You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #27: The mandate would require a minimum plan. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. The mandate would require a minimum plan.
That minimum plan would at the very least cover catastrophic medical expenses such as those associated with Cancer.

The mandate doesn't solve all the problems from people gaming the system. But it solves enough of them to make it possible to end discrimination on the basis of health status without an upward spiral in costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -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 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC