Health Care Mandates suck -- With ONE exception

The one exception being a single-payer universal system.

The HALF-ASSED and UNREALISTIC notion that providing coverage by forcing people to buy insurance -- especially private insurance -- is a frigging disaster and an insurance company's wet dream.

So what if the "poor" may qualify for subsidized coverage? A lot of people will still fall through the cracks where they are not considered poor enough to qualify, but are not able to afford health insurance.

I live in Massachusetts, which has mandates under Mittcare.

A LOT of people and businesses are scared to death, wondering how the hell they're going to afford health care.

The only way such a system would work is if it is a universal entitlement program like Medicare.

P.S. This is not a slam on any individual candidate. Rather it is a slam on all candidates who want to use mandates to weasel their way out of what really should be done.

The fucking mandate to buy health insurance is fucking stupid. Every area they've tryed this (primarily with college students) it's truned into a free for all for the insurance companies. They'll offer you coverage so you can say you are covered but they will refuse to cover anything related to care.

The rationale for forcing college students to buy health insurance was fucked from the get go.

:grr:

But until we get campaign finance reform, that solution is about as politically viable as single payer.

While no one was paying attention, the number of insurance companies has been dwindling, as companies have merged and bought each other out.

But of course no one wants to talk about that dirty little secret.

Kinda like having the minimum liability coverage for your car, with a high deductible. You pay a monthly premium but will still be out a ton of money if you have a serious illness or injury. The idea with mandates is that you'll create a bigger risk pool, which will ostensibly bring down premiums, but the insurance cos. will protect their fat profit margins at all costs. They'll do their usual denying care and giving you the runaround trying to get your claims paid.

Even single payer is based on a mandate to pay taxes on one's income.

And wrt those people who "fall through the cracks" - at least one plan protects them by limiting premiums to a portion of their discretionary income.

Pay for health care as part of taxes based on income, just like we have to do now.

Single payer is the most economical, the most efficient, and the fairest way to do so. I guess my point, made clumsily, is that the problems with our health care system are not really based on mandates; It's more a result of how we fund health care, and the difficulties in allowing profit to play a role in the medical system while ensuring that the concern for profits do not undermine the quality of care or the fairness of the system.

Any system that is truly universal will require some degree of force and will include measures to endure compliance with it's requirements. We need to evaluate each proposal, not on whether or not it includes a mandate, but on the requirements it places on citizens and how fair and reasonable those requirements are. Your OP does just that. I just wanted to point out that the problems are not so much that there are mandates as what the various proposals require of individuals (and other entities) and whether that is effective, fair and reasonable.