Is there any chance these Mandates will be stripped by the Senate?

That the part of the bill I really don't like. I don't want to be forced to deal w/ insurance companies.

One that most people don't like talking about. We prefer to obscure it with an exclusive and expensive public "competitor"

to be ineffective or doesn't work. This bill if passed into law if things go well will be changed expanded and grown. It is not static. Please see grantcarts post with a detailed explanation as to why mandates are necessary.

Spineless Harry? Douchebag Baucus? Chris "My wife's got a lot of money riding on these mandates" Dodd?

Mandates are a key to universal coverage.


Every Single Payer system has mandates. You can argue that you should get rid of the private companies but you cannot have universal coverage without a mandated system.


Without mandates the system -whether it was private or socialized or anything in between would collapse, if repeat if, the proivder lost the ability to assess risk and deny application or have differentiated premiums.


Eliminating mandates would create "adverse regulatory selection" explained in detail here


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/229

The majority of the population doesn't mind deductions from their paycheck for Social Security and Medicare, for example, because those are worthy programs that help real people.

When they are forced to pay an insurance company pig criminal CEO $57,000/hour, that's a little different.

You simply cannot argue for the elimination of discrimination or differentiation of premiums on the basis of pre existing conditions and not have mandates.


I agree that it makes single payer even more rational but any system that does not allow discrimination must have mandates.

you can kiss the ass of the Democratic party goodbye (pun intended ----> :kick: )

Why? because you are taking away the Insurance Companies' ability to deny coverage.


Without mandates everyone will not buy their insurance until they are sick and then apply for it while they need treatment and then stop payment after they are cured.


Without mandates a situation known as "adverse regulatory selection" would occur and all health insurance would go bankrupt in a few months.


I explained it in detail here


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/229

...making sense on this point here.

It's DU -- it's single payer or nothing, which is the same as nothing.

mandates are related to the question of eliminating discrimination for pre existing conditions or having differentiated premiums based on pre existing conditions.


Once you set the system up that there is no discrimination for preexisting conditions or differentiated premiums then you have to have mandated participation.

...only has 'mandates' in the sense that one must pay one's taxes.

I'm not disagreeing with your basic point, though -- there's an element of state coercion in anything that is universal -- schooling, conscription, taxation. If you really want the universality, you have to swallow the coercion, and the prevailing philosophy on this board is that the coercion is too high a price to pay to get the universality.

They're libertarians -- probably more accurately anarcho-syndicalists -- at heart, but don't like the company that a profound mistrust of the state would cause them to keep in the real political world.

I support single payer and would have no problem being taxed to pay for it. I am neither anti-government nor libertarian (except on most social issues). It's not the government I don't trust, it's the private corporations. Privatization almost never works as well as its proponents claim it does and, in fact, often yields disastrous consequences. I find it amazing that so many DUers think forcing people to support a profit-driven parasitic rapacious industry is a great idea. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? :sarcasm:

People seem to be getting hung up on the word mandate, all the while ignoring the fact that if it woas single payer it would come with a mandate to pay higher taxes.

The money has to come from somewhere. People seem to have a hard time understanding that.

I completely understand that single payer would require mandatory taxes. Duh. I have no problem whatsoever paying taxes to support a Medicare-like program with a low overhead that gives me the services I need when I need them. Even if it means my taxes go up. I do have a problem being forced into a contract with a corporation wherein I have to give them a buttload of money and have no guarantees that I'll get what I'm paying for and practically no way to hold them accountable if I don't.

Levels of coverage and ways to address disputes.

Why exactly are you railing for single payer again? They would only deny you coverage right? or tell the doctors to poison you or something like that right?

Or would they get that right but couldnt possibly get anything else right.

:crazy:

because it is just a great explanation as to why mandates are absolutely necessary for this to work at all.

if you want to republish it or if you want to borrow from it you have my permission.


Wait to see what the initial reaction to your thread is. If the first 10 people like it you can make some obligatory reference to me.

If the first 10 people say that it is a heaping pile of shit then please tell them that you are simply reposting some blather from Cliffordu.

:rofl:

She says your 'peak season' only lasted for about three minutes.

What are you doing with the rest of your time, ya wanker???

Forcing people to buy private policies with nebulous guarantees of coverage but absolute guarantees of punishment if you don't comply is not something I can get behind.

Why? because you are taking away the Insurance Companies' ability to deny coverage.

Yeah right. You can stop them from denying you coverage or dropping you but they're going to come up with new and inventive ways to dick you around with paperwork and barriers before you pay.

Can't you see that reasoned discussion interferes with our temper tantrums?

That's hard to pay for if you don't have insurance. Especially if you are then hospitalized and have to have an operation or something.

can't pay they write it off against profits. I am not defending any corporate accounting tricks. The question is "Since when did emergency health care become a commodity and not a right?".

The "adverse selection" argument is a good reason everyone should be covered under the PO.
It should not be a dumping ground used to shed the unprofitable customers from the Parasitic Private Plans.

Bankrupt to get on with my life. The question is why should I have to? The Parasitic Corporations bought up the humanitarian not for profit health CARE institutions and now everything has to benefit the parasites. If we do not regain control of our government soon it will be the death of the American experiment.

They got sick, they had no insurance, they had huge medical bills.

This is actually why I'm not riling against mandates. I mean...seriously. Without you're still going crazy. But people can get the PO if they chose and they don't have one from their job for six months (hopefully sooner).

That's the hard reality of the situation.

But then this kiss to the insurance industry is not universal in any definition of the word. Since the bill isn't supposed to go in effect until 2013, maybe there will be time for our more progressive elected representatives to finesse it out before the effective date which means that we the people are going to have to ride them all the way on this.

Because there was a thread that outlined what would go in effect by Jan. 1, 2010. One of which was the fact I'd be part of the PO by Jan. 1, 2010. So I need a bit clarity.

There will be an improvement in Medicaid for those who need access to health coverage in 2010, but IMHO it doesn't cover enough of the uninsured.

The insurance companies want it. It's the only portion of the bill non negotiable even though it is necessary to have a strong public option open to all from day one to protect people from ins. cost abuses inherent in the mandates.

No protection from rising costs and no choice of public or private ins. plus a mandate should be a criminal combination but it is now called HC reform.

Funny, we are back to calling health care reform again.

I say we get a strong- by the actual definition, public option and then we trigger the mandates as long as the ins. companies prove to us they obey the rules.
But we are well trained doormats and they are our soon to be legal gatekeepers/owners so we settle for the opposite and are harangued when some of us dare to mention we are getting screwed.