thoughts on the mandate

[dcsmart]

what are your thoughts on this subject.

i think it is absurd to mandate it, but not provide affordable health care options.

I am mandated to carry car insurance and wear a seatbelt. I know those are minor, but it is a type of government mandate. So, the idea of government mandating an action by citizens is not new. The public smoking ban is another example.

Another problem is this: mandating that people carry health care insurance and providing health care to all is not the same thing. I think the mandate will have some gov subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage. any thoughts on that.

Anyway, like i said in another post in this group, i am still surprised the health care issue has come this far.

i love the tone and reasoned thought in this group. nice to be with others who still support the Pres and his efforts.


:toast:

[Avalux]

1. Well, I don't agree with the mandate.

Car insurance and smoking bans are different because you can choose not to drive (and not need to purchase insurance) and you can choose not to smoke. I can't equate health care with those.

What should be mandated is providing health care, not paying for insurance. That said, if done correctly, we might actually end up with a form of universal health care in a backwards way.

It's the worst part of the bill and I'm still conference shakes it out. We'll see.

[dcsmart]

3. good point.

i see what you mean about the concept of mandate and my examples.

[treestar]

2. IT IS A GIVEAWAY TO INSURANCE COMPANIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Kucinich 2012!!!

Seriously, what is it with the obsession with insurance companies? I know they can be bastards, but I've seen them pay out on real claims! People I know who have work based insurance get their treatment and maybe have annoyances with the paperwork here and there, and any real fraud - get a lawyer and sue them! They are unsympathetic defendants.

This INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE EVIL AND TAKING OVER THE WORLD AND OBAMA IS THE ONE WHO LET THEM1!!! shit is getting ridiculous!

You can't reason with them that they would have a way to pay their medical bills!

[dcsmart]

4. i agree

i guess we need some real hard evidence before we condemn the whole industry.

[Number23]

10. Lord knows I hate insurance companies as much as the next person

It's a helluva racket they've got going on. Come to think of it, it's almost as good as the racket that private universities have. :)

But this angle that a few fools here have that if ANYTHING benefits the insurance companies it must be evil and destroyed, to hell with the untold millions of people that will be helped in the process is the height of insanity, immaturity and a sure-fired sign that they have no clue what the hell they are talking about.

[Cary]

5. Moral hazard. Who ends up paying for the uninsured?

I'm not wild about the whole notion of a mandate. To me it's just an indication that the only real answer is single payer universal coverage.

[NJmaverick]

6. From a purely idealistic point of view I don't like mandates

on a more practical level we don't leave people by the side of the curb to die (when they get sick or injured) which means people are treated with or with out insurance.

So I know it's more efficient and cheaper to have people go to doctors instead of using ERs as their primary medical provider.

I know many medical conditions are much cheaper when treated early or before they lead to more serious problems (like treating high blood pressure before a stroke or heart attack).


So while I wish there was a better way, I just don't know how (short of universal free health care) that we can bring medical costs down before we go bankrupt.

[dcsmart]

7. that makes sense

besides we have yet to really see how they will work. (wow) isn't this a nice discussion. everybody so thoughtful and calm. actually helping one another lean about the issues. glad for the email



:toast:

[sandnsea]

8. I oppose the mandate

and wish we would have waited to see how affordable this will be in reality. Some states have very affordable subsidized insurance, will the federal be the same? I hope so.

However, I also understand the issue of people waiting until they're sick to get care. Maybe we should have had an expensive pre-existing pool, just for those people, as an alternative. There was probably some solution to the problem.

But the ones who supported the mandate, like Krugman and Hillary and those who supported her, are the ones who got the mandate in this bill. It's a bit astonishing to me that they turn around and attack Obama for what their own favored politicians did.

The main upside to a mandate is that it MUST be affordable now or people will have a legitimate case to make to the government. You can't mandate people have something, like car insurance, and not have there be some measure of affordability to it. Most people can afford a $40 liability premium on a clunker and I'm sure insurance companies know they have to make those policies available or lose the mandated insurance clause. I think health care will be the same.

I'm most excited about the 150% of poverty Medicaid for adults. That, in itself, would be worth passing. So so many people will get health care from that, it's mind-boggling really. It's a great day.

[dcsmart]

9. i did not know about the medicaid

option. i think that is good. Doing away with preexisting conditions restrictions is another plus

[LiberalAndProud]

11. I suggest that the mandate is necessary for real reform.

Either we can mandate through tax collections or we can mandate through insurance premiums, but every person has to pony up in order for reform to occur. Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton both understood that it was an important underpinning of the reform. I can't see how to bring about sustainable change without the mandate.

[NYC_SKP]

12. I say it's a rope-a-dope. Here's how:

Yes, insurance companies will be getting more accounts, but these will be under stricter regulation.

Everyone will have insurance, we won't be subsidizing the uninsured (served at ERs around the nation) through higher costs.


But this is the beginning, over time we'll offer the public option to compete, we'll expand medicare.

And more.

Like social security, this will grow and improve.

[anigbrowl]

13. I think it's a real strategic mistake

SC's attorney general is already talking about seeking to have it declared unconstitutional and I regret to say I think he may well be right, legally speaking. It's hard to argue that it's not a form of indirect capitation.

I favor single payer myself and think medicare/medicaid for all would be best financed by an increase in payroll taxes but that suggestion is pretty radioactive, politically. One step that would strengthen progress (and may exist, but I honestly haven't had time to go through with a fine-tooth comb) would be to forbid medical service providers from discriminating or negotiating different rates with different providers, in much the same way that retailers who accept food stamps can't charge different prices for goods which are paid for that way.