Let's get rid of the mandate and heal some of the divisivness in the country.

[grahamhgreen]

We can keep the rest of the bill and simply have strong reform.

[Gman2]

1. You cannot get rid of pre-existing conditions, without a mandate.

Otherwise you DO create an unfair federal mandate.

[grahamhgreen]

4. You're speculating. Let's try it and see what happens, if need be, we can fix it later.

[Gman2]

11. You will alow the rethugs to run with that. I dont need to find out, I know.

[Gman2]

13. Similarly, you cannot have public option without tort reform.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. No it's not speculation.

If you are going to force insurance companies to take all comers regardless of preexisting conditions, then it's imperative that healthy people be required to purchase insurance as well. You simply cannot implement a system where only the sick purchase insurance and expect it to work. Insurance - ALL insurance - is dependent upon a large pool of small contributions funding a small pool of large payouts. That's how it works.

[grahamhgreen]

19. Please cite one study that proves your point.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. I don't need to cite a study. Just use your brain.

You cannot allow people to only buy insurance when they are sick. Same way you can't buy car insurance for a pre-existing crash, or fire insurance for a burned-out home.

[Selatius]

15. The problem is called "adverse selection." In short, only sick people get insurance.

Young people would still stay out of the system. The reason why Medicare has lasted as long as it has is because everybody pays for the few that are sick. If it were voluntary, few except those who get a direct benefit from Medicare would be paying in.

[grahamhgreen]

18. I don't think there is any evidence to support the speculation that only sick people will buy.

[Selatius]

26. The term "adverse selection" was coined in economics to describe the phenomenon.

In short, in economics, it refers to the phenomenon where a service provider, whatever that may be, runs the risk of being selected disproportionately by an at-risk group or a high risk group of people compared to the rest of the population. An example would be smokers. Non-smokers, on average, live longer, healthier lives than those who do smoke on a regular basis. As a result, smokers may tend to buy more insurance than non-smokers.

If insurers didn't vary prices between smokers and non-smokers, then smokers may find it a better buy than non-smokers would. Thus, a disproportionate amount of your customers would be in the at-risk group. The same notion applies to age and sickness.

[grahamhgreen]

36. Is there any evidence or studies that show:

1) people will not buy insurance if they are not forced to even if there is a pre- existing exemption?
2) that big insurance will use any of the extra money they make to lessen costs for consumers?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. What is the incentive to buy insurance if you are not sick, then?

If you're allowed to buy insurance when you *are* sick, and that insurance is required to cover your sickness (as it is in this bill) then what possible motivation could there be for buying insurance when not sick? The only motivation I see is for purposes of preventative care. However, most healthy people into their 40s don't really see a need for preventative care. That's a rather small pool from which to provide for a rather large pool of truly ill people.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Illness is not the founding reason for Insurance at all

Accident is. Do you really, really know hoards of people who do not know they can be hurt in accidents? I don't. Not one.

[grahamhgreen]

59. Most people will buy insurance, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[jpak]

2. laughter is the best medicine for that ailment

:rofl:

[ericinne]

3. Keep the mandate

Hey, the GOP called the mandate "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" back when they thought it was a good idea. Force their hand on this BS. I'd keep it there till they admit it was one of their own ideas, and was a bad one.

[grahamhgreen]

5. The mandate will destroy the bill by giving big insurance enough cash to crush the reforms.

[salguine]

9. Like they don't have that now.

[grahamhgreen]

20. This is trillions more....!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Is there any evidence or studies that show that what you're asserting is true?

Turnabout is fair play.

[grahamhgreen]

58. Yes. Links.

"The gap between the growth in family and
individual premiums and insurers’ spending on
health benefits is widening (Figures 1 and 2). The
difference between premiums paid by families
and the amount insurers spent on actual health
care to a great extent represents unjustified profit,
excessive spending and administrative waste—costs
borne unwittingly by American employers and
consumers. These non-medical costs include
bloated executive pay; expensive financial
maneuvers designed to pump up stock prices;
aggressive “underwriting” activities that identify
and exclude the sick; claims processing techniques
designed to deny care and limit reimbursement;
marketing; sales; and back-office operations."

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:k2pZl0sNatwJ:hcfan.3cdn.net/578b1f7456962bfa7a_r6m6bhcjn.pdf+health+insurance+profits+statistics&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh56pwmgB8l5InQ2t3oc7xLJEKE_v3HcGcpjJCFRUUVoHvN6YTCn6HsoZB-XIB7BDtzTUy3op8sk6yRKSvOOFylzqT7CYnyUNhj_f0IcKrGMcOH5CF8C1c4sVZeG1T1b3E4dYGK&sig=AHIEtbSW2Ts_zshh87DW8WRvqIlk4XlaFA

The simple fact is that one of the main selling points for the mandate is that it will mitigate costs to consumers - this can only be true if big insurance passes their huge increase in profits due to the mandate to the consumer in the form of lower prices - they have a well established pattern and practice of doing the opposite.

The mandate will not mitigate costs, it will simply give big insurance trillions that they will use to fight the reforms in the bill as evidenced by today's headlines "Insurance companies say children with pre-existing conditions have to wait for coverage until 2014" http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Health-Care-Examiner~y2010m3d29-Insurance-compnaies-say-children-with-preexisting-conditions-have-to-wait-for-coverage-until-2014

I'm still waiting for any evidence from the other side.....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

They're going to use the money gained from the reforms to destroy the reforms that gave them that money in the first place? Sorry, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

[salguine]

43. No, they're going to use the money to destroy ACTUAL reform. The money they got

they got because this wasn't reform, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. Except that's not what he said.

This is what he said:

The mandate will destroy the bill by giving big insurance enough cash to crush the reforms.

[grahamhgreen]

57. You right, it should read, "the mandate will destroy the positive aspects of the bill,

by giving big insurance enough cash to crush the reforms.

[glinda]

21. Keep the mandate and open up Medicare for 55 and up. That will totally help.

[Gman2]

40. Nope, it would make the bill totally corporate sided. Dump some grannies on them

If anything, toss some of our charge, 65 up, onto the ins cos.

[CANDO]

6. Heal the divisiveness?

Have you not been observing the bat shit crazies on the right? They've been kool-aid drunk bent on destroying the political dialog for the past 20 years at least. I say we use our power ruthlessly(for the little people of course) until they cry uncle.

[grahamhgreen]

60. We can still bring back Independants....

[amborin]

7. No robust PO, No Mandate! the mandate is unfair and unjust, w/o the PO

[frazzled]

8. Yo, it's over. Deal with it.

Enough. Stop. There will be a mandate, and some day it will lead to a single-payer system (which, by the way, would be mandated).

[spanone]

10. it wouldn't matter one bit to the teabaggers. it's not about healthcare.

[Warpy]

14. The mandate will work if there is a public option

that is available to people on a sliding scale, based on income.

The trick is to widen the pool to include young, healthy people just starting out who have little money to squander keeping insurance executives fat.

The opt out to increase an hourly wage should be ended, too.

It has to be done. It is simply unconscionable to do it unless there is a public option, preferably a Medicare buy in.

[grahamhgreen]

22. Agreed!

[patrice]

27. That's The Answer.

[amborin]

16. HCR: guarantees perpetual campaign $$$ from big ins corps for the DLC:

"The recent health care "reform" bill was sold as a policy to help the American people. In fact, its purpose is to earn the Democratic party a sustained funding stream from the insurance industry by forcing tens of millions of American citizens to buy the industry's intentionally defective products. "

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/28-3

[amborin]

23. Bill Moyers: HCR: Ins Corps Made Out Like Bandits:

"So we got health care reform this week -- but it's a far cry from reformation. You can't blame President Obama for celebrating what he did get -- he and the Democrats needed some political points on the scoreboard. And imagine the mood in the White House if the vote had gone the other way; they would have been cutting wrists instead of cake.

Give the victors their due: the bill Obama signed expands coverage to many more people, stops some very ugly and immoral practices by the health insurance industry that should have been stopped long ago, and offers a framework for more change down the road, if there's any heart or will left to fight for it.

But reformation? Hardly. For all their screaming and gnashing of teeth, the insurance companies still make out like bandits. Millions of new customers, under penalty of law, will be required to buy the companies' policies, feeding the insatiable greed of their CEO's and filling the campaign coffers of the politicians they wine and dine. Profits are secure; they don't have to worry about competition from a public alternative to their cartel, and they can continue to scam us without fear of antitrust action.

The big drug companies bought their protection before the fight even began, when the White House agreed that if they supported Obama's brand of health care reform -- not reformation -- they could hold onto their monopoly. No imports of cheaper drugs from abroad, no prescriptions filled at a lower price by our friendly Canadian neighbors to the north.

And let's not forget another, gigantic health care winner: a new report from the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity says the battle for reform has been "a bonanza" for the lobbying industry. According to the Center's analysis, "About 1,750 businesses and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists, total -- eight for each member of Congress -- and spent at least $1.2 billion to influence health care bills and other issues."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/27-0

[Selatius]

17. I have a better proposition. Just tack on a Public Option onto the damn law.

Not a weak Public Option, a strong Public Option. If necessary, do it with fucking 51 votes instead of the full 60. If GWB got his tax cuts through using reconciliation, we could do the same. He set the precedent.

[patrice]

24. The mandate produces pools big enough to expect reduced premiums AND it justifys

the tax policies http://toomuchonline.org/health-care-reforms-hidden-tax-gem/ that will help pay for the subsidies to the Poor and help to build the community health centers.

What we need is mandates plus Medicare for All.

[grahamhgreen]

33. There is nothing wrong with taxing people and providing healthcare: everyone is covered

This is not a mandate to buy for profit insurance.

There is NO REASON OR EVIDENCE to support the claim that the influx of cash to big insurance m the form of a mandate will reduce costs for consumers.

No evidence at all.

In fact these companies have an established pattern and practice doing exactly the opposite - taking more money and lowering coverage.

[patrice]

45. Yes, I know. We are still in a "Trickle Down" mode. I also read your other

recent thread on the PO-showpony.

I started from the Single Payer position and have not forgotten my reasons for that, though now I'm thinking Medicare for All.

We will see what happens.

Probably insurance prices will be reduced for a while and then the Bait-and-Switch will be turned on.

At least with the State Options provision (which does not include an Opt Out) and certain other Legislation in the House presently, and possibly in the future, we have some possible recourse to whatever HC Ins Co does.

[izzybeans]

25. Back during the primary fight, this mandate thing was a big winner around here

for a lot of people. Obama was getting hammered by Hilary supporters for not having it. Now all of a sudden no one is defending it.

[patrice]

28. It's a numbers game: taking on the costs of pre-existing conditions and no recision has to be balanc

ed by a big enough market of healthy insured to offset the higher demand on HC provider resources by the also increased sick ones.

The mandate would be less of a problem if there were enough competition against the 30% overhead that private insurers are running from public insurance, like Medicare, that runs at less than 5% over head. That would make premiums low enough that the mandate would be less onerous.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Please cite any evidence or studies that show that the money from the mandates will be used by

Private Insurers to reduce our costs.

[patrice]

46. There isn't any. Trickle down has NEVER worked.

[Odin2005]

29. The mandate without the PO is Fascism, it's got to go.

[sendero]

30. What is it that you don't get?

The mandate is one of the more sensible aspects of this legislation. This is INSURANCE there is no way it can work when only claimants pay in.

Some of you folks make it hard to be a progressive, you just don't live it the real world.

[grahamhgreen]

54. Lack of a mandate does not eliminate non-claimants from paying in, indeed, people pay-in now.

The biggest issue is that having a mandate will not reduce rates, therefore, why have it.

Lack of a mandate will merely decrease profits for big insurance, not eliminate them.

[Jakes Progress]

31. We can do this just as soon as we pass single payer. nt

[Sheepshank]

32. I'm in favor of eliminating the mandate...but only if...

it's in exchange for single payer or universal health.

That was a necessary trade off and I completely understand why the pool has to include young and mature, healthy and ill people. It cannot survive without a diverse pool paying into it.

[grahamhgreen]

34. By eliminating the mandate we will reduce the gross profits of big insurance and get to

Expanded Medicare or single payer that much sooner.

[Sheepshank]

50. I don't believe that can be done your way

in fact...you have numbers to support your 'theory'?

Actuarial numbers are being used to indicate that the pool is needed already to support eliminating pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps. While you may be in a headlong rush, I have a bit more faith in Obama and knwoing exactly how far he can push this issue at this time. I have no doubt single payer is coming.....and as we have seen with Obama over and ove, he has the end game in sight and seems to have a better handle (bigger picture) on the process than most of us are privvy to.

[grahamhgreen]

55. The pool can only work if the industry is willing to pass on the trillion mandated to them

to the insured.

Unfortunately, they have a pattern and practice of paying out less to claimants the more money they receive.

The worse that can happen is we get big insurance on the ropes, and then we institute single-payer.

If we were really samrt, we would goad the repubs into going after the mandate, which would throw big insurance into our corner til the end of the fight.

[Dr Morbius]

42. There's no need.

1. Each state can opt out of the mandate. That language is currently federal law.

2. Several states are likely to do so, and I will explain why. Currently, approximately 48 million Americans lack health insurance for one reason or another. A certain percentage, not a majority but hardly just a few, are people who want to get health insurance and can almost - but no quite - afford it. Folks like myself, perhaps, who could handle basically a car payment per month but health insurance these days is far more than that. Also there are some who'd like to get insurance but haven't tried, because they know they have a preexisting condition (like diabetes, for instance) and are sure they'd get denied. The first thing that's going to happen is they're going to build these insurance exchanges, so consumers can choose between different providers. We're talking about somewhere between eight and fifteen million people who can probably squeeze out a few hundred bucks a month for health insurance. The creation of the exchange and the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid will remove so many million people from the list of the uninsured that some states - particularly more affluent ones - will feel the low percentage of people who don't yet have insurance isn't a threat to their economy. The percentage of uninsured Americans now is only about 17%; even before the mandates kick in (in 2014), this will drop to the single digits. Some states will see it higher, some lower; those that are lower may well opt out of the mandate.

And then, if you really, really, really don't want to be insured against medical expenses, you can just move to Alaska.

[mmonk]

44. That will not get rid of the divisiveness in this country.

[Codeine]

47. Endless repetition seems to be your forte. nt

[LynneSin]

48. Do you think if we dismantle HCR that somehow we'll win over the teabaggers

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

Wow, I needed a good laugh this morning.

These people were ready to buck heads against Obama the moment he got elected.

This isn't an HCR issue - it's race. nuff said.

[grahamhgreen]

56. There is a push to divide the people so the corporate entities can win.

The mandate has nothing to do with race.

If we give these trillions to bg insurance we may never see real reform.

This is an easy give away to win back independents.

[BlueIris]

49. What's this? A post by a SANE person?

There is so little of that left around here these days, I treasure the ones I find.

[cbdo2007]

52. Nope.