Lol big shocker...

[R13]

WASHINGTON ? Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans ? the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits ? two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received ? by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage.'"

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products ? and providing subsidies worth billions ? insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

"In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said.

New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea - Yahoo! News

[Shooter]

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

My question is WHY? If I dont want insurance on my own damn body, then why have to pay for it. All this does is open the door for more penalties. Next thing you will be required to go to the doctor at least so many times a year or pay a fine.

For someone who argues abortion rights because "its your own body", i would think language in a bill like this would piss you off. Wheres all that Pro-Choice now?

And why all the fines for so called "Cadillac Insurances"? If my employer wants to pay for a good insurance for me, because i've worked my butt off for it, why should I be penalized?

[R13]

My question is WHY? If I dont want insurance on my own damn body, then why have to pay for it. All this does is open the door for more penalties. Next thing you will be required to go to the doctor at least so many times a year or pay a fine.

For someone who argues abortion rights because "its your own body", i would think language in a bill like this would piss you off. Wheres all that Pro-Choice now?

And why all the fines for so called "Cadillac Insurances"? If my employer wants to pay for a good insurance for me, because i've worked my butt off for it, why should I be penalized?

Do you have to get 20 tune-ups a year because it's required to purchase insurance on your car? No, it's not, so that's a lot of assumptions based on nothing.

Are they telling to that you can't fuck up your body? No they aren't, but if you're going to, we aren't paying for it later. So really, terrible little "pro-choice" argument you got going.

And you do realize that Cadillac policies are generally privately purchased, that you probably would have to be near the top of a large company for them to buy you such an expensive policy for you? If you're job provides a plan like this for you, then I'd like to know where you work so I can get a job there. And they aren't "fines", don't know where you're getting that, they will taxed higher...but that's it.

You're also assuming that because you have a lot of money, you worked hard for it, when a 10 year can look around and see that reality says that's bull.

[simple man]

My ins is worth about 1900 bucks a month. That is just judging from the COBRA costs for a guy that changed jobs a while back. The cost is still going to be paid by the avg working guy and gal. And for the group that doesn't want ins? Don't give them healthcare and they can go their merry way. The problem now is folks that don't have any coverage or file bankruptcy to get out of the bills. It just falls back on the ones that have ins and pay their bills. People that don't pay, just don't ask for help when they have a heart attack.

[Shooter]

Do you have to get 20 tune-ups a year because it's required to purchase insurance on your car? No, it's not, so that's a lot of assumptions based on nothing.

Actually, im not required to put insurance on MY car. Im required to carry liabilty insurance in case i fuck up SOMEONE ELSES car. The only time im required to carry insurance on my car is when its really not my car, it belongs to the people that loaned me the money to buy it.
So unless this insurance covers me fuckin someone else up in a fight or something, I have no clue why you are REQUIRED to have it. Don't get me wrong I will always have, and need insurance. I don't make alot of money like YOU assumed. The problem with me is, now, I dont have the option of NOT having it. My employer has the option of dropping the insurance to get a dollar an hour raise...but now, that goes out the window for me.

And for the group that doesn't want ins? Don't give them healthcare and they can go their merry way.

What about the group that can pay their own bills without insurance? You democrats hate the rich so bad...why can't they use those millions they make their own healthcare payments without drawing out of insurance company funds.

All im trying to say is...theres good and bad to this bill. Im all for healthCARE reform. Its got completely out of hand. But we just threw in the first thing that could halfway pass. Those few lines about requiring healthcare insurance really worry me just because it leaves the goverment open to start requiring all kinds of stuff. Thats all im saying.

[simple man]

Actually, im not required to put insurance on MY car. Im required to carry liabilty insurance in case i fuck up SOMEONE ELSES car. The only time im required to carry insurance on my car is when its really not my car, it belongs to the people that loaned me the money to buy it.
So unless this insurance covers me fuckin someone else up in a fight or something, I have no clue why you are REQUIRED to have it. Don't get me wrong I will always have, and need insurance. I don't make alot of money like YOU assumed. The problem with me is, now, I dont have the option of NOT having it. My employer has the option of dropping the insurance to get a dollar an hour raise...but now, that goes out the window for me.


What about the group that can pay their own bills without insurance? You democrats hate the rich so bad...why can't they use those millions they make their own healthcare payments without drawing out of insurance company funds.

All im trying to say is...theres good and bad to this bill. Im all for healthCARE reform. Its got completely out of hand. But we just threw in the first thing that could halfway pass. Those few lines about requiring healthcare insurance really worry me just because it leaves the goverment open to start requiring all kinds of stuff. Thats all im saying.

It is good to see someone is paying attention. I have most of the same worries you do, but it is like everything else- we have to start somewhere and work to improve things. Good Luck to the common folks.

[R13]

Actually, im not required to put insurance on MY car. Im required to carry liabilty insurance in case i fuck up SOMEONE ELSES car. The only time im required to carry insurance on my car is when its really not my car, it belongs to the people that loaned me the money to buy it.
So unless this insurance covers me fuckin someone else up in a fight or something, I have no clue why you are REQUIRED to have it. Don't get me wrong I will always have, and need insurance. I don't make alot of money like YOU assumed. The problem with me is, now, I dont have the option of NOT having it. My employer has the option of dropping the insurance to get a dollar an hour raise...but now, that goes out the window for me.


What about the group that can pay their own bills without insurance? You democrats hate the rich so bad...why can't they use those millions they make their own healthcare payments without drawing out of insurance company funds.

All im trying to say is...theres good and bad to this bill. Im all for healthCARE reform. Its got completely out of hand. But we just threw in the first thing that could halfway pass. Those few lines about requiring healthcare insurance really worry me just because it leaves the goverment open to start requiring all kinds of stuff. Thats all im saying.

It is liability insurance, you get sick and don't have insurance, the rest of us pay for it. That' not too hard to understand. And I assumed? Lol You do realize that was heavy sarcasm, I don't know anything about you, but I doubted you were a CEO or pay for a 30,000 a year insurance plan. I know you're older than me, but your little idea of dropping your insurance to get a small raise has to be the dumbest thing I've heard. You have a employer that offers you insurance, which a lot of people aren't that fortunate to have, but you're mad that they can't drop it so you can get a dollar more on the hour? Are you serious? You'd be willing to risk chancing something like that, getting sick or someone in your fam getting sick(I'm assuming with the second part) and it possibly bankrupting you...all for a dollar more? Is that really your problem with the requirement? That you don't have the option of possibly fucking your life up? Wow.

People and mall businesses will be offered subsidies if they can't afford it. It's good for them to have insurance and it's good for the rest of us because we wouldn't have to cover a large hospital bill.

And we hate the rich? Lol. We just aren't naive like you conservatives, most the wealth in the US is inherited and rarely does someone get paid accordingly to their contribution to society...and that feel good story they tell you your whole life, that if you work real hard, you can have whatever you want and be rich is really just a myth. That it's mainly something you're born into, with some exceptions, but that you do with what you can with the cards that you were dealt and hope you get lucky.

Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you worked hard for it, if you want to know what the rich think of us or anyone wants to see..I'd advise you to look up the CitiGroup Memo they sent out to their wealthiest clients, about their hopes of a Plutocracy and that we would put up with it and have put up with it, because of the hope that we will be rich like them. They don't think too highly of us, yet you on the right think way too highly of them IMO.

[Gotch]

About 95% of the rich were either born into it or married into it. There are really surprisingly few "self made millionaires". They do exist and often get a good bit of attention, but there really aren't a lot of them. In fact the "systems" (both public and private) is designed to prevent it.

Had I known years ago what I know now I would have never worked a single day for anyone else or for a business other than my own. If you do you may just as well be wearing chains.

[Gotch]

My ins is worth about 1900 bucks a month.

A good example of how completely out of control things are.

Seriously, who here has an extra $22,800 a year laying around for insurance. Don't forget you'll still have to foot the deductible plus a percent of any bills.

I'm thinking there might be a small margin for profit in that...........................

[sup-rbeast]

Actually, im not required to put insurance on MY car. Im required to carry liabilty insurance in case i fuck up SOMEONE ELSES car. The only time im required to carry insurance on my car is when its really not my car, it belongs to the people that loaned me the money to buy it.

Liability coverage is still insurance..but, you're right you don't have to carry insurance. You can pay the $500 uninsured motorist fee and then pay for the rest of your life after you have an accident and someone sues ya.
IMO, the health insurance legislation is set up in much the same way...except the government will be helping most people afford it.
As for the original, the GOP don't even know what the GOP's in favor of..