Kill the Mandate, Save the Bill

[kpete]

Kill the Mandate, Save the Bill

Without a public option, there are at least 10 good reasons to kill the bill. But DC Democrats are desperate for a "win" so killing the bill is once again "off the table."

At this late hour, there is one way to prevent the bill from being nothing more that a disastrous bailout of corrupt insurance giants: Kill the Individual Mandate.

http://www.democrats.com/kill-the-mandate-save-the-bill

[ixion]

1. I would support it without a mandate

despite the fact that there would still be issues I would have with it.

[Echo In Light]

5. Agreed. Lacking a PO reveals it for what it is, but the mandate is the last thrust of rape

[CreekDog]

2. they are saying with the mandate you can cover a person for $2700 without it for $4400

so the reason to support the mandate is that for the same amount of money, you can cover most of the uninsured versus perhaps 2/3 of them.

and that's why probably the most liberal senators are still on board with keeping the mandate.

i know, i know, why would anyone like that aspect of the bill. still, that is what people proposing universal health care have been saying all along, is that if there is going to be private insurance that there must be a mandate for everyone to have coverage or it will not work.

:shrug:

[silverweb]

3. Yup.

"Spreading the risk" is what I think it's called in insurance parlance.

[truedelphi]

4. If these Seantors were all that concerned about costs and prices, there would have been

Some serious examinations of the price structures arranged for and by the Big Medical Interests and their craven extortionists over the summer.

[ixion]

6. the problem with that is they're not fixing the gamed playing field

rather, they're playing into it.

Big Med has gamed the industry so that prices for even basic healthcare are simply outrageous. That is what needs to be fixed.

Even with that, though, I would still never support having to buy a product from a private company as requisite for legal citizenship.

That is, I would never, ever, ever support a mandate.

[CreekDog]

11. Of course they don't control the playing field yet

and full control of the playing field is what they don't have 60 votes for, heck they don't even have 50 votes perhaps.

we have minimal regulation of the insurance industry now, with this bill, sweeping regulation will take effect nationwide for the first time.

without the bill, i don't see anything. there is nothing else on the table, nothing even to build upon.

[ixion]

13. whatever gains may be made do not out weigh the mandate

the mandate is a deal breaker.

[CreekDog]

14. why are you so sure?

here i gave you numbers of people that will be covered and you say it doesn't outweigh. but you don't give me any numbers.

did you actually weigh it? :eyes:

[ixion]

15. Yes, believe me, I've weighed it

Do I need to restate my thesis?

There is no precedent for this. Opening the gate to the government mandating consumerism is bad, bad, bad.

Want to save millions? End the freakin' 'war' on drugs.

This bill will cause great damage to this country, and create a quasi federal agency out of the insurance companies, that will have the unchecked enforcement power of the IRS to collect their bills.

There is no way in hell I want that. Ever.

[CreekDog]

16. you've weighed it and you promise that one outweighs the other

won't you share your math?

[ixion]

17. sure: The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few

Unprecedented mandates that force citizens to buy crappy, over-priced products from private corporations as a requirement for citizenship trump whatever good may come out of it (which is not much in the Big Picture).

That's my math. It's very simple. I will not ever support turning insurance agencies into quasi federal entities with the power of the IRS to enforce bill collection.

No way. Never.

[EFerrari]

7. I have a used car worth $300. Without a mandate, you can have it for $2000.

With a mandate, $1000.

[CreekDog]

8. i'm no good at dating

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

9. LOL

:)

[glitch]

10. Perfect analogy. nt

[EFerrari]

12. "Volume, volume, volume."

[eomer]

18. About as smart as letting people wait until their houses are on fire to buy fire insurance.

The mandate is necessary if you want to get rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion. Otherwise people who are well will have no reason to share in the cost -- they can just wait until they get a major illness and then buy in. This will result in sharing the costs only among people who already have a major illness and the cost will therefore be too expensive for anyone to afford.