Mandates in health care reform can be good or bad

[OzarkDem]

depending on the type of plan they are linked to.

Mandates + no cost controls on insurance premiums + no competiton between govt and private insurance = skyrocketing costs.

What private health insurance company wouldn't take advantage of such a scenario by jacking up premiums and increasing profits?

However,

Mandates + cost controls (linking govt subsidies and tax credits to caps on insurance premiums as percentage of income) + choice between govt and private insurance plans = lower costs and a sustainable system.

Let's keep the discussion on reform honest and aboveboard.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. No, it can't.

Capped insurance premiums (at an attractive rate) combined with a mandate for underwriters to take anyone and without doing anything meaningful to change the motivations that cause people to euphemistically self-insure does nothing but cause insolvency among the insurance companies that the whole screwed-up system depends upon.

Mandates are a prerequisite of true success. Krugman is right. The Obama plan does nothing but defer collapse.

[OzarkDem]

3. A third scenario, correct

There are many combinations out there where use of mandates can hurt or help. The trick is to know how to use them wisely. I suspect this is why opponents of real health care reform like to focus on them. The nuances are difficult for most voters to understand.

[Cant trust em]

2. Here's a great anti-corporate message on health care from Obama

I got this from the website.

Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.

Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.

[OzarkDem]

4. I read that before

First, he doesn't provide enough details of such a plan to know whether it would work.

Second, its very complicated, unnecessarily so. It adds a new level of bureacracy that isn't needed.

Third, even with the vague information provided, it still wouldn't create an incentive to keep premiums low or encourage competition.

[Cant trust em]

5. Is it vague, or complicated?

You have two seemingly contrasting criticisms here. I'm far from a health care policy wonk so I'm not going to argue with you, but it sounds like Obama is talking mostly about preventing monopolies from getting out of hand.

[OzarkDem]

6. Its both

While Obama's talk of preventing monopolies is helpful, it won't address the problem of rising health insurance premiums. The market for private health insurance has traditionally been non-competitive, intentionally so.

Trying to reduce monopolies is no guarantee that premiums would decrease.

[Cant trust em]

8. It's not a guarantee, but it's a great place to start

freeing up the market place won't hurt.

[OzarkDem]

9. But demonizing Clinton's plan for trying to cover everyone gets us nowhere

As has been mentioned many times already, Obama's use of Reaganite talking points about health care reform will even hurt chances of his own plan from passing.

[Cant trust em]

10. cost controlls first, mandates second

is the way I would tackle this. Again, I freely admit that I'm not a policy expert on this. But forcing people to purchase something they can't afford doesn't make sense. Let's work on getting costs down, reworking the federal poverty lines that govern who is able to get assistance, then make people buy the plans.

[OzarkDem]

11. Obama's GOP talking points kills ANY health care reform

even Obama's. And he knows it. He appears willing to destroy his own plan's chances of getting passed in order to score points. Get it?

And, as I've also proven many times in this thread, the evidence shows Obama's plan will NOT lower health care costs. It will increase them.

Disagree if you want, but use real arguments to do so.

[Cant trust em]

12. I'm not sure what part of anti-trust laws are GOP talking points

sounds like what liberals usually talk about. Corporations that have gotten too big don't give us the option of finding a better costs for our needs.

Let me also say that blowing things off as "GOP talking points" is exactly what the GOP does to us. They've painted the word liberal as a swear word so that when people hear it then can just shut off their brain. We may be disagreeing here but you're smart person and better than that.

[sandnsea]

7. Mandated monthly premiums

with no assistance to make the payment = homelessness.

Anybody who can't make ends meet now isn't going to support a mandated monthly bill.

[OzarkDem]

13. Try reading the plan - Medicaid option

Clinton and Obama's plans both call for expansions in Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. to cover low income adults and others who slip through the safety net. Translated that means if your income isn't enough to afford premiums, you can enroll in Medicaid.