Well I’m not sure where this is headed, but I’m going to start using the zero-cost of publishing feature of the Internet and do some blogging…
Although I’ve spent 25 years on the “payor/administrator” side of the health insurance system, my skills sets and thinking extend to other areas…
My latest thinking has to to with ObamaCare, and the recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling that the Right seems to be crowing about: Invalidating the albeit weak “mandate” requiring American citizens to “be covered” by some form of health insurance. Here’s the deal:
People don’t like insurance companies refusing to cover people for pre-existing conditions (yet they seem to understand why you can’t buy homeowners insurance while your house is in flames). But the only way to allow people with pre-existing conditions to enroll in health insurance plans is if everyone is required to be enrolled…
Eliminating the idea of requiring universal enrollment makes it even less likely that ObamaCare will succeed from an “insurance” perspective. This concept was originally understood by Republican legislators as a critical feature of any plan that “fixes” the problem of what to do about people who have pre-existing conditions not being able to get covered.
Why is it constitutionally legal for most States to require drivers to buy liability insurance, but constitutionally illegal for the Federal Government to require citizens to buy health insurance?
- ObamaCare Loses in Court (online.wsj.com)
- Unconstitutional Compulsion of the American People (dakotavoice.com)
- Federal Judge In Virginia Voids Key Provision Of Health Law (medicalnewstoday.com)
- Judge rejects key part of Obama health care law (msnbc.msn.com)
- What Do You Think?: Is Health Law Unconstitutional? (abcnews.go.com)