If there is a robust public option, it will have to have mandates to work.

[rateyes]

I know that Obama made a campaign promise of no mandates, but that's one promise he cannot keep. Here is why.

Once you exclude the "pre-existing condition" clause of a health insurance policy, if you have no mandates, then a person need not buy insurance until that person gets sick, or pregnant, or whatever.

For example, a 27 year old woman doesn't have insurance, gets pregnant, and then signs up for the public option. She can't be turned down for insurance, so she pays the low premium until she has the baby, and then drops the insurance.

Such a plan would be unsustainable. Only the sick would buy insurance, and for insurance to work you need healthy people paying premiums on a regular basis. (That's why an "insurance strike" would work to get single-payer, but it would be next to impossible to get people with insurance to drop their coverage all at once.)

IMO, the Democrats should remember that a robust public option IS a compromise from single-payer. They should accept a public option that is an option for everyone, not just those without insurance at this time, and have mandates with subsidies to help people pay premiums.

Beyond this, they should not go. If they pass this plan, single-payer will eventually come, and the insurance companies know it.

[damntexdem]

1. Any plan short of an all-encompassing single-payer system will need mandates.

Otherwise, free riders will undermine insurance for others, and cost us all when they do need care.

In fact, this was the one area where I knew that Clinton had a better approach than Obama during the primaries.

[Better Believe It]

2. A strong "robust" public option is no longer being considered. It's off the table

[saracat]

3. No kidding. i can't believe the lack of information flow. It was even posted here.

[mike_c]

4. single payer universal health care is the only genuine reform....

If all Americans are covered, mandates are no longer an issue. HR 676 is the answer.

[FormerDittoHead]

5. The PROBLEM is they want Mandates but NO public option!!?? SCREW THAT.

No way I want to be "mandated" to buy something from a private company which is keeping 30% of the money, esp when the market is so controlled by so few players, and they're unwilling to compete in price, but insist upon creating a confusing list of "packages", so we only have apples and oranges to compare.

...and no way do I want the government to pay money to one of a handful of for-profit insurance companies to supplement low income people.