Bennett Pushes Back On Health Care Criticism

Friend and RedState editor Eric Erickson offers some pretty biting criticism of Utah Senator Bob Bennett and the Healthy Americans Act (HAA) given word that Bennett may be at the WH tonight. Having some familiarity with the issue and a friend close to the Bennett camp, I reached out to try and determine what the deal is if I could. While appreciating Eric's view, I'd like to respectfully flesh out at least some facts regarding the plan.

Bob Bennett is about to screw America.

Bob Bennett is a fiscally irresponsible Senator who prides himself on being a Senator’s Senator. He was the only Republican who stood up and clapped when Barack Obama attacked Sarah Palin in his Joint Session of Congress speech last week.

And Bob Bennett wants to cut a deal on healthcare. Why? Because that’s what Senators do. The compromise. And if you are a Republican Senator, you capitulate.

Bennett does not support any of the plans currently on the table. As for charges of fiscal irresponsiblilty, as Paul Rolly pointed out in the Salt Lake Tribune, the CBO has rated the plan revenue neutral, one of, if not the best rankings of any current potential plan.

The Club for Growth claims the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Bennett-Wyden plan would cost the federal treasury more than $1 trillion, but the independent Factcheck.org has issued a report debunking that claim. In fact, it says just the opposite is true, that the Bennett-Wyden plan would save money over time.

And as even arch foe Ezra Klein was forced to point out, while not fully embracing the bill:

It's a genuinely good bill with a good Congressional Budget Office score and an innovative approach.

So, the charges of fiscal irresponsibility may be over stated, especially as most Americans agree something needs to be done regarding health care costs over the longer term. As for these charges:

Likewise, the Wyden-Bennett plan supports abortion funding, imposes federal mandates on citizens to have insurance, increases federal regulation, and cripples the several states.

The bill does not support abortion funding. What it does do is allow for the individual to elect and pay for that particular coverage on their own as an add-on. So, it is keeping with the Hyde Amendment on that score.

As for mandating coverage, it's time for us to get honest assuming one is willing to support any kind of reform. Everyone is covered now, they need only go to an emergency room. We simply pay for it through a backdoor, or invisible tax. By bringing everyone into the pool, the concept is to provide openness and accountability where currently there is little, to none.

I can understand questions as regards a competitive approach, as opposed to a mandated one. However, the plan is based on individual insurance companies offering their own coverage plans. To the extent they can bring costs down, they would enjoy a market advantage in that sense. And given that the program puts citizens on an equal footing with Congress as regards what type of coverage they have, that may say a lot about the benefits of the plan, especially considering that the cost structure is so favorable as compared to any other currently considered approach.

Lastly, I'll cite the Heritage Foundation, which did have concerns about portions of the plan. But the fact is, we may not know what any final plan might look like. And if it's bad, I wouldn't support it anymore than I do Obama's state controlled approach. But if we are to reform health care at all, we have to start somewhere. All in all, from my reading on the Healthy Americans Act, it seems like at least a good place to start. Consequently, severe criticism of Bennett on this might not be as warranted as it would first appear.

Still, as the chief sponsors point out, the bill is a work in progress, intended to stimulate discussion.

By introducing the Healthy Americans Act (S. 334), Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and his chief co-sponsor, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), have courageously challenged the status quo on the federal tax treatment of health insurance and public health programs for the poor. The bill correctly targets the inequitable tax treatment of health care that favors coverage obtained through the place of work. It also recognizes the weakness of the existing public health programs, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The bipartisan bill has attracted a dozen co-sponsors, drawn equally from both parties.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Comments

[Huey]

Any bill which doesn't have, as its foundation, destruction of all laws and/or regulations which prevent across-state-line purchase of health care insurance is a worthless bill.

Completely and utterly worthless.

[Scott]

I was prepared to strongly disagree, but backed out a comment I was writing. I don't usually disagree with you, but I don't usually disagree with Eric, either. I re-read Eric's post and I'm not so sure I should have backed it out. The Heritage Foundation quote did it for me: "...a troubling feature of the bill is that it would replace the current health system with one that is heavily regulated by the federal government: Individuals would have access only to plans permitted by the government and would be required to purchase such a plan."

And I think that Eric is not just inflaming the mob when he says that the plan "...supports abortion funding, imposes federal mandates on citizens to have insurance, increases federal regulation, and cripples the several states."

Seems like a good enough reason to me. But I will include some thoughts to the previously unposted comment. If Ezra Klein likes it, it has way too much liberalism. Way too much. And will it come in at $650 billion, or will it cost more than twice that, 41.3 trillion a al Cash for Clunkers. Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that most people, certainly a goodly majority want their health insurance and health care left alone. Period.

Do we really need health care reform? What if we stopped the stupid lawsuits that raise doctors' practice insurance? Tort reform, not health care reform. What if we stopped the stupid prohibitions against selling health insurance across state lines, like the Interstate Commerce Clause was supposed to do? Business reform, not health care reform. What if we allowed people to deduct their own insurance, and not just their employers? Tax reform, not health care reform.

Will this stop all of the problems? No. Too many problems are caused by people who chose drugs, violence, promiscuity, laziness and ignorance. But their choice should not be our expense. This is not a medical problem to be solved by health care reform. It's a completely different problem. Personal opinion, very strongly held.

[x11b1p]

Here is a thought, why not critically think about how to create 3xs as many HC providers in this country? I dont trust anyone in Congress at this point when it comes to HCR -things are to caustic and toxic. The amount of time spent on this HCR legislation could have been spent on answering that question because it does several things: creates more jobs, reduces HC costs, insures more people, and reduces taxes and it generates revenue for states and the fed. Rs are falling into the trap of feeling instead of thinking. This bill might feel good like a hard fart after some keg beer, but when you get home and notice that you really sharted, then the light clicks on and your realize what that smell was at the bar. Portability, tort reform, and mandate sweeps equals jobs jobs jobs, coverage coverage coverage tax revenue tax revenue tax revenue all without congress having to spend any more money than it costs to turn the lights on to pass the bill and get it signed into law.

[Jack Okie]

Dan, do think it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate coverage, and fines for the uninsured?

Do you think it is desirable for the federal government to be involved in any way with health insurance?

I will support a plan that

1. Handles the uninsured as a separate issue.
2. Allows plans to cross state boundaries.
3. Allows individual ownership of health policies.
4. Removes state mandates.
5. Removes the federal government completely from the health insurance sphere except for commitments already made. (item 1 above is a separate issue).
6. Provides real tort reform (which after all is really a state issue).

Your post makes it pretty clear that you will go along with business as usual in Washington DC. The health insurance mess is just a symptom of too much money and too much power residing in Imperial Washington.

I was buying dog food this morning at the Feed & Seed and joined a conversation about health care. Once again, as I see in the comments on so many blogs and speaking with many local people, it was apparent that folks are past the talking stage. Here in Oklahoma there already seems to be a critical mass that will reject the whole statist shebang however we have to do it. Bob Bennett's bill is just irrelevant. We don't need a bill, we don't need Cap & Tax, we don't need Porkulus and we certainly don't need business as usual. I saw where the Arizona legislature is preparing a bill that will have Arizona opt out of ObamaCare. Look for Texas, Oklahoma and several other states to do the same.

[Huey]

Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform...

Sounds like an anti-lawyer choir on some of these blogs.

The goal of "tort reform" is to reduce the amount of money paid out as a result of SUCCESSFUL claims/lawsuits. The way this is DONE is primarily to CAP the amount of money someone who has WON a medical malpractice suit can collect in the way on "non-economic" or "punitive" damages. In Texas, this amount is $250,000.00. In Louisiana, it's $500,000.00. Other states have employed this draconian method of "cutting costs" by the same method, i.e., CAPPING the amount someone can collect for such things as: Physical Pain & Suffering, Mental anguish, Mental Pain & Suffering, Permanent scarring, paralysis, DEATH of a loved one, loss of the ability to have sex, permanent vegetative state, etc.

In other words, since most claims are relatively SMALL claims where the "non-economic" dollar amounts are relatively small (someone "only" suffers from pain as a result of a botched surgery for a year instead of the rest of his life or "only" suffers the loss of use of a finger instead of being paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of his life....), the ones which this cap HURTS are those who are BADLY injured, both in degree and duration -- the two things which jack up the amount of damages for "non-economic" compensation.

In other words, the longer someone suffers and the greater degree he suffers the GREATER the award for "non-economic" damages. Thus, the ones who are hurt the WORST are the very ones who are unable to receive compensation to the degree that they DESERVE so that their miserable lives can be somewhat mitigated to the degree it can by MONEY.

It is the EXACT wrong way to "fix" this problem, to the degree that the high cost of medical malpractice insurance IS a "problem" and isn't, instead, simply a reflection of the huge numbers of people injured or killed through medical malpractice (do your own research...it ain't hard) resulting in insurance companies raising the rates since they have a high likelihood of having to PAY OUT a ton of money when the doctor screws up.

It is the EXACT wrong way to "fix" a problem from any MORAL perspective, i.e., punishing the VERY PEOPLE who have been hurt the worst through the ESTABLISHED (via trial) malpractice of their medical provider.

I will never, for the life of me, understand why "conservatives" want to LIMIT the right to legal redress simply as an effort to "save money." I'll never understand why "conservatives" want to IMPOSE this governmental REGULATION (imposed caps by operation of law to force lower medical malpractice insurance premiums) on people. I'll never understand why "conservatives" believe that is right to create a special group of people (doctors and other medical providers) who have greater protection UNDER THE LAW than every other category of persons in the nation.

It just befuddles me beyond end.

[Dan Riehl]

A couple points in response. I don't embrace any plan that I've seen. As I said in the post, it might be a good place to start, but the devil is in the details as it always is.

My personal opinion right now is that nothing is going to fly. I'm not seeing enough support coming together around anything to get it done.

Also, as I disclosed in the post, I contacted a friend who is close to the Bennett camp. Obviously they are going to have a point of view that might not even jibe with my own all down the line.

What I tried to do was give a friend a chance to give me some info and perspective to put out there. It's as much reporting, as it is anything else. No one should assume I'm ready to go to the mat for any plan. Ultimately, even if HAA were pursued, it might not emerge in a form I would support. With this Congress, there is a high probability of that.

If nothing else, it is generating some good discussion and provided info to be considered by readers.

[Jack Okie]

Dan, thanks for the response. I've noticed that you seem to go out of your way to conciliate between the various blogs. It's an admirable trait, one of the several things that keep me coming back.

Huey:

IIRC the cap discussed here in Oklahoma for "pain and suffering" is three times actual damages. Now I may be naive, but I expect the jury to include all ongoing costs of severe injury in the ACTUAL damages. As for the rest of your polemic, if we have such an epidemic of doctor-inflicted carnage scourging our land, an overhaul of our licensing and oversight of doctors is in order. Proactive, and all that. Or how about just capping the amount of the malpractice awards going to the ambulance-chasers (oops, I meant lawyers). Would you go for that?

[rk]

i watched part of a presser by Baucas on CSPAN. he talked several times about how complex h/c is.

well, duh. now what does that tell us? that a senator, or a small group of senators, or a large group bureaucrats (headed up by Dr. Emanuel) can't possibly do the system any good.

But they can do a huge amount of damage.

And they can do this without any data at all. to the Left (and friends of the Left) a sob story will do.

there is very little real data on what we should reform. the Left has wanted this for decades. the Left has said the same things about h/c for decades.

i actually was going thru old stuff the other day and found a Newsweek mag from 91 or 92 about h/c. it sounded exactly like today...the same "crisis" language.

and re: Bennett...do i believe that a political man would want the fame and historical role of putting his name on a plan...regardless of it's impact on the citizen's.

Sadly, yes.

[Huey]

Here's the "world according to me" on how to "fix" the medical malpractice insurance problem. Not complete, but a good starting point.

1) Increase competition by breaking down barriers to selling insurance policies across state lines. (The obvious goal of this is to use market forces to drive down premiums. This addresses the cost of health care insurance to CONSUMERS.)

2) Create nation-wide "medical review panels" which consist ONLY of retired doctors, medical professors, or other doctors who no longer PRACTICE medicine. Have each doctor, hospital, or other medical provider contract with their patients that all medical malpractice complaints will be submitted to this panel for BINDING arbitration. For Medicare or any other "free" care (Emergency room for indigents or just emergency care where the patient is unwilling or incapable of contracting, have a state law of IMPLIED CONSENT to that arbitration.) The purpose of this panel, made of NON-PRACTICING doctors who have no connection with the locale of the "offending" medical provider is to prevent what is commonly the case today...doctors who are as concerned with "there but for the grace of god, go I" or "Next time it might be HIM sitting in judgment of ME." The doctors would be paid from the "fund." (discussed below)

3) Create a nation-wide FUND, supported by doctors as a FEE (perhaps as a percentage of their gross) from which any and all successful claims would be paid. This fund would be SUBSTITUTE for the individual insurance policies of EVERY medical provider. Each state would pass a law that, if a medical provider paid into the "fund," they would be PROTECTED from "personal liability" of any kind. (Most "medical malpractice" reform laws have this provision.)

4) When a claim is made, the "medical review panel" would be created by randomly selecting three doctors who practice in the same area of medicine. They would be sworn in in their DUAL ROLE. Their first role would be to examine the case and determine whether or not the subject medical provider adhered to the proper standard of care. That decision would be BINDING. Their SECOND role would be to act as a "watch dog" to police their profession. If the doctor was grossly negligent or clearly incompetent, they would be duty-bound to report it to a disciplinary committee who would decide whether the doctor needs re-training or even have his license removed. They MUST be doctors who are willing to "police" their profession and take that duty seriously.

5) After the panel renders its decision, the successful litigant would be able to have a normal trial -- but ONLY on the issue of DAMAGES, and there would be NO limitation to compensatory damages (subject to review by the Appellate courts) but NO potential for "punitive" damages. (The "punishment" purpose of "punitive damages" being served by the "medical review panels" reporting to the disciplinary committee.) Lawyers would be precluded from "contingency fee" contracts for this portion since there is NO CHANCE OF LOSS -- just how much they can win. They would be forced to bill hourly (still expensive) and would be subject to their ethical duty to only charge a "reasonable fee."

Now. This, from the "tort reform" perspective would likely be MUCH cheaper than getting lawyers involved in the "liability" part of the case. Individual doctors wouldn't have their "premiums" go up as a result of claims (whether frivolous or legitimate). There would be no cost of medical experts in the liability portion of the claim. There would be no cost of defense lawyers. All these savings would result in reduced overhead to doctors which would result in savings to the consumer. Add this to point #1 (sales beyond state lines), and we have....lower costs for health care insurance, lower costs for delivering health care, lower costs for individual doctors, a better policing of doctors, and, when someone is injured through the negligence of a medical provider they'd be FULLY compensated.

There...that's my best shot.

[Huey]

Jack Okie: No matter the calculation, when someone has a CAP placed on the value of his case, it has the potential of depriving someone who is hurt VERY BADLY from having the only thing which might make his miserable life better, i.e., a pile of MONEY.

(In your Oklahoma case, 3x "actual damages." Let's just try a "brain exercise" shall we? "Actual damages" are those things which you can point to a SPECIFIC FIGURE (lawyers call those "specific" damages, rather than "actual," but, it's the same thing). This includes such things as lost wages, (sometimes) lost future wages, medical bills. So, let's tee a "hypothetical" up.

A person is paralyzed for the rest of his life because he was given the wrong medication (or the doctor severed a nerve he had no business cutting near in the first place). He had no job. (No lost wages). He had no real prospect for a job (poor guy wasn't real smart to begin with.) There aren't going to be a ton of medical bills in the future; he's just paralyzed -- nothing to be done -- no future medical bills.

So, this guy...has only a small amount of "actual" damages. (Believe me, as an attorney, you'd MUCH rather have your client be an injured doctor out of work than a burger flipper....'dems some SERIOUS "lost wages" going on there....) So, this guy has almost NO recovery for his "non-economic" damages.

That fair?

You know loss of consortium is a "non-economic" damage, right, i.e., not an "actual" damage? So, one of the "losses" someone sustains when their spouse gets KILLED is the loss of their spouse (or father or mother). Never being able to make love to them. Never being able touch them, talk to them. Never being able to watch them grow up, if it's your child that's killed.

NO "actual" value.

That fair?

Look.

There's an ARGUMENT that doctors fulfill a special role that no other class of persons can fulfill and, therefore, they SHOULD receive special protection under the law so that they can do their essential work for the health of the nation (and every individual) without concern about being sued or the cost of insurance.

It's a powerful argument.

But, it's NOT the argument being made. The argument being MADE is that "lawyers are evil blood-sucking bastards who are forcing up the cost of medical malpractice insurance (and thus the cost of health care insurance) so the way to address this is to PUNISH THOSE WHO ARE HURT BY THE DOCTORS."

I think that's an immoral argument.

[Huey]

Let me try it this way.

Many (many) times, I had my client (I used to practice law) ask me "how much is my case worth."

His "case."

Sometimes his "case" was a wife who was killed by a negligent driver, or electrocuted in the back yard. Sometimes it was the loss of a hand for someone who worked with his hands.

How to answer that? How can you tell them that the "value" of their case was determined essentially by going to the case law and figuring out how much money was awarded in other cases (after review and frequent reduction by the Appellate courts). How can you tell him that his "case" (his dead wife) was only "worth" $100,000.00 because that's the highest value that had ever been awarded in a similar case? (Different jurisdictions have different "values." I practiced in an area where $25,000.00 per year was a decent yearly wage, so $100,000.00 was a PILE of money for most people....)

I would start with a simple question: "Is there ANY amount of money I could offer you which you would have accepted for the (loss of your wife, the loss of your husband, the loss of your hand)?"

Of course there wasn't. But, money is the ONLY remedy a court can offer in these types of cases. So, ultimately, over time, juries (subject to Appellate review) decided, in case after similar case, what those cases were "worth."

My job was to get them as much of that as I could. And, no matter HOW much I got them, it wasn't enough.

No pile of money can replace that loss.

[wecsg]

Dan you and Senator Bennett need to get a clue fast - any bill that has an individual mandate to force people to buy health insurance is nothing but a front for government run health care thru a faux private front.

Look, the so-called "free rider" provision you cite amounts to no more then 3% of the total of the trillions spent annually on health care. Its a small cost to have a system which respect our individual liberties and free choice. And it would still occur under mandates as the same folks who disobey the law will still do so in the future or pay government fines and opt out anyways!

We need to oppose any bill with individual mandate provisions - the Obamacare scheme can survive the loss of the “government option” entitlement program but it can survive the loss of the Mandates.

This is a very dangerous period because health Nationalization will still occur under Obamacare lite even without an overt government run insurance plan like this "public option" provision everyone keeps fixating on – everything else contained in the plan is just as dangerous and is not being discussed in any kind of a targeted manner.

There are two key points that conservatives in the media and Republicans who oppose this plan need to be focusing on right now. Obamacare is a “twofer” so to speak: Government Nationalization of Health Care and yet another Bailout for another failing big and politically connected Industry.

First, with or without an overtly government run program like the proposed “public option” plan, all the various Obamacare proposals in the end amount to Nationalization of the Health Care industry in this country by the Federal Government. Because the critical provisions place all the control over health care in this country in the hands of special interests, unelected technocrats, and politicians.

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped - both the Bacus Bill and the Wyden-Bennett bill have all these features:

(a) Federal Regulation/Comparative Effectiveness Boards aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka GOVERNMENT CONTOLLED HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Massive Government Subsidies aka MEDICAL WELFARE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

Basically, the Federal government will be controlling the Health Insurance industry just like it controls the Banks and Auto Companies who received bailout money. While it will still technically be true that health insurance companies are "private" companies, they will be only in the same sense that GM, CITIGROUP, etc are still "private" companies. Since the Federal government has provided most of the funding and dictated all the terms of business, politicians and technocrats will really be calling the shots. Essentially, all health insurance companies in the country will be quasi-governmental agencies/utilities who can sell only what the government chooses to allow.

The second very disturbing aspect of the various Nationalization schemes that we have heard little or nothing at all about is how the Mandates contained in all the proposed plans basically amount to yet another government taxpayer bailout of another large and failing but politically connected “big” industry.

The market equity/investment portfolio of the major Health Insurance companies has dropped substantially over the past year with the recent stock/commodity market crash. Also, their current customer base is heavily skewed to the old and sick. 80 million of their 135 million customers are in the ages of 50-65 (LA Times). In effect, the Federal government will give them a veritable windfall of millions of new young and healthy customers who will be forced to buy high premium, government specified plans. Really, instead of “penalizing” the “evil” health insurance companies these Mandates would richly reward them and give them what amounts to a government sanctioned perpetual monopoly!

The bottom line for the American public under these proposals would be this: big government, big unions, big industry, the ultra rich and Washington beltway politicians benefit (are the “winners”) and the young, elderly, and the American taxpayer get the short end of the stick yet again (the “losers”) - they end up footing the bill for everything and get de facto socialized medicine! This whole so-called "health reform" is a short sighted and corrupt deal that is not in the long term best interest of the American people. And it will in all likelihood be shoved down our throats in blitzkrieg fashion once the “government option” is officially dropped if the leftist politicians in Washington get their way.

In political terms, it’s my theory that the whole “public option” plan has simply been a massive diversion by the proponents of Obamacare to keep both far left supporters and opponents focused on something other than the critical elements of the plan - it was such an obvious path to socialized medicine it was guaranteed to attract intense focus on both sides of the issue. It was also a valuable “stick” used to keep the health insurance industry on board with the backroom deal cut last spring (it is the only provision that the health insurance industry objected to in the current Obamacare plan). Since it was predetermined that it would be dropped prior to the start of public debate, the administration needs to have sufficient plausibility to do so now and PRESTO massive public opposition! Hence the phony attack on health insurance executives and the “post office” remark (no, I don’t think that was accidental) in order to be able to tell their hard-left supporters that they were “forced” to drop it. In the mean time, very few other elements of the plan have been focused on.

The essential components that now need to be focused and discussed are the Individual and Employer Mandate provisions. They are the glue that holds Obamacare together - without them the whole plan falls apart. These Mandates force everyone in the country into insurance plans that are designed by the Federal Government thus giving them control over everyone's choices. Mandates also fund the whole plan since they force young and healthy citizens to buy expensive policies that really don’t need and probably won’t use and employers to pay huge taxes for the subsidies.

I would strongly advocate that you stress to three very simple messages in in your discussions with other conservatives, independents, and Republicans:

(1) The Employer/Individual Mandates need to be opposed and need to be the center piece of the message (for the reasons I cite above) – they are the most politically unpopular feature of the Obamacare plan and they hold the whole scheme. Simply put, there is no government takeover without Mandates.

(2) Health Insurance Companies need to be called out for receiving Bailout money and a Monopoly Market – Health Insurance execs are politically unpopular and this would put the GOP/Opponents on the side of the people and not the special interests. We conservatives have a responsibility to defend the concept of insurance and free markets but not the current government and special interest distorted market.

(3) Obamacare is a corrupt bargain that benefits big government, powerful Washington politicians, big union, and big companies/industry at the expense (once again) of the American taxpayer, small business, the elderly, and the young.

Particularly, Republican leaders and specific “blue dog” Democrats in the U.S. Senate need to understand this as many of the “compromise” plans being discussed contain all of these elements. They need to be forced to go on record as not only opposing the “government options” but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care. Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was) – there needs to be united Republican/conservative opposition to Mandates now!

[utah_1]

"Healthy Americans Act" Wyden-Bennett, that Bennett is co-sponsor of.

Bennett's bill already has an abortion provision.
There is an exception for companies such as DMBA, but the rest of the insurance companies are out of luck.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.00391:

Bennett's bill, S.391 Healthy Americans Act:

(3) COVERAGE FOR FAMILY PLANNING-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a health insurance issuer shall make available supplemental coverage for abortion services that may be purchased in conjunction with enrollment in a HAPI plan or an actuarially equivalent healthy American plan.

(B) RELIGIOUS AND MORAL EXCEPTION- Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a health insurance issuer affiliated with a religious institution to provide the coverage described in subparagraph (A).

[Jeff Carlson]

So if as you point out everyone is covered now and we already pay for it (hidden tax) why will "reform" make it cheaper ? It can't and won't. All it will do is add more bureaucracy into the healthcare system which will add to the inefficiency i.e. cost more.
Everyone can agree that we would like more for less, reform doesn't get us there.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"As for mandating coverage, it's time for us to get honest assuming one is willing to support any kind of reform. Everyone is covered now, they need only go to an emergency room. We simply pay for it through a backdoor, or invisible tax. By bringing everyone into the pool, the concept is to provide openness and accountability where currently there is little, to none."

Yes, BUT.....how much is the amount we are currently paying per person versus the mandate?

[wecsg]

Dan -

May be you still need further education on why Individual Mandates need to be opposed.

I am here to help!

Read this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/JacobSullum/2009/09/23/does_cost_of_uncompensated_care_justify_forcing_people_to_buy_insurance?contact=true

Here is the BLUF for you, the "free rider cost" issue is pure BS:

"At a July press conference, President Obama claimed "the average American family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs" because uncompensated health care for the uninsured drives up the price of medical coverage. In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, by contrast, he said uncompensated care costs the average family $900.

According to a 2008 report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, both of those estimates are way off. The foundation's analysis indicates that the true annual cost per family is more like $200, with uncompensated care accounting for "less than 1 percent of private health insurance costs."