| The big political advantage of health insurance mandates (laws forcing people to buy private insurance, no matter the cost or quality) is that insurance companies love them, and can create big coalitions of business-friendly groups that seem safely centrist but also reasonably effective. They seem so dang politically viable.
But the Wall St. Journal points out they're not and argues that Clinton's Exit Deals Setback to the Push for Health-Care Mandates
Sen. Hillary Clinton's exit from the presidential race will deal a blow to supporters of a key element in the tussle over universal health coverage: the idea that all Americans be required to buy or have health insurance.
After gaining considerable political ground, especially at the state level, the concept has suffered other setbacks lately, too. Despite years of entrenched political opposition to the idea of a mandate, it was a key part of the 2006 universal health care legislation enacted in Massachusetts and of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to overhaul health care in that state....
The Schwarzenegger plan, though, failed this year, in part because unions and business groups objected to its individual and employer mandates. In Massachusetts, results have been mixed. While the overall plan has cut the number of uninsured adults in that state by roughly half, the state authority responsible for overseeing the program has exempted nearly 20% of uninsured residents because it has deemed they can't afford the policy premiums on offer.
The California plan died when the public and legislators learned that nurses and labor unions were strongly opposed to the idea-and that their wages could have been garnished or a lien put on their home. This same strategy will kill similar proposals nationally. It is generous to call Massachusetts' experiment mixed; check out Dr. Steve B's more informed comments.
There are a number of problems with mandates. On a macro level, they make genuine healthcare reforms-single-payer-impossible by showering for-profit insurers with millions of new customers and billions in new revenues and subsidies. On a micro level, they trap patients into this broken system and saddle them with junk insurance that will drain their bank accounts only to offer them no protection in the case of a health crisis.
A new study today elaborates on this very problem of underinsurance:
About 25 million Americans - or approximately one of every five adults younger than age 65 with health insurance - did not have sufficient coverage last year to shield them from financial hardship if they ended up in the emergency room or were seriously ill, according to a new study to be released on Tuesday by the Commonwealth Fund.
I actually think that number is really low, but at least it focuses our attention on this:
As the nation debates how best to improve its health care system, including how to insure the increasing number of Americans without coverage, policy makers also need to discuss the quality of available coverage, said Karen Davis, the president of the Commonwealth Fund. "Lack of insurance is only part of the problem, as even the insured have serious gaps in coverage," she said.
Meanwhile, hilarity ensues as The head of Blue Shield of California begs health reformers: "Stop demonizing health plans." I don't think so.
Chellie Pingree is about to become a great Congresswoman from Maine, and she is running on a single-payer platform. Rose Ann DeMoro from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, finds a gold rush town that symbolized our healthcare crisis.
Elsewhere, a writer in the Tennessean reminds us why we don't have single-payer healthcare...the war...and the trend of getting married for health insurance continues.
Finally, Elizabeth Edwards, well, um, eviscerates John McCain's so-called health care plan. Snap! |
