Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
O_o
Here's an interesting article on the issue: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/15…
pity ...
Hate to break it to you, Sam, but guilt by association doesn't pass muster as an argument. And Obama didn't so much campaign against individual mandates as he tried to stake a position to the center of Hillary and Edwards, and he always hedged his bets that he wouldn't rule them out if it came to that.
But let's get things straight. All the progress we've made so far with health reform--and all the progress we still need to make--none of that would be possible without the so-called individual mandate. To think otherwise is to think that we can have rights without responsibilities--that we can have universal health insurance without there being a universal responsibility to pay for it. It's the classic "free lunch" ethos that saw its apotheosis with the Baby Boomer generation and which the Republicans have exploited ruthlessly.
I will tell you though one thing I hate about the individual mandate. The name "individual mandate." Not only is it lousy marketing but it's inaccurate.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
To say we can have universal health insurance without an individual taxpayer responsibility is a bit like saying we can have Social Security and Medicare without having to pay for those programs.
And those who hate the Medicare system could say the same thing about Medicare. "We don't have universal health insurance for seniors. What we have instead is people being forced to pay their payroll taxes into a corrupt (government-run) system." Oh actually, I can't even let you get away with that one. We do have universal health insurance for seniors, and with this bill we will have near-universal health insurance for people of all ages.
But sam2300, here's what's so self-defeating about your argument. I take it you're a public option or single-payer supporter. Compared to the status quo, a nation where we all have health insurance--and those of us who can afford it have to pay for it--provides a much more fertile political climate for something like the public option or Medicare-for-all. Kill our responsibility as taxpayers to foot the bill for health insurance and you kill all hope of government health insurance.
Anyway, I find it refreshing to see libertarian views coming as much from the left as the right. The common thread of libertarian thinking isn't the political alignment; it's the lack of thinking.
So to all the mouth breathers out there who may think otherwise, the Attorney General is not a free-floating lawyer for "the people."
The Attorney General's principal responsibility is to provide advice to the Governor and other state officers. Which is why the Governor (who was a former Attorney General) is so royally pissed off.
So are there any other laws that might authorize the Attorney General to bring this case on his own? Uh, no.
Under RCW 43.10.030(2), the only authority for the Attorney General to institute procedings is as follows:
Kind of sad that a smart guy like McKenna can't be bothered to read his own job description. Sure doesn't wanna make me elect him Governor.
"cressona @9 -- ummm... we don't HAVE universal health insurance. What we have, with this bill, is the government REQUIRING that its citizens buy a product from a corrupt system. Therein lies the fallacy of your argument."
Um, nope. What you have is the gov't requiring you to either buy something or *pay a tax*. Constitutionality resolved. You most absolutely do have representation, and they are going to tax your dumb ass to the gills to pay for all the poor people's insurance in your district that make your $400 rent possible, and we the majority who voted for the people who passed the bill who also represent you are going to rejoice, and you can't do fuck all about it. Because, if I may get a little angrier than I obviously already am, your views about gov't are not shared by the majority, and to argue against that is definitively unrepublican.
This bill gives a tax deduction to anyone who buys "health insurance." If you don't buy a deductible insurance policy, your taxes are higher. Similarly, if you don't give to any tax-deductible charities, your taxes are higher. This is known to most as the "individual mandate," and is purportedly unconstitutional according to the now-dumbest-attorney-in-Washington, Rob McKenna.
So sad. He always did his job well too! Now he's spending our money to challenge the Constitutionality of tax deductions? Good god.
To say we can have universal health insurance without an individual taxpayer responsibility is a bit like saying we can have Social Security and Medicare without having to pay for those programs.
First, Social Security and Medicare are GOVERNMENT programs -- what is proposed under the new health care bill is NOT. Get it? They aren't the same; therefore, your analogy is meaningless.
As for this comment: "Anyway, I find it refreshing to see libertarian views coming as much from the left as the right. The common thread of libertarian thinking isn't the political alignment; it's the lack of thinking."
This is nonsensical on its face. You are right that I am a single payer proponent. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of libertarian thinking. Libertarians aren't for GREATER government intervention -- they're for LESS. Do you even bother to make an attempt to know what you're talking about before you start writing shit down?
I could go on, but I think I'm done for now.
So let me get this straight, Sam. Universal health insurance is not really universal health insurance if it's not government-delivered universal health insurance? I suppose by this standard a passionate supporter of cherry trees could argue that a tree is not a tree unless it's a cherry tree.
And Sam, I get it that you don't identify yourself as a libertarian--which is what makes it so sad and silly to see you making a libertarian argument. You're ultimately saying that American citizens should feel no responsibility to pay taxes to support, however indirectly, our health insurance system. If I were the health insurance companies who want to return to the old status quo, you're precisely the kind of audience I would target relentlessly. The surest way to prevent single payer and the public option is to make it seem like we're being forced to pay the evil insurance companies.
If you're in the individual insurance market and you hate the insurance companies, just pay the new, extra tax you're on the hook for. You'll actually be doing some good for your country.
P.S. Sam, I'm curious why you're focusing just on me when everyone else on this thread is taking exception to your views.
However, if you're over 27? Your arguments are narcissistic and irrelevant.
So we can agree that universal healthcare is a social good -and if you look at the cost of Germany's comprehensive, healthcare system as percentage of GDP (roughly 10%) as compared to the US (15%), this should be pretty obvious.
Why exactly shouldn't the government compete directly as an insurance provider, using it's buying power to lead the market as a price-setter, and decrease premiums? Wouldn't this represent the direct interests of its constituents?
Instead we're funneling this wealth in the form of tax write-offs to the private sector, who have then no market incentive to increase competition.
Since I study history, I'ma throw out some knowledge here. In colonial India during the 19th century, the railroad industry was funded through the British government - contracted to build up the country's nonexistent infrastructure. In fact, these companies were guaranteed at expense of the Crown certain profit each year. Having literally no incentive to actually construct a competitive and efficient transportation system, millions of tax dollars were wasted, and India's railways remain sadly underdeveloped.
Moving from the subcontinent and back to Europe - around this time (1863) Germany just had begun the process of reunification. Outside Prussia, almost none of the German states were fully industrialized, with a total lack of unified transportation. Under Bismark, Germany (read: Prussia) nationalized the nation's strategic resources, and began to lay its own railway tracks. In just 30 years of this, the German government created a modern industrial nation and built the most advanced rail system in Europe.
Things went kinda poorly after this...But the lesson is - allowing the government to act directly in the market, in the interests of its constituents, is almost always a more efficient solution than the free market.
(Products can be classified as tangible or intangible. A tangible product is any physical product that can be touched like a computer, automobile, etc. An intangible product is a non-physical product like an insurance policy.)
A single-payer system isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream, it works pretty well for Western Europe. But, realistically the American political climate is probably too frothy-mad to make a government option possible right now.
Which is why I'm not some college-revolutionary, pissed off and demanding everything or nothing. And i'm definitely not saying the bill won't help people - it will, and in non-trivial ways.
All i'm saying is that it really isn't addressing basic problems with our healthcare - we're forcing people to buy into a health plan, without actually doing something to lower the costs. Until we do this, it's bandaids on a broken system.
I was peacocking because I like history, but also to give an example of how and why the tax write-offs are basically a multi-billion-dollar Christmas present for the insurance industry, and a waste of public funds.
Unfortunately, Cressona has not answered your original question. The answer is that Obama made a huge point about working w/ the Rethugs. He wanted a "bipartisan" solution. Yes, there was some political strategy involved. If they worked w/ him, that would give his presidency legitimacy (I hope I don't have to remind you of the conservative position on Obama's presidency.) If they didn't, they would be painted as obstructionist loonies. Which is what we're experiencing now.
Back to your question. In his effort to work w/ the conservatives (from both parties), the Single Payer solution, the easiest to implement & run, was killed immediately. The back-up plan was the "universal mandate" where the government would provide a competing option. This was a bit of a political ploy as well, as everyone knows that the Insurance Industry is a bloated, inefficient, ineffectual mess and no one in their right mind (and w/o access to huge wealth) would ever buy this crappy product of their own free will. It would bankrupt the very institutions that created & sustained the 30+ year old Health Care Crisis. And so that, too, was killed by the conservatives, from both parties, but not w/o hundreds of millions of dollars spent on lobbyists.
At this point, it was clear that the push for Health Care Reform was not going to go away. By this time, the progressives in the house had given up negotiating w/ the GOP, as the knew they'd never vote for any kind of health care reform, ever. They were negotiating w/ the BlueDogs, who were making bank in bribes & contributions from the Insurance Lobby. Through them, the Insurance Lobby demanded the mandate w/o the Public Option. In return for that, the progressives got a lot, like the end to rescission, children covered longer under their parents' plan, etc. as well as forcing the Health Industry to cover everyone, where before they could pick & choose who they would cover. The mandate was the compromise demanded by the Insurance Industry, through their conservative lapdogs, and they got it, but not w/o giving up quite a bit themselves.
So the reason why so many progressives are against the lawsuit is because it's an attack on the entire agreement. The suit does target a small portion of the recent Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but the goal is to repeal the entire act. And make no mistake, this is a landmark legislation. It is certainly not perfect, and health care in America is by no means totally 'reformed.' A lot of the crap that created the crisis is still here. I personally think the mandate is a crappy solution, but this is a good first step, where before the foot has been cut off every time the fed tried to address the health care crisis. The Health Insurance Industry is still on it's feet, but it now will be required to provide actual Health Care, when before it could pretty much do as it pleased.
"And make no mistake, this is a landmark legislation. It is certainly not perfect, and health care in America is by no means totally 'reformed.' A lot of the crap that created the crisis is still here. I personally think the mandate is a crappy solution, but this is a good first step, where before the foot has been cut off every time the fed tried to address the health care crisis."
The telling silence is still thanks to the idea that we've institutionalized a permanent health care industry, isn't it? I sorta beg to differ. Yeah, maybe this bill is good for the insurance companies in the short term. Their execs gets raises because their lobbying efforts on THIS bill generated gauranteed income for their stockholders.
But their stockholders have something very dire to be worried about in the long run: a majority of voters who see health care as a basic American right. That's the nail in the coffin of the insurance industry. Give these reforms 5 to 8 years of vehement appreciation on the part of the electorate, and single-payer is right around the corner.