Reports from the CBO that a Universal Health Coverage Bill would be budget neutral are obviously based on the third kind of lie (namely statistics). Commonhealth sums up the effects of the bill like so:
- gets rid of employer based insurance (employers that contribute to coverage would give employees that money at first, and eventually shift to a federal health coverage tax)
- requires all Americans to have health insurance
- offers subsidized coverage up to 400% FPL (Mass is up to 300%)
- sets up purchasing pools (like the Connector)
Could someone please point out to me where this plan gives health care providers an incentive to provide efficient, high-quality care? It seems to me that insuring all our uninsured citizens will never pay for itself in a system that thrives on inefficiency – as the current system does. Adding inefficiency couldn’t possibly pay for itself.
Ending employer based insurance is potentially a good thing. Requiring everyone to buy insurance looks like an incentive for more inefficiency and even price gouging. And one of my senators is sponsoring this. I think he should have his head examined.