About those Individual Mandates

Filed in National by on March 5, 2010

Scott P makes an analogy I have not noticed before, and he is partly right:

Let’s suppose that instead of health insurance, the government mandated that everyone pay for a retirement account. If they were to show ideologically consistency (which is by no means required, or even desired, by today’s GOP), conservatives would be sharply opposed to this measure. However, I don’t hear many Republicans calling for a repeal of, or constitutional challenge to, Social Security. Now, I don’t doubt that many conservatives would love to do away with Social Security, but deep down their main issue is that it takes money from people who support and vote for them, and gives it to people who don’t — not that the big, bad government makes them take part. But again, the program would not work if people were able to pay in on a voluntary basis. Why would a 25 year old pay into a program that they won’t see any money from for 40 years? But without everyone paying in, the program doesn’t work.

Actually, I think your standard big business rich Republican hates Social Security because they hate the poor, and believe in that ridiculous addage that everyone must pick up themselves by their own straps. As Colin Powell once famously said “What if they do not have boot straps?” But I digress.

Where the analogy fails is that Social Security is a public government system. The analogy would be fine if we have public option insurance (a medicare for all) plan available. But right now we do not. Currently, the individual mandates would require us to buy private insurance. I digress one more time to note that while the public option may not pass with the HCR bill now, it will eventually within the next five years as it is popular, it will drive down costs, and idiot Senators will probably need to see the reform plan in action without the public option for a year or two to see that it is needed.

The true analogy that really exposes GOP hyprocrisy on the Individual Mandate is that the GOP’s own Social Security Reform plan back in 2005 would have required we all buy private retirement plans that invest in the stock market. So obviously they have no problem, constitutional or otherwise, with an individual mandate. They just have a problem with a Democrat in the White House.

About the Author ()

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. The individual mandate for health insurance is actually a Republican idea as well. Back in July-August, no Republicans talked about the individual mandates as being the least bit controversial. That just shows how far backwards we’ve moved since then.

  2. anon says:

    The individual mandate is Romneycare. I doubt Mitt thought it up himself; it probably came out of some GOP think tank.

    I knew it was bad news back during the primaries when all the Dem candidates except Kucinich were pushing some form of Romneycare. Ever since Medicare Part D it has been a slippery slope toward privatization.

    Obama was a little better though; during the debates he actually excoriated Hilary for including an individual mandate in her plan. I guess “That was then, this is now.”

    Nothing for progressives to do now but hold their noses, vote Yes, and work for a better day. I guess this is what Ted meant when he said “the work goes on and the dream will never die.” Just when the dream is within reach some bastard comes along and kills it. And sometimes the bastard is us.

  3. anon says:

    School vouchers are also an individual mandate with a public option. This is not the way Dems should be going for the great public services like health, education, and pensions.

  4. I really do see the mandate as the only way to get affordable, near-universal coverage without a single payer system. Once we decided not to do single payer, it really seems like this is the only way to go.

  5. anon says:

    The corporations have not shown themselves to be good partners with the public in the provision of near-universal services for anything.

  6. Totally agree with that anon. My argument with many conservatives is that private isn’t better, they can just cherrypick the best. Private schools generally don’t have better outcomes than public ones, they have better and more affluent students. When the same populations are compared, the test scores are the same. Universal means the people with chronic problems, people with mental illness, people who don’t take good care of themselves are all covered. This improves the country overall – we’re not paying for expensive emergency care for them – but are not money-winners for private insurance. In fact, I’d argue that private insurance has a really bad money-making proposition – funnel their profits to their executives and that’s why they have to drop so many people. They can only afford to insure the extremely healthy.

  7. Scott P says:

    Actually, I had meant to get to the Social Security privatization idea, but didn’t get around to it. The fact that the insurance mandate makes people buy a service from a private company, whereas social security is a government opreation, would be pretty close to a reasonable argument, if it weren’t for those meddling kids (sorry, must have had Harry Reid on my mind) for the fact the we know Republicans would love to turn social security into a private venture. And why wouldn’t they — their owners would stand to make a lot of money.

    I will admit, though, anyone who opposes the mandate and opposes ss privatization (or opposes ss altogether) is at least being intellectually consistant. Of course, if they want to do away with ss altogether, I’d consider them borderline sociopathic, but that’s another story.

  8. Scott P says:

    The school voucher analogy is almost health care in reverse. Public schools are sort of like a single payer, with private schools acting like a “private option”. But, since we as a society have decided that schooling for children is so important that the government needs to ensure that everyone has the opportunity regardless of means, we’ve set up the public school system. I argue that health care is the same way. We’re talking, literally, about a life and death issue. One’s ability to access affordable health care (like a childs access to an education) is not something that should be left to the whims of the free market.

  9. anonone says:

    Scott P: Being forced by the government to line the pockets of private insurance companies before paying for food, housing, transportation, and actual health care is wrong. I am not opposed to a mandate if it goes to public not-for-profit health insurance. I am opposed to the government forcing people to spend a month’s pay to private for-profit companies when they need that money for their families.

    Social Security, by the way, is a government run annuity program, not a savings account. People who want to privatize SS generally want to turn it into a savings account program. Bad idea.

  10. Scott P says:

    Couple issues, AI: First, people won’t be paying “a month’s pay” for health insurance. That’s what the subsidies and the exemptions are for. Secondly, I don’t see how you can argue both ways at once. If these mythical people aer going to be forced to pay for insurance befoer food and rent, shouldn’t that be bad whether it’s going to the government or a private company? Now, that’s not happening in either case, but still, who you’re paying should matter far less than what kind of service you’re getting.

    “I am not opposed to a mandate if it goes to public not-for-profit health insurance.”
    I agree, single payer would be the best choice.

  11. john kowalko says:

    Individual mandates without either a public option or a strict premium setting regulatory capability over all private insurers is a recipe for Economic disaster for working people and government budgets alike. This is the horror story now being played in Mass. Please don’t think that moving a step laterally along a brink of destruction will ever get you out of harms way. Certainly single-payer is the economically responsible way to go but individual mandate without premium regulation and/or public option is that final step toward the edge of social and economic disaster.
    John Kowalko

  12. anonone says:

    If you can afford it you will be forced to contribute up to 8% of your annual income to private health insurance companies. 8% is approximately 1 month’s pay. In regards to subsidies, who do you think is paying for those subsidies? That’s right, taxpayers.

    If you’re going to have mandates for health insurances then ALL OF IT should go to health care costs and administration, not private insurance company profits. Those billions of dollars that they want to extort from families for insurance executives should be going to pay for health care or staying with the families that earned them.

    When the government forces you to pay taxes or other levy, it should go toward the common good of all taxpayers, not to private corporations for the benefit of a few.

    That is why HCR without a public option is not HCR at all.

  13. anon says:

    I am a single-payer advocate, willing to compromise for a public option.

    However, I am becoming resigned to the idea that we need to pass this HCR and continue working for a public option or Medicare expansion.

    I believe the individual mandates start in 2014, so we have a window to work for something better.

    The public option would be a great goal to work for, if we are stuck with individual mandates. So would drug price negotiation and Medicare expansion.

  14. anon says:

    If you can afford it you will be forced to contribute up to 8% of your annual income to private health insurance companies.

    If it *doesn’t* pass, how much are you forced to pay private companies to get health care?

    Actually though – I’d gladly take an 8% tax for universal single-payer.

  15. anonone says:

    You’re not *forced* to pay them anything. And I’d take an 8% tax for universal single-payer, too.

  16. john kowalko says:

    Be very careful and consider that the “individual mandates” creates a captive audience for the Insurance monopoly to feed on ad nauseam. You can watch this process on any nature show as Sperm whales herd the schooling fish into an ever constrictive group and then take turns rising into their midst to devour their prey. If you think that allowing this creation of a captive clientele for an unregulated and politically powerful monopoly will somehow provoke acts of “political courage” between now and 2014 perhaps we should include medical treatment for “naivete” as a disease. I do not mean to be condescending but I’ve followed and fought this battle for many years both from within and outside the political environment.
    John Kowalko

  17. Scott P says:

    But remember, the individual mandate is not the point of the bill — it’s only there to make the important parts work. And the bulk of those important parts consists of increased regulations on the insurance industry. So if we get this passed, we can at least remove the “unregulated” part of the equation.

    And John, when you call it a monopoly, are you refering to the industry as a whole, or are you talking about specific markets?

  18. I agree that the bill is far from perfect. I really think our best bet is to get what we can – and the universality of this bill is really important – and work to improve. Right now the political atmosphere is toxic. I’m hoping it will get better sometime between now and 2014 so we can get a real public option, or even better, a Medicare buy-in. I think a Medicare buy-in actually has a better chance then a public option just because it’s easier to sell and understand.

    Let’s hope that once the use of reconciliation barrier is broken, we can use it to get some more progressive legislation that doesn’t need Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman. I think a good example might be the CFPA, which looks like it might die in the Senate. I wonder if we could get it through reconciliation?

  19. just kiddin says:

    HuffPost: Lynn Woolsey should resign as Chair of the Progressive Caucus. She will vote for the Senate version without a public option despite the facts its the biggest blow to a womens right to choose in a generation. Raul Grijala (co-chair) has been the strongest leader. Time for her to resign and Raul to become chair.

    John MCCain is resurrecting the Gang of 14, 7 repukes and 7 blue dog corporates! I wonder if among the seven will be Carpetbagger Carper? We can count on Nelson, Landreiu, Leiberman, Bayh, Lincoln among the seven but who could the other 3 be?

  20. I’ll bet most of the progressive caucus ends up voting for the Senate bill, even Grijalva sounded on the fence a bit. The truth is that defeating the bill now does nothing to get a public option and bye-bye goes the subsidies for poor and middle class people.

  21. anonone says:

    The bill is a bad bill. Using the government to extort money from people directly for the benefit of corporate profits is unprecedented and should be abhorrent to any thinking person who values freedom and liberty, no matter how noble the cause may seem.

    Indeed, it is shocking to me how many liberals here are willing to give up their freedom to the government without even a whimper.

  22. Scott P says:

    Yes, well that certainly explains the big insurance industry push to get reform passed. Wait….now I can’t find a link to the story….Can someone find any of the stories where the insurance companies are excited to back the reform bill?