So, if the mandates in Obama's health care are struck down,

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:07 AM
Original message

So, if the mandates in Obama's health care are struck down,

Edited on Mon Aug-15-11 09:08 AM by denem

what remains.

As I remember, Obama ran without relying on mandates, but the insurers demanded them as a quid pro quo. With the mandates gone will there be the political to filibuster the repeal of the rest?

And what does it mean if the rest does remain?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PoliticAverse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:11 AM
Response to Original message

1. The main thrust of the bill doesn't work without mandates...

you can't have a system in which people can buy insurance only when they
actually need to use it. Insurance rates would skyrocket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #1

4. And yet that was what Obama denied in the Primaries.

Edited on Mon Aug-15-11 09:16 AM by denem

He focussed on getting costs down, particularly by the exchanges that the Insurance Industry did NOT want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:11 AM
Response to Original message

2. If it happened, which I don't think it will, HCR will be destroyed because it needs funding /nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. Funding insurers is not public funding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #3

9. I never said it was. I simply said it needed to be funded. Currently, if a person doesn't have

Edited on Mon Aug-15-11 10:20 AM by still_one

Medical Insurance and they have no assets, they either get it through Medicaid, or worse, they are treated in the emergency rooms which is extremely costly

Medicare covers 70-80% of the cost, and if someone doesn't have supplemental insurance with Medicare, which many cannot afford, deductables can become quite significant

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JVS

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:17 AM
Response to Original message

5. I'd like to know this too, and I'm not interested in answers like "It won't work"...

what I'd like to know is what reforms would still be legally binding. Would there still be a tax on "caddilac plans", would companies be barred from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. Barring pre-existing conditions is already gone for insuring kids.

Edited on Mon Aug-15-11 09:23 AM by denem

It depends perhaps on the structure of the legislation -whether it is tied to a timeline or specifically depends on the existence of mandates and other measures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 09:58 AM
Response to Original message

7. There are options, like a national open season with penalties for not enrolling

They'll all be more expensive, though.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Harmony Blue

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 10:00 AM
Response to Original message

8. A big mess remains

sometimes simplicity (Medicare for all) is the best way to go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eomer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #8

10. Exactly, a big mess.

Without the mandate the system will crash since there will be no reason for healthy people to participate. To fix it would require legislation but there's no way that this Congress is going to pass anything reasonable. A majority in the House wants to repeal it; why would they agree to any reasonable solution?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GOTV

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #8

13. Exactly, Medicare for all and you're done n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bluebear

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 11:05 AM
Response to Original message

11. It means The List gets a big old hole in it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ipaint

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-15-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message

12. The insurance companies will have to face the fact that they will lose

a substantial portion of their customers to medicare (70 million plus) without the never ending bailout (mandate) by taxpayers and adjust their business plans accordingly. Much less profit, much less power, less ability to buy laws. Of course the investor class will also take a hit but too bad.

The government as a result would have to expand medicare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 08th 2024, 01:48 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.