The Republicans in Congress, and more than likely elsewhere, have their moral consciences and reasoned arguments on a menagerie carousel; always going round and round, but with so many pretty animals to sit on they get to pick which one will be their favorite for a day, only to choose another, prettier one, the next time they decide to go nowhere!

It seems, at least for the past year, the only Americans who embrace the Republican party with any iota of credibility on the issues are the Americans becoming armed and potentially dangerous! -Kevo

It's simple enough logic--the Republicans are for every idea they support, until it lands in the actual bill. Then they have to run away from it as fast and as hard as they can, and then complain that the bill isn't bipartisan.

So you attempt to refute the wrongness of a mandate to "purchase what we tell you or go to jail" by first stating that mandates should bt definition not be optional, and then by proving that a different arguement about "the Democrats didn't try to do bipartinship" is a lie. That's called diversion, which is what one does when one cannot refute the original point.

I definitely need to go into a business with enough money that I can bribe Congress to mandate that every person in the must US buy my product or go to jail. Then have you defend that by telling us how NASA going to the moon is too expensive.

the political nihilism reflected in the vast array of contradictory statements, lies, slurs and fear-mongering of the Republican Party rings consistent with the death of culture in this country, the weakness of the Democratic vision, the intensity of cannibal capitalism in its last stage, the horror of the rapid destruction of the human domain on the planet, the alienation and sense of unwantedness of each new generation, and on and on.

we are at a moment in history here and now that appears to be a last pinnacle of hope for a decent future. but each day, the hope loses some strength, the collapse grows a little more, and the darkness of the chaos grows deeper and nearer...

meanwhile, by timidity, delay and complicity, the Democrats and the Obama administration assist the coming miasma.

y'all have a nice weekend...

What Bill H said.
IMHO, this is a meme that will resonate. I sure hope the Donkeys have a better response than this one.

I don't know why people don't make the simple comparison to car insurance-- it's mandatory. If I drive without car insurance I can get fined, get my license suspended and registration revoked, and if I continue to drive on a suspended license due to refusing to have car insurance I could face steep criminal penalties. Why don't we see republicans screaming about how mandatory car insurance is oppressive and infringing on their freedoms?

The thing is that if someone doesn't have health insurance because they can't afford it then they are a walking liability to the rest of us-- if they have to go to the ER without insurance it makes it more costly for society overall. It's pretty damn simple-- everyone should have insurance for the betterment of the individual and society in general.

An individual mandate is like a dentist saying 'Sure I'll fill your cavity, but first I'm going to break your nose and if you don't like it you can go to jail.'

The only way to cover everyone is to cover them gratis, no questions asked.

Because you don't need to own a car, you don't need to own a sidewalk that you have to shovel, but you do need, unquestionably, to exist.

A personal mandate is a tax on existing, it's forced servitude.

Okay Steve,

Here's one for you. What if someone like me, who isn't working, and has not worked since 2005 does not have the money to get insurance? Will I be forced to PAY a fine? Or will the public opinion cover me?

This whole forcing shit, is what bothers me. Social security is voluntary, as is Medicare, why force people?

Answer that.

Too bad this won't fit on a T-shirt:

"I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years. "

From John Cole earlier this year, and worth repeating on a monthly basis at the very least.

At last! We have near patisan gridlock. Ain't it great. The truth has no party and yet we soldier on. I have a clear understanding of how the Reverend Jeremiah A Wright Jr. could have come to some of his conclusions. Some I share. If I had any advice for some twenty year old. The short term outlook would be law school. Look around. They are the ones reaping this bonanza. They are the ones in charge of the country. They are the enemy, and they are us. I often wondered how long it would take our system to collapse after the fall of communism. Now we see.

Republican arguments against mandates on principle would be more convincing if so many Republicans hadn't supported mandates until they decided to use this as a last minute reason to argue against the bill.

Republican arguments against mandates based upon the facts are misleading as they leave out provisions to provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to purchase insurance as well as options to opt out or to pay a smaller penalty for not purchasing insurance. I've seen predictions that the Senate bill will only have a $750 penalty for not buying insurance. While I don't know what the final bill after reconciliation will say, it is safe to predict that nobody will be left with a choice of paying $15,000 or go to jail.

If "bipartisanship" represents a willingness to accept Republican support for various items when that is feasible, appropriate, or even necessary - then bipartisanship has not worked.

If however "bipartisanship" is an excuse for not passing programs to which one has given only lip-service support, then it has worked very well indeed.

Pat @ 8:38. Social Security is not voluntary. Neither is Medicare Part A (though B and D are). Where do you get the idea that they are?
_______________________________

The problem with the Camp release is that it totally mischaracterizes the JCT letter which you can read for yourself here: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf (3 pages, 1MB).

First of all the letter does not reference "$15,000 Policy" Camp came up with that on his own. And the idea that $15,000 will be the typical price of such a plan absent a subsidy is unfounded. I would have to take a closer look at the definition of 'cost sharing' but Sec 222 (c)(2) limits it to $10,000 for a family, $5000 for an individual. Now this doesn't include premiums so it is theoretically possible for people making over the median household income to be exposed to something approaching this level but only if insurance companies can prove they have been paying out at least 85% of combined premiums/cost sharing in the form of actual medical care. In other words Camp picked an outlier and presented it as typical.

Second Camp's release strongly implies that Pelosi's bill explicitly provides for this $250,000 fine and 5 year jail term. Well it doesn't, instead this represents the top end of a current range of punishment for falsifying a tax return. The JCT letter lays out the penalties for a Civil violation, a Misdemeanor violation, and a Felony violation under CURRENT law, further noting that the actual Code section governing this part of the law limits that fine to $100,000, and that while their were 692,000 cases of civil penalties being applied in 2008, their were only 752 indictments and 666 convictions under this law. They don't break down how many of those are misdemeanors (punishable by a maximum $25,000 fine and 1 year in jail) but we can readily assume that most people who are pursued under felony charges are pretty major tax evaders and drug kingpins. The idea that Nancy Pelosi decided that failure to pay your penalty means you are going to end up in the slammer with a $250,000 tax lien is simple demagoguery.

A careful reading of the letter shows that Camp deliberately set out to manufacture a talking point, one that has since dutifully shown up on Bartbreit's site and then out to comment threads everywhere.

There is no mandate "to buy what we tell you or you go to jail", that is just artificially manufactured out of a couple of outliers bullshit swallowed whole by assorted wingnuts. The bill that is on the floor does not mention any of this, those penalties simply follow the general provisions of existing law.

Okay Steve,

Here's one for you. What if someone like me, who isn't working, and has not worked since 2005 does not have the money to get insurance? Will I be forced to PAY a fine? Or will the public opinion cover me?

No it won't. On the other hand if you have not worked since 2005 I would think your income would be under 150% of FPL and under this bill (for the first time) single adults are eligible for Medicaid. If by chance you are surviving by taking odd jobs and seasonal work and are making between 150% of FPL and 400% you could buy insurance at rates that start at 1.5% of income then scale up to 12%. So if you are scraping by with say $1500 a month as a single person you might have to come up with about $22.50 a month to guarantee you against a hospitalization. And since under the bill preventive services come with no co-payment or other cost-sharing you could almost certainly get an annual checkup and routine lab work (if perhaps not a full blown physical) at no additional cost to you.

So those are your choices if you are just over 150% of FPL. Pay $22.50 a month and get full coverage (with some potential co-pays should you actually use non-preventive care) or stand on your principles and Go Galt by refusing to pay a penalty of $37.50 a month that gets you nothing but grief from the IRS if and when you get a new job.

You would have to be pretty God damn stubborn to take the second path.

No it won't. On the other hand if you have not worked since 2005 I would think your income would be under 150% of FPL and under this bill (for the first time) single adults are eligible for Medicaid.

Okay. That answers that. So, I will be able to apply for the public opinion. I am a full-time writer and Money is just not there right now. Hopefully the economy will recover and I can get some advertising coming in and file and get a solo owner and proprietor license from the state and pay my proper share of taxes. The whole issue I have right now, is investment capital for the blog, so, that I can advertise.

Anyhow, so, if this passes. I will be able to get the public option.

Yes, I am a Conservative, and no, I am not too WILD about the idea of a public option, but I would take it. As I have ZERO health insurance. I am in Michigan, and we have 15 percent unemployment, so, I am trying to make it as a writer. I've yet to get job offers in the political writing world. It's normal, I'm not a well-known... I figure ya'll will mock me. But, I'm doing what I can.

Thanks,

-Pat

Hey, how come my Blog URL isn't showing up. What you all got against Blog promotion?

http://www.politicalbyline.com

So...if you are in desperate need of medical coverage but can't afford it, you are threatened with the next step; jail. So use their system of medical coverage. Is that a legislative oversight?

But that won't work, they are emptying the cells for cost cutting reasons. Maybe try another country?

I've noticed an absence of dialog on how other countries accomplish HC so I guess we are down to the mad with the stupid antics.