Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level.

Albany law review Pub Date : 2019-01-01
Brendan Williams
{"title":"Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level.","authors":"Brendan Williams","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been subject to considerable volatility, with perhaps the greatest blow being the rescission, as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, of the penalty for its individual mandate to have health insurance coverage. As a New Republic article noted, \"we will now find out whether or not an individual mandate really is essential to health reform. And that will settle an old intra-Democratic fight that has been dormant for a decade.\" The author, Joel Dodge, noted that in the face of Republican efforts to repeal the ACA, \"Obamacare defenders (myself included) rebutted these attacks by doubling down on the argument that the law’s entire structure would collapse without a mandate.\" Yet, following the mandate’s repeal, Dodge admitted: The mandate was also never much of a mandate to begin with. The Obama administration gave numerous exemptions from the mandate for hardship and other life circumstances. And at just $695 or 2.5 percent of household income, the mandate's penalty for going without insurance costs far less than the cost of actually buying insurance. In contrast, in Massachusetts, the state that pioneered health care reform, the penalty for going uninsured, when one is deemed to be able to afford coverage, is \"50 per cent of the minimum insurance premium for creditable coverage available through the commonwealth health insurance connector for which the individual would have qualified during the previous year.\" As one national policy magazine noted, after the individual mandate was repealed, many Democratic legislators expressed support for enacting it in their states, but those efforts mostly faltered: \"Health policy experts attribute the waning enthusiasm to the unpopularity of the individual mandate.\" This article traces the origin of the individual mandate, chronicles the efforts of some states to enact their own mandates, and concludes by questioning whether the mandate is either necessary or politic.</p>","PeriodicalId":79773,"journal":{"name":"Albany law review","volume":"82 2","pages":"533-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Albany law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been subject to considerable volatility, with perhaps the greatest blow being the rescission, as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, of the penalty for its individual mandate to have health insurance coverage. As a New Republic article noted, "we will now find out whether or not an individual mandate really is essential to health reform. And that will settle an old intra-Democratic fight that has been dormant for a decade." The author, Joel Dodge, noted that in the face of Republican efforts to repeal the ACA, "Obamacare defenders (myself included) rebutted these attacks by doubling down on the argument that the law’s entire structure would collapse without a mandate." Yet, following the mandate’s repeal, Dodge admitted: The mandate was also never much of a mandate to begin with. The Obama administration gave numerous exemptions from the mandate for hardship and other life circumstances. And at just $695 or 2.5 percent of household income, the mandate's penalty for going without insurance costs far less than the cost of actually buying insurance. In contrast, in Massachusetts, the state that pioneered health care reform, the penalty for going uninsured, when one is deemed to be able to afford coverage, is "50 per cent of the minimum insurance premium for creditable coverage available through the commonwealth health insurance connector for which the individual would have qualified during the previous year." As one national policy magazine noted, after the individual mandate was repealed, many Democratic legislators expressed support for enacting it in their states, but those efforts mostly faltered: "Health policy experts attribute the waning enthusiasm to the unpopularity of the individual mandate." This article traces the origin of the individual mandate, chronicles the efforts of some states to enact their own mandates, and concludes by questioning whether the mandate is either necessary or politic.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
买保险还是其他?:在州一级恢复个人强制医保。
《平价医疗法案》(ACA)受到了相当大的波动,其中最大的打击可能是作为2017年《减税与就业法案》(Tax Cuts and Jobs Act)的一部分,取消了个人强制购买医疗保险的罚款。正如《新共和》杂志的一篇文章所指出的那样,“我们现在将发现,个人强制医保对医疗改革是否真的至关重要。”这将解决民主党内部已经沉寂了10年的争斗。”作者乔尔·道奇(Joel Dodge)指出,面对共和党废除ACA的努力,“奥巴马医改的捍卫者(包括我自己)反驳了这些攻击,他们加倍强调,如果没有强制执行,这项法律的整个结构将会崩溃。”然而,在强制令被废除之后,道奇承认:强制令从一开始就算不上什么强制令。奥巴马政府给予了许多困难和其他生活环境的豁免。而且,没有保险的罚款仅为695美元,占家庭收入的2.5%,远远低于实际购买保险的成本。相比之下,在医疗改革的先驱马萨诸塞州,当一个人被认为有能力支付保险时,没有保险的惩罚是“通过联邦健康保险连接提供的信用保险的最低保险费的50%,该个人在前一年就有资格获得该保险。”正如一家全国性政策杂志所指出的那样,在个人强制医保被废除后,许多民主党议员表示支持在他们所在的州实施,但这些努力大多步履蹒跚:“卫生政策专家将热情的减弱归咎于个人强制医保不受欢迎。”本文追溯了个人授权的起源,记录了一些州制定自己的授权的努力,并以质疑授权是否必要或政治结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Single-Subject Rule: A State Constitutional Dilemma Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level. Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level. Don't Be Distracted by the Peacock Trying to Board an Airplane: Why Emotional Support Animals Are Service Animals and Should Be Regulated in the Same Manner. The Immigrant Paradox: Protecting Immigrants Through Better Mental Health Care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1