Without the mandate...

[Green_Lantern]

Wouldn't only people who are sick and disabled be forced to use insurance simply to pay for health care.

People who never get health care and don't get sick can get away with not having insurance.

As much as the private insurance system sucks many people like me with extensive medical conditions depend on having insurance to get medical treatment and equipment.

We already have an insurance mandate.

[leftstreet]

1. 'the luxury to be able to not have insurance'

LOL

[Jennicut]

2. We do put a lot of burden on the system being the sicker ones.

I am covered right now but one issue I have though about is that when healthier people opt out the sicker end up having costlier insurance and eventually get higher premiums. All health care systems have some kind of mandate. I think people here just would prefer to give their money to the govt. instead of the health care industry. I am a type 1 diabetic. I understand the dislike of the mandates but if it was $700a year it would be less then what I pay in meds and doctor visits every year. Still, the subsidies may not be enough for those who want insurance but find it very costly.

[Green_Lantern]

4. you're right...

Medicare is much more popular than private insurance, even tea baggers flip out at the thought of Medicare being cut.

[The2ndWheel]

3. If people weren't forced to pay for things they don't want/need/should have

under threat of penalty(jail/fine), we wouldn't have the mass society we have today. Those penalties are the only thing that keeps this whole thing together, because other than that, we have fewer and fewer direct connections between us. Can anyone imagine trying to keep 300,000,000 people together on a voluntary basis?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. If the goal is treatment, then like other mandate nations

profit should be eliminated for the mandated products. Please explain to me how the profit helps you, or anyone outside of those who get the bucks. We will be the ONLY nation to mandate the purchase of for profit products. Why?

[Green_Lantern]

6. that's not true by any means...

People can choose to purchase a plan from a nonprofit insurance company included in the exchange.

[Romulox]

7. With the mandate, wouldn't insurers take in as much in forced premiums as possible, while paying out

as little as possible?

Insurance companies have a profit motive here too, you know. :hi:

[Green_Lantern]

8. I don't think they can legally do that...

The whole point in the mandate is so more people take part in the insurance pool. The more people involved the lower premiums will be because more people involved means each person must contribute less.

Also insurers are required to spend 85% of premiums collected on actual health care, anything less they have to rebate the patient.

[Romulox]

9. Um, of course they can. It's the basis of their business model.

"The more people involved the lower premiums will be because more people involved means each person must contribute less."

No, this does not logically follow.

"Also insurers are required to spend 85% of premiums collected on actual health care, anything less they have to rebate the patient."

And my understanding is that this represents less than they pay out now in many cases. :wow: At any rate, they can simply raise their overall rates to maintain their current levels of probability. There's nothing in the bill to prevent it.

[Green_Lantern]

10. insurance doesn't work the way you suggest...

They legally can't just jack up premiums in some conspiracy to do so. What happens is that they find it more economic to cover less people but charge higher premiums.

According to the CBO this bill will decrease premiums on average by 56% http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/25/obama-premiums/

The CBO also said that

on average, premiums will be the same as they would have been if the Senate had the public option, but that the public option saved the federal government more money by putting downward pressure on the premiums of low-cost private plans, which will be heavily subsidized.

[Romulox]

11. Of course it does. Insurers make money ("profit") by charging more in premiums than they pay out.

"They legally can't just jack up premiums in some conspiracy to do so. "

It's not a conspiracy; it's how for-profit insurance works.

[Green_Lantern]

13. I know, that's what I said....

That's why there are so many uninsured people.

[WeekendWarrior]

12. I rarely get sick, but

I'm more than happy to pay the mandate, if necessary. I don't care who it's going to if it helps millions of people. That's the bottom line.

[Green_Lantern]

14. as I see it there is already a mandate for people with chronic..

Illness. We MUST have insurance to cover us or else we can't get treatment.

[cbdo2007]

15. Besides broadening the insurance pool, hospitals are legally required to treat people

whether they have insurance or not yet there are many way those people can get out of paying.

As long as hospitals are legally required to treat people without insurance then this is basically creating a new "non-insurance" pool of people who are subsidizing their own care without insurance. It's only fair to the rest of us who would be paying for it.