If Trigger It Must Be . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:49:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama, it has been reported, "looks favorably upon" the Snowe trigger. Snowe says that the public option should only be triggered if the private health insurance fails to reform itself. A Sword of Damocles sort of idea.

Supposing we accept that premise, why should it not also be applied to the individual mandate provisions of health care reform? Why should government mandate that individuals purchase insurance from private health care insurance companies before we know they will not if health care reform is successful in holding down insurance costs? Why not have the government imposed individual mandate also be subject to a trigger?

If government intervention in the health insurance market is so anathema to some, shouldn't that also apply to government imposed mandates on individuals? If not, why not? Why not a trigger for government imposed mandates?

Speaking for me only

< Good Intentions And Good Policy | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

If Trigger It Must Be . . . | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Then the insurance companies will insist (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ruffian on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:54:05 AM EST

on triggers for the 'no pre-existing conditions' clause. If America stops having pre-existing conditions, it will trigger that law.

Just say no to triggers.

I'm at the point where I know (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Anne on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:56:36 AM EST

in my bones that these people are going to screw this up so badly that the whole system will be exponentially worse for so many people, and all we will have to look forward to are endless reports about the skyrocketing profits of health insurance companies, and ever-worsening medical - and financial - outcomes for the people.

What you will hear is that we can't get costs down unless everyone is covered, so they will not tie mandates to a public option - unless they can figure out how to make the public option a shell that is Public In Name Only. And they will have no trouble doing that - I'm sure Olympia will be really helpful there.

I think, when all is said and done, that the House will end up being irrelevant to the final product and the progressives will get steamrolled; I look for Republican stalking horses to enter the post parade and serve the same "bipartisan" function there that Snowe has served in the Senate.

At this stage, cynicism is engulfing optimism.

: Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:07:00 AM EST

this POS is worse than doing nothing.

So basically (none / 0) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:17:38 AM EST

this is the nightmare that everybody wanted to avoid: individual mandates with no public option.

: I'm shocked! (none / 0) (#3)
by lambert on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:34:12 AM EST

Not.

How does the anti-trust exemption repeal (none / 0) (#2)
by magster on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:33:11 AM EST

relate to the public option, if at all? It seemed that maybe this was being floated as a the concession for a trigger yesterday. Would breaking up the health insurance cartel lower health insurance premiums anywhere close to what a public option would?

Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:37:53 AM EST

The government is not subject to antitrust laws.

Unless you are arguing that a public option would permit a single private insurance provider in a relevant market as there is a public competitor.

On another note, I think folks think too much of the repeal of the antitrust exemption in that it will require rigorous federal government enforcement to matter.

In my experience, the federal government has basically abandoned enforcement of antitrust laws except in merger and acquisition settings. And that is only because of the Hart-Scott-Rodino preclearance requirement.

There is nothing similar to apply to the health care industry.


: Would this be possible? (none / 0) (#13)
by marydem on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 09:23:33 PM EST

Wouldn't the insurance industry oligopoly be broken? Couldn't new insurnce companies start up? Maybe funded by unions, or different consumer interests? Just wonderin'...

The bill won't work as the bailout... (none / 0) (#4)
by lambert on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:36:19 AM EST

... for insurance companies that it is, unless the insurance companies are guaranteed a market and their rents.

Hence (a) the mandate and (b) no trigger on buying into it.

What are you? Some kind of socialist?

the opposite (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:38:54 AM EST

I believe in the market as regulator - WHEN the government is in the market.


: Which will FAIL... (none / 0) (#12)
by lambert on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:35:06 AM EST

... if the regulated industry has captured the government. See under oligarchy, kleptocracy, banana republic...

Kicking the can (none / 0) (#7)
by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:42:45 AM EST

The trigger option is nothing more than C.Y.A. It's a way of kicking the issue down the road so someone else has to deal with it.

HCR isn't set to go into effect for 3 yrs or so. Then you throw another 3 yrs or so to wait on the trigger. By then they'll all have nice cushy lobbyists positions and their federal pensions!

Not only that (none / 0) (#8)
by Manuel on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:51:31 AM EST

Without the public option, insurance companies should face greater regulation (curb on executive pay, capital reserve requirements, bans from entering other businesses, ... )