Reply #64: Plainly put [View All]

[quakerboy]

I will not accept a mandate without a public option. Anyone who votes for that will no longer have my support.

I understand the need for a mandate. Getting everyone into the pool is important for the success of health care. However, I think it is optimistic to the point of insanity to think that the insurance companies will decrease their prices just because everyone will have to buy in. Rather than lower prices to reflect the greater numbers of people and the actuarial needs, they will raise all the prices to as much as they think they can get away with on their newly captive audience.

It is my understanding that many insurers are already charging based on having the riskier populations in their risk pool. But they move heaven and earth to make sure that as few as possible are included, even as they charge based on their inclusion. And the fact is that many other countries include everyone, risky or not, and do it a far more affordable prices. So it is possible to reduce the costs and still add the more "risky" persons.

With the reservation that 15-20 years down the line, if insurers drop their prices out of the goodness of their hearts, I may change my mind, a mandate without a public option is a deal killer. From the top to the bottom. From my representative, my senators, my president, and the party itself, I reject any who would push or even passively accept such a plan.

That is an ultimatum. I do understand the issue. And I also have my requirements. I refuse any health plan that is wholly or partially reliant on the good nature of a profit driven corporation.