Mandatory Coverage: Rock and a Hard Place

The goal of mandatory coverage is noble. It acknowledges the humanity and importance of every American. And it's laudable that the administration and Congress are undertaking the Herculean task of recreating a system so badly broken. From a number of perspectives, however, they're between a rock and a hard place: Without mandates it will be nearly impossible to cover everyone and with mandates, in this economy, we know that many Americans will not be able to afford coverage.

How can they create a system that doesn't inadvertently make it cheaper for employers to drop employees' coverage? How will they avoid punishing the many uninsured Americans who are currently looking for jobs and struggling to cover the basics? Even a national mandate will not achieve coverage for every one of us. According to "Healthcare, Guaranteed" by Ezekiel Emanuel, it would increase coverage to include 96 or 97 percent.

And what happens without a mandate? The status quo is certainly not sustainable -- exploding costs, too many uninsured, and an insurance system that works against, not for us, in too many cases.

If coverage is mandated we must also make provisions that protect the consumer and provide a safety net for pre-existing conditions, catastrophic and costly diagnoses like cancer, and other diseases that may be disabling and require long term care. Without such safety nets, the cost burden falls on the shoulders of individuals, co-workers, employers and ultimately our society.

By Doug Ulman  |  July 10, 2009; 4:45 PM ET  | Category:  Health Care Reform
Share This: Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Are We Insuring or Ensuring Health? | Next: Financing: Fair and Shared by All

Posted by: viicOop | July 11, 2009 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.