If the mandate was taken out of the HCR bill, would you support it?

[jillan]

Assuming the public option doesn't make it back in during Conference...


Edit to add - those of you that are voting NO - can you post why? thx!

[Unvanguard]

1. Yes, but it would be a worse bill than with. n/t

[jillan]

4. Why do you say that? To me, it really bothers me that this bill will mandate people to buy

insurance without a choice.

I understand the purpose of a mandate, and how it will save the taxpayers money, but without a public option, it's not right.

[Unvanguard]

6. Because the entire principle of social insurance is shared risks and shared costs.

And if healthy people can avoid paying for sick people, then that entire structure breaks down.

The public option really has nothing to do with this. It would have been nice to have one, but it would have cost a lot too. Having a public option doesn't make this non-ideal measure any less non-ideal--but with or without a public option, it's still the lesser evil.

Edit: The truth of the matter, too, is that DU would be complaining either way; if there were no mandates, a lot of people here would be complaining about the premium increases that would ensue as a result of that fact, as high-cost people currently excluded from the insurance market were let in by the new regulations. I think that this is the political consideration that's driving the inclusion of mandates. Those are unpopular, but having people with insurance see their own financial situation worsen would probably be even more so.

[jillan]

9. I totally understand that. I'm in Az and when one of my family members was in the hospital for

an extended period of time - I saw alot of that...I became good friends with one of the nurses. She told me that 3/4 of the people on that floor were uninsured, and about half of them were not US citizens...but you can't refuse to give healthcare to someone who needs it.

I think alot of people don't have insurance because they can't afford it. I don't know how this bill is going to help them because the insurance companies don't have a heart.

I wish we had a system like they have in France where the amt people pay depends on their income.

[Unvanguard]

12. There are measures to help those people: Medicaid expansion and subsidies.

And there's a hardship exemption from the mandate, too, if insurance costs too high a percentage of your income. And new regulations for insurance companies to force them to put more of their revenue into actually delivering care, and to accept people with pre-existing conditions, and to actually pay for the treatment who buy coverage. The regulations are probably not strong enough, but they're a start.

[Cleita]

2. I will support it without the mandates and

a government administered insurance like Medicare that is available to all who want it, whether they have to buy into it or if they are too poor, then with subsidies. You don't have to have mandates. Everyone wants health care security. What you have to do is make it affordable and available regardless of your ability to pay.

[Armstead]

3. Yes -- That WOULD m ake the bill at least a "good start"

[AnOhioan]

10. Agreed, it would not be perfect....

but more palatable.

[Blasphemer]

19. Yes, that's the only way I could support it... nt

[ZombieHorde]

5. Absolutely. I have already warmed up to the bill some since it

forbids annual benefit caps. Annual benefit caps are bullshit.

I wish the bill addressed co-pay maximums. I would hate to see some people's co-pays become outrageous.

[Cant trust em]

7. I was very happy to see annual benefit caps bite the dust.

If the big ticket differences like PO and Medicare buy-in are non-starters, then I hope that we are able to get many more of those "smaller" concessions.

[old guy]

11. Yes

copays and deductibles are certainly questions that should be addressed. Cheap premiums and subsidies with high copays and deductibles are meaningless IMO.

[vaberella]

8. I didn't like Mandates when HRC ran on it. However...

rereading the campaign position and thinking on the topic....I grudingly came to accept it. It's just a way to open the pool a bit more in relation to the many sick people. You'll notice lots of sick people don't have insurance. You give it to them it causes a major imbalance for health insurance.

Secondly, it make sense to safe guard the American tax payer overall. It's like if there was single payer---that would be de-facto mandate. (my own thoughts i put in bold to focus on my main argument) Most ignore that relation. Everyone would be in the single payer pool and would have no choice but to have single payer health insurance. So you'd be mandated to have it. There is no penalty to not having this mandate however, because you have no other choice but to participate since it would be taken out of your cost.

Now if you opened single payer and said you had a choice between single payer and health insurance---well then you'd have a biger problem and to widen the pool of single payer people you'd have to ask for healthy people to participate who might want it or might not.

In the end...I realize mandates aren't so bad although I'm not keen on punishments for not having it. However, they've set up a system in which if you can't afford it, you'd get medical subsidies you should be able to get insurance. So there should be no reason not to have it.

[begin_within]

13. I don't support it without a public option available to anyone who wants to buy it.

[HughMoran]

14. No. WIthout a mandate the plan is sure to fail

[Garam_Masala]

15. These bills have a foul odor...

No Single Payer.
This system is true HCR. Everything else is hodge podge.
With SP, every living person is in the same pool, and paying
on their ability to pay based on income.

P.O missing.
Not as good as SP, but the ONLY way to make sure there is competition
to the for profit private health insurance industry.

No re-import of Drugs.
This is missing from both bills as far as I know. Are you aware Big Pharma
passed on to us 11% increase this year? If this bill is not a bonanza for
Big Pharma with mandates and subsidized additional customers then I have
a bridge in Minnesota I can sell you.

No limits on insurance premiums.
Sure they can't drop you or refuse you. But they can jack up premiums
for all their customers until there is enough profit to pay big bonuses.
Why no limits on CEO pay when the TARP recipients and Bailout recipients
are subjected to restrictions?

To sum up, I don't see much cost reduction to health care in these bills.
Big Pharma and Big Insurance are the Big winners. If you don't believe me,
please check their stock performance on Wall Street.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Yes - because my insurance would not change and it is already very affordable. n/t

[LooseWilly]

17. WIthout mandates, the subsidies might be enough to bring more customers in.

Enough to spread out the risk pool... without forcing those who can't afford it to buy. If it were really such a wonderful "reform" they wouldn't need to have mandates. If the insurance industry were sufficiently regulated, or there were a public option, I might even be willing to buy in. As it stands though, the limitations on premium increases is non-existent, but everyone is going to be forced to buy in. And, without price controls, it occurs to me that insurance companies may well increase premiums simply because they are forced to spend 80-85% of revenues on health care... but what's to stop them from simply increasing their fees until the 15-20% of revenues that they can keep is equal to what they're keeping now?... or more?

Statistically speaking, they could double their current rates... keep 15-20% of those rates, spend what they're spending now on care, and then refund what's left over... after they've pocketed the 15-20% of 2x current rates. Just to keep public outrage below the threshold of Congressional "giving a shit" they would probably have the sense to increase those rates at a mere 20% per year... within 5 years they're drawing in twice as much from a substantially increased pool, and they get to take 15-20% off the top... then, if their outlays don't cover the balance, they can refund it.

Without a public option as competition, why not?

No wonder stock prices are exploding. Glad I was cynical enough of what the Dems would fight for to invest in a cd tied to market performance. Thanks Corporatists Dems... I'll make a buck off our mutual cynicism after all... :)

[Laelth]

18. No. Even without the mandate, this bill prevents states from enacting single-payer systems.

Put the Kucinich Amendment back in, and I'll support it, even with the mandate (but only begrudgingly with the mandate).

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[noamnety]

20. No, I don't support bigoted bills. (nt)

[Raine]

21. I might ...

I can't say definitely but I would be more open toward supporting. Mandate without a public option is absolutely NO for me.