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

B. Williams
{"title":"Buy Insurance or Else?: Resurrecting the Individual Mandate at the State Level.","authors":"B. Williams","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3360484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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have qualified during the previous year.\" As one national policy magazine noted, after the individual mandate was repealed, many Democratic legislators expressed support for enacting it in their states, but those efforts mostly faltered: \"Health policy experts attribute the waning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.","PeriodicalId":79773,"journal":{"name":"Albany law review","volume":"82 2 1","pages":"533-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Albany law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3360484","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.
查看原文
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)一直受到相当大的波动,最大的打击可能是作为2017年《减税和就业法案》的一部分,取消了对其个人医疗保险的处罚。正如《新共和国》的一篇文章所指出的,“我们现在将发现个人授权是否真的对医疗改革至关重要。这将解决民主党内部沉寂了十年的旧斗争。”作者乔尔·道奇指出,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,如果没有授权,法律的整个结构将崩溃。”然而,在授权被废除后,道奇承认:授权从一开始就不是什么授权。奥巴马政府对困难和其他生活情况给予了许多豁免。该规定对没有保险的人处以的罚款仅为695美元,相当于家庭收入的2.5%,远低于实际购买保险的成本。相比之下,在率先进行医疗改革的马萨诸塞州,当一个人被认为有能力负担保险时,对没有保险的处罚是“通过联邦医疗保险连接器可获得的可信保险的最低保险费的50%,该个人在前一年本有资格获得该保险。正如一家国家政策杂志所指出的,在个人授权被废除后,许多民主党立法者表示支持在各自的州颁布该法案,但这些努力大多受挫:“卫生政策专家将热情的减弱归因于个人授权的不受欢迎。“这篇文章追溯了个人授权的起源,记录了一些州为制定自己的授权所做的努力,并通过质疑授权是必要的还是政治性的来结束。
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