[zedee]

No it isn’t and you saying so doesn’t make it so. The mandate of Obamacare is either you buy or you get fined by the government. Everybody knows that. My guess is that this is one more word-pickery in attempting to gin up a false meme. I am sick of it. And guess what. It will not make a difference except to give give false hope to Cruzers and give them a tingle down their leg.

Yes, and that mandate is inextricably linked to the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions. If you mandate that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, but do not require that people purchase insurance, it creates a YUGE free rider problem: people will just wait until they get sick before buying insurance. It would destroy the insurance market.

You can't have one without the other, which is why BOTH requirements must go (along with the rest of Obamacare).

[Brian Griffin]

“Yes, and that mandate is inextricably linked to the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions. If you mandate that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, but do not require that people purchase insurance, it creates a YUGE free rider problem: people will just wait until they get sick before buying insurance. It would destroy the insurance market.

You can’t have one without the other, which is why BOTH requirements must go (along with the rest of Obamacare).”

You could just cap payouts to the premiums the buyer paid for say the first 18 (or 24) months of coverage.

Alternately, we could also allow insurance companies to sell policies costing as much on average as the buyers subsidy amounts (with the federal government paying the premiums). These might cover:
1. 80% of your EMTALA care, and
2. X*.8(vital drugs like insulins for Type 1s)
3. X*.8(of care that got you to get back to work)
4. X*.5(drugs selected by the insurer)
5. 80% of the first doctor visit of year, 70% of the second doctor visit, 60% of the third doctor visit, etc.

where X varies by your subsidy amount.

Such coverage would work well for millions, certainly better than $6,800/year deductible coverage.

[Lagmeister]

The problem with the old mandate was that you had to buy an approved government policy (a single person doesn't need equivalent of a family plan) which has resulted in constantly higher premiums and impossible deductibles. Trump's ongoing policy is to return to private insurance for most people. The mandate here (started by the host) is that everyone be covered... Trump's position has always been not to put the burden of the very poor on insurers but that we have medicare, which really means a better version of what we have now.

Look, Cruzers have taken Trump's comment about not 'allowing people to die in the street' as to mean he is for single payer. That is a lie. Here, I am sure Trump isn't intending a free rider policy. If Trump used the word 'mandate' poorly - ugh, big deal. Once again, I am sick and frickin' tired of the phrase pouncing when I have heard all of Trump's speeches and read his policy statement. After day full of rallies and then this town hall, I am not going to jump on some phrasing.

Cruzers may do that to try and save his sinking butt. But it will not work.