Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-25-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
| 14. Long before he took office. Nixon first proposed this system nationally in the 70s |
|
Though it has earlier roots.
|
| -If there is no "Public Option", is there a rational argument for mandates? |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 04:17 PM |
#0 |
 -
Are you saying there is a rational argument for mandates if there is a public option? And this: |
ProSense |
Oct-25-09 04:30 PM |
#1 |
  -
If there is an "affordable" public option for everyone, I have no problem with mandates |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 04:39 PM |
#5 |
| -
Without a mandate, you can't ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. |
BzaDem |
Oct-25-09 04:32 PM |
#2 |
| -
Then the exchange would get all the sick, and we're back to square one. |
MarjorieG |
Oct-25-09 04:36 PM |
#4 |
| -
So you would accept the mandate alone to accomplish banning the pre-existing condition check? |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 04:42 PM |
#6 |
| -
No. A mandate without subsidies would be unfair to the poor and would not work. |
BzaDem |
Oct-25-09 06:12 PM |
#26 |
| -
And if only some qualify for susidies who need them? |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 06:32 PM |
#29 |
| -
If some people don't qualify for subsidies who need them |
BzaDem |
Oct-26-09 01:58 AM |
#35 |
| -
"insurance companies will want to make insurance affordable to them" - Incorrect |
Oregone |
Oct-26-09 02:38 AM |
#37 |
| -
The incentives are slightly different here. |
BzaDem |
Oct-26-09 02:34 PM |
#46 |
| -
It doesn't matter--the general concept still applies |
Oregone |
Oct-26-09 04:23 PM |
#48 |
| -
BTW, this just doesn't hold water because people can still pay fines or get horrible insurance... |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 05:31 PM |
#17 |
| -
The mandate would require a minimum plan. |
BzaDem |
Oct-25-09 06:16 PM |
#27 |
| -
So if the private market complies to do this affordably, what is the point of the "public option"? |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 06:37 PM |
#31 |
| -
Here is how I see it working out |
BzaDem |
Oct-26-09 02:09 AM |
#36 |
| -
But you do understand that only Exchange Eligible Individuals get subsidies? |
Oregone |
Oct-26-09 02:56 AM |
#38 |
| -
Great. You can "afford" it. But after paying these shitstains, you have no discretionary income |
eridani |
Oct-26-09 06:27 AM |
#39 |
| -
If not mandated, then more free for public option under the guidelines. Now we need competitive PO. |
MarjorieG |
Oct-25-09 04:34 PM |
#3 |
| -
The latest is we must Mandate because |
Bluenorthwest |
Oct-25-09 04:48 PM |
#7 |
| -
No one supports letting states opt out of the mandate. |
BzaDem |
Oct-25-09 06:18 PM |
#28 |
| -
Which is something that I don't like about the opt-out |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 06:40 PM |
#32 |
| -
We have to have everybody? Fantastic! |
eridani |
Oct-26-09 06:28 AM |
#40 |
| -
Straw OP |
Aramchek |
Oct-25-09 04:55 PM |
#8 |
| -
Straw-man argument consists of falsifying an opponent's argument to attack it them easily |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 04:59 PM |
#9 |
| -
you made up a nonexistent situation, and then attacked it |
Aramchek |
Oct-25-09 05:32 PM |
#18 |
| -
Ah, you mean "hypothetical". And it isn't entirely a hypothetical... |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 05:45 PM |
#22 |
| -
you want all-access to the PO because you want Single Payer |
Aramchek |
Oct-25-09 06:06 PM |
#25 |
| -
No, but thank you for guessing my reasoning (which is beyond idealogical) |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 06:35 PM |
#30 |
| -
We don't need a public option other than allowing people to buy into Medicare |
eridani |
Oct-26-09 06:30 AM |
#41 |
| -
the rationale is to eliminate pre-existing |
TheWebHead |
Oct-25-09 05:03 PM |
#10 |
| -
So is forcing everyone to buy insurance worth eliminating pre-existing conditions check? |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 05:13 PM |
#11 |
| -
yes it would make it worth it to me |
TheWebHead |
Oct-25-09 05:43 PM |
#21 |
| -
No. Forcing me to pay $450 a month is not worth it. What would be worth it |
eridani |
Oct-26-09 06:31 AM |
#42 |
| -
"is there a rational argument for mandates?" If one were a Republican -or supported the party |
depakid |
Oct-25-09 05:17 PM |
#12 |
| -
The insurance companies proposed, before Obama ever took office... |
slipslidingaway |
Oct-25-09 05:25 PM |
#13 |
| -
Long before he took office. Nixon first proposed this system nationally in the 70s |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 05:26 PM |
#14 |
| -
Thinking of these articles, the insurance companies knew they had to ... |
slipslidingaway |
Oct-25-09 08:33 PM |
#34 |
| -
Mandates with no public option is the end of the Democratic Party |
Thrill |
Oct-25-09 05:28 PM |
#15 |
| -
Mandates with a public option delayed until 2013 may still be the end of us |
eridani |
Oct-26-09 06:32 AM |
#43 |
| -
The rational is that, the bigger and the healthier the pool, the cheaper the insurance. |
Mass |
Oct-25-09 05:29 PM |
#16 |
| -
Not entirely rational argument, because the pools are divided by 400 anyway |
Oregone |
Oct-25-09 05:35 PM |
#19 |
| -
The answer is probably NO, or we would not need waivers for the middle class. |
Mass |
Oct-25-09 05:37 PM |
#20 |
| -
The public option should be open as a choice for 100% of the population. |
ipaint |
Oct-25-09 05:47 PM |
#23 |
| -
Bingo -- A great observation about the hypocricy of this |
Armstead |
Oct-25-09 05:48 PM |
#24 |
| -
There is no rational argument at all for corporate mandates |
Sebastian Doyle |
Oct-25-09 07:25 PM |
#33 |
| -
Great point. |
area51 |
Oct-26-09 10:58 AM |
#44 |
| -
in a word...no. |
dionysus |
Oct-26-09 12:44 PM |
#45 |
| -
I don't see a rational case for any mandates under this system |
TheKentuckian |
Oct-26-09 03:02 PM |
#47 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread