Newt on Rush
GINGRICH: Well, John Goodman has developed an entire approach in which he would give everyone the same tax break if they wanted to buy insurance, and the people who didn’t want to buy insurance wouldn’t be compelled to. Their share of the tax break would go into a high-risk pool. And if something did happen to them, they would then be eligible for the high-risk pool, but they would also be limited to the high-risk pool. And so they wouldn’t have — you wouldn’t have — an automatic assumption that you would be able to go be taken care of except through the high-risk pool because you’d made the voluntary decision you wanted to live at risk. He wrote a book several years ago called Patient Power and we began meeting at the American Enterprise Institute about these ideas in about 2001 — and he’s really, I think, probably the leading student of developing a personal freedom approach to how you solve the health problem.
These solutions are clearly timeless; I am glad to hear the word is getting out there!
This is a great idea that needs to be implemented using a carrot and stick approach. People should not be given a free pass when they voluntarily go without coverage while healthy and then complain they cannot get affordable coverage after they have waited until they are sick. There needs to be appropriate incentives to encourage people to maintain continual coverage or pay higher premiums if they wait until their health status falls.
Three thoughts:
1. Injecting Patient Power into the 2012 Presidential race could transform the whole debate on health reform.
2. Newt Gingrich can explain this a million times better than John McCain ever could.
3. Unfortunately, some people won’t listen to Newt because he is persona-non-grata these days among some influential circles in Washington.
Glad to see this.
Devon,
PPACA does incentivize people to maintain coverage. It is the republican idea of the individual mandate. You know, the mandate the republicans were for before Obama placed it into law.
Erik,
My worry about the incentives in the PPACA is that once people realize the penalty is lower than the cost of coverage, they will game the system and wait until they’re sick to apply for coverage.
I would not dislike the individual mandate quite so much if it were merely a requirement that people insure themselves against the possibility of a major illness (and protect society from free-riders with major illnesses). For instance, a policy that has a $25,000 deductible and an annual / lifetime limit of $500,000 would be economical for most people under Medicare age. It would also protect all but the very sickest individuals.
However, the PPACA mandates coverage with relatively comprehensive benefits. I assume the primary reason is to increase cross-subsidies.
Not to worry, Devon. The initial penalty was set low in order to get the bill passed. It will not stay that way.
This is an important break through. Congratulations.
Many kudos.