Baucus Bill Insurance Mandate
posted by: Marc Seltzer 92 days ago
Last week, Senator Max Baucus released for public consumption the health care reform legislation that was crafted by a group of bipartisan senators over the last six months. Evidently because the proposal goes beyond what the Republican members of the Finance Committee's “gang of six” sub-group wanted, the final draft did not obtain the endorsement of any of the group's three Republicans.
Initial media reactions have been mixed, with applause for the seriousness of cost containment provisions and concern for what those very same provisions will mean to average Americans. (Paul Krugman, is a good example)
One aspect of the proposal is eliciting discussion of the freedoms and obligations of participation in democratic society. The proposal includes a mandate, backed up by substantial fees, that requires that everyone obtain health-care insurance. Of course, most people receive insurance through their employer, and of those who don’t, many want insurance, if they can get it at a price they can afford. But it would no longer be a choice under this proposal. Those who cannot afford to purchase insurance would have their costs subsidized, but everyone would be required to make a substantial commitment of household income towards insurance coverage, which may or may not be in line with the spending choices that they are currently making.
Initial media reactions have been mixed, with applause for the seriousness of cost containment provisions and concern for what those very same provisions will mean to average Americans. (Paul Krugman, is a good example)
One aspect of the proposal is eliciting discussion of the freedoms and obligations of participation in democratic society. The proposal includes a mandate, backed up by substantial fees, that requires that everyone obtain health-care insurance. Of course, most people receive insurance through their employer, and of those who don’t, many want insurance, if they can get it at a price they can afford. But it would no longer be a choice under this proposal. Those who cannot afford to purchase insurance would have their costs subsidized, but everyone would be required to make a substantial commitment of household income towards insurance coverage, which may or may not be in line with the spending choices that they are currently making.
Voices in the media, from the progressive left’s Robert Scheer of Truthdig.com to Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley on the conservative right, reacted to the proposed impingement of freedom.
From KCRW’s: "Left, Right & Center" podcast, Scheer and Blankley:
Robert Scheer:
What I don’t understand is . . . and here let me put on a libertarian hat, you’re forcing people to buy health insurance; you’re penalizing rather substantially if they don’t have; so your making it a crime to live without health insurance; a crime. At least when you make it a crime to drive a car without insurance you can stop driving a car.
That’s not considered socialism when the government delivers people to private industry but when you have a robust public option that’s considered socialism to the lobbyists.
Also distinguishing auto insurance requirements, Blankely said:
This proposal would mandate that everybody has to buy insurance as a condition of living, which is not a condition and not a privilege the government has but a right we have given to us from god.
President Obama, in his weekend talk show blitz, recognized that this part of the proposal would raise questions, but called it very important for cost cutting.
From "Meet the Press" interview with David Gregory:
Gregory:
What are the hard choices that you are now asking the American people to make?
President Obama:
What I have said, for example, on what is called an individual mandate.
During the campaign, I said “look, if health care is affordable, then I think people will buy it.” So we don’t have to say to folks “you know what? You have to buy health care.” And when I talk to health care experts on the left and the right, what they tell me is that even after you make health care affordable, there’s still going to be some folks out there, who, whether out of inertia or they just don’t want to spend the money, would rather take their chances.
Unfortunately what that means is that you and I and every American out there who has health insurance and are paying their premiums responsibly every month they have got to pick up the costs for emergency room care when one of those people gets sick.
So what we have said is “as long as we are making this genuinely affordable to families, then you’ve got an obligation to get health care, just like you have an obligation to get auto insurance in every state.”
Gregory:
Are these the hard choices?
President Obama:
That’s an example of a hard choice. That’s not necessarily wildly popular, but it’s very important.
Mr. Obama cites the costs that are being paid by the insured to cover the uninsured. Moreover, it has also been reported that people with insurance manage their longer-term illnesses more effectively, potentially lowering emergency and overall health system costs. But is something lost by way of individual decision-making in return for these financial gains?
Forcing everyone to participate in insurance will bring more customers to existing insurance companies, one of the reasons that they are generally supporting reform efforts, which they objected to in 1994. This could allow lower rates, as insurers earn more and have more premium income to use to pay claims. Will the benefits be passed on to consumers?
Commentators have also questioned whether the subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance are large enough; the high cost of health insurance could create an unmanageable burden for many Americans.
Of course, we all pay taxes, thus making contributors towards, police, fire, civic authority and other shared costs in society. But the insurance requirement, even in a system maintaining private insurance coverage, will be a fundamental change in our rights and obligations as Americans.
More on the Baucus plan: http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/maintaing-the-health-care-s...
http://www.care2.com/causes/health-policy/blog/baucus-gang-of-six-beats-up-on-average-joe/
Read more: health policy
comments
Why do we have to use the insurance model at all for health care? It is clearly not working and it does not work for car insurance either, which is mandatory if you own a vehicle.
The model is the problem, making it non-profit will not solve all of the issues. There is too much administration, it is nothing but a for profit bureaucracy!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
If I sold umbrellas i would love it if the goverment would guarentee that everyone had to buy at leasst one umbrella each year from me or my competitators. Health insurance is like selling umbrellas it is designed to make a profit ever since we allowed Blue cross and blue sheild to be for profit companies responsible to making a profit for their share holders. i can choose not to bye car insurance and move to a city where mass transit will provide for my needs but i can not choose to move away from needing a body so in fact health insurance would be a tax, paid not to the goverment for the good of all but to those who owned stock ininsurance companies. My car insurance withadolecent drivers on my policy is now close to 10% of my income. presently my health care come via employer but if that got price shifted to me which is the long range reality of this plan close to 25% of my income could go to insure the profits of those who own stock in insurance companies. Thank you I would rather pay an honest tax. If mandates are considered we have to have a public option or all insurance companies need to go back to being not for profit as they were when I was a child. The american people should not be mandated to make those who can afford stock rich and while we are fixing this how about not for profit options on car insurance.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
All these freeloaders who do not want to pay insurance premiums yet when they fall ill go to the nearest emergency room for treatrment,thereby sticking the rest of us with their bill make me want to barf.Where is your sense of responsibility?Lawmakers are doing their best to be fair to all but all we hear is bellyacheing from the irresponsible about " is this a free country " ?.Pay up like the rest of us,and if it is a hardship for some the Govt will step in.No one ever knows when illness or accident will strike.So don't say I am young and healthy and don't need insurance,because that argument doesn't hold water.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Everyone needs to pay for health insurance. I don't want my tax money going to people without insurance. We have done this too long to the advantage of insurance companies. Look at the money they are spending lobbying for no public plan, our insurance premiums being spent this way. We need a public plan along with other plans. Let the people decide, make them grow up. Listening to both sides is ludicrous. The Senate hurts us.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
We all need health care from cradle to grave! We have to stop thinking in terms of profit only. A public option will create competition for the insurance companies which if does not bring down cost it will force them to provide the care that is needed and prescribed by your physician not some one who is hired to produce profits for the insurance companies which is now the case in fact.
Unfortunately, the lobbyists have become so powerful as to corrupt our representatives with their wealth and make them content to throw the public a bone to justify their existence.
The Republicans are using their same old tactics, delay, lie and bring down the other party so we can rule again as we have the past eight years.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
A single Payer system is the only way to go if we are concerned about Health Care and improving the lives of ourselves and our fellow citizens. In Single Payer, everyone Would participate (and not just in handing new mega-billions in profits over to the insurance companies) and everyone would be healthier! Under the Baucus plan, nothing will change for Us health-wise, but the insurance vampires will certainly get what they paid for from their congresspersons. We, on the other hand, will be forced to Pay Up to people who will figure out a way to cut us off when we become an Expense (no matter what the bill says, there are always massive loopholes for the monied special interest - think it will be different this time?).
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
there will be no reform until the insurance model is discarded, it is the problem. All the mandate will do is force us to buy "coverage" which really is the operative word.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Of course nation-wide health care is expensive, but it could certainly be easily affordable were you to save the money being wasted on destroying the well-being of other nations by your wildcat military adventures. Get your priorities right.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Forgive my last comment -- I meant to say the mandate will NOT result in a healthier population!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Thank you PH for pointing out the obvious fact that health insurance is not the same as health care! No one, conservatives included, is denying anyone's right to health care, regardless of whether or not the individual has insurance. The unfortunate reality is that the quality of care is often determined by the individual's ability to pay, either out-of-pocket or by purchasing insurance. A health insurance mandate is probably unconstitutional and will produce a healthier population.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1255274