Why HASN'T the mandate been removed already?

[Ken Burch]

You'd have thought no case could be made for it if the PO and the buy-in were gone.

Is there anyone actually INSISTING the mandate stay in?

[Kansas Wyatt]

1. That was the point of reform to THEM all along.

A GIVEAWAY to the Insurance Industry, by FORCING everyone to buy expensive and useless insurance.

The genie is out of the bottle now.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Oh yeah, there are people here who will take any POS that comes out

As long as people are FORCED to buy it. Mandates are to a lot of Democrats what tort reform is to Republicans. A magic bullet that will miraculously lower the cost of health care. And it's impossible for them to conceive that young healthy people will buy insurance of their own volition if it's affordable and the coverage is decent.

[eleny]

3. Mandates plus zero price controls = death

[Stinky The Clown]

15. eleny ......

..... I'm right there with you. :hug:

[alc]

4. pre-existing conditions

The mandate is for many things, but mainly required to keep insurers from denying policies for pre-existing conditions. In theory, mandates means everybody is in the insurance pool (or paying towards it with fines/taxes). So everyone is allowed to get insurance from any insurer at any time since they've been paying into the pool.

[dgibby]

5. Annual cap loophole.

Trap door to get around that pesky little pre-existing condition problem.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Bwahaha! I notice you mentioned nothing about price.

Congratulations. You're no longer denied insurance. Now please pay premiums that are three times the cost.

[StarfarerBill]

6. Yep; the insurance industry; they don't care about delivering a product, just the money.

And what they say goes.

[boston bean]

7. Because the Republicans errr Democrats WANT a mandate

They don't want a public or single payer option!

[sixmile]

9. The mandate is the ultimate failure

Anyone who thinks otherwise does not live in the real world.

[grantcart]

10. How many times does this have to be explained

The issue is adverse selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection


Once you eliminate the provider's ability to discriminate on the basis of pre existing conditions then you have to have mandates.

If you do not then people will naturally stay out of insurance up until the time when they need it. Then they would join get the care and quit, only to rejoin when they need the care.

All economists agree that adverse selection or in this case adverse regulatory selection would collapse any insurance scheme.

This principle holds for single payer or private care schemes.

I do agree that if you are going to have mandates you have to have a public option.

[sixmile]

11. Let me explain it to you in simple English:

Get rid of the insurance companies. They heal NOTHING. They cure NO DISEASE. They are A CANCER.
Single payer. Raise everyone's taxes. Healthcare for all. It's not complicated.

[Ken Burch]

13. True. But our leaders don't have the guts.

It would mean admitting that letting the rich get richer is NOT more important than everything else in the whole goddam universe.

[sixmile]

16. Then we need new leaders!

The equations are simple.
Be a leader. Tell your leaders that we no longer have confidence in them. Whatever it takes.
That is democracy.

[grantcart]

17. Your patronizing comment has nothing to do with the OP

If you cannot stay on point in a discussion then just leave it to the adults and definitely do not take a fucking patronizing tone when you cannot follow the conversation.

The issue of mandates and the question of "adverse regulatory selection" is equally relevent under a single payer or private system.

As for getting rid of the insurance companies read this


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x64169

and then this

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/251


and then get back to me

[sixmile]

21. Congratulations on your opinions

I firmly believe that insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. Their mere existence makes me wretch. But I'm not going to get into a progressive pissing contest with you or pretend you are not adult (as you decidedly did in your previous post). That is unhelpful.

[Ken Burch]

12. That's my point

We aren't GETTING a public option.

[grantcart]

19. So the bill should be defeated

Removing mandates would also mean that you would have to allow discrimination on pre existing conditions.


Single Payer systems all have mandates. Any system that does not discriminate against preexisting conditions will have mandates.


The absence of the Public Option undermines the cost cutting rationale of the reform, eliminating competition. The President argued that cost cutting and competition were central to the reform effort. So I agree with you that the bill should be killed because it doesn't have the public option.

[eridani]

22. There is a big fucking difference between making me pay $125/month for actual CARE--

--under single payer, and forcing me to pay $450/month for really shitty UNDERINSURANCE to people who give out bonuses for denying claims.

[NorthCarolina]

14. Because the "mandate" IS THE REFORM that was the real plan from the get-go. (nt)

[sixmile]

18. If that is true it must be killed immediately

I knew from the start that the position the prez was beginning from was one of weakness.

[cynatnite]

20. That's because we haven't been screwed over enough...they're not done yet. n/t

[DeltaLitProf]

23. Pass the present bill through the regular procedure

Then immediately pass the public option and the medicare buy-in by reconciliation. Otherwise, there's no real cost control on the mandates. Otherwise, 2010 election day is going to be a blood bath.

Remember the present bill has subsidies to those who can't afford to buy their own insurance.