TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.11.2007
The Massachusetts Plan: Doing Just Fine

Via Cato at Liberty, the Boston Business Journal has an interesting piece noting that not all of the uninsured in Massachusetts have complied with the state's mandate to purchase health insurance. Cato's Michael Tanner takes it as an occasion for gloating: "How could anyone know that an individual mandate for health insurance would be unenforceable? Oh yeah, we told them."

This seems misguided on a few levels. First, the numbers actually strike me as fairly encouraging: more than 80 percent of Bay Staters who were uninsured before the law took effect now have insurance, and while the deadline to obtain insurance (or risk a fine) is technically tomorrow, it's effectively the end of the year, so that number will probably rise higher (and, keep in mind, this is before the penalty even kicks in, which could prod even more people to comply).

More importantly, though, the critique misses the point. It's wrongheaded to pronounce the Massachusetts plan a success or failure based on whether the mandate actually achieves 100 percent coverage. The far more important part of the plan were the subsidies it provided to the working-class uninsured to buy a policy they previously couldn't afford--subsidies that, as the Boston Business Journal notes, tens of thousands of people have taken advantage of. The goal of the mandate was primarily to broaden the state's risk pool by forcing more (relatively) young, healthy, and well-off people to join it, driving down the cost of insurance. Obviously, insofar as some people are still refusing to do that, it's too bad, but you don't need absolute full compliance in order for the scheme to be effective. The real concern would be if substantial numbers of people were flouting the mandate because health insurance remains genuinely unaffordable for them, even with the subsidies. But by all accounts this isn't the case; the people who haven't yet purchased insurance are those who could afford to do so, but choose not to. This isn't ideal, but it's not at all fair to conclude that somehow the Massachusetts plan isn't working. The bottom line is, it's the subsidies that matter most, not the mandate.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:00 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Mschneider said:

Agree with your point.  I'm sure 100% of drivers don't have car insurance either but that's no reason not to require people to have it.  I was skeptical of mandates because it seemed it would be a burden on people that could not afford it, but to the extent that it gives people the opportunity to obtain health insurance that they otherwise would not have, it seems an unassailable plan--unless you are Giuliani who thinks if you get sick it's your fault and don't bother us.

November 14, 2007 3:44 PM

AlanK said:

It does raise an interesting point; presumably somebody has dealt with it at length but I haven't seen it: What are our obligations to someone who willfully fails to take out insurance and then cannot pay for his or her care? Anybody? We're not leaving people bleeding in the road, and we're sending out bills to anyone who walks into a doctor's office or ER for treatment, sure. What else?

November 14, 2007 4:45 PM