General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCourtesy of the Republicans, the ACA individual mandate vanished....
Because of that, many of the people who only got insurance because of the mandate will not, and premiums are going to rise up to 30% or so, according to articles I've read.
Strictly political question: Can we Democrats reinstate the individual mandate eventually, or should we just go to Medicare for all ?
Before I get scolded, I was strongly in favor of the ACA as it was passed in 2009. The only way it worked long-term was the individual mandate.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)We can call it Medicare for All or whatever we think is best, but single payer is what we need.
Enshrine it in law. Add it to the Bill of Rights. Carve it in stone. Let Mexico pay for it. <snort!>
Just gitt'er done!
roamer65
(36,747 posts)unblock
(52,317 posts)to reinstate it we would need to pass a law, which would require overcoming a republican filibuster even if we had majorities in both houses and control of the white house. well, we could probably use reconciliation to avoid a filibuster, but we'd still need both houses of congress and the white house.
not possible before 2021, so likely wouldn't take effect until 2022 at the earliest.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Letting it stay in place until then likely means people will not actually see any real effects until right after the 2020 election. Then, they will blame the Democrat who takes Trump's place.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)it it unlikely to pass. However, something that offers a choice has a much better chance. If Medicare/Medicaid is as good as we think, people will quickly gravitate to it. Again, I'm for Medicare-for-All, but we'll still be arguing for that in 2040. I think a Public Choice/Option has a much better appeal, at this point.
As I understand it, trump's Admin is not going to enforce the mandate, so it is pretty much over.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There should be no mandate without a public option. The lack of a public option was a fundamental weakness of the ACA that could have addressed many problems that arose in the early years. Once you have the public option, it will become evident the advantages of some sort of single payer system.
Obama often said that the public option was needed to "keep the insurance companies honest". When he gave it up, he never explained what would now keep them honest.
pnwmom
(108,991 posts)Liberty Belle
(9,535 posts)My husband and I were in a high tier of payments for Obamacare. He lost his job and we still had to pay that high tier for six months until the end of the year, even though our healthcare premiums were nearly all of his unemployment premium, and I was out of work too due to a serious car accident and injuries. I had the accident a month after he lost his job; my car was totaled and I was nearly killed.
We couldn't believe this and even tried to get our member of Congress and state legislator to get us help. But it's based on what you earned earlier in the year, and his income was high from January to June. But we didn't have any money in savings due to already having losses from my car accident and some huge emergency home repairs.
We would have lost our house, if not for mom loaning us money to get us through and pay our mortgage until year's end, when we were able to get a reduced rate.
The coverage itself was good and took care of most of my medical bills - ie the expensive tests, scans, trips to specialists. The problem was the premiums that were more than our middle class family living a paycheck away from disaster could afford when we had not one, but two catastrophies a month apart.
Also it did NOT cover chiropractic care or massage therapy, the only two things that provided real pain relief. I'm now on private insurance and it doesn't cover either of these either. Years ago in an earlier accident, those were all covered. We need to mandate that all insurance cover those things for people in pain especially after a documented accident. The doctors kept trying to push me to take opiates, but wouldn't cover much safer things. Massage is surely better than narcotics!
I suspect the change in insurance away from covering massage and chiropractic is one reason we now have so many narcotic addicts. People need some form of pain relief, and if the only thing insurance covers is drugs, that's what people without much money will take. I was fortunate that since this was a car accident, my car insurance provided $5,000 that I could spend as I saw fit, and I used that on the chiro and massage, plus deductibles not covered under my medical policy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This isn't unicornland. WANT SINGLE PAYER? Vote for Democrats and hope they sweep the nation. That's how it will happen and the only way it will happen.