October 8, 2007

'Mandatory private (or public) insurance'

PatientRevolt.org, an offshoot of the left-wing Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, is raising money to try to air this comercial in the Sacramento market as a shot across the bow at policymakers trying to come up with a consensus health reform plan. If nothing else it shows one potential strategy for bringing down a ballot measure if one is put before the voters. The theme: "mandatory private health insurance" -- the individual mandate that the governor, centrist think tanks and some Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, support.

It's interesting that "mandatory private health insurance" is considered evil while "mandatory public health insurance" is supposed to be our savior. This particular ad also mentions that we would all be required to buy insurance while the insurers wouldn't be required to cap its costs. Isn't the same true for single payer? In fact, the projected, first-year costs for the Democratic leadership plan and Sheila Kuehl's single payer plan are about the same: The leadership plan envisions a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers and premiums on individuals capped at 5 percent. The Kuehl plan would have an 8 percent tax on employers and a 4 percent tax on individuals. The biggest difference between the two is that under the leadership plan, the managers of a government-run risk pool would bargain with multiple insurance companies to get the best price on plans that everyone would choose from. Under Kuehl's plan, at least the way she envisions it, the government managers would cut the insurance companies out of the process and set prices for individual doctors, hospitals and labs and pay them for treating us. Either way, though, the taxes and the coverage are "mandatory."

Posted by dweintraub on October 8, 2007 2:34 PM