Wyden Goes Wobbly on the Mandate

Is Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden's backtrack on the individual mandate the start of a Democratic retreat from one of the core features of Obamacare?

“Wyden Defects on ObamaCare” is the provocative title of Friday’s Wall Street Journal editorial describing how Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is advocating that Oregon opt out of the requirement that all people purchase health insurance.

“Most Democrats have come to understand that they can’t run on ObamaCare, but few have the temerity of Ron Wyden, ” the editorial reasons. “The Oregon Senator is the first to break with the policy underpinnings of the bill he voted for.”

Wyden, a liberal Democrat, is running for re-election in a liberal state and boasting double-digit leads over his opponent. But the senator can read the polls. And, six months after the presidential signature, Obamacare is a political loser. And the individual mandate, as it’s termed, is toxic. As I’ve noted here before, Missouri voters rejected the individual mandate in a landslide. National polls suggest the idea isn’t much more popular outside the Show-Me State.

So goes Wyden, so goes America? Maybe.

And let’s not forget how important the individual mandate is.

My friend Henry Olsen summarizes:

As everyone knows, the Rube Goldberg contraption known as health-care reform falls apart if there is no individual mandate. Without forcing people to pay for health insurance, many people would choose not to buy any. Those people would likelier be younger and healthier, meaning that those who did enroll would be sicker and older than the general population. This would increase the cost to insurance companies, quickly making them unprofitable and sinking our entire private insurance market.

No disagreement from me. But let’s just remember one thing: Obamacare is about far more than requiring some healthy 25 year-old uninsured kids to pluck down some bucks and buy health insurance – the “young invincibles,” as insurance execs term them.

Obamacare would see millions enroll in Medicaid, possibly as many as 20 million in the next decade. It would regulate the cost of insurance and the scope of coverage for millions more, while dictating the terms and conditions of business for all health-insurance companies. And even Democrats now concede: all this will come at a stiff price to the Treasury.

Senator Wyden has second thoughts – no doubt, an important turning point in this debate. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture: the question of how to proceed with reform is more than just about the individual mandate.