David Frum认为如果最高法院判“individual mandate”不合法,最终结果就是政府国家化的医疗。

David Frum认为如果最高法院判“individual mandate”不合法,最终结果就是政府国家化的医疗。

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/opinion/frum-government-health-care/index.html?hpt=po_r1

“Perhaps after a decade or two of discontent, somebody else will try another reform. But this time, the reform will proceed as an outright government program. There won't be any choice, if the Supreme Court of 2012 precludes as unconstitutional the private-sector alternative -- meaning that today's would-be champions of the free market will have unwittingly brought about the grandest expansion of government control since the 1930s.”

 

After the mandate, government-run health care would grow

By David Frum, CNN Contributor
updated 7:36 AM EDT, Mon April 2, 2012
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, left, and Chief Justice John Roberts are expected to vote against the mandate.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, left, and Chief Justice John Roberts are expected to vote against the mandate.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • The U.S. Supreme Court may strike down the mandate to buy health insurance
  • David Frum says elimination of mandate would spur more government-funded health care
  • Without private insurance, more people will look to get Medicaid coverage, he says
  • Frum: The court's free-market boosters could spark huge government expansion

Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002 and is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again."

(CNN) -- Suppose the Supreme Court does rule that the health care mandate is unconstitutional? What happens then?

(I'm not saying that they will, but let's play "what if?")

The famous individual mandate is just one piece of the new health care law enacted in 2010. Take away the mandate, and here are two principal elements left behind:

-- A huge expansion of the Medicaid program. The majority of those who'd gain health coverage under the new health care law, an estimated 18 million people, would gain it from being enrolled in Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Even before the new health care law, Medicaid was a huge program, covering one in six Americans. It's on its way to becoming bigger still, whatever happens to the individual mandate.

David Frum
David Frum

-- Tough new rules on insurance companies. The new health care law forbids insurers to refuse coverage on the basis of "pre-existing conditions." All applicants must be accepted, and they must be covered at the same price as the other members of the insured group.

Now let's war-game what happens post-mandate.

1. The private insurance market will crash in a spectacular train wreck.

Faced with big new costs and deprived of their expected new revenues from the mandate, insurance companies will have to raise prices. Faced with rising prices, employers will cut back coverage.

The 2010 law imposes new obligations on employers to provide health insurance but also presents employers with an option to escape those obligations by paying a (comparatively) small fine. As insurance costs surge in a post-mandate world, more employers will take advantage of that option. Their employees will join the new market for individual care, the famous health care "exchanges."

Minus the mandate, the policies on offer in the exchanges will be unexpectedly expensive. Minus the mandate, many individuals will choose not to buy. The law offers subsidies to buyers who cannot afford the full cost of the new policies. Minus the mandate, those subsidies will cost much more than expected.

2. The Medicaid program will grow.

The new health care law dramatically expands eligibility for Medicaid. In a post-mandate world, with employers dropping coverage and the individual market careening into dysfunction, Medicaid will likely grow faster than ever.

Costs of the Medicaid program are divided between the federal and state governments. As Medicaid surges, those governments will face an agonizing dilemma: Raise taxes to pay for all those new applicants or reduce coverage, leaving millions of people to clinics and charity.

3. Meanwhile, the Medicare time bomb will continue to tick.

The U.S. already has a single-payer health care system. It's called Medicare, and even today, it is one of the largest single-payer systems on Earth, enrolling more than 47 million people. As more and more of the baby boomers turn 65, the program is scheduled to expand rapidly -- to more than 63 million people by 2020 and more than 80 million by 2030.

We are headed, it would seem, to a post-mandate future that looks something like this:

Medicare will provide fairly generous government health coverage to about one-quarter of the population.

Medicaid will provide much less generous government coverage to one-quarter of the population.

The population outside Medicaid and Medicare will subdivide into two main groups:

The affluent and those whose labor is greatly valuable to their employers will be covered by an ever-more-expensive and ever-shrinking private-insurance market.

The people who can't pay themselves and whose employers won't pay for them will drop out of the private market, and either look for ways to qualify for Medicaid or wait and pray until they qualify for Medicare.

Political pressures will induce politicians to open Medicaid to more and more uninsured people. Fiscal pressures will force politicians to make Medicare less generous and more Medicaid-like.

If the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional the plan for universal coverage through private insurance, the U.S. will continue to evolve toward a government-led system -- albeit one much more expensive, and much less satisfactory, than the government systems of other advanced democracies.

Perhaps after a decade or two of discontent, somebody else will try another reform. But this time, the reform will proceed as an outright government program. There won't be any choice, if the Supreme Court of 2012 precludes as unconstitutional the private-sector alternative -- meaning that today's would-be champions of the free market will have unwittingly brought about the grandest expansion of government control since the 1930s.

所有跟帖: 

由州政府出面,象嘛州那样搞呢?在兰州就可以搞,然后制定大量规定不让红州的过来享福 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:27:34

这个不可能的。就象当年废除奴隶制,也是来个各州自主。最后的结果是南方奴隶跑到北方。 -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:29:17

可以按照点数,工作满多少点或者交税满多少点,才能享受本州免费医疗。。。 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:36:15

你这是要分裂民众,分裂国家。打倒! -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:38:14

麻州已经搞了,人家搞分裂的还代表反对分裂的竞选总统呢,哈哈 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:43:29

麻州没有规定不让红州的过来享福吧? -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:47:43

应当规定。让红州人民自己对比,尝尝自己种下的苦果。 -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:55:32

红州没保险的怎么过来享福?人家嘛州都有保险卡。 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:05:19

我从红州搬过去总可以吧? -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:28:33

你要交税地,你要买保险地 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:39:49

个人认为如果最高法院裁定主要条款不合宪法,就应该把整个医疗改革都撂倒,给人个机会重新来 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:28:36

很难说。觉得David Frum就是来BMT看了俺的评论抄去的。打倒抄袭!! -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:30:57

全推倒估计不可能。如果不全推倒,国有化顶多5-10年。 -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:32:43

不全推倒重来的问题多多,无法确保更多人交钱,只有增加化肥 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:37:34

现在这种政局,推倒容易,要再达成个双方能接受的医改几乎是异想天开,看看移民改革,能源改革,金融改革 -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:46:21

如果失败,只能等联帮政府赤字到不可忍受的地步才有机会。不过,这个日子应当不远。 -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:50:20

同意。当初GOP提出“individual mandate”,就是为了避免克林顿提出的医保政府国家化。 -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:36:55

我不满意奥巴马的是在2008-2010民主党拥有两院+白宫却没能搞成全民医保 -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:40:41

奥巴马已经尽力了。参院60票好像就几个月。共和党的宗旨就是赶他下台,别的什么都不管。连自己多年的政策都全盘反对。 -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (117 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 16:48:52

他精力个屁,躲在婆罗西的裙子后面 -用户名被占用了- 给 用户名被占用了 发送悄悄话 用户名被占用了 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:01:11

算了,连民主党内部都有30+人反对。他不是没试过。只是反对声浪太大。如果不是Clinton -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (29 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:03:29

记得那个Nelson,还有康州那个? -lh- 给 lh 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:12:33

胖兔 -徒劳- 给 徒劳 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 04/02/2012 postreply 17:31:52

请您先登陆,再发跟帖!