Let's get rid of the mandate! Without it, we simply have great insurance reform!

[grahamhgreen]

We can keep the requirement that big insurance needs to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

And, we can decrease their outrageous profit margins.

There is no evidence to suggest that a PRIVATE mandate will lower insurance prices.

[jwirr]

1. Without it we cannot pay for it. Think voluntary social security?

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. With it, we cannot pay for it either.

Because people are not going to pay it. And I'm not just talking teabaggers here.

[jwirr]

10. You know those of us on Medicare pay a premium every month and

we are glad for what we get. If this insurance really covers the things we need why shouldn't we pay a premium? Nothing is truly free - someone always pays.

[grahamhgreen]

13. That's a big "IF"!

There are few guarantees and only weak fines for insurers failure to comply with the new regs.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Is Medicare based on profit? n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Rahm Emanuel and his brother have made no secret that they intend to fully privatize Medicare

When they get away with it, and you have to start paying a private corporation, how will you feel about that?

There is a difference between everyone paying into a government program, and everyone paying for a filthy criminal pig's mansion.

[grahamhgreen]

28. Eloquently put!

[grahamhgreen]

8. We cannot pay for insurance we are not forced to buy.....?

[jwirr]

12. No but the way that premiums are kept low are by having as many as

you can get in the program. So if there is no mandate and all of you who do not want it can opt out then it will not be affordable for any of us.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Where is the evidence to support this? Why would big insurance pass the savings on to us

in the form of lower premiums when they could just buy another corporate jet or some more gold-plated china?

This is their established pattern and practice of behavior - hard to believe it would change just because they are getting mandated cash flow.

[jwirr]

17. They won't do it willingly but without this bill they sure as hell will deny

many of us the minute they can.

[grahamhgreen]

24. Exactly right. What removing the mandate wuld do is prevent them from taking such huge profits

that they will have ample cash to corrupt the good reform in the bill.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. That's exactly what I've been arguing. Unfortunately,

it's fallen on so many deaf ears around here that I'm beginning to wonder if there's something about me that just naturally causes deafness.

I trust corporations like I do scorpions. I trust them to act on their instincts. And what their instincts tell them to do is not something that is good for my well-being.

[grahamhgreen]

35. It has been a major talking point, but there is no evidence out there to support it, and

plenty of evidence to support the opposite - ie, the more money they get, the less they share.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Kinda like Tinkle-down and the

Laffable Curve. Remember them?

[grahamhgreen]

38. I'm drowning in the trickle down!

I've forgotten about the laffer curve, however...

[cynatnite]

2. I'm torn on this. n/t

[frazzled]

3. Silly: without the mandate there will be no insurance reform.

Unless (nearly) everybody buys in, we can't achieve being able to insure all adults with pre-existing conditions, etc. We could do it with other punitive measures (like: you can opt out, but then you will not be allowed to buy insurance from an exchange for at least 5 years), but the mandate is just as good.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. So then, let's just do the logical thing

and go to a single payer system, with everybody in, and no goddamn stinking pieces of shit like Steven Hemsley getting a 55,000/hour salary out of it.

[ananda]

6. Hear hear!

Single payer is the way to go!

[jwirr]

14. I doubt if any of us here on DU disagree with you on that but how do

we get there from here? This is what they gave us. We can work for better but if we destroy it then forget any further action for the rest of our lives.

[grahamhgreen]

16. I only ask that we support the constitutional challenge to the mandate- but NOT the rest of the bill

[grahamhgreen]

9. Frazz - There already IS insurance reform - the bill is law. They HAVE to cover pre-existing, but

the mandate may well be unconstitutional.

Lets get on board with getting rid of the mandate alone - pre-existing will still stand.

[dionysus]

18. apparently you don't know how risk pools work...

[grahamhgreen]

22. I know how they work - they do not work properly when you have a CEO dipping into the pool to steal

the money that is supposed to be used for peoples care.

This will help to spread the money out further.

[frazzled]

25. You clearly don't know the provisions of the bill

Insurance companies will be compelled to spend more of their dollars on actual health care benefits, and less on administration and profits, in this bill.

[grahamhgreen]

27. And what is the penalty for non-compliance? Dissolution of the company? Jail? No.

the controls are weak.

It will be easy for these guys to hide profits and siphon off money that should go to health care.

Removal of the mandate would mean more cash for care!

[eridani]

29. They would be if the bill provided any actual regulation

There are simply NO regulatory provisions in the bill that are worth warm spit. "Conduct thorough annual reviews" my ass. What that means is that every year there will be a list of very naughty boys and girls. And if they don't watch out, next year they'll be on that very same list again.

15 states have already tried controlling costs by regulation of medical loss ratios, and have totally and completely failed. Might this be due to the fact that the information that the states need to calculate MLRs is provided only by the people who have the most to gain by providing inaccurate information? Many states already have anti-recission and anti-pre-existing condition laws, which they are not enforcing because of lack of funds. Feinstein of CA tried to authorize a specific enforcement agency, but her proposal was shot down, along with removing the anti-trust exemption.

The only thing "historic" about the bill is that it is the first time ever in our history that the government is forcing us to be customers of the very private companies who are responsible for our current health care mess, with the IRS as enforcer. Given that Medicaid is already in existence, no new legislation was even necessary in order to expand it. If this legislation makes us like France or the Netherlands, how come I'm not getting a chance to buy a policy for 100 euros/month which covers everything but dental, and which has NO copays or deductibles, and NO age rating?

[Donnachaidh]

33. here's a novel idea for reform -- Regulate the living piss out of the insurance companies

Make it so if they want to hand out checks to their employees every week they have to get permission and submit forms in triplicate. Any mistakes automatically sends the whole thing to review, which means no one gets paid etc.

Basically regulate them and do to THEM what they have done to their subscribers for DECADES.

ANY price increases must be approved by a government overseer. ANY turn down of services must be approved by a government overseer. Etc., Etc.

Give them the option to *bend over and cough* if they want to continue as a business.

Mandating new customers with piddly oversight is a license to steal - for the insurance companies.

[grahamhgreen]

39. Brilliant!

[marybourg]

7. Right! Then we all just wait until we get sick and the insurance

companies, which cannot turn us down, will have only sick people to cover. Sounds good to me!

[grahamhgreen]

11. Which will cut into their profits a little, but they'll survive, and if they can't compete then

we can institute single-payer.

[marybourg]

40. In your dreams! nt.

[stray cat]

19. The current mandate is all of the rest of us pay for you if you can't

Is that the mandate you want to get rid of?

[grahamhgreen]

20. No - I want to get rid of the mandate to buy crappy private insurance from companies that

have proved themselves incapable of honest payouts.

[Toasterlad]

21. I'd Be Okay With the Mandate If There Were Real Controls On the Insurance Companies.

Sadly, there are none.

[eridani]

30. If there were controls like they have in the Netherlands--

--you'd get a chance to buy a policy for 100 euros/month which covers everything but dental, and which has NO copays or deductibles, and NO age rating.

[Lagomorph]

32. The government get a piece of those profits...

Who are you kidding?

This is a recession proof funding gig for the government. They get paid before you eat.

[superduperfarleft]

34. I don't think you have any understanding at all about how insurance works.

For the record, I'm not happy about this bill and think single-payer insurance would be the simplest, cheapest option there is, however, for all of the reforms put forth in this bill to work (that is, allow private companies to continue to offer insurance without being able to decline or rate-up people who are sick and will inevitably make large claims), a mandate is necessary. None of the "good" stuff in this bill would work if people weren't mandated to carry insurance.

Of course, the young, healthy people whose premiums are required for there to be money to pay for sick people may simply opt out and pay the penalty, but whatever, it is what it is.

[grahamhgreen]

37. I understand exactly how for profit health insurance works. People are denied care to make money. &

These guys play hardball.

They are obligated by law now to cover PRE-existing.

Remove the mandate or they will take the trillions mandated to them and use it to fight the PRE-existing clause, and the rest of the meager reforms in the bill, until there is no reform left.

It is most likely unconstitutional anyway.

By eliminating the mandate, we wind up with good reform, they have less profits, if they can't compete we'll institute single-payer.