There is a lot being written about Governor Schwarzenegger’s health care proposal, but one of the most interesting analyses I’ve read lately is Senator Sheila Kuehl’s take on the plan. For free market types, it is a look at how committed the liberals are to having government take over health care (and how little they care about the cost of health care, as long as employees don’t have to pay for anything). For the governor’s staff and legislative Republicans, it tells them exactly what Kuehl and other universal health care advocates will continue to push for as the legislature begins to debate the governor’s proposal (She doesn’t even like the liberal stuff he proposed!).
Here are a few highlights from an essay Kuehl wrote this week critiquing the plan:
** ON THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: "The central basis of the Governor’s plan is simply to mandate that every Californian must, by law, carry health insurance. There is no requirement that it be affordable and no minimum coverage. This means that the requirement can be met by a bare-bones policy covering only catastrophic events, with a $5,000 deductible and up to $7500 in out of pocket expenses for all the things that aren’t covered by the policy."
** ON THE EMPLOYER MANDATE: "Employees of businesses with fewer than 10 employees would be required, under the individual mandate mentioned above, to buy insurance for themselves and their families. Their employers would not be required to do anything."
** ON COST CONTAINMENT: "The Governor’s proposal contains no real cost containment measures. It merely shifts the cost of unlimited premiums onto consumers. The proposal attempts to label the fact that he would allow insurance companies to offer greatly reduced coverage as “cost containment”."
** ON THE "COVERAGE FOR ALL" MANDATE: "It does not…address the fact that the insurance companies would likely raise their overall premiums to cover the new risks they would be required to assume."
** ON COMMUNITY RATING: "The Governor’s most recent explanation of this section of the proposal, however, could potentially exacerbate the problem by adopting a “modified” community rating system that would allow the private insurance companies to differentiate in premiums on the bases of age, gender and regionalized location. A strict “community rating” system would not allow these differentiations, so, at the very least, some clarification is needed."
** ON PHYSICIAN/HOSPITAL SHARE OF COST TAX: "Logically, this means that, should doctors and hospitals raise their fees to adjust for these taxes, the sick would be paying a disproportionate share of subsidizing health insurance for the poor."
So, as they say in school, let’s review: In Sheila Kuehl’s world, employees shouldn’t have to pay for their health insurance plans, the sick shouldn’t have to pay, insurance companies should not be allowed to charge higher risk consumers more or allowed to raise premiums as they are forced to absorb more risk, even the smallest employers need to pay for their employees health care and everyone should have a premium plan of coverage.
**There is more – click the link**
January 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jennifer Nelson’s commentary is not analysis but gasoline. She feeds prejudices but does not enlighten.
When she writes: “In Sheila Kuehl’s world, employees shouldn’t have to pay for their health insurance plans, the sick shouldn’t have to pay, insurance companies should not be allowed to charge higher risk consumers more or allowed to raise premiums as they are forced to absorb more risk, even the smallest employers need to pay for their employees health care and everyone should have a premium plan of coverage.”, she gets it very wrong. She is either getting it wrong because she is ignorant or because she wants to distort.
Under Senator Kuehl’s bill employees would pay, the sick would pay as long as they are working, there would be no need for insurance companies, the risk pool would expand to include everyone in the state, and yes even small employers would have to pay something. As for it being a premium plan, yes, by today’s standards it would compare favorably to “premium” plans available now.
The goal of her plan is to provide good healthcare for every Californian. She wants people to be healthy.
It makes good economic sense. A healthy workforce is a good workforce. Divorcing healthcare plans from employment means that no company has an advantage or a disadvantage when it comes to healthcare and workers can choose employment based on the job not the employer’s healthcare plan.