Where is the mandatory aspect of this coming from?
In the bill, it's not.
However, too many people cannot think beyond
intended results to unintended consequences. The current writers of these bills
intend it to lower prices and increase coverage. EVERYBODY WINS!
Unfortunately, those two goals are
necessarily contradictory. More coverage= more demand for goods. More demand for goods= higher prices.
Lower prices= greater quantity demanded of goods.
EVERYTHING the bills
intend to do will increase demand or quantity demanded for medical care.
The only way to decrease prices, then, is to either set up price controls (creating shortages) or simple rationing (sorry, you just can't get that care).
The proponents of these bills think they are being misrepresented because that's not what they
want to happen. Unfortunately, the laws of economics are just as immutable as gravity.
Even though I don't want to hit the ground, when I fall out of a tree I'm in for pain.
If those proposing these bills want to honestly assess them and argue whether it's better to allow a government panel to prevent grandma from getting her hip replaced since she's likely to die in two years or to let her and her family decide that issue (yes, AND the insurance company with whom they have a
contract), then I'll be all for it.
So long as those supporting government healthcare are either lying about or unable to comprehend the consequences of their proposals, they will continue to feel like they are "misrepresented".