Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

karynnj

(60,973 posts)

13. I agree with you - I don't understand the President's gamble

Reply to subterranean (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 28, 2012, 11:27 AM

Mar 2012

It would seem the easiest way to deal with no mandate is to allow very high entry fees for people who opt out and then want to join when they need services. ( alternatively, they could be allowed to pay a much smaller portion for the first year so they do not need to test if people are coming just because they need it.) The point being that it many might not take the risk of going without insurance - and if they did, they would pay a price for having gambled.

There were plenty of discussions like this during the primaries. ( Obama was asked about how to prevent people not joining only when they needed costly services - and Edwards and Clinton were asked how high the penalty for not paying would be - addressing the problem without a mandate and with one.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe SCOTUS can rule against the mandate BUT [View all] joeybee12 Mar 2012 OP

There's no severability clause in the law. It's all or nothing, AFAIK. nt Poll_Blind Mar 2012 #1

On the contrary. In general, the SCOTUS will strike down unConstitutional provisions, and Romulox Mar 2012 #18

Without a severability clause, the court reserves the right.... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #22

They can, but they have to protect their cronies in the insurance industry adigal Mar 2012 #23

Good point- I was listening to the audio from today and Justice Breyer (?) brought that up. Poll_Blind Mar 2012 #24

Loss Of The Mandate Pretty Much Scuttles The Plan TheMastersNemesis Mar 2012 #2

Obama administration: If the mandate goes, the consumer protections should also go. subterranean Mar 2012 #3

I didn't realize the administration asked that... joeybee12 Mar 2012 #6

Naive. SpencerShay Mar 2012 #7

Obama was naive PERIOD. BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #20

Well there it is. great white snark Mar 2012 #30

I think they gambled that the Court wouldn't have the guts kudzu22 Mar 2012 #10

Sounds like it...nt joeybee12 Mar 2012 #11

I agree with you - I don't understand the President's gamble karynnj Mar 2012 #13

Reason & logic have nothing to do with Scotus. Only what the corporations want.(in this case,.... dmosh42 Mar 2012 #4

but the insurance companies WANT the mandate. ellenfl Mar 2012 #15

Honestly that was the one thing that I was most challenged about with Obama's healthcare LynneSin Mar 2012 #5

If they put in a public option to counter the mandate, I would joeybee12 Mar 2012 #14

The supreme court can do whatever it wants, severability or not kudzu22 Mar 2012 #8

It is hard to believe the corporate judges would keep Johonny Mar 2012 #9

True, Scalia, Roberts and the others are just toadies for corporations... joeybee12 Mar 2012 #12

None of the other parts of the bill "have" to be struck down if the mandate is... Romulox Mar 2012 #19

Of course they don't have to kudzu22 Mar 2012 #25

The Extreme Court can not write Law...Period Bandit Mar 2012 #28

There are ways to make it work without the mandate. subterranean Mar 2012 #26

It probably would survive kudzu22 Mar 2012 #27

OR do they punt this down the road a couple of years, using the fact that madinmaryland Mar 2012 #16

No, The Supreme Court.... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #21

Don't Hold Your Breath.... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #17

If the Fascist Five strike down the ACA meow2u3 Mar 2012 #29