Health-Care Reform in Cross Hairs: Could It Survive Without Individual Mandate?
Thursday 06 January 2011
by: Linda Feldmann | The Christian Science Monitor | Report

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: David Gunter, takomabibelot)
Washington - Supporters of President Obama’s health-care reform are holding their breath as legal challenges to the individual mandate – the requirement that by 2014 virtually every American purchase health insurance or face penalties – work their way up to the US Supreme Court.
The mandate, they argue, is essential to creating a big enough pool of healthy individuals to cover the insurance industry’s rising costs, because the law requires that insurers take all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions.
But Howard Dean, for one, isn’t so concerned. At a Monitor breakfast Wednesday, the former national Democratic chairman and former governor of Vermont called the mandate “unnecessary.” Mr. Dean, who is also a physician, cites his state’s experience nearly 20 years ago in getting most children under 18 insured, without a mandate.
At the federal level, Dean says, “I don’t think the mandate is unconstitutional, but i don’t care if it is or not.” Already, the law allows young adults up to age 26 to be covered on their parents’ policy, which takes care of a demographic group that was least likely to have insurance. There are other ways to incentivize people to buy insurance, he says.
One way is to have an annual enrollment period, as with employer-provided health coverage, such that people can purchase insurance only during a limited time window. That would prevent people from buying insurance only after they become sick or have an accident. They would have to pay their health expenses out of pocket.
“If something bad happened to you, you could be forced into bankruptcy,” Dean says. “That would wake some people up.”
Another system that encourages opting in is used for enrollment of seniors in Medicare Part D, prescription drug coverage. People who do not sign up as soon as they are eligible are assessed a surcharge when they do enroll.
Click here to sign up for Truthout’s FREE daily email updates.
The key to encouraging enrollment in a health plan is affordability, Dean says.
“The truth is, even if you did nothing [if the mandate is struck down], the vast, vast majority of people are going to sign up for [insurance] if it’s affordable,” Dean says. “The president was right during the campaign when he said so.”
Other advocates of Obama’s reform aren’t so sure there would be such near-universal buy-in without a legal mandate.
“If you want to protect people who currently have insurance from having their premiums increased significantly, you have to ensure that the pool is broad enough,” says Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group for health-care consumers.
Methods besides a mandate could work to expand the insurance pool, “but they are less tried than an individual-responsibility provision,” Mr. Pollack says, using the administration’s term for the unpopular mandate. “It’s already been tested in Massachusetts and worked very well.”
A requirement to insure all comers without the mandate would produce “skyrocketing costs,” says Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby group for insurers.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, pressure would be intense for Congress to act. Ed Haislmaier, a health policy researcher at the Heritage Foundation, sees multiple flash points in the reform that could spark action in Congress – beyond the current symbolic effort at repeal and even before any Supreme Court ruling on the mandate. (The possible cases are still in lower courts.)
The Obama administration and the Democratic leaders in Congress “are in a very difficult position politically, trying to defend this and at some point something is so bad that Congress has to actually go in and fix it,” Mr. Haislmaier says. “At that point the question is, why not the rest of it? And it’s like the dam breaking.”
Last month, Virginia federal district judge Henry Hudson found the individual federal mandate unconstitutional. “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance – or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage – it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” Judge Hudson wrote.
Hudson rejected the challenge to the entire statute, striking down only the mandate.
Dean says the mandate’s unpopularity with the public reflects the libertarian nature of this country. “That’s why the individual mandate I think is doomed – whether it gets thrown out in court or thrown out in the legislature or just ignored,” says the former Democratic chairman. “Americans can’t stand to be told what to do, no matter what party.”
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
“It’s already been
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 14:17 — tyler_durden (not verified)“It’s already been tested in Massachusetts and worked very well.”
Worked very well? Incorrect. I live in MA and I've been unemployed for a year and a half, currently very underemployed, and I am going to be raped by the penalties this year that I cannot afford.
These idiot politicians are so far out of touch with the public they probably believe what they're saying which is truly frightening. How is someone who can't even pay essential bills pay for insanely expensive insurance, that doesn't even cover any significant percentage of care, or pay $1000 in tax penalties?
When I was on COBRA I had paid 1100 bucks over 6 months and had a $400 office visit/treatment I submitted. Insurance covered less than half of it. So in reality, apparently a place Mr. Dean has never visited, I overpaid for the care by $950 because it would have been far cheaper to just pay the bill myself and not have the coverage.
Needless to say I stopped paying the premiums so I could afford trivialities like food and rent, and the government is going to put me over the barrel for having the nerve to not help Blue Cross' CEO afford a third vacation house.
To think that people are dying to "protect" this way of life right now...
They want to mandate us to
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 16:21 — R Garella (not verified)They want to mandate us to buy a private product at a high cost in a complicated and cumbersome system, when we could just all be automatically enrolled for a lower cost in a simple and streamlined system that doesn't drive us all crazy. And for one reason only: to keep health insurance companies in business and profitable.
Many other countries provide better health care at half or just over half the cost here with one or another variation on single-payer. Or call it Medicare for all -- it's the only answer that makes sense and it's the only answer worth fighting for.
My father just had acute appendicitis. He showed his health card one time when he was admitted to the hospital and that was the first and last he heard about financial matters. And he received top-quality care. He lives in Italy.
single desk... single
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 17:18 — Bearzerker (not verified)single desk... single desk... single desk...
but somehow we're not allowed to even discuss that now are we...
If you don't want an
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 19:16 — jwa1968 (not verified)If you don't want an individual mandate, but do want the public to buy insurance policies, create an incentive whereby those who buy policies get a tax break equal to the annual premiums paid for the insurance. Of course, there would have to be a verification method to prevent or discourage fraud. Let's say the penalty would be a fine double the amount of the premiums paid over the amount of time the fraud was active.
I live in California where
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 19:21 — Anonymous (not verified)I live in California where auto insurance is mandated if you drive a car, so I don't understand why the health insurance mandate is being considered unconstitutional. I would prefer universal health care (single payer) but without that we need to have full coverage for everyone at a low cost, which seems to imply the mandate.
From the last paragraph of
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 20:42 — Joel Hildebrandt (not verified)From the last paragraph of the article: "Dean says the mandate’s unpopularity with the public reflects the libertarian nature of this country." So, "libertarian" now means that one is opposed to being forced to buy a corporate product? I know that judge Hudson, who identified the core issue as "an individual's right to choose", is considered a Conservative activist etc. As a Socialist activist, I agree with him on this issue. The only reason this corporate mandate was ever necessary is because Medicare For All (single payer) was kept out of the debate by the corporate media, congress and president. Beyond that, there isn't even a public option! The Democrats set themselves up for the failure of this mandate program when they designed it. It deserves to fail, and the only reason the Democratic Party will not end up on the lunatic fringe as a result is because that post is already occupied by the Republicans.
I'm not buying corporate "health" insurance. Fine me.
The insurance companies and
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 22:02 — Anonymous (not verified)The insurance companies and providers will no doubt wriggle around to try to find the minimum amount of care that they can offer at the highest possible price. This is, of course, what happens when you make healthcare a for-profit system. Without a public option, competition will likely become a joke told in the back rooms of the country clubs. Unless the public demands strict regulations and oversight, we're screwed. I'm hoping Vermont can show us the real working alternative-- a single-payer system!
We need a single payer
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:44 — Anonymous (not verified)We need a single payer system badly. I just looked over the new insurance plans designed by Blue Shield of Idaho to comply with the new insurance law. The preventive care screenings that are supposed to be covered by the insurance company are only covered if no problems are found. If the test shows a problem, you pay. The private insurance system will worm around all efforts to control it. It needs competition.
Removing the middle man
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:34 — Craig (not verified)Removing the middle man insurance companies from this system is the only way we can truly afford a universal access system. This current law ended up being an insurance company bailout. Remove them from it and from Medicare and we can do it. Remove the link between the job I have and my ability to get health care and we will be even further on the right road.
Gucci Zapatillas
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 13:37 — Gucci Zapatillas (not verified)http://photos.yeure.eu/plogger/gn/chaudron-2011/dsc_8705/
Vibram Fivefingers
Thu, 03/21/2013 - 22:54 — Vibram Fivefingers (not verified)Its customers are functioning males and ladies, virtually to a unit.
www.michaelkorstassen.travelblog.be
Mon, 04/15/2013 - 00:28 — www.michaelkorstassen.travelblog.be (not verified)very helpfulaspects in relation tocounts which a a lot as it it following.