Replies

What's your take?

I've been participating for the last few months in a policy discussion group, and the first thing we had to come to terms with was that, thanks to the courts, those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves have the ability to make the rest of us pay their bills. Almost all of the comments I've read here are complaints about that situation, but it's a situation that's the reality, and it drives any policy you might come up with.

I like the fact that the freeloaders will have to pick up some of the costs. I like the fact that the state isn't getting into the practice of medicine. I like the fact that the minimum requirement is a cheap catastrophic care policy.

I'm not enamored of the employer 'fee', but I think it'll have less of an impact on economics than some here believe. And, a few weeks back, when some of the details were released, there was a discussion of the 'wellness' discounts and the Governor's office said that those who met the lifestyle standards would get a discount, but nobody would have to pay a higher premium because they didn't meet the standards. I asked at that time whether having a discount for some didn't mean that the others, by definition, were paying more, but I didn't get an answer. Some of that sort of wishful thinking is endemic in the proposal. I liked the comment above regarding A giving to B, B giving to C, and C giving back to A and we'll all get rich. I thought that captured the administration's argument very effectively.

All in all, I think it's in line with the political realities, and a long way from being as bad as it could have been. Morally, I hate the thing, but realistically, I think it minimizes the damage to as great an extent as possible.

Fabien Nunez immediately rushed in front of a microphone yesterday and claimed the Democrats had the idea first. He's pretty crafty when it comes to figuring out what's to his political advantage, so I take that as an indication that he thinks the proposal will make it through. And that's a big issue, because another of their 'all or nothing at all' proposals means two more years of gridlock.