Maybe I was a bit hasty about Health Mandates...

I just read Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal. He talks about health care reform and is a supporter of health care mandates proposed by presidential hopefuls Clinton and Edwards. Obama has a similar funding scheme without mandates.

I blogged recently that I didn't like this plan as it required by law everyone to pay for health insurance. In that post, I linked an article that argued against mandates for reasons of cost. Poor people can't afford health insurance.

After reading Krugman's book, I realize that this is a mischaracterization of his position. Two elements of the mandate plan would keep down costs for poor people: subsidies and community rating. Subsidies fund the insurance cost for the unemployed and poor and community rating means that insurance companies have to charge the same premium for everyone.

Another element, public/private competition creates incentives to keep premium costs low.
As Krugman notes, it is much more complicated than a single payer system, which the American Nurses Association supports. However, given the expected overwhelming opposition from insurance and drug companies, it is the plan that can be passed in the current political climate.

Because it would create health insurance coverage for all Americans and it is the plan that has the greatest chance of politically surviving, I have to reverse my earlier position and support a health insurance scheme with mandates.