To Require or Not Require
Health insurance reform is topping the agenda of the major Presidential candidates. The following links offer the health care proposals from:
While Obama and Clinton are offering proposals that look similar in many ways, they differ about whether to require people to get health insurance coverage (an insurance "mandate"). Both plans would ensure that insurance carriers could not turn people down for coverage due to a medical condition. Clinton's plan would require Americans to "get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible." The Obama plan has mandates only for children, requiring that "all children have health care coverage."
The rationale for a mandate is that it gets everyone (or almost everyone) into coverage. Near universal coverage greatly reduces the costs associated with paying for care for the uninsured. The premiums paid by insured people now pay for care for the uninsured, which is called a "cost shift." The argument against a mandate is that if affordable, accessible, consumer-valued products are available, most Americans will get coverage. The bureaucracy needed to enforce a mandate costs money, and universal coverage can be attained without it.
What do you think: are mandates necessary? Can reform happen without them? How can people - especially young, healthy, and lower income people - be encouraged to get coverage in a voluntary system? If mandates are necessary, how can they be applied to encourage insurance purchase without overly penalizing lower income people?
Comments