Senate Dems Take Aim At Individual Mandate

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Senate Dems Take Aim At Individual Mandate

Harry Reid could have a real headache soon.

A group of Senate Democrats is discussing ways to take aim at the heart of the new health care – the individual mandate.

“We’re looking at everything humanly possible. I’ve always had a concern and a problem with the mandate, that we were forcing it, basically saying by the law of the land you have to buy the product,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, told ABC News today. “But on the other hand, I know that’s been the lynchpin. I’m looking for flexibility any way I can.”

Manchin is one of the moderate Democrats trying to figure out how to repeal the individual mandate. While talks are still in the early stages, Manchin hopes the push will take shape sooner rather than later.

Joining him in these efforts could be a handful of other Democrats who are also up for re-election in 2012: Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, and Montana’s Jon Tester.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/02/senate-democrats-take-aim-at-individual-mandate.html

that would be so awesome if we could get enough dems to wake up and see how wrong the individual mandate is.
 
There are two choices: you either have the individual mandate and you ban annual and lifetime caps and discrimination (in the general sense of the term) against people with pre-existing conditions or you don't have an individual mandate and you allow annual and lieftime spending caps and allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

If you don't have the mandate and you require insurers to cover everybody without lifetime and annual caps, insurance premiums will skyrocket and no one will be able to afford health insurance.
 
NigelTufnel said:
There are two choices: you either have the individual mandate and you ban annual and lifetime caps and discrimination (in the general sense of the term) against people with pre-existing conditions or you don't have an individual mandate and you allow annual and lieftime spending caps and allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

If you don't have the mandate and you require insurers to cover everybody without lifetime and annual caps, insurance premiums will skyrocket and no one will be able to afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

so let's soak the healthy on the premise they won't use the system so we'll come out ahead.

It doesn't work. the sick need to pay for their insurance. stop stealing from the healthy
 
why not mandate everyone buy home insurance (even people who don't own homes) so the wealthy guy with a mansion can afford the cost to cover his huge liabilities
 
tinfoil said:
so let's soak the healthy on the premise they won't use the system so we'll come out ahead.

It doesn't work. the sick need to pay for their insurance. stop stealing from the healthy
Click to expand...

The people who have health insurance pay over $1,000 extra per year in premiums to pay for 'free riders', people who enter the health care system without insurance and can't or won't pay the bills THEY incur.

There is NO WAY of saying you 'won't use the system'...most people enter the system INvoluntarily...
 
NigelTufnel said:
There are two choices: you either have the individual mandate and you ban annual and lifetime caps and discrimination (in the general sense of the term) against people with pre-existing conditions or you don't have an individual mandate and you allow annual and lieftime spending caps and allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

If you don't have the mandate and you require insurers to cover everybody without lifetime and annual caps, insurance premiums will skyrocket and no one will be able to afford health insurance.
Click to expand...
There is another choice, actually if we let minds work there are many choices. One choice would be allowing the states to create their own versions of a PUC to control health care costs and allowing people to choose insurance coverage that is effective for them. It may be that regular coverage is unnecessary for most if costs are effectively controlled, and that most people would simply pay their doctor for regular care, like their mechanic, and only use catastrophic coverage when necessary.

Some portions of the law aren't bad. Allowing people and states to create pools to decrease costs for larger than normal costs is one of them.

This is one form of the "zero sum" argument where you are presented with a false choice. It isn't either/or, there are other directions we can go to create a unique system that isn't centralized in government and doesn't mandate the purchase of unnecessary coverage from specific government chosen "winners".
 
tinfoil said:
so let's soak the healthy on the premise they won't use the system so we'll come out ahead.

It doesn't work. the sick need to pay for their insurance. stop stealing from the healthy
Click to expand...

May you never be ill, oh heartless one, so basically don't grow old, ever...:loveu:
 
NigelTufnel said:
There are two choices: you either have the individual mandate and you ban annual and lifetime caps and discrimination (in the general sense of the term) against people with pre-existing conditions or you don't have an individual mandate and you allow annual and lieftime spending caps and allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

If you don't have the mandate and you require insurers to cover everybody without lifetime and annual caps, insurance premiums will skyrocket and no one will be able to afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

third choice, just not participate. no compliance from me.
 
NigelTufnel said:
There are two choices: you either have the individual mandate and you ban annual and lifetime caps and discrimination (in the general sense of the term) against people with pre-existing conditions or you don't have an individual mandate and you allow annual and lieftime spending caps and allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

If you don't have the mandate and you require insurers to cover everybody without lifetime and annual caps, insurance premiums will skyrocket and no one will be able to afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

there is not only two choices, you can repeal the bill and create a new bill expanding medicare after we clean up the rampant fraud and waste. forcing citizens to purchase a product is unconstitutional, unless they enage in an activity such as a merchant sailor.
 
I oppose repealing the individual mandate unless the remaining portions of ObamaCare can be repealed, too. Otherwise, costs will skyrocket, due to requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc.

Rather than passing a bill simply to repeal ObamaCare, Republicans ought to offer a free-market alternative to replace it. Calling for repeal without proposing anything as a replacement doesn't make them look very credible.
 
Voltaire said:
I oppose repealing the individual mandate unless the remaining portions of ObamaCare can be repealed, too. Otherwise, costs will skyrocket, due to requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc.

Rather than passing a bill simply to repeal ObamaCare, Republicans ought to offer a free-market alternative to replace it. Calling for repeal without proposing anything as a replacement doesn't make them look very credible.
Click to expand...

you can't make something that isn't credible, look credible, even lipstick won't do that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top