Mandate; what's the alternative?
- 0Oct 1, '13 by MunoRNI'm still not really sure how our system, particularly with the new pre-existing condition rule, is supposed to function without a mandate. Should people be able to just pay a monthly premium for each month they are in the hospital for instance?
- 5Oct 1, '13 by tntrnThere have been many here and in the public eye who have offered alternatives....Somehow the liberals have managed to miss all of those, so why should we go to the trouble, again, of offering alternatives, again? No point and it is wasted energy when those who asked the question repeatedly put their blinders on and then act as if no alternatives have been put forth.
I have made the decision to not renew my BLUE SIDE membership here. And this is part of the reason why.
- 4Oct 1, '13 by azhiker96Maybe I'm just tired this morning but today I feel that the ACA is the law of the land. I hope it is applied equally to all Americans and I'll just try to embrace my higher premiums and be thankful that I still have a decent employer sponsored plan. I know there are many who are not as blessed.
The fine for the mandate is a joke anyway. Under current law someone could just pay the $95 fine if the IRS is even able to figure out who does or doesn't have insurance. Compared to $200 - $500 per month that's a deal! If I were in my 20s I'd just wait for them to bill me.
My prediction is we'll see lots of chronically ill people sign up through the exchanges and very few healthy people. The exchanges will quickly discover they need more $$$ to cover costs. They will either increase the monthly premiums or petition the Feds for a bailout.
- 6Oct 1, '13 by VivaLasViejas GuideI've offered an option here before, modeled on the Oregon Health Plan. I don't think the Feds have any business whatsoever messing in healthcare, because each state's circumstances are different. A state like Florida, which has a great many retirees, is going to need more resources devoted to the elderly, while states with large numbers of Hispanic immigrants need to focus on preventive care for both adults and children.
The states are in a much better position to decide what their residents need. Which is why Oregon asked for a waiver from the federal government years ago to expand Medicaid and offer lower-cost health plans for those who were too well off to qualify for public assistance---all paid for by our taxes. There was no mandate. There was rationing; a panel made up of doctors, lawyers, laypeople and financial experts made a list of common and uncommon medical conditions, then drew a line between those conditions which would be covered and those that would not be.
Yes, it was arbitrary, but so is the rationing we have now. Bottom line, which would you rather see your tax dollars pay for: treatment for cancer, or breast augmentation?
Of course, this oversimplifies things, but the idea is to avoid the centralization of health care in the federal government and give power to the states to decide what their individual populations need most. Yes, it would likely increase taxes, and no, it does NOT include a mandate, which means some will still be without coverage. But Obamacare won't ensure universal coverage either, because some people will still be unable to afford insurance premiums even with assistance, and others will simply refuse to buy insurance.
That's just my two pence worth. You wanted an alternative to the mandate, here it is.
- 3Oct 1, '13 by nursej22I believe Alan Grayson said it best: The Republican health plan is don't get sick, and if you do, die quick.
Alan Grayson on the GOP Health Care Plan: "Don't Get Sick! And if You Do Get Sick, Die Quickly!"' - YouTube
- 1Oct 1, '13 by Art_VandelayQuote from tntrnThen why go to the trouble again, to post, again? The OP was trying to open discussion. This already sounds snarky.There have been many here and in the public eye who have offered alternatives....Somehow the liberals have managed to miss all of those, so why should we go to the trouble, again, of offering alternatives, again? No point and it is wasted energy when those who asked the question repeatedly put their blinders on and then act as if no alternatives have been put forth.
I have made the decision to not renew my BLUE SIDE membership here. And this is part of the reason why.Last edit by Art_Vandelay on Oct 1, '13
- 2Oct 1, '13 by tntrnQuote from Art_VandelayWhat's the point of "opening discussion" again, when attempts to propose or suggest alternatives has been done and done and done. And with the request to for alternatives, isn't that proof that none of the prior-made suggestions or alternatives have been paid even one bit of attention?Then why go to the trouble again, to post, again? The OP was trying to open discussion. This already sounds snarky.
Call it snark if you choose.....I think it was a restatement of the obvious.
- 0Oct 1, '13 by MunoRNI could have explained that better, I didn't mean to be difficult TNT.
What I meant was, what is the alternative that critics of the mandate would actually support?
What seems to be the primary alternative suggestion, is to 'auto-enroll' people in plans, and then it is up to them to opt-out. The criticism of this is that people will then be able to sign up for a plan only when they face medical bills, which would raise the prices significantly for everyone else, and I had gotten the impression that a big criticism of the ACA was that costs of plans were too high, not too low. But maybe I'm wrong, would conservatives be willing to pay more in premiums to do away with the mandate?
Another alternative (not from Republicans) is to switch to a tax funded single payer system, which conservatives are also highly critical of.
Another would be a medicare buy in, which, correct me if I'm wrong, conservatives oppose.