How to Fix Health Care Without the Mandate
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 careperhaps 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 alongthe 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 its not just President Obamas 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
(25,592 posts)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
(3,044 posts)Unfortunately not in my lifetime.
alfredo
(60,077 posts)Those who can't afford the premiums can get subsidies.
subterranean
(3,427 posts)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
(60,077 posts)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
(3,427 posts)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
(60,077 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)You cannot maximize both profit and quality at the same time.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That's what my dictionary says anyway.
marmar
(77,091 posts)nt