HCR Mandate. Could it actually by a GOP plan that might be a good idea after all?

[ericinne]

Back in 94', the GOP plan, that was the alternate to Clinton's plan, called for mandates. Back then, the reasoning was... People needed to be more responsible for themselves. Those of us who pay for our own insurance shouldn't have to be burdened with having to pay for someone else's emergency room visit. If you don't want health insurance, then you can contribute a little more into the system that is now paying for the subsidized medical treatments.

Back then, the GOP called it "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps"

As sick and twisted as it sounds. I can agree with the mandate if you put THAT analogy on it. I mean, who is this REALLY going to hurt?

I'm thinking just hold out's who are too stubborn to buy it, not the people who can't truly afford it. I think it's quite fair that a hold out who could be burdening us taxpayers less by providing for himself should be mandated to pay a bit more into a medical system that who will probably inevitably need to use some day. Sure he might be able to afford his own check ups and generic anti-biotic's here and there, but his tax contribution into the system ensures better funding for if and when something happens and he would need public assistance.

But that's just an opinion, disagree if you will.

[Oregone]

1. If you are going to mandate it, why not create a fair system to mandate people into?

Until you do, you can talk in circles until you are blue in the face trying to defend it to no avail. The urgency to force people into a private system responsible for producing almost twice the per capita health costs of other nations, and one that definitely delivers better access and quality of care to the rich alone, seems a bit irresponsible and unforgivable.

[dkf]

2. It's dangerous for us to depend on private insurance

First thing that happens when we are out of power is they will allow buying across state lines. They will set up pathetic but cheap plans in a loosely regulated state and will cut subsidies arguing that premiums will be lower. This will score well with the cbo as emphasis has always been on the percent of people with insurance and never on the usage and adequacy of plans

The plans will land up being high deductible catastrophic policies. People will pay hefty out of pocket costs and will hesitate to use care.

So there will be universal health insurance but only people who can afford out of pocket costs will see a doctor.

[Warpy]

3. The part that sticks in everybody's craw over it

is the fact that it's a giveaway to insurance companies that have dealing with us in extremely bad faith for far too long. People hate the insurance industry, they don't trust it, and they don't want their money and tax money going to make it even more powerful.

That's a position I can sympathize with. I want an alternative, too, preferably a buy in to Medicare for those of us under the age of 65 who have been abused by the insurance company for many years.

I'd be perfectly happy to pay $700 a month or whatever they're saying a buy in would cost until I turn 65. I resent the hell out of paying about that same price for an insurance company that I know damned full well devotes 30% of its proceeds into finding a way to rip me off.

That's really what this uproar over mandates is. It's an uproar over being forced to support a bad industry.

[ericinne]

4. Yep

I agree.