...I think most health care economists who have looked at this have acknowledged, is there are basically two ways to cover people with preexisting conditions or assure that people can always get coverage even when they had bad illnesses. One way is the single-payer plan -- everybody is under a single system, like Medicare.
The other way is to set up a system in which you don't have people who are healthy but don't bother to get health insurance, and then we all have to pay for them in the emergency room. That doesn't work, and so, as a consequence, we've got to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual mandate does.
I'm sure that the President knows that 85 percent of Americans support a requirement for insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions. This is an "eat your peas" kind of moment for that 85% as well as Republicans...its either the mandate in the ACA or single payer.
This is such classic Obama, isn't it? Given that he said long ago that he prefers single payer, we know where he stands. But his ultimate goal is the same as 85% of America. So he was willing to compromise the means to reach the ends. But if the conservatives on the court want to take that one off the table - then we go back to our preferred method.
Your call Republicans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne way or the other. Take your pick. The first thing that needs to be done is to get everyone covered. Medicare For All is the least expensive. But if you want big health insurance companies to get their profits, then go with the individual mandate.
ReplyDeleteMdeicare for all, IT IS less expensive and the USA would progress to a healthier nation and away from one where hard working Americans are afraid to go to the doctor!
ReplyDelete