If 'that' is the bill that passes it will be a complete failure of the democratic leadership and a big f.u. to the people who elected them. The idea that I 'must' buy insurance from the very companies who have given us the status quo or some quasi remixed version co-op is an insult and an outrage. It's flat out disgusting. If this is what my reps bring home, they are fired in my book.

That bill is not acceptable. But a chess game could be in the works with the reconciliation process that will ensue.

But scream loud and clear. I am all for it.

If they try to pass a bill an insurance mandate without making insurance affordable, that is beyond unconscionable. Yet another giveaway/subsidy to the healthcare industry and offers little in tangible benefits to the people. I'd rather see minor legislation pass like no more pre-existing exclusions, no more recission, portabilty of insurance etc. Leave the issues of the uninsured, the public option and cost control as a second bill to come later.

***---===Food for Thought >>>===---***

The current legislation under consideration is leaning heavily towards the federal government levying a fine on people for not buying insurance.

Protest is a public vehicle whose use is an indication of the public dislike for a specific law, rule or action.

Now we all could act like those patriotic conservative clowns and create havoc out of pure spite and meanness as they did and go no where.

However, if I remember correctly,Gandhi was always in favor of silent protesting as a way of infuriating government busybodies whenever they stepped out of bounds.

What better way to send a message to Congress and Obama that their idea of comprehensive health care reform sucks so bad, we're all willing to forgo our current health care thru our company's benefit plan and pay the fine instead?

So how does this get fixed?
- You can't realistically eliminate discrimination against pre-existing conditions without some sort of mandated insurance.
- You can't have a mandate without subsidies to help pay for it.
- And you can't have subsidies without serious pressure on the pricing power of insurers and providers - i.e. a public option. Otherwise subsidies will just go straight to increase their profit margin.

If the public option is dead, which looks to be the case, people really need to reframe this debate about the shape of the ultimate bill or we're passing a vast new corporate subsidy making further reform impossible.

1. You can't realistically eliminate discrimination against pre-existing conditions without some sort of mandated insurance.
2. You can't have a mandate without subsidies to help pay for it.
3. And you can't have subsidies without serious pressure on the pricing power of insurers and providers - i.e. a public option.

I numbered the concerns for clarity, Obey.

1. Why should you want to? Insurance isn't supposed to be one size fits all. Buildings with fire sprinklers aren't charged as much for fire insurance. Houses in New Orleans have more trouble buying and/or have to pay more for flood insurance than houses in Denver. It's insurance. The cost of the premiums is supposed to represent the risk. I recognize that refusing to cover PEC's is an issue, but it ought to be possible to create a framework for high risk, expensive policies.
2. I agree. The problem is that subsidies are either going to be a huge (HUGE!) expense, or insufficient to prevent serious problems for the middle class.
3. It is at least possible that a public plan would provide some pricing pressure (Of course, this would only be true if there were oligopolistic pricing in health insurance, which is the case because of state regulations. So you could get the same result by simply announcing federal preemption of all state health insurance regulations.)

The central point is that the individual mandate is a bad solution to an intractable problem. It automatically does one of two things: Hits the middle class where it hurts, or massively increases the deficit in the medium term.

Would be the short term, but all the plans in Congress right now don't even phase in reform until four years out, so that the effects aren't felt until Obama's second term, and the really vicious deficits don't show up in a ten year window.

The whole process, especially the way that Congress, the White House, and the press have avoided talking about the individual mandate, failure-to-procure penalties, etc., has been deeply dishonest.

The parts of "health care reform" that people would really be opposed to aren't the ones the Republicans have been talking about. They're the ones nobody is talking about.

The fine is completely ridiculous - it is considerably smaller than the cost of any realistic health insurance. At my last consulting gig, I was looking at paying $350+ a month for crappy high-deductible insurance; given a choice between that or a $750 fine, I'll take the fine. I'll still be bankrupt if I get sick, but I'll $3450 ahead if I don't.