Single Payer for all = De-facto Mandate?

[vaberella]

It's something I've posted about 3 times so far and it's been bugging me. I find that single payer basically would have to enforce a mandate to work. A PO would be a small-scale mandate. But single payer all over the nation would instill a full on mandate for all people to be insured much like medicare has done. Keep in mind the below is a very superficial explanation.

I'm tired of the mandate issue being used as leverage to tear down a decent (if not great) legislation. Mandates, something I did not like in the HRC reform plan during the primaries are not something I'm keen on when it comes to the underlining punitive element. Have that removed I don't have a problem with mandates, but mandates wouldn't be what they are without some level of punishment in place....except medicare seems to be used quite happily from even people who advocate against the thing because its the insurance they have.

In any event, I realize that opening the pool is fundamental with any sort of health care initiative. Be it single payer or whatever. Single payer (expand medicare) or universal healthcare will basically open up health are to all people. If health care was government run they would need the healthy people to offset the amount of sick people, effectively cost containment. It's like using the young to pay into a pool for SS so when they pay for all the old people before them and it happens again and again. I have no problems with that, but by pushing single payer by so many people they are mandating that EVERYONE in the nation be covered and pay into this pool. What if someone doesn't want to pay into the pool? What would they do? Do they think these people should be penalized? I support universal health care, and I have no problems with it. But I can see a good number of people revolting when "their personal choice" is gone. Single payer if made universal would eliminate private health insurance ad basically eliminate choices that many people would have previously had since they would be forced to follow this new system. How woud we enforce this condition if a good 30 million people or more don't want to have to follow the system? Would we let them go and still pay for them if we don't tax them? Would these people be untaxed, but still benefit from single payer even if they don't want it----and there have a free rider issue.


Not only that, the other argument is to also contain costs so that the "free rider" issue is taken care of. In the end we pay for them. I don't see how so many advocates for single payer are so up and arms over mandates. If it was just the punitive accept I could agree, but these people are going all out. One person basically gave me their real position---it's not even the mandate the issue is the fact health insurace companies are still playing a role. So I'm like, in essence mandates aren't your problem....any sort of reform that works with health insurance wil be a problem and you're using this as the wedge to make an ultimately weak argument.

Finally, I saw another poster say that Big Ed said mandates are unamerican and all I could think was that single payer---due to the defacto mandate is als unamerican. Of course I plan on refining this but this is my initial thoughts on the issue.

[firedupdem]

1. Very good point here:

"it's not even the mandate the issue is the fact health insurace companies are still playing a role. So I'm like, in essence mandates aren't your problem....any sort of reform that works with health insurance wil be a problem and you're using this as the wedge to make an ultimately weak argument."

I think they lose track as to what they are fighting against here. Thanks for posting your thoughts...will respond more later.

[sandnsea]

2. Social Security is a mandate, absolutely

I suppose they could have created a program more like social security, with Medicaid as a fall back if someone is injured before they pay in enough quarters; but it's still a mandate.

The thing the single payer people don't understand is that half the country is as opposed to being forced to pay the government as they are opposed to being forced to pay corporations. I don't care either way but do think we're a big enough country to accommodate both views. Not these idealogues, on either side. It's got to be their way or no way and they'll say anything to justify their view. It only becomes hysterical, sadly hysterical, when they use the exact same arguments to justify opposite views and don't even know or care that they're doing it.