Dems should remove mandates from HCR

[ashling]

This would be a win all the way around. After the Reconciliation bill goes through.

Republicans first promoted this idea. It was put in to get their support (the Health Insurance Industry) and it has stayed in. Now Republicans say it is a bad idea and their AGs are suing saying its unconstitutional - it's not -

By taking it out, they are doing something that would
1. be bipartisan
2. embarass the Republicans because they would either have to go along with the Dems (which would prompt massive Republican Reflux) OR oppose it and look like fools (ok, they already look like fools, but they would look like bigger fools

3. it would be a step toward mollifying the farther left of the Democratic Party. who oppose mandates

[ixion]

1. It would go a long way at reducing the animosity

toward it, in my opinion.

[Renew Deal]

4. Bullshit

Republicans are contrarians. They'd oppose the end to mandates if Obama supported it.

[no limit]

5. How is that bullshit? You can't take 2 seconds to explain your drive by post?

[Renew Deal]

15. Do you think there's anything that Obama or the Dems can do to "reduce the animosity"

from extremists? I don't.

[no limit]

16. I guess depends on who we are talking about. A lot of liberals have a lot of animosity

including myself. And if the mandate was removed a lot of that animosity would go away, I know atleast in my case it would.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ashling]

8. Did you even read my post?

That was one of the points I made. "I was for it before I was against before...."

[Renew Deal]

14. I didn't reply to you.

;)

[ashling]

23. OK, let me restate:

Did you read the original post - the one upon which this thread is ostensibly based?


;)

[Renew Deal]

26. Yes!

I'm not convinced that ending the mandate is the answer. A better answer is adding a "medicare for all" type public option.

To me that's different than the animosity issue because most of those with animosity (teabaggers) are not debating in good faith.

[ashling]

33. I don't think it is necessarily "the answer" - though I guess

that depends on what the question is. I would prefer single payer or even a plan on the British model. All I was addressing here was Republican intransigence and stupidity ... and the fact that many on the left are extremely upset about the mandates.

[saracat]

2. I agree. That would help a great deal! But I also can't see how they would pay for anything without

them.This is the premise of the entire plan and WHY our being held hostage to private ensurers is soo bad.

[ashling]

12. But it doesn't help to pay for anything.

Under the HCR system with no public option. the only people who recieve a financial benefit from this are the Health Insurance Corporations.

[saracat]

31. I know.What I meant is because this is "private" insurance the mandate is whatis paying for the

"private" insurance.People get subsidies that will benefit those companies.Allegedly the subsidies are to purchse insurance that will entitle people to health care.That is why they won't repeal the mandate.It is the corner stone.But I agree if there were a way to delete the mandates, that would be a good thing. It is just unlikely.

[no limit]

3. Would be great, but it won't happen. Both parties agree that the mendates should be there

if it looks like there is conflict on this issue it is only because they need it to look that way, keeps the campaign cash flowing in. It's 2 sides of the exact same coin.

[optimator]

6. there is a provision allowing states to opt out

but I think every individual should have that option.

[GodlessBiker]

7. Only if individuals sign away their right to emergency health care regardless...

of their ability to pay.

Otherwise, individuals receive a benefit - the knowledge that they will be cared for without regard to income at an emergency room - without the concurrent responsibility to pay into the health insurance system.

[ashling]

10. They already had that benefit before HCR

Don't you remember the Republican talking point that nobody is without Health Care, because they can go to the emergency room?

[GodlessBiker]

11. Agreed. Now people just have to pay for it.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. They have to pay for it now

Emergency room care delivered to the uninsured is not a gift to them, it is an uncollected bill, reported to credit agencies and aggressively collected if possible. Most who are forced into that sort of 'care' wind up paying for it, and far more than they would have with access to a more appropriate sort of care.

And of course, the undocumented population are not allowed to buy insurance under this reform, so they will still be going to the emergency room, same as today. So change/no change. Viola!

[Raineyb]

49. They pay for it now.

What do you think people just walk into the emergency room and get free health care? They BILL people you know. And usually at rates a hell of a lot higher than those they bill the insurance companies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Speaking from the left, I think mandates are OK

if the mandate is to pay into a medicare-for-all or single-payer system. Mandates to purchase for-profit insurance, with no guarantee of actually getting health CARE, are a travesty.

[Spike89]

20. I agree

The mandate thing bewilders me to a certain degree. I'd much rather the mandate was for paying into a government-run single-payer system, but I'm hoping that will come along some day. Even short of that, I think the regulations being placed on insurer profit margins, the fostering of non-profit options, and hopefully someday public options are certainly things to build on and work toward.

When only the people that need insurance have it, it isn't insurance, it is a crappy version of a health savings plan. We must have universal or near universal coverage for any model to work. It won't be "fair" to everyone, in that most people will never get out of the system what they pay in, but it is worth it in that it protects everyone and it is what a morale society does.

[Spike89]

22. I agree

The mandate thing bewilders me to a certain degree. I'd much rather the mandate was for paying into a government-run single-payer system, but I'm hoping that will come along some day. Even short of that, I think the regulations being placed on insurer profit margins, the fostering of non-profit options, and hopefully someday public options are certainly things to build on and work toward.

When only the people that need insurance have it, it isn't insurance, it is a crappy version of a health savings plan. We must have universal or near universal coverage for any model to work. It won't be "fair" to everyone, in that most people will never get out of the system what they pay in, but it is worth it in that it protects everyone and it is what a moral society does.

[Statistical]

29. There are no meaningful regulations on profit margins.

Mandates are simply a transfer of wealth to insurance companies

Even worse
Mandates & subsidies are a transfer of national wealth to insurance companies.
Where does national wealth come from... taxes. So it is indirectly taxpayers giving mountains of cash to insurance company shareholders.

The many giving to the few.

[Spike89]

32. They could and should be stronger

but there are limits on the profit margins and there are provisions to help establish non-profit insurance groups. I wish we'd simply bypassed the insurance industry totally, but we didn't.

However, even had we gone pure government-run single payer, it is still a case of the many giving to the few--the vast majority of medical bills will be run up by a relatively small number of people. That is what social programs are and it isn't a bad thing. We have a moral obligation to provide health care to everyone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. But the few being given to should be sick people who need help,

not insurance company profiteers.

I would willingly and gladly pay higher taxes for true universal health care - but i don't want 30% of my healthcare money going directly into private pockets. They are stealing from the commons, while I am contributing to it.

[mdmc]

25. HOLLA!

+1

[western mass]

42. +1

[deacon]

46. I can live with it too - however, the GOP is forcing things back into the house

and since it's going there i think it should be sent back with a public option. How ironic that the GOP would end up giving us the public option. :rofl:

[ecstatic]

13. Maybe 50% of insurance costs could be refunded annually if no

major treatments are needed? :shrug:

[Spike89]

17. Actually would be counterproductive

That isn't the way insurance works. The entire concept is shared risk. For example, using simplified math, say that the average annual medical bill for everyone in the country was $1,000. It costs $1,100 for insurance. Now take 10 random people, they will not each require $1,000 in care a year. Instead, it works out that one of them needs $9,000 and the other nine only require around $100. The insurance company makes $1,000 profit.

To rebate 50% of the premium for people that didn't use it means that you must have much higher rates because in this example 9 people are getting about $500 each back, that means that even fewer people could afford coverage. Where it really gets crazy is that the people less able to afford coverage, are for the most part the ones that put the volatility into the numbers. Young people are more likely to fit into the extremes of rarely needing medical care, or requiring some expensive treatments (some that may continue for 50+ years).

Insurance is NOT the same as a medical savings account. True socialized single-payer government-run health care would still have to follow the laws of basic math. The average cost per person has to equal the average paid per person. In other words, the average amount of tax paid into the system has to cover the amount paid out + any overhead.

[JohnWxy]

18. I think people should be able to "Opt out" of health insurance. Of course, with insurance companies

being prohibited from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, this is particularly appealing.

But, nontheless, I think people should be able to "Opt-out" .....but of course, if insurance companies can't DENY you coverage for pre-existing conditions, there should be nothing stopping them from applying an appropriate premium later, to those who opt out so they can wait "until they need" insurance to then buy it later. I figure, somebody who opts out now and waits until he's maybe 40 years old to jump back in would be expected to pay a premium about triple what he would have been paying had he been insured all those intervening years (and getting real health care which would catch diseases early).


Sure, you can opt out, but don't expect to Opt back in at the same price you would have been paying if you had been insured all those years.

[Spike89]

30. The numbers won't add up

Profit or not, that would lead to the same situation we currently have...a system that doesn't work. Insurance is a shared risk pool. Take out the low-risk (opt-outs) and rates must go up. Take 10 average people, two are chronically sick, 1 at risk, and 7 healthy people. Together, they average $1,000 a year in medical expenses, so say they pay $1200/year for insurance. The problem is that the 2 chronically ill people each use about $3000 per year, and the at risk person uses $4000 every other year (say $2000/year). The 7 healthy people use virtually nothing, but on average every 5th year one of them will suffer a huge $10,000 illness. They all get covered and everything is fine...those that need it get medical care, those that don't have security in case that unexpected $10,000 calamity hits them.
If they can opt out, the most likely to do so are the 7 healthy people. Say only 4 do and the other 3 keep the security. You now have only 6 people insured, the payout pool ($1000/person) has dropped from $10,000 to $6,000 which only covers the cost of the two chronic patients. Of course, the likelyhood of paying out the $10,000 calamity for the "healthy" has dropped to about $4,000, but you still have the at risk patient at $2,000. To just make this up without additional profit, the insurance company (or government) needs to kick in another $6,000 or nearly double the price per person.
Of course, with the rate hike, the 3 remaining healthy people can no longer afford to play the game, so they opt out. We're left with only three people in the plan, running up $8,000 a year in bills...they'd need to pay nearly 3X what they'd originally paid. At this point, risk taker leaves because the cost is more or equal to the potential benefit. Now we have no real insurance, the two chronic patients are basically on their own to find $3000/year and all 8 of the other people have no insurance at all.

[GreenArrow]

21. By and large, and especially at the top,

they want mandates. Not going to happen.

[calico1]

27. So if you are not required to have health insurance

and you don't have any and then you get into a car wreck and land in the hospital for weeks, who pays for it?

With no mandates people who have health insurance will have to continue to pay for the uninsured. So how do we controls costs if there are still going to be a lot of people without insurance?

[spanone]

28. give nothing back to these neanderthals...it works because of the mandate.

[eridani]

34. If there were a robust public option run like Medicare, mandates would be acceptable

Otherwise, HELL NO!!

[earth mom]

35. You are dreaming if you think the insurance industry will allow that.

Would bank robbers easily give up their money? HELL NO!

Bank Robbers = Insurance Robber Barons.

[Naturalist111]

36. Think of it this way.....

it would be like opting out of paying taxes for public schools for those who don't have children. It won't work.

[johnaries]

37. So Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are Republicans?

They both supported the mandate during the primaries. Republicans didn't want health care reform, period.

[amborin]

38. No Robust Public Option, No Mandate! n/t

[Duke Newcombe]

39. Your sig and number 3 don't match up.

Your framing/points in this OP disturb me...but I can't quite put my finger on why.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. If you want coverage for preexisting conditions you need a mandate.

Sorry, it simply doesn't work any other way. You can't allow people to only buy insurance when they get sick. It wrecks the entire system.

[ipaint]

43. If you want a mandate to purchase for profit helth ins.

Then you also need a mandate for a public option run by the government and offered as the basic plan for all americans which cannot be profited off of by private ins. companies. This is absolutely necessary to keep private ins. in line.

As in every other country that offers this mix of private and public ins., the ins. companies cannot profit off of the basic government plan that covers everyone.

[deacon]

44. The bottom line is the public option should be voted on today. n/t

[jpljr77]

45. Mandates are the only thing that makes this bill come close to working.

And it has nothing to do with politics or profits for insurance companies or anything like that. It has to do with math...and you can't beat math.

[ipaint]

47. You are so right.

And considering after this bill goes into affect we will be paying approx double or more what every other country with health care for everyone (not just some) pays, I would have to conclude our "for profit, private mandate only" math is seriously fucked.

[Kablooie]

48. you would need a different composition of Democratic congresspeople to do that.

It might happen, but not now.