tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51278598938793398.post6234245313431357218..comments2023-04-10T07:51:48.277-04:00Comments on Election 2008: An Attempt to Understand Our Options: To Mandate or Not to Mandate Health Insurance CoverageBrendan O'Connorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14657163906187876799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51278598938793398.post-30574579480711126042007-12-26T12:58:00.000-05:002007-12-26T12:58:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comment Mark, and for the Greg Mank...Thanks for the comment Mark, and for the Greg Mankiw link.<BR/><BR/>With that, and your related comments, I hear you on a number of fronts. Upon further thought, I think it is unproductive and inefficient to have penalties that do anything other than pay right into an insurance plan (which seems it may be what you're suggesting if there were to be any mandates), if we're talking about systems like the Democratic frontrunners' plans. Otherwise it seems unnecessarily punitive. <BR/><BR/>Also, the point of the mandate is what? To say, "you need coverage," right? However, in the case of a mandate that did not pay directly into a health insurance plan for the "violator," we end up with someone who has X amount of dollars less for insurance, because of the fine, and still no insurance (thus risking costing the system more in the long run by not getting preventive care, etc.). <BR/><BR/>Do you, or does anyone out there, know if any of the systems purport to work in that way? In terms of your point (along with Greg's) in terms of incentives and fines being similar (or equal), that makes definite sense. I'm still not entirely convinced that mandates would not be helpful (as Obama apparently leaves the option open too), because of the feeling that it could work in the above way I mentioned, but also because I'd like to hear more about ways that they could be enforced (as Krugman mentions, "Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan."--seems potentially like it could work, depending on details).Brendan O'Connorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14657163906187876799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51278598938793398.post-6060970277018140842007-12-24T10:24:00.000-05:002007-12-24T10:24:00.000-05:00While you are obviously on the political left, you...While you are obviously on the political left, you may still want to check out this Greg Mankiw post:<BR/>http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-health-insurance-mandates.html<BR/><BR/>The point is that mandates only work if the average cost of the penalty is sufficient to scare people into buying insurance they otherwise would not buy. Since no one is advocating jail time for people who refuse to buy insurance, this means that the penalty is nothing more than a financial incentive to get insurance. <BR/><BR/>In this way, the penalty is no different from a credit for obtaining insurance. The problem with Krugman's argument is that it falsely assumes, much as Republicans falsely assume with morality legislation, that you can legislate behavior completely out of existence. All you can do is create incentives and disincentives for behavior, and there is no fundamental difference between a $1000 incentive and a $1000 disincentive.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: Krugman's continuing attacks on Obama's lack of mandates in his proposal are utterly baseless. <BR/><BR/>Although I am a libertarian and could not disagree more with Reich on most issues, it seems to me that Reich has supplanted Krugman as the most trustworthy authority on Progressive economics. Krugman has devolved into a shell of his former self.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18106463571203639956noreply@blogger.com