An interesting thing happened, almost unnoticed nationally, last week.
The health insurance industry said it will support a national health care overhaul - one that requires them to accept all customers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
You read that right.
The board of directors for America's Health Insurance Plans announced last Wednesday its endorsement of the requirement - likely to be made in legislation next year with the Democratic Party in control of Capitol Hill and the White House.
Of course, there's a catch.
In return for its support of accepting all customers, the health insurance industry wants Washington to mandate that everyone purchase health insurance coverage. This sets up an interesting confrontation of ideas in Washington next year.
The major difference between the universal health care plans of President-elect Barack Obama and his main challenger during the Democratic Party's primaries, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Clinton's plan mandated coverage while Obama's did not. Many in the Democratic Party saw Obama's insistence of mandating coverage only for children as being a fatal flaw in his plan.
The support of the national health insurance industry, like it or not, is critical to passage of a universal health care plan. The industry was significantly responsible for shutting down Hillary Clinton's push for universal care 15 years ago.
Will President-elect Obama be willing to allow the mandate in return for the broader coverage for Americans he and almost every Democrat desires? Should he?
We're not sure. It's one thing for government to ensure coverage for every American - a desirable goal if it doesn't break the federal bank. It's another thing for government to require coverage for every American. That's an uncomfortable proposition for those who prefer fewer governmental mandates.
On the other hand, the absence of a purchase mandate could leave the insurance pool as it is today - full of older and sicker people while younger and healthier Americans opt out. The argument that the largest possible insurance pool provides the greatest opportunity to limit costs has merit.
The health insurance industry's tradeoff proposal is significant. It may be the breakthrough that clears the path to passage of universal health insurance for Americans. That would change the landscape of health care in our nation.
It's a development and argument worth paying very close attention to.
The health insurance industry said it will support a national health care overhaul - one that requires them to accept all customers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
You read that right.
The board of directors for America's Health Insurance Plans announced last Wednesday its endorsement of the requirement - likely to be made in legislation next year with the Democratic Party in control of Capitol Hill and the White House.
Of course, there's a catch.
In return for its support of accepting all customers, the health insurance industry wants Washington to mandate that everyone purchase health insurance coverage. This sets up an interesting confrontation of ideas in Washington next year.
The major difference between the universal health care plans of President-elect Barack Obama and his main challenger during the Democratic Party's primaries, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Clinton's plan mandated coverage while Obama's did not. Many in the Democratic Party saw Obama's insistence of mandating coverage only for children as being a fatal flaw in his plan.
The support of the national health insurance industry, like it or not, is critical to passage of a universal health care plan. The industry was significantly responsible for shutting down Hillary Clinton's push for universal care 15 years ago.
Will President-elect Obama be willing to allow the mandate in return for the broader coverage for Americans he and almost every Democrat desires? Should he?
We're not sure. It's one thing for government to ensure coverage for every American - a desirable goal if it doesn't break the federal bank. It's another thing for government to require coverage for every American. That's an uncomfortable proposition for those who prefer fewer governmental mandates.
On the other hand, the absence of a purchase mandate could leave the insurance pool as it is today - full of older and sicker people while younger and healthier Americans opt out. The argument that the largest possible insurance pool provides the greatest opportunity to limit costs has merit.
The health insurance industry's tradeoff proposal is significant. It may be the breakthrough that clears the path to passage of universal health insurance for Americans. That would change the landscape of health care in our nation.
It's a development and argument worth paying very close attention to.
