• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House shoots down GOP effort to repeal individual insurance mandate

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,846
Reaction score
20,681
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
House shoots down GOP effort to repeal individual insurance mandate - The Hill's Healthwatch

The House on Tuesday shot down legislation to repeal one of the most controversial elements of the Democrats' healthcare reform law: the requirement that most Americans purchase healthcare coverage.
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who offered the bill as an amendment to a larger tax bill for small businesses, said the insurance mandate "violates basic principles of freedom and individual choice."
"No American should be forced to purchase health insurance they don’t want and can’t afford," Camp, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said just before the vote.
He wasn't persuasive enough. The vote was 230 to 187 to kill the amendment, with 21 Democrats and one Republican crossing party lines.
Though opposed by candidate Barack Obama in the runup to the 2008 presidential election, the individual mandate evolved into a cornerstone of the Democrats' health reform law, enacted in March. The mandate takes effect in 2014.
Supporters have argued that getting millions more Americans into insurance pools is necessary to keep coverage affordable for the sickest people. But critics, including a number of state attorneys general, have challenged the mandate's constitutionality.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think the Republicans did this so that the can point at Democrat incumbents who voted for the bill and then voted to prevent this repeal of the insurance mandate. It was a political move for the November elections.
 

Telecaster

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
406
Reaction score
61
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The healthcare mandate is required in the bill because it is one of the "triggers" that will help to bring healthcare under federal control over time. This is why the progressive Democrats want it to stay in the plan.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,284
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The healthcare mandate is required in the bill because it is one of the "triggers" that will help to bring healthcare under federal control over time. This is why the progressive Democrats want it to stay in the plan.
Actually the mandate does the opposite.

Without the mandate, insurance companies would have to take patients with pre-existing conditions but wouldn't be able to compensate with millions of new healthy people that the mandate brings. Premiums would shoot up, causing more people to drop the insurance, leaving a sicker-on-average group of insurees... raising premiums further and so on. This would cause a collapse of the health insurance industry, which would bring people to clamor for government intervention. Either the GOP doesn't understand this or they're just trying to score cheap political points.

But we can go with your vague conspiracy theories instead if you want. Those dang Democrats just want the government to control everything, just for the heck of it!
 
Last edited:

Telecaster

Active member
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
406
Reaction score
61
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually the mandate does the opposite.

Without the mandate, insurance companies would have to take patients with pre-existing conditions but wouldn't be able to compensate with millions of new healthy people that the mandate brings. Premiums would shoot up, causing more people to drop the insurance, leaving a sicker-on-average group of insurees... raising premiums further and so on. This would cause a collapse of the health insurance industry, which would bring people to clamor for government intervention. Either the GOP doesn't understand this or they're just trying to score cheap political points.

But we can go with your vague conspiracy theories instead if you want. Those dang Democrats just want the government to control everything, just for the heck of it!
Uh, if it is mandated that everyone must have an insurance plan, and employers are not forced to provide, AND many Americans cannot afford to purchase a plan, or, like my healthy self, they refuse to purchase one, how will we be provided one?

Not so much a "conspiracy" as it will be a reality.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Uh, if it is mandated that everyone must have an insurance plan, and employers are not forced to provide, AND many Americans cannot afford to purchase a plan, or, like my healthy self, they refuse to purchase one, how will we be provided one?

Not so much a "conspiracy" as it will be a reality.
If they can't afford one, they'll be given public assistance to do so. If they just simply refuse to purchase one, then they'll be punished just as they normally would for breaking the law.
 

apdst

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,998
Reaction score
30,569
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If they can't afford one, they'll be given public assistance to do so. If they just simply refuse to purchase one, then they'll be punished just as they normally would for breaking the law.
IOW, "steal from the 'haves' and give to the deadbeat class".

Wealth redistribution, anyone?
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think the Republicans did this so that the can point at Democrat incumbents who voted for the bill and then voted to prevent this repeal of the insurance mandate. It was a political move for the November elections.
Politics over substance and the good of the country. As this was originally a republican idea, and something that must be if the other reforms are to hold, it is just more siliness.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
IOW, "steal from the 'haves' and give to the deadbeat class".
Yeah, obviously people who work low-paying jobs, or are laid off, or are in college, or are self-employed are "the deadbeat class." Do you listen to yourself?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IOW, "steal from the 'haves' and give to the deadbeat class".

Wealth redistribution, anyone?
I agree with you that it is wealth distribution, and I don't want it either. However, your depiction of the poor as deadbeats is totally classless. Here in Houston, I see a lot of families in which the husband is humping his butt 12 hours a day or more, with 2 jobs, trying to feed his family on minimum wage. Now, while I understand his plight, I still think it is theft for the government to take money from some and give it to others. But only the worst kind of low-class snob would make the kind of blanket statement you just did.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Politics over substance and the good of the country. As this was originally a republican idea, and something that must be if the other reforms are to hold, it is just more siliness.
I agree. Anyone who doesn't want more federal involvement in health care should support this. Repealing it will completely destroy the private health insurance industry and move nearly EVERYONE onto the federal plan...which would be fine with me, but I'm assuming it wouldn't be fine with the so-called "conservative" crowd.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I agree. Anyone who doesn't want more federal involvement in health care should support this. Repealing it will completely destroy the private health insurance industry and move nearly EVERYONE onto the federal plan...which would be fine with me, but I'm assuming it wouldn't be fine with the so-called "conservative" crowd.
The only two options would be no reform or government health care. I'm sure they have a preference, but it may not be what they actually get.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,284
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Uh, if it is mandated that everyone must have an insurance plan, and employers are not forced to provide, AND many Americans cannot afford to purchase a plan, or, like my healthy self, they refuse to purchase one, how will we be provided one?

Not so much a "conspiracy" as it will be a reality.
I hate to break up the conservative circlejerk that started because of this comment, but you obviously don't understand what the bill actually does. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how removing the mandate but leaving the pre-existing conditions clause WOULDN'T destroy the industry?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If they can't afford one, they'll be given public assistance to do so. If they just simply refuse to purchase one, then they'll be punished just as they normally would for breaking the law.
No they won't.

I'm religiously inclined not to purchase health insurance.
I get away with it.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No they won't.

I'm religiously inclined not to purchase health insurance.
I get away with it.
Yes, I believe there is an exception in the health insurance mandate for those with religious objections. But not for people who just don't want health insurance. And that's the way it should be, if you want some semblance of private health insurance to survive.

But hey, if conservatives want to rant about the health insurance mandate and try to get it repealed, I say go for it. The effect will be to completely socialize health care.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, I believe there is an exception in the health insurance mandate for those with religious objections. But not for people who just don't want health insurance. And that's the way it should be, if you want some semblance of private health insurance to survive.
Ok, well it really doesn't matter even then because they can't enforce it, if you don't pay it.
It's written in the bill.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,284
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok, well it really doesn't matter even then because they can't enforce it, if you don't pay it.
It's written in the bill.
They can't pursue criminal charges. That doesn't mean they can't enforce the fine.
Funny, I had other conservatives trying to argue to me that they'll send you to jail for not having insurance.

Edit: And if this mandate isn't enforceable, why is everyone on the right freaking out about it? You guys need to get your talking points straightened out! ;)
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
They can't pursue criminal charges. That doesn't mean they can't enforce the fine.
Funny, I had other conservatives trying to argue to me that they'll send you to jail for not having insurance.

Edit: And if this mandate isn't enforceable, why is everyone on the right freaking out about it? You guys need to get your talking points straightened out! ;)
That's true. But I think the point is some will argue it anyway other than actually try and figure out what's in the bill and what might work or not work. Which is why the talking points change so quickly.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They can't pursue criminal charges. That doesn't mean they can't enforce the fine.
Funny, I had other conservatives trying to argue to me that they'll send you to jail for not having insurance.
No, the fine is completely unenforceable.

"However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

JCX-18-10

I'm not a conservative, they're right wing like you.
I'm center left.


Edit: And if this mandate isn't enforceable, why is everyone on the right freaking out about it? You guys need to get your talking points straightened out! ;)
Like you, they didn't read the pertinent portions of the bill.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's true. But I think the point is some will argue it anyway other than actually try and figure out what's in the bill and what might work or not work. Which is why the talking points change so quickly.
You must like sticking your foot in your mouth. :2wave:
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,284
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, the fine is completely unenforceable.

"However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

JCX-18-10

I'm not a conservative, they're right wing like you.
I'm center left.




Like you, they didn't read the pertinent portions of the bill.
Check page two. The section you quoted was changed. What was that about not reading the pertinent portions?
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yea yea, even then you can claim financial hardship, which allows you to opt of out penalties.
Don't you love so many exceptions to rules. :mrgreen:
Well, the purpose of the provision is merely to prevent people from gaming the system by waiting until they get sick to sign up for insurance...not to force everyone under the sun to buy insurance without regard to their reasons.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, the purpose of the provision is merely to prevent people from gaming the system by waiting until they get sick to sign up for insurance...not to force everyone under the sun to buy insurance without regard to their reasons.
I still don't see how it prevents gaming, you could sign up for insurance before you file for taxes and use it as a basis to avoid the fines, then dump it after the fact.

I'd like to see real reform, so far this is some kind of amalgamation of nonsense, with lots of loopholes and excuses.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I still don't see how it prevents gaming, you could sign up for insurance before you file for taxes and use it as a basis to avoid the fines, then dump it after the fact.
I think most insurance plans (public and private) require a minimum time commitment of at least a year or two. And if not, that scheme might work for the first year, but it wouldn't work after that, assuming that you have to show proof that you were insured throughout the entire year instead of just at the moment you file your taxes.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd like to see real reform, so far this is some kind of amalgamation of nonsense, with lots of loopholes and excuses.
I don't see how it's an amalgamation of nonsense to grant exemptions to people who have religious objections or have a financial hardship. In the first case, their right to practice their religion trumps the government requirement from a constitutional perspective (or at least, it's a big enough worry that the government doesn't want to screw around with litigating it). In the second case, it would be impractical to fine someone for not having insurance if the reason they didn't have insurance was due to a financial hardship.

The insurance mandate isn't meant to just dick people over for no reason, it's in place to protect the private health insurance industry, which would collapse if people were able to game the system by waiting to get sick before buying insurance.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom