one chooses to opt out, they are simply not treated unless they have the funds. This seems cruel on the surface, but its the only way to ensure that the rates for those participating are not subsidizing those who opt out of insurance. Those who believe in liberty can put their money where there trench mouth is. My guess is that most people would join the national plan.
I am baby boomer and have never had any health issues. Looking back at the premium dollars paid, I could have self-insured cheaper, including the cost of my kids. I still weigh about the same as I did in college, walk and exercise, and eat healthy. One incident can wipe out a family. That is why I insure. For what might happen.
Actually, it was a Democrat bill in 1993 as well. Or did you forget about HillaryCare? It was the result of the historic Republican victory in 1994, when they took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, that killed HillaryCare.
In the end it really does not matter whose idea it was. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to impose an individual mandate. As the Supreme Court will undoubtedly remind them this coming June.
The current health care reform act--Obamacare--was the republican ALTERNATIVE to Hilary Care. The democrats were proposing a huge government run program, and what the republicans wanted instead is what we have now--a more free market response, working through the existing private insurance industry. The mandate was held up by ALL republicans (led by Newt) and the Heritage Foundation as essential to making health care reform work. It was proposed as a national program, and then Romney adapted it to Massachusetts.
That is not what the mid terms say;it saysd Obama has pput the death bail i the clinton democrtic aprty. its a red map when you look at state house red on the map which is the future comig to washington. Obama maybe the best thig to ever happen to conservative movement even more than carter.When his spendig bill starts to get apid perhaps those most dependent will hate him the worse of all.
As recently as 4 years ago, Republicans were still proposing the idea of the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE (see Romney & Gingrich). This isn't some Democrat's brainchild that they managed to convince Republicans to support. It's a Republican brainchild that they convinced Democrats to support.
The mandate was the alternative to the Democrat proposal of a CORPORATE MANDATE ie every company had to provide their employees w/ coverage. They rejected current ideas like allowing interstate insurance in favor of the IM b/c it was the best market-friendly alternative to the Democrat proposal.
Now, they're up in arms, rejecting what 10 years they proposed as the BEST market-based way to fix healthcare in this country. Why? B/c it was a Democrat that got it through. So what does that mean for you Conservatives?
It means that they are fighting tooth & nail to undo, what in their eyes, is the best way to fix healthcare using a market-based approach in order to rob a Democrat of a talking point. They are putting politics ahead of your right to get affordable care.
What else does it mean? That if the IM gets struck down, insurance companies are in for a world of hurt. The mandate was their pill to swallow to help control THEIR expenses for being forced to cover things like preexisting conditions. If it gets struck down, insurance companies are still on the hook for the provisions in HC reform, but w/o the individual mandate, who's going to wind up paying for it?
US! So while you're rallying up to rah-rah removing the IM ( which won't dismantle HC reform by a long shot btw...), you're also cheering on being robbed of what your party thought was the BEST solution to fix HC in favor of what they know are crappy alternatives! And then those of us who are insured get to look forward to our premiums going up! Whoopee!
The only good thing that's going to come out of this if the IM gets repealed is that once people see how crappy the HC reform is w/o IM, we're going to be on the fast track to real Progressive HC reform.
Hint: Conservatives do not want any government mandate. Individual NOR Corporate.
I would file this thread under "nice spin try" and tell the Obama administration wonks to suck it up and own their mistakes for just once in their lives.
The current health care reform act--Obamacare--was the republican ALTERNATIVE to Hilary Care. The democrats were proposing a huge government run program, and what the republicans wanted instead is what we have now--a more free market response, working through the existing private insurance industry. The mandate was held up by ALL republicans (led by Newt) and the Heritage Foundation as essential to making health care reform work. It was proposed as a national program, and then Romney adapted it to Massachusetts.
Wrong. What Republicans wanted they got in 1993 - Medical Savings Accounts. No government involvement, tax deferred incentives, and it allowed people to keep their coverage regardless of their job and even between jobs. In 2003 those MSA's were upgraded to Health Savings Accounts which are more widely available.
The solidly Democrat Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might take exception to you crediting a so-called Republican Governor for the law they enacted. Or are you unaware how laws are made?
Nice attempt at revisionist history, but I know better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), you're also cheering on being robbed of what your party thought was the BEST solution to fix HC in favor of what they know are crappy alternatives! And then those of us who are insured get to look forward to our premiums going up! Whoopee!
