As you’re likely aware, one of the more dwelt-upon differences between Hillary and Obama has been how they would make their universal health care plans universal. Hillary favors requiring everybody to buy in, while Obama takes a more idealistic approach of, “if it’s cheap enough, people will buy it”.
Personally, on a purely philosophical level, I prefer Obama’s stance of letting folks make their own decisions. However, I think Hillary’s right in recognizing that there will be a free rider drag on the health care system unless consumers are required to buy in, or unless society takes the unpalatable step of barring even emergency treatment unless payment is likely.
Anyway…in case you’re interested, some of the challenge faced in making universal health coverage universal is touched upon in this Insurance Journal article, examining recent developments in the Massachusetts experiment:
The governor added that requiring people to get health insurance — which has proved fundamental in helping reduce the number of insured in the state by 300,000 since the law went into effect — will make no sense going forward if premium costs continue to rise.
Fresh proof of that challenge came on Thursday, when state officials postponed a meeting where they were to consider rate increases for those buying subsidized policies. Bids from the four insurers who were to provide the coverage came in far over budget, so the officials were forced to consider alternatives.
“We have a whole lot more work to do to make the overall system costs affordable to people, and obviously, we want to make sure that we’re not penalizing people for not buying some thing they can’t afford,” Patrick said.
That is the principal criticism that Obama, the Illinois senator who currently is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, makes as he touts his plan and criticizes Clinton by way of Beacon Hill.