is the problem really the mandate?

[rapturedbyrobots]

how many would support the good parts of the current HCR senate bill if they simply removed the mandate to buy?

seems like a lot of people are feeling like i'm feeling...that if there is going to be a mandate (which obama was against before he was for) there has to be subsidies AND COST CONTROLS.

without either, the mandate is untenable. the subsidies are there, so add some real cost controls, or drop the mandate.

would this make more people happy?

i think it is probably unlikely that we'll lose the mandates...i heard an interesting take on the urgency of 'reform'. the health insurance industry is about to lose a LOT of customers...ones that pay high premiums too...as the boomers transition to medicare. they need fresh meat...that means mandates to protect their subscription numbers.

[Fire1]

1. Without mandates, what will keep the costs down? n/t

[rapturedbyrobots]

4. confused

how do you propose that mandates would keep costs down? i've never heard that used as an argument for the mandate. but i'd like to hear your take.

[kenny blankenship]

13. I think you've been sarcasmed.

[WCGreen]

15. More people in the pool would supposedly drive down the cost....

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I spend hundreds of dollars every year taking a non toxic approach

to cholesterol, blood pressure, osteoporosis, and halitosis. Millions do this. NONE of them are compensated, cajoled, supported, inspired, cheered or congratulated for trying to do what they can to minimize their burden on the healthcare system. It's a travesty that will remain until the logic of taking this sort of route bleeds through.

[Chemisse]

22. Whew! So glad you take care of that halitosis! nt

[HysteryDiagnosis]

23. Funny that, I thought it was. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I could (just barely) handle the mandates if, in addition to cost controls,

there were adequate subsidies for the lower end of the income scale and guaranteed accessibility. By guaranteed accessibility I mean no (or truly minimal) copays or deductibles. As it is, and as always, the poorest get stuck with the crappiest deals, to the point that their insurance will do them no good because they can't afford to use it.

[rapturedbyrobots]

7. good point about accessibility

a big part of the problem with insurance as its currently designed is that coverage does not always mean access to care. some argue that parts of the bill increase accessibility by making it harder for the insurance cos to deny coverage when you need it. not sure how stringent these regulations are. but access to care, even when covered is another sticking point to the mandates. i thought i would stick to the two points that people are focusing on (subsidies and cost control). but i'm totally with you on accessibility.

[gravity]

5. There has to be a mandate if you don't want to discriminate against preexisitng conditions

There is no way around it. That is why Congress is adding subsidies and costs controls to the legislation, so that they can lessen the burden from the mandate.

[rapturedbyrobots]

8. really?

please explain the cost controls to me. i'm not being sarcastic. i really don't see how they plan to control costs in any way. i get the subsidies, but the cost control just isn't there as far as i can see.

[gravity]

12. Insurance companies now have to pay 85% of their premiums towards health costs

There are many components of the bill that are designed to limit costs of insurance for people.

[rapturedbyrobots]

16. that's an incentive toward higher premiums

they'll make up the difference in percentage by inflating the total they take in premiums. that's pretty obvious. they've already started the inflation in anticipation and have a few years to fix the pricing schemes before they have to divert anything to 'health costs' whatever that will actually mean on balance sheets.

[gravity]

18. It requres insurance companies to pay more money for your healthcare

And it doesn't change the incentive structure that insurance companies already follow. It will actually provide less incentive to raise rates because they would be getting less amount of additional profits for each dollar they raise your rates.

I believe there are limits on how much insurance companies can raise their premiums before they get on the health exchanges. There are plenty of sensible ways that the bill controls costs.

[jtrockville]

6. It's the profits.

I don't object to a mandate in and of itself. I'm all in favor of single-payer systems, and that's how they work (everybody in, nobody out). The problem with our entire approach is the enormous greed of the middle-man.

I'm happy to help subsidize heath CARE for those who are less fortunate than I.
I RESENT having very fortunate INSURANCE executives take their cut out of it.

[rapturedbyrobots]

11. we already have a single payer federal system

as in medicare, and it has cost controls and subsidies built in. so i'd have no problem with medicare for everyone. the question was about the mandate to buy the offerings from private insurance cos. would you accept it if they had cost controls like medicare?

[jtrockville]

19. Cost controls aren't the same as removing profit.

If we set the cost and removed the profit, then I'd find it acceptable. Hell, I'd rejoice and call it REFORM.

[Traveling_Home]

20. and it has co-pays ......

I'm on it. I went with Medicare Advantage through Kaiser in Colorado. I'm disabled - polio in 1953.......Folks might want to learn more about the multitude of problems Medicare already is known for. (I also recently heard Medicare denies more claims then private insurance.)

[jtrockville]

21. Have you ever had any claims denied?

If I recall, the claims Medicare denies are because the paperwork was filled out improperly. Once the paperwork is done right they pay. I can't remember where I read that though.

[AlinPA]

9. I'm OK with the bill, but implementation time is too far out in the future.

[stray cat]

10. If we got rid of the mandate then we can get rid of subsidies - the GOP might even go for that

you don't have to buy it and we don't have to help you buy it

[rapturedbyrobots]

14. wasn't that the original plan?

i mean from the primaries...not from this round of HCR fighting.

wasn't candidate obama's argument that all you have to do is make insurance affordable and most people will buy it willingly...with little or no help from the government?

cost containment was his big thing. and now that's the weakest part of the bill.

[DJ13]

17. Mandates are evil

Now Im not against requiring people to pay, but mandates for purchasing a product from a private company isnt the way to go about this.

Add a few % to everyone's income tax and pay for it instead.

That also eliminates the issue of subsidies, as those at the lower end of the income brackets usually dont pay income tax anyway.

That would actually provide far more money than needed to cover everyone currently without insurance.