Question: Should the mandate to have insurance or be fined be stripped from the current HCR?

[Hawkeye-X]

Just wondering.

I for one, support stripping out anything that would smell big money for the insurance corporations. That includes the concept of mandates.

Also, the negotitation for Medicare drug prices needs to be equally as fair as Canada or Mexico.

[sandnsea]

1. YES

People should be given their choice of insurance to go along with the mandate - not a fine.

[Vincardog]

7. W/o a mandate the whole thing falls apart, The give away to the Corporate owners just falls apart

[marybourg]

2. W/o a mandate the whole thing falls apart, as you know. nt.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. Exactly.

If the mandates go, everything goes. That might not be a bad thing.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. w/o a public option they can shove it up their "plan" up their asses IMHO

[Desertrose]

3. Strip it out.

How can the govt force its citizens to buy from private companies or then fine them for failing to do so?


What country is this again? Corporate States of America??

[derby378]

5. If there was an actual government-run alternative plan...

...I'd be more sympathic to mandates.

And even then, what about religious communities such the Amish or the Hutterites who want to maintain their separation from the modern world of the Information Age?

[Gman2]

8. NOOOOOO, not without a ROBUST public option.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. The only way I could imaginably support a mandate --

is it there were a public option open from day one to every American. I might find it acceptable then. Might.

[Laelth]

10. YES.

But then there will be no new health insurance law (and that would be better). The mandate is what the new law is all about. It's what the insurance companies want, and without it, they will not allow us to change the law.

Oh, and they also want to prevent California from passing single-payer in 2011, which California will almost certainly do, unless Congress passes this terrible legislation that we are now discussing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kelly1mm]

12. Do you know how CA is planning on funding SP? They were

broke and "borrowing" money from their taxpayers last I checked. Really interested if they have identified a way to pay for it.

[Laelth]

21. They haven't had any trouble selling bonds.

They can pay for it if they want to.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jtrockville]

11. Single-payer (not for profit) is the only fair way to get everybody in.

[prolesunited]

29. Is that on the table?

Was that ever on the table?

I guess my husband and I and the millions out there who can't get coverage in the meantime because of pre-existing conditions should just die in the meantime.

[jtrockville]

36. No one should die for lack of health care.

Nor should anyone be penalized for lack of ability (or desire) to subsidize the profits of an industry.

[mopinko]

13. can tell me what to do about people who do not buy insurance until

they feel that lump, or start having chest pains, or whatever? if you accept protection for people with pre-existing conditions, how do you prevent abuse?

[Lars39]

14. They're going to be stuck with huge medical bills...probably bankruptcy.

Isn't that enough punishment?

[eomer]

17. No, they will just buy insurance after they find out they've got cancer.

With the pre-existing condition exclusion gone there is nothing to stop them.

[Lars39]

19. And what's wrong with that?

It would be no different than people joining when the system first gets operational.

[eomer]

22. One way or another the result is bad.

One bad possibility would be if most everyone gets wise to the issue and waits until they have a major disease to buy into the program. Under this scenario only people with major illnesses are in the plan and so the premium that will have to be charged will be more than those people can afford.

The other bad possibility is that only some people get wise to the issue and wait until they have a major disease to buy into the program. Under this scenario those people who wait will not pay their fair share. Everyone else will have to pay more in order to carry along the sly ones.

[Lars39]

24. They'll pay in a different way...lives are shortened and quality of life suffers

when health care is put off.

[mopinko]

26. are you being thick on purpose?

or do you really not have any idea how insurance works?

[Lars39]

28. Oh, I know how it works...just not willing to prop it up anymore.

[mopinko]

33. tell me this- what is the difference

between people paying their taxes, under penalty of prison, in order to fund the fire department, and people buying insurance, under penalty of prison, to fund the health care system. both require that people pay for the protection of knowing that it is there. and both require that everyone pay all the time.

would people be allowed to refuse to pay whatever taxes will be levied to pay for single payer until they get sick?

[havocmom]

34. Ah, same as people who DO have insurance when they get hit with catastrophic illness

Without REAL competition to insurance (robust public option that anyone can buy into) there is no reform. Status quo pretty much determines that if you get really sick, your financial life is ruined, insurance or no.

[Cleita]

16. Do you work for the insurance industry?

If not you should. What you describe is their perfect model. Insure the healthiest segment of the population and when they start getting old and sick, dump them for any variety of reasons, like pre-existing conditions or keep raising their premiums until they are unaffordable. Which brings me to why we don't need affordable health care, we need accessible health care for everyone, which is why Medicare for all is the only really workable system and least costly as well.

[mopinko]

27. i am just answering the question.

not advocating for a mandate, just answering the question of why one would be necessary.

i agree, single payer is the best way to go for the most part. but i do have some sympathy for the idea that "the government"- read, say, ronald raygun, or the bush congress, might be a clumsy implement for taking care of such basic needs. although medicare works well, and the va works well, medicade has been a constant target of budget cuts, program slashes and bullshit like the hyde amendment. the political and practical consequences of medicare and the va keep those systems in balance, but as the bush attempts to gut the social security fund prove, nothing is sacred when those assholes are in power.
yeah, yeah, i know the corporations are letting people die for profits. but this hcr bill would go a long way toward regulating them like we do other basic services that are not provided directly by the government. sad that none of that is the topic of much conversation.

[Cleita]

15. Absolutely.

It only penalizes and criminalizes the working poor. Many will have to choose whether to eat or buy insurance because they make too much to qualify for Medicaid but don't have enough to buy insurance. Not only that adding penalties and maybe even putting them through the criminal justice system for not having money is not very American IMHO. In three strikes and you are out states, like California, it could add more to the jail system just for this.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Yeah, but only because we maintain an employer based system

but put the onus on the individual who gets no choices. If we were scrapping the employer based system then I'd be ok with mandates, PO or not.

[Justitia]

20. Yes. But nobody is asking me.

[Johonny]

23. If this was a clean air act or a clean water act

how excited would we be to know congress wasn't mandating it but was just letting companies opt in if they want?

I feel comfortable with the mandate part, the lack of a true public option part... that I'm not thrilled with. I'm not sure not for profit private companies are enough to keep insurance affordable with the credits and subsidies. It's also unclear to me the people that need the subsidies will get the money. Seems like mandated programs should work both ways. We know now many people eligible for government assistance don't get it because the government isn't mandated to find you and get you the help you need. The last part isn't popular because it becomes to "nanny" state in feel. However the best option to avoid it, just opting people into a government program that default applies to everyone, isn't on the table.

[Shagbark Hickory]

25. Yes if and only if there is no public option and no non-profit option (which I predict there will be

[KamaAina]

30. Not just Yes but HELL YEAH!!!

Already I'm starting to hear stories -- one from an unmarried couple that must remain so because they're both female :grr: -- about how this would eat their lunch.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. No, I like the idea.

Provided there are co-ops so there are alternatives to insurance companies.

[blues90]

32. it should be stripped out

You cannot punish people who can't afford it not matter what. Fuck the ins companies . let them refund the money they stole then we'll talk about a mandate until then shove the mandate unless the people who put this in place want to trade places and checking accounts with the poor people and see how it feels.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Optional insurance?

What a wonderful idea!

All the people who don't get insurance can just die.

Okay, that's probably not very practical, because the rest of us wouldn't like that. So we'll mandate that Emergency Rooms take care of them. Yeah, they probably won't seek preventive care, and so they'll get sick. And once they get chronically sick, we wouldn't want our own insurer to take them on for fear it will raise our premiums.

But otherwise, what could go wrong? It's brilliant!

I even know what we could call it! Let's call it the goddamn motherfucking clusterfuck of bastardized system we have right now, Or GMCBS for short. Or just the Hawkeye plan.