It was this short diary, Schumer and Ensign agree to weaken universal coverage that got treated pretty harshly last week:
I saw this live Thursday on the Finance Committee markup, and realized what was happening. Only press that I see is from this article in The Christian Science Monitor, Senate Democrats backpedal on health insurance mandate
This will be concise, something I've been accused of being congenitally incapable of. A few truisms:
*Universal Health Coverage is only possible through universal mandates, due to the "adverse selection" effect.
*Such mandates can only be through the Tax system, or requirements for every individual to purchase such insurance.
*If such mandates are by requirements for purchasing insurance, there must be serious enforcement provisions.
*It is politically unpopular to raise taxes or to enforce mandates.
*Unethical politicians will pretend that it is possible to have minimum enforcement of mandates, and still have universal coverage.
*This is what Schumer proposed, and the committee,including Republicans, endorsed.
From Krugman's Column, in criticizing the recent Insurance Lobby report he conceded this:
The motivation for the AHIP report seems to have been the decision by the Finance Committee to weaken the penalties for individuals who don’t sign up for insurance, even as it retains regulations requiring that insurers offer the same policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. The industry worries that some people will game the system, remaining uninsured as long as they’re healthy, then signing up when they get sick.
This is, believe it or not, a valid concern. Many health-care economists believe that a strong individual mandate, requiring that almost everyone sign up, will be needed to make health reform work. And the Finance Committee probably did weaken the mandate too much.
Your damn right it's a valid concern, but this betrayal of principle went unreported by any MSM. (If anyone can show otherwise, please comment and I will acknowledge) So, the Insurance Industry saw what Krugman, and I saw, that this was not a minor revision but an abrogation of economic requirements for universal care.
Thanks Paul