Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
A more accurate analogy to this health care bill's requirement to purchase a private industry product (insurance) would be "you don't have to buy cigarettes but if you don't buy a government dictated quantity each year you will be fined."
|
I think that is a bit of a stretch.
IMO, the mandate is simply an excise tax you can avoid and, if you are currently uninsured, protect your family at the same time (as a result of less expensive insurance options that would be available as opposed to the current market).
It also requires you to take personal responsibility for your health care rather then force other taxpayers to bear the cost if you renege on an expensive, unanticipated medical bill.
And, while there are good features for the insurance companies, (millions of potential new customers). There are good things for consumers, like ending anti-trust for insurance companies, opening the closed markets in many states, requiring coverage of those with pre-exisiting conditions, capping out-of-pocket expenses, etc. which is why the industry is spending $millions on lobbying and media buys opposing this bill.
I would prefer a stronger public option and ultimately, a single-payer, but the votes are just not there and comprehensive reform like this will be even less likely if the Democrats lose that super-majority in the Senate, which is likely in 2010 ...at which point, we are back to NO reform.
The lesser of evils or accepting a good bill knowing that the possibility of a better or perfect bill is not a reality? I guess it is a matter of perspective.