In which I explain my problem with Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan.

[Occam Bandage]

I believe that coverage needs to be universal--not because people are uncovered oh noes in Obama's plan, but to ensure that the entire risk pool is paying into the system. However, I don't believe that Hillary's mandates are actually enforceable. Three problems:

1. Detection of noncompliance. Many uncovered are also self-employed, are contractors working for cash under the table, or are small-business employees. I haven't seen a proposed detection mechanism that catches these people *before* they show up at hospitals. Adding it as a line to tax returns, perhaps--but actually verifying the extent and validity of coverage for every return in America would be unfeasible, I think.

2. Retribution of noncompliance. Frankly, there has to be a punitive aspect; otherwise, there's no incentive not to remain uncovered. The problem is that this is going to lead to horror stories in which impoverished people are hit with crippling fines as the breadwinner is taken out of the workforce. It seems that there's no middle ground between "toothless" and "draconian" fines--and, in fact, I'd guess those two categories overlap in reality.

3. Forcible compliance. This is where the Republicans make their stand in Congress. As the great "garnish" flamewar shows, even Democrats are iffy on the idea of the government taking your wages to give to companies. Republicans? Eesh. Plus, this requires additional bureaucracy to keep tabs on each noncompliant worker--and when we get to the self-employed, and those paid in cash, we have similar issues. It's like child-support enforcement, only with far more people to be concerned about, and without a strong public moral pressure to enforce noncompliance.

I think mandates are a looming disaster, and threaten to torpedo the entire plan, half due to actual problems, and half due to perceptual problems.