What we need to realize: the biggest issue for most people in any health-care reform...

[regnaD kciN]

...isn't necessarily a "public option," or an "employer mandate." It's that any proposal made so far contains an individual mandate.

In other words, if any bill passes, people who don't have health insurance will be required by law to purchase it.

If that wasn't the case, lots of people wouldn't care about what was in the health-care bill, because they'd feel free to ignore it if they didn't like it. But the individual mandate means, like it or not, they're going to have to care. And that's where we can make the case for a public option, employer mandates and the like. But we're going to have to show that such measures will help guarantee real, affordable health care, since we'l be requiring people to buy it.

How affordable is "affordable?" I can't speak for all Americans, but I can guarantee you that $500/month for individuals and $1,000/month for families won't be considered affordable by most. And I can guarantee that, public option or no public option, employer mandate or no employer mandate, if we can't assure Americans that the amount this bill will require them by law to pay won't be substantially less than that, the reaction of most voters will be "then screw health-care reform...even the current system is better than having to pay hundreds per month that we simply don't have."

[ejpoeta]

1. i understand what you are saying, and it makes sense in some regards.

however, i cannot support a mandate when we don't know what we are going to be getting. we don't know if there will be a public option or what that will even mean. it could mean jack shit the way things are going now, and then we are mandated to buy into this system as it is now. Now, on some level maybe this would force people to mutiny in the streets to get something we can afford, but it would also mean the insurance companies have more leverage and we are screwed no matter what happens.

[regnaD kciN]

2. I don't like the mandate, either...

...but I do think that the devil is in the details. If a mandate means that everyone could get coverage for, say $99/month for individuals and $199/month for families, that's one thing. If it's $500/$1000 per month, that's an entirely different matter.

[Fire1]

8. The insurance companies HAVE more leverage and that's

not going to change.

[Taxitall]

3. lower costs - tort reform first

the key here is LOWERING HEALTH CARE COSTS. if we do not do that even the public mandate "option" will be too expensive. one of the single largest unnecessary costs in health care is lawsuits and defensive medicine. we need tort reform before a public option can even be considered. what happens when people start suing the government for massive frivolous malpractice suits?

[Fumesucker]

5. Welcome to DU..

You should know that medical malpractice suits are about one percent of health care spending in the USA these days.

[redqueen]

6. Really? Lawsuits and defensive medicine is that huge of a problem?

Funny, I seem to remember the opposite being proven recently.

Citation please?

[Laelth]

7. Welcome to DU.

Spare us the insurance industry propaganda.

Tort reform is a give-away to the insurance companies. In no way are lawsuits the principal cause of skyrocketing insurance rates. They're not even a small part of it.

You have been terribly misled. Either that, or you are trying to mislead us ... not welcome behavior in these parts.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

4. You nailed it.

"screw health-care reform...even the current system is better than having to pay hundreds per month that we simply don't have."

That about sums up my feelings at the moment. The bills currently being considered are shameful in the sense that they place the burden for "universal coverage" directly onto the uninsured.

For that cost, I expect single-payer, and I will not be happy settling for less.

:dem:

-Laelth