Wow... just... wow.

Question: It appears I may be eligible for ACCESS, which is for low-income families and is paid for by (drumroll) state taxes, I wonder if this would exempt me from that ungodly idiodic provision as Devo quoted (Also, source of that?).

But seriously, if they include any sort of 'mandate' like that in the bill, I'm ... well I'm sure what I'm going to do. I AM going to, however, call my reps and senators to oppose this particular rider (and push for supporting a public option but LOL REPUBLICAN SENATORS).

I said it months ago but it bears repeating: FUCK THIS BILL

More like LOL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WHO AREN'T REALLY DEMOCRATS. The Republicans make up the majority of the opposition, but damn it, we should have been able to pass this thing without fear of a filibuster.

And yes, this mandate is definitely in the Baucus bill, and that's being voted on tomorrow. It was actually worse before it got amended a bunch of times. The fine for not buying into private insurance used to be double what is being proposed now, and because of this health insurance companies pulled a 180 today on their faux stance for health care reform.

I meant LOL REPUB SENATORS as in the two asshats "representing" Arizona. John's Kyle and McCain, but it seems LOL POLITICIANS is more accurate.

Have those of you unhappy with what's coming out of Washington on healthcare reform considered contacting your state governments to push them towards giving you what you want? If you want a public option and Washington isn't going to give you, there's nothing that says that, say, Sacramento can't provide one independent of whatever the federal government does.

Which is actually a good argument that turning over any amount of control over the healthcare system to government is probably a bad idea. But it doesn't change the fact that if you want government involvment in it, such as a public option, the federal government isn't the only government in this country you can get it from. And, given the nature of states and state government, you're more likely to actually get what you want, and get it sooner, than relying on Washington to do it for you.

And now Pelosi seems to have done a 180 on her stance and now supports the Public Option, apparently:

Pelosi makes case for government-run health option - Yahoo! News

Bolded for emphasis on the problem I'm currently worried about, concerning this overall bill.

Two years later, a major update to the topic appears.

*ahem*

A U.S. Appeals court strikes down the health insurance individual mandate requirement from the Healthcare Legislation.

Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement - Yahoo! News

This requirement was one sticking point that I had a personal and strong disagreement with. Its one thing to want to have everyone covered, but to make it legally binding that you MUST buy insurance or be fined? FUCK THAT, imo. Also, since its only an Appellate court, it doesn't mean the fight is over, but its a start. Thoughts?

What is the functional difference between that and universal health care paid by tax dollars?

The functional difference is that with universal health care there's a government rate for it, while the individual mandate could leave people in a shitty position of having to choose between multiple avenues of coverage that doesn't fit them.

So in the end, sure, everyone has health care, but in one case you're just given it and in the other you're told to get it OR ELSE.

Being forced into choosing which of the most corrupt, non-functional health companies you deal with isn't universal health care. Universal health care is regulating the health companies so they aren't a for-profit business, but rather exist purely to provide care.

Maybe it's the innate Asian in me that thinks this way; doctors should be paid to keep you healthy, not grip out all your savings and your grandchild's Morgage to pay for your care when they fuck up and don't prevent you from getting sick. I think that's also another problem with health care cost, we talk a lot about how fucking expensive it is to keep our sick medicated or cared for or how many kids need Ritalin, but nearly or barely not enough talk about investing in methods of *keeping* people healthy. That includes investing in educating people to eat better and such.

Well I agree that universal health care w/ a not-for-profit system would be the best, and that's what I want, and I'm totally willing to pay more in taxes to make it happen. In lieu of that though,

actually honestly scratch that thought, really the only thing that should be done (and that can be done to benefit the taxpayer) is to end the for-profit medical institution. I have no interest in protecting the profit margin of companies that have no interest in protecting my profit margin (or take-home pay, you know, whatever).



apropos to this conversation: Open enrollment is going on with my employer. I have the option of picking up their health insurance, or staying on COBRA for the next year. My COBRA payments are $600 a month, for one person; the monthly payments for my company are significantly cheaper but the coverage is such that my COBRA coverage is actually cheaper in the long run. It has nothing to do with doctors being out of network, and I'm not riddled with cancer, preggers, or supporting a family. This is such bullshit.

For some time now, the individual mandate has been on appeal to the Supreme Court.

This 6th circuit decision had previously ruled it constitutional, and now that we have conflicting circuit decisions, only the Supreme Court can make a definitive ruling.

Given the nature of the legislation, they should take up the case soon enough to decide it before any of the mandates start to kick in.

How many people do you know that actually go to the doctor when they're healthy?

That said, I do think it's kinda hilarious how health care companies only want to put money out once you're already sick. After my dad had a heart attack they gave him access to weight loss therapy classes for two months. He lost a bunch of weight, was eating better, and pretty much doing everything correctly. Insurance goes "Oh, you're doing fine now, go find somewhere else to exercise" and that pretty much knocked him off his momentum and he couldn't find another place with similar facilities nearby, so he regained most of what he had lost. Fast forward a year or so and there's another mild event, back in the hospital, and then insurance covers two more months of weight therapy (until it ended last month). He'd even be willing to pay for the stuff himself, but you can only get access to the place through insurance. :(