Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Bill is '93 Repug HCR Bill (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm still not convinced about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, tassojunior

    the individual mandate -- at least in the absence of a public option or medicare buy-in.  And I think there are probably less intrusive alternatives to solve the free-rider problem, such as  "nudge"-type ideas like having people automatically opted-in but with the ability to opt out.  (See Paul Starr's article: http://www.nytimes.com/...  I also agree with candidate Obama  that the young and healthy would buy insurance if they could afford it, so the free-rider issue is a bit overstated.  And even if not, I'm not totally convinced the infringement on liberty justifies cost savings from having a larger pool -- especially if we're stuck buying coverage from an HMO oligopoly.  

    (I'm totally fine with an employer mandate, though.  Businesses don't have the rights that people have, imo.)  

    Anyway, you'd think the R's would rather get money to the insurance companies but I guess opposing Obama is their number one priority.  

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:33:12 PM PST

    •  alternatives to mandate but not considered (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, JesseCW, Kharafina, Loge

      incredible how little deep thought is in the bill, especially as regards covering the cost of risk spreading.

      Other western countries use risk subsidies to make everyone's premiums the same. How popular would that be ! Catostropic limits with the gov't paying everything over say, $80,000 per year, is a variant of this.

      But was never considered, we have to re-invent the wheel. Have to get that square peg into that round hole.  

    •  According to the CBO, only 1-2 million more (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, kyril, tnproud2b, eXtina, tassojunior

      people are insured with a mandate than without one.

      Candidate Obama was right - the vast majority of people will buy insurance if they can afford it and they trust it to pay out when they need it.

      The mandate is just an excuse to fine working-class people who still can't afford insurance in order to fund the bill.

      'cause you know that you can't change shit by ridin' the fence... The Coup

      by JesseCW on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:13:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  & VT doesn't even have a mandate and yet (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, kyril, JesseCW

        limits premium spread to 20% (rather than Senate bill's 300%) with no pre-existing conditions and guaranteed issue.

      •  Finally. Have looked for this info for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        along time but never have been able to find it.

        One to 2 million - hardly seems like enough to make a dent in the cost.

      •  working class people (0+ / 0-)

        will not be fined. That's yet another lie, but go ahead and continue your line of bullshit.

        Show me on the doll where Rahm touched you.

        by taylormattd on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:44:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry, are you at all familiar with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, tnproud2b

          the definition of the term "working class"?

          Because everyone over 133% of the poverty level will have to buy approved insurance, or be fined.

          In high cost of living areas, most between 200 and 400% of FPL will not be able to afford it while still making the rent or the mortgage.

          'cause you know that you can't change shit by ridin' the fence... The Coup

          by JesseCW on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:53:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They should have used (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo

            a mixture of FPL and HUD fair market rents.

            Say the sum of 150% of FPL and 150% of the HUD fair market rent for an area as the bare minimum.

            They should also take into account student loans, old medical debt, court-supervised support, immigration fees and attorney costs, and car insurance.

        •  Most working class people will not be fined (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, kyril

          simply because insurance even through the workplace will be considered unaffordable.

          10% is the affordability percentage for employee
          employers have to pay 65% to 72% of policy costs

          A policy will cost about $7,000/year for an individual and $20,000 for a family.

          28% of $7,000 is about $2,000
          35% of $20,000 is $7,000

          That means individuals would have to make about $20,000/year and a family $70,000/year to be fined for not buying employer coverage.

          Only about the upper third will be able to afford insurance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site