Policymakers are currently trying to
achieve universal coverage through a mandate requiring every individual to buy
health insurance. This mandate has caused much controversy far and wide. The
question is: will this mandate result in universal coverage?
Perhaps the most common argument in
favor of insurance mandates is in reference to liability car insurance. Though
the level of insurance varies by state, 48 states require liability insurance. Even in lieu of a mandate to by liability insurance, 15% of drivers are still on the road uninsured.
Policymakers had an advantage in considering the effects of mandates that
most paid no attention to—Massachusetts
care. In 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed into law a mandate requiring
individuals to buy health coverage, else they lose their personal income tax
reduction, if their employers do
not provide medical
insurance.
Though 350,000 (of 550,000 to
715,000) previously uninsured Massachusetts citizens had enrolled by the summer
of 2008, about half of them had chosen Commonwealth Care, a heavily subsidized
free insurance program for adults who did not have access to
government-sponsored programs or employer insurance.
Not only are there still uninsured
people in Massachusetts,
but the costs of the program are bankrupting the state. Lawmakers greatly underestimated the costs.
No, worries. The taxpayers will take
care of it! The bill to taxpayers was:
--$133 million in 2007
--$647 million in 2008
--projected to be $869 million to
$1.1 billion
Governor Mitt Romney had predicted
the cost to be only $125 million a year.
Though about 262,000 took advantage
of the free programs offered by the state, only 18,122 enrolled in the
government’s full price, unsubsidized Commonwealth Choice program. The
question is—was universal coverage attained?
No. Five percent are still
uninsured, and the Massachusetts
economy has suffered greatly.
If a government mandate will truly
“fix” a faulty system, why do we not end world hunger, homelessness, and
poverty?
The answer is simple: mandates will
not “fix” these things.
True or False: Insurance mandates will effectively achieve universal coverage
Policymakers are currently trying to
achieve universal coverage through a mandate requiring every individual to buy
health insurance. This mandate has caused much controversy far and wide. The
question is: will this mandate result in universal coverage?
Perhaps the most common argument in
favor of insurance mandates is in reference to liability car insurance. Though
the level of insurance varies by state, 48 states require liability insurance. Even in lieu of a mandate to by liability insurance, 15% of drivers are still on the road uninsured.
Policymakers had an advantage in considering the effects of mandates that
most paid no attention to—Massachusetts
care. In 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed into law a mandate requiring
individuals to buy health coverage, else they lose their personal income tax
reduction, if their employers do
not provide medical
insurance.
Though 350,000 (of 550,000 to
715,000) previously uninsured Massachusetts citizens had enrolled by the summer
of 2008, about half of them had chosen Commonwealth Care, a heavily subsidized
free insurance program for adults who did not have access to
government-sponsored programs or employer insurance.
Not only are there still uninsured
people in Massachusetts,
but the costs of the program are bankrupting the state. Lawmakers greatly underestimated the costs.
No, worries. The taxpayers will take
care of it! The bill to taxpayers was:
--$133 million in 2007
--$647 million in 2008
--projected to be $869 million to
$1.1 billion
Governor Mitt Romney had predicted
the cost to be only $125 million a year.
Though about 262,000 took advantage
of the free programs offered by the state, only 18,122 enrolled in the
government’s full price, unsubsidized Commonwealth Choice program. The
question is—was universal coverage attained?
No. Five percent are still
uninsured, and the Massachusetts
economy has suffered greatly.
If a government mandate will truly
“fix” a faulty system, why do we not end world hunger, homelessness, and
poverty?
The answer is simple: mandates will
not “fix” these things.
