How to Fix Health Care Without the Mandate

[marmar]

from YES! Magazine:



How to Fix Health Care Without the Mandate
Why truly affordable care means single-payer.

by Sarah van Gelder
posted Apr 06, 2012


What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the “individual mandate” in the health care reform law?

Commentators ranging from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich to Forbes Magazine columnist Rick Ungar agree: Such a decision could open the door to single-payer health care—perhaps even make it inevitable.

This may be the best news about health care in years. Because ever since Republicans convinced the Obama administration to drop the “public option” in the Affordable Care Act, health reform has been in trouble. True, most Americans favor many of the provisions of Affordable Care Act. But the overall plan rests on forcing you and me to buy insurance from the same companies that have been driving up the costs of health care all along—the same companies that have been finding creative ways to avoid covering needed care, shifting costs on to patients, and endlessly increasing premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for all of us.

Forcing all Americans into a failed system is bad policy, and it’s not just President Obama’s opponents who say so. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/sarah-van-gelder/how-to-fix-health-care-without-the-mandate

[RC]

1. This country will have to change direction in a lot of areas before Single Payer becomes a reality.

As long as us working serfs can multiply faster than we are being killed off, Single Payer will be a luxury this country(read: our overlords) can't afford.

[Seedersandleechers]

2. Great fix

Unfortunately not in my lifetime.

[alfredo]

3. I think the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan should be open to all.

Those who can't afford the premiums can get subsidies.

[subterranean]

6. How would that be much different from the health insurance exchanges?

I assume you mean the FEHB should be opened up if the ACA is struck down. But without a mandate, wouldn't this lead to the problem of adverse selection? Would it not drive up the costs of FEHB plans considerably?

A little-known fact is that the Affordable Care Act does precisely the opposite of what you propose. Under Section 1312, it requires members of Congress and their staff to use health plans created under the ACA or offered through a state-based insurance exchange, rather than the FEHB plans they use now.

[alfredo]

10. It widens the pool and gives the plan more clout in negotiating. It is

independent from state control, so there is consistency in coverage. Instead of having one or two companies to choose from, you have many. That forces competition you wouldn't see in individual states. If a plan starts fucking over its customers, it runs the risk of being booted from the plan. The threat of being denied access to tens of millions moderates behavior.

Still how many non congressional employees are on the FEHB?

[subterranean]

11. The FEHB program is for all Federal govt. employees.

I think the idea of opening the program to everyone during annual enrollment periods might work. According to Wikipedia, this idea has been proposed a number of times, including by John Kerry in 2004. I don't recall it being discussed during the health care reform debate.

[alfredo]

12. It was discussed, but not much happened. It still needs congress to approve

[bemildred]

4. Get rid of private insurance, they are parasites.

You cannot maximize both profit and quality at the same time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Universal health care requires mandatory participation.

That's what my dictionary says anyway.

[marmar]

9. In sane countries it doesn't require you to BUY insurance from a corporate monstrosity.

nt

[cbayer]

7. In order to do this, we have to own the Congress, so let's get to work.

[xchrom]

8. du rec. nt