Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
WSJ's Stephen Moore Book Signing Luncheon-Rescheduled for December 17
12.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, ... 
More

Recent Events
Victor Davis Hanson Orange County Luncheon December 5, 2012
12.5.2012 12:00:00 PM

Post Election: A Roadmap for America's Future

 More

Post Election Analysis with George F. Will & Special Award Presentation to Sal Khan of the Khan Academy
11.9.2012 6:00:00 PM

Pacific Research Institute Annual Gala Dinner

 More

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
10.19.2012 5:00:00 PM
Author Book Signing and Reception with U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print Both plans go too far. Government meddling can’t fix this

By: Sally C. Pipes
1.16.2007

USA Today, January 16, 2007

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a $12 billion health care package that he says should be the model for the rest of the country. Forcing people to buy health insurance will not solve the problem of the uninsured, make America healthier or decrease the amount of money we spend on health care. Such schemes will increase taxes, kill jobs and destroy private health care markets. They are also the next logical step on the path to single-payer health care.

"Everyone in California must have health insurance," Schwarzenegger declared. This is already true for automobile insurance, yet up to 25% of the state's residents leave home without it.

In Massachusetts, only four in 10 of those eligible for the totally free Commonwealth Care have signed up. Premiums for the subsidized plans are set as high as 6% of the insured's income, prompting talk of not enforcing the individual mandate.

Politicians justify these plans by alleging unfair cost shifts from the uninsured to the insured. Yet these plans rely on massive cost shifts. In Massachusetts, federal taxpayer money will be shifted to providers. In California, the governor calls for an increase in rates for providers from government insurance and then taxes some of this back with new taxes on physicians and hospitals. This is simply a way to increase taxes on private plans and send the money to government plans.

Schemes based on individual mandates will require new and extreme regulation of the private insurance market. Under California's plan, insurers won't be able to turn down anyone based on health status or age, a policy that causes premiums to skyrocket. In 1993, premiums jumped 500% when New Jersey passed a similar regulation.

Americans are highly conflicted when it comes to health care. We think the quality of the system is poor, yet we praise our individual care. We support universal coverage, but not if it entails any restrictions or costs more. Arnold and company better hope that these sentiments don't apply to California, because the move to universal coverage not only costs more, but will only come from mandates and will arrive with plenty of restrictions.

 


Sally C. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a health policy think tank. She can be reached at spipes@pacificresearch.org.
Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources