“As long as I’m at it, here’s a sane plan that could be substituted for the insane individual mandate (my own idea, held, in print, since 1993.) This idea, by the way, would be incorporated within a system of private health insurance, not a government plan.”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but this is not a mandate HOW? It mandates that insurers insure people at rates below actuarial break-even; it mandates that the Fully Insureable Individual make a decision within your timeframes.
You don’t defeat a bad idea by meeting it halfway. Given the ‘93 date, I’m guessing you cooked this up in response to Hillarycare. Others fought it tooth and nail and flushed the whole deal.
Perry: I’m a long time Texas Republican, but if Perry wins, it will be without my vote. If the press follows up on the Texas Enterprise Fund, they will find crony capitalism that the Occupy Whatever crowd has not the wit to discover.
I haven’t forgiven him for the Trans-Texas Corridor, as envisioned the largest eminent domain land-grab and transfer (to a Spanish Corp. no less)in American history.
Pardon me, he really is as dumb as he looks; smart enough to hire good handlers, but consider; Gov. of Texas and he forgets Dept of Energy? Gee, Texas has a huge interest in what?
>>Perhaps I’m missing something, but this is not a mandate HOW? It mandates that insurers insure people at rates below actuarial break-even; it mandates that the Fully Insureable Individual make a decision within your timeframes.<<
Two points: 1) It does not mandate that insurers insure below breakeven. They can set their rates anywhere they want. It’s a free market, not a government-mandated one. If they don’t want to participate, they don’t have to. (I would point out, regarding insuring pre-existing conditions, that this happens virtually every day, across the country, at all insurance companies, because when a new employee is hired and takes the family health insurance policy, the company group policy insures his/her family at the same rate as everyone else, even if they have a spouse or child with a significant health issue.)
2. Yes, the individual must make a decision within a time frame. But he’s not mandated to make the decision. He can take his chances if he wants. It’s not a mandate; it’s a rule of the game. There’s a difference.
And this would work. By the way, I ran on this platform for a state legislative office in 1992 (the same year Clinton won, pre-Hillary-Care, and wrote it up to get it out of my system in 1993, published it, and let it go...and yes, I lost, but it’s a good idea.)
If you want to criticize it, use logic, not semantics.