While Democratic presidential candidates
Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton share similar platforms on health care, they have one key difference: Clinton wants to mandate that everyone have health insurance, Obama does not. (He would mandate it for children, but not for adults.)
The topic has come up frequently in the Democratic debates, and did so again again when the pair faced off Thursday in Texas.
So what exactly is a mandate, and why has it become such a point of contention between the two?
In a recent
webcast, the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation brought together views from across the political spectrum to discuss the issue. This "Ask the Experts" broadcast included analysis from the
Cato Institute, the
New America Foundation, and
Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. The answers below are compiled from that webcast, unless otherwise noted.
What is an individual mandate?An individual mandate requires everyone have a health insurance plan that meets minimum standards set at the state or federal level. The idea is to make sure all citizens, regardless of financial or employment status, be insured.
What are the pros for having an individual mandate? Providing health care for everyone is a common social and moral value, and individual mandates are one strategy that aims to do so. Mandates also force people who are uninsured and can afford insurance to buy it, eliminating the financial burden they pass on to those with insurance.
They also provide an alternative to forcing employers to provide insurance and stop short of adopting a single-payer, government-run health care system, both of which face significant political hurdles.
What are the cons?Individual mandates take away the personal freedom to decide how to spend your money. To be effective, a mandate needs to be enforced, possibly with mechanisms that would be difficult to put into practice and which might penalize those who are already socially or financially burdened.
How would a mandate be paid for?Individual mandates would be paid for directly by individuals and priced on a sliding scale as a percentage of their income. For those who cannot afford to pay, subsidies would be provided at taxpayer expense.
How would it be enforced?A New York Times
article speculated that people might be fined or have deductions taken from their paychecks. In Massachusetts, residents will have to report whether they have insurance on their state income tax forms and can be
penalized if they don't. The maximum penalty now is $219, but that may rise to $912.
How have they worked in other places?In Massachusetts, the only state to have used individual mandates in health reform, the jury is still out. While it boosted enrollment of the uninsured and the underinsured (those with insurance not meeting some minimum standards) to 300,000, the New York Times says this number amounts to only half the uninsured statewide.
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was governor while the Massachusetts reform was passed, was not proposing a similar plan for the nation.
California is also debating whether to adopt individual mandates.
Why have individual mandates become a point of contention between Clinton and Obama?In their
debate in California on Jan. 31, both candidates argued over the use of individual mandates as a tool to achieve their health care goals.
"I believe absolutely passionately that we must have universal health care," Clinton said.
She said that people who don't have health insurance but can afford it should pay their fair share: "And it's also important to recognize that right now, there are people who could afford health care, and they are not all young, they're people who just don't feel they have to accept that responsibility."
She also proposes reforming the health care industry so that no one is denied affordable health care based on an ongoing problem, and funding mandates in part by repealing the Bush tax cuts on those earning over $250,000.
Obama has said that the uninsured would be motivated to buy a plan when costs are reduced: "My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it."
He also believes that individual mandates will not work without an enforcement mechanism, and that any mechanism is likely to punish those who need help: "And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance.”
Valarie Basheda
Managing Editor, WebMD
Reported by Jarret Cassaniti.