|
I don't want to misquote, but I think I heard Thom say that he believes the mandate for insurance will motivate people to bring about a public option, or Medicare for All, because they will have 'skin in the game', so to speak.
My contention is that, if this were the case, then we should currently have a public option for car insurance, which we do not.
We have had mandatory auto insurance here for 20+ years. But we have no Public Option for car insurance.
So, if mandated auto insurance did not bring about socialized auto insurance, then I think we can effectively extrapolate that there is a very high probability that mandatory health insurance will not get us socialized medicine of any type.
On top of that the amount of money we will be gifting on big insurance will further allow them to lobby against a public option on a scale that will dwarf the current effort. We will be giving them:
45,000,000 customers
x $375/month
= 16.875 billion per month
= 202 billion/year
= 1.01 Trillion Dollars every 5 years
Think of the lobbying they will do with that!
We should kill the mandate in committee, or bring back the PO or Medicare. IMHO.
In addition, pay or punish crapsurance will be a burden on the working poor who will be forced to buy crummy insurance from fly-by-night subsidiaries that will never pay out if the patient gets sick. A 2,000 page bill begs for the gaming of health insurance. It is the Health Insurance equivalent of the Financial Services Modernization Act.
I hope he will reconsider his position and lobby against the mandate - we can kill it in committee, and wind up with decent insurance reform. If opponents balk - we can just tell them that they need to compromise, too, just as we have.
Or, maybe I'm missing something....
PS
My car insurance 15 years ago in Australia cost a mere $25/year - including the registration!
This is because the auto insurance was socialized in South Australia, and because they have socialized medicine!
|