One of the sticking points over this bill, now that the public option has been removed, is the individual mandate. Many progressives simply don't want to require people to buy a product from a private corporation, particularly one that enjoys anti-trust exemptions.
Personally, I support a mandate, because I have not seen anyone indicate to me how the system will support community rating and other insurance regulations without some kind of mandate to ensure that people don't opt out and worsening the risk pool. But don't take my word for it. Take Krugman's, from back when Hillary championed mandates and Obama didn't. (And I, though a Barack supporter, thought Hillary's the better plan.)
Still, I understand why people dislike the mandate. As Obama pointed out during the campaign, even with subsidies, it may be a real burden for many people. And a hardship exemption can only go so far. Moreover, many people - left, right, and center - oppose viscerally being told they must purchase health insurance.
So what do people think about Paul Starr's proposal? He proposes that people be able to "opt out" of the mandate, but in doing so forgo subsidies and some of the regulatory protections if they opt back in.
Read More
