17 Feb '10 16:50>1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo proposal that included an individual mandate would have forced anyone to pay $10,000 a year. There would either be; A) A low cost public option; or B) Generous government subsidies to help people pay private premiums; or C) Both.
the individual mandate seems like a very hard sell - especially if it means it requires you to spend something like $10,000 or more per year, when a healthy person or family might only expect to spend a few $1000 at worst in any given year. People just don't like the idea of being forced to buy something they don't need.
Now if they put all of the chro ...[text shortened]... buying insurance to cover only the truly catastrophic costs, that might be politically doable.
The polling suggests that individual mandates are not anathema to the public as you seem to think: Public support for such an individual mandate ranges from 49 to 56% if no mention is made of subsidies for people who cannot afford insurance (ABC June 18; Gallup July 10). If a mandate were to include such subsidies, support ranges from 53 to 70% (CBS July 24; ABC June 18; KFF July 7; Pew July 22). On the other hand, when people are told about penalties that people would have to pay for not having coverage, support drops to 44% (ABC June 18).