Mandatory Health Insurance...

[Hubert Flottz]

Several years ago, here in West Virginia, our legislators and governor passed and signed into law a mandatory automobile insurance law. The next year the price of automobile insurance doubled. Several years later now, my auto insurance costs about ten times what it cost before that law was passed. The insurance companies still try to get by as cheaply as possible when you have a fender bender, just like they did years ago, but now they have everyone in this state over a barrel.

Somehow I believe this is exactly how mandatory health insurance will work for us too.

[Skittles]

1. ya THINK, Hubert?

of course that's how it would work

[Hubert Flottz]

2. "Everything works if you let it!"

:hi:

[Cleita]

3. Yep.

The only 'mandatory' in health care should be that everyone gets a Medicare card so they can have access to necessary medical care. It should be paid for out of the general fund by cutting down our military costs.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. Status Quo is a two-way street. Right now insurance companies have been free to deny

whomever the hell they felt like for pretty much any reason that stuck their pretty little fancy.

Likewise, people who can afford insurance have been free to say "screw it, I'm healthy MOST of the time - I'm not going to buy insurance, I'll just use the Emergency Room."

Both of these scenarios have left out the people who have NO FREEDOM in healthcare. The working poor, the single moms, the small family businesses with more debt than income and no assets. . .

The mandate addresses all of these issues.

Those who can pay NEED TO.

Insurance companies can't cherry pick.

Those who are outside the system because of income or pre-existing conditions will finally have the strength of their government behind them. They will have access.

[regnaD kciN]

12. You left something out under Baucus's "reform"...

Those who can pay NEED TO.

Those who can't pay NEED TO ANYWAY.

What you're basically describing is a trade-off that, shorn of all its rhetorical flourishes, comes down to "we allow the insurance companies to gouge each and every one of us as much as they want, and they, at least, promise not to cancel our coverage as long as we keep paying as much as they want."

In other words, the trade-off of "your money or your life" -- the trade-off of the mugger.

Somehow, that doesn't seem like much of a trade-off to me. Maybe if you have a chronic condition and are in the process of getting cut off, it would. Maybe if you're in a position of losing your house or declaring bankruptcy because your employer stopped providing insurance, and you're facing a huge mandated monthly premium without the income to pay it, not so much.

But the big question is: why should we have to risk finding ourselves in either of these two positions when citizens of leading nations around the world don't have to face such a dilemma? The answer is easy: the unspoken assumption in such a scenario is that insurance companies have the right to make as huge a profit as they can. Once you grant that, you have to "rob Peter to pay Paul" -- either soak healthy people (whether or not it might prove disastrous to them) or deny sick people coverage when they need it (ditto).

But what if you change the other, unspoken part of the equation, and question whether insurers are entitled to massive profits at the cost to the average American? It seems to me that single-payer, and to a lesser extent public option, plans question that assumption and thus allow for coverage that can be both universal and affordable. The Baucus plan, by comparison, leaves the assumption of the right of insurers to maximal profit, leaving us with the "choice" of either coverage that's not affordable, or not universal. But why should such a false dilemma be forced on us by our fellow Democrats???

[Maru Kitteh]

13. I ain't married to "fuccus" and you didn't read my post.

either that, or you're disingenuously twisting it to fit your own notions. I prefer to think you were neglectful.

[Rex]

5. Well if a corporation can deny you help, someone like the government

has to step in. Or you just let that person die, what we call the 'compassionate conservative' option.

As usual, all the Repukes are fucking dickheads that hate life and most living things.

[regnaD kciN]

6. The mantra is "get everyone participating, and prices will go down"...

...but that's only true if there's a mechanism to force price competition. Otherwise, with no impetus to lower prices, all it means is "get everyone participating, and insurance company profits will go up."

[quiller4]

7. Auton Insurance rates went down when Washington adopted mandatory car insurance

It all depends on how strong insurance regulations are and Washington's are tough.

[Liquorice]

8. Mandatory health insurance is different than automobile insurance. In the

case of auto insurance, you are on your own when it comes to getting your car insured. With health insurance, everyone must be covered, but if you can't afford it, there are subsidies. People who are at the poverty level (and probably slightly above it) will get free health care. There will be some kind of sliding scale for the rest. So "mandatory" in this case falls to the government in a way--they must insure you if you cannot afford it.

Mandatory insurance doesn't effect people who can't afford insurance, nor does it make it more expensive. It does require people who CAN afford it to pay their fair share into the system so that we can all be covered at a reasonable price. Mandatory insurance is a requirement for true UHC.

[laughingliberal]

9. The Sliding Scale stops at 400% of FPL in most of the bills

Lower than that in Baucus bill. The rest are on their own with whatever the health insurance company wants to charge.

[Liquorice]

10. It will be regulated. That's part of the deal. They can't just charge whatever they want. nt

[eridani]

14. What they can charge is not regulated at all.

If you think differently, please cite the specific lines.

[JVS]

11. If we can't trust the insurance industry, whom can we trust?

[Hubert Flottz]

15. You can't trust everyone in Washington with a (D) after...

their name. Max BoinkUs has proven that.

[Hubert Flottz]

16. Thanks for the recommendations...

:hi:

:thumbsup:

[glomulous]

17. That, I believe, may be the point

When it becomes mandatory and insurance companies start being charged fees they will raise rates forcing people to drop their insurance. Once enough of the middle class is unable to afford it we will have more voice for reform and the public option will have nothing to stop it. At least that's one way of looking at it. I dunno though.