Tweet
(photo: TimmyGUNZ / flickr)
Depending on how the Supreme Court rules this month regarding the individual mandate, some of the law’s supporters many soon start looking for a replacement which can serve a similar role in getting more people to buy insurance. According to a new Bloomberg Government Study, an auto-enrollment system could function as a decent replacement.
The study finds that even if auto-enrollment performs at a lower level of its effectiveness in retirement savings, it could offset much or all of the non- group enrollment loss of six million people expected if the mandate is overturned. It also could largely restore the mix of young and old, healthy and unhealthy people that the mandate was intended to ensure and that’s needed to make an insurance system work well. A moderately strong version of the policy could restore all of the $20 billion in annual premium revenue U.S. insurers would lose in the non-group market with the mandate’s failure.
By far my preferred replacement to the individual mandate would be to have a basic public insurance plan everyone without private insurance is automatically made part of, but there are many provisions or combinations of provision that could serve a similar role that the individual mandate is supposed to play.
What, if anything, is done to replace the individual mandate if the Court strikes down only the mandate, or only the mandate plus a few related provisions, will likely be the next big fight in health care reform.
10 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
It’s easy. Scratch out the age 65 requirement for Medicare, so you have Medicare-for-all. Will it happen? No. Will Obama do it? Never.
This country won’t do what’s right cuz it’s hellbent on doing wrong.
Expect the worst, and fight for the best.
Auto-enrollment only traps those who are already employed. It does nothing for the unemployed, whose number is tragic these days. This does nothing for universal health care – not coverage – health care.
What do they think in the rest of the world about how we handle this????
How actually would auto-enrollment work?
Would enrollees have any say in which plan, coverage levels, deductibles and co-pays? Transition in coverage if job, locale, etc., changes?
Anything that doesn’t provide huge windfall profits for the Medical / Pharma Industry will get nowhere in Congress or in the WH. Its all about huge profits for a few and the people can go to hell. If the SCOTUS over turns the mandate the Health / Pharma Industry wins and it they uphold they win. For the rest of us its a lose lose.
Medicare for All, or some version of national health insurance, consistently gets 50-60% support (or more) in national opinion polls. Therefore, much like legalization of marijuana and withdrawing troops immediately from Afghanistan (both supported by majorities of voters) it never even gets put to a vote in Congress and our Very Serious Democratic leaders refuse even to campaign on it.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Americans_Support
Cass Sunstin wrote a whole book advocating this tactic in public policy.
Called the approach “paternalistic libertarianism” or some such nonsense.
The study http://www.bgov.com/media/news/a7B0yTFIHLojWoaoWgmLPA only applies to those getting paychecks, but auto-enrollment is an obvious fall back.
But the GOP want ACA to be repealed – not fixed – and will not pass anything other than individual tax free savings held by health insurance companies in medical savings accounts.
You got that right. Unless the Dems do unexpectedly well at the polls in November, once this thing gets struck down they won’t get another chance to pass anything like it. Their credibility was severely damaged last time around, as 2010 demonstrated.
Yup, auto enrollment at birth beginning ASAP — beginning as soon as an executive order can get something done. Then, right now, just tell everyone they have access and work out the details over time.
But, for now, the ethical and humane thing to do is just open up the system for everyone.
Get a public finally experiencing the freedom of not worrying about losing health care and let them tell Congress what they want and what they will not accept.
But, I don’t think Roberts will rule the mandate unconstitutional — he wants it so the Republicans can continue to threaten the people with losing or being unable to afford care. And as a political tool.