Mandatory Healthcare?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

So please, explain how MA's being in arrears of it's states' matching Medicare payments to it's own facilities has anything at all to do with the federal government?

Or how the MA program, which differs completely from the federal healthcare reform act, is pertinent to the discussion?

The MA program has been used by the WH as an example of mandated insurance. (That would be considered a connection)

Massachusetts' example

White House budget director Peter Orszag says penalty size isn't the only factor in determining whether people buy coverage. He predicts the mandate will help create societal expectations that everyone gets health insurance, just as most people feel obligated to buckle their seat belts.

He points to Massachusetts, which in 2007 became the first state to require that most residents have insurance. Since then, the percentage of uninsured has declined to 4% from about 7%.

The Massachusetts penalty for failing to buy insurance this year is $1,068 — about half the cost of the lowest annual premium. About 96% of tax filers in the state in 2008 reported they had coverage; only 1% paid a penalty

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...nsurance_N.htm

[Riot]

The MA program has been used by the WH as an example of mandated insurance. (That would be considered a connection)

Yes, for costs/fines. But then go ahead explain how having mandatory insurance relates to MA's state treasury, and the inability to pay it's matching Medicare responsibilities? Is the state not having money directly due to having mandatory insurance? (could be, I don't know).

And is the mandatory program is funded with the same cost ratios and income as the Senate federal program (works the same, on the same scale) so is directly applicable?

To me the post sounded like a pretty broad, "government involvement in healthcare sucks, look at Canada" kind of thing to me. Too general, not directly applicable.

I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.

So rather than some secret agenda that Antitrust suspects I have , I figured it was just a good point, what's to debate about it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, for costs/fines. But then go ahead explain how having mandatory insurance relates to MA's state treasury, and the inability to pay it's matching Medicare responsibilities? Is the state not having money directly due to having mandatory insurance? (could be, I don't know).

And is the mandatory program is funded with the same cost ratios and income as the Senate federal program (works the same, on the same scale) so is directly applicable?

To me the post sounded like a pretty broad, "government involvement in healthcare sucks, look at Canada" kind of thing to me. Too general, not directly applicable.

I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.

So rather than some secret agenda that Antitrust suspects I have , I figured it was just a good point, what's to debate about it?

You stated there is no connection. Obviously there is.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You stated there is no connection. Obviously there is.

Yes, they both involve, "the government".

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, they both involve, "the government".

and that is EXACTLY what you should be scared of.


Tell me this, What has the goverment actually been able to do Correctly in recent history (not the past 10 months but 20 years) that involves a government program?

The only think I am thankful for a federal goverment at all is for protecting our freedom and the military.

Social Security is a freaking mess. I put in 6% of my salary and wont ever see that. Medicare isnt exactly the most wonderfully smooth program in the world and now our whole damn country will be on medicare. This stimulus thing will ruin the country for the youth when it comes to inflation.

Goverment programs do nothing but rob hard working people. Its legal stealing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, they both involve, "the government".

So your premise that MA shouldnt be used as an example of mandated insurance coverage was wrong. Right?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So your premise that MA shouldnt be used as an example of mandated insurance coverage was wrong. Right?

No. What I said was:

I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.

So?