Universal Coverage: Unaffordable and Unpopular
Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal? We posed this question to NewMajority's contributors.
No. What we are discovering is a new "third rail" of American politics - universal health coverage. The left has promoted this issue for 60 years, and ever since Truman, it has driven them over one cliff after another.
The U.S. has a system of universal coverage now - it's called "show up at the emergency room" - and while it is far from perfect, the overwhelming majority actually seem pretty content with it - at least any time we get down to the specifics of some other form of "universal coverage." Every other scheme put forth, or tried in the states, does indeed involve intrusion into personal decision making on our most intimate issues (our health) or (and sometimes, "and") outrageous costs.
This does not mean Republicans should do nothing. We should push to allow sales of policies across state lines; we should continue to promote health savings accounts; we can consider targeted subsidies; we should reduce coverage mandates; and we should look further - mindful of the political consequences - at ways to decouple insurance from employment.
But adopt universal coverage? It's bad economics, bad for liberty, and by now we should be realizing, universal coverage is bad politics.
To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.