iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured

Posted: 03/28/2012 3:51 pm Updated: 03/28/2012 4:25 pm

Supreme Court Health Care Protest
Supporters of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court on March 28, 2012, the final day of arguments regarding President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

Get ready for the "death spiral."

Harsh questioning by conservative Supreme Court justices Tuesday sparked concern that the health care reform law's individual mandate could be stricken. Without it, health insurance companies and the White House are worried the health care market could blow up come 2014.

"If the mandate goes, people can literally buy coverage on the way to the hospital and then drop it the next day," said Alissa Fox, a senior vice president at the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, a trade group made up of local Blue Cross and Blue Shield health insurance companies.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, but knocks out the mandate requiring almost everyone to buy their products, the industry warns that health care reform will result in higher premiums and less access to coverage. In court and before the public, the Obama administration is making the same case.

This isn't just bad for insurers who would be stuck with the bill. It would also be bad for consumers trying to find a health plan they can afford.

Premiums for individuals who don't get insurance at work would be 2.4 percent to 40 percent higher and 12.5 million to 24 million fewer people would get coverage without the mandate, according to reports compiled by America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group. The estimates vary largely based on guesses about whether the law's subsidies would encourage uninsured people to get coverage even without mandates.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with this very question. On the third and final day of oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other elements of the health care reform law, justices weighed whether invalidating the individual mandate would necessitate repealing the entire law. The court is expected to issue a decision before the end of June.

“What you would get if the court threw out the mandate and left the rest of the law in place is a really ugly health insurance market that doesn’t work very well and makes everybody upset,” said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consulting firm.

Insurance companies with bigger medical expenses charge higher premiums. In the insurance industry, it is called the death spiral: when more and more healthy people stop buying plans and only the most expensive patients are left. People who get insurance at work would be mostly untouched because they are already in large pools that let them share the risk of their medical expenses. For individuals and families who buy insurance on their own and for small businesses, it's another story.

To the authors of health care reform, the individual mandate is critical. The plan is built on the theory that the best way to expand coverage and promote affordable plans is to get younger, healthier people to pay premiums into the system that can be used to cover the medical expenses of older, sicker people. Over time, those young, healthy people will age and develop ailments that will be paid for with premiums paid by the next generation.

The Obama administration would find itself in a strange position if only the mandate is voted down. "They wouldn’t have much of a choice but to try to help the insurers get over the hump,” said Joseph Antos, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The administration hasn't conceived a plan to cope with a health care reform law that has no mandate.

States have attempted partial reforms of their insurance markets in the past and the results weren't pretty, said Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design both his home state's and the national health care reform plans.

Before then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) enacted a law that included an individual mandate in 2006, Massachusetts and other states put in place insurance regulations similar to Obama's law, Gruber said. “It basically destroyed the non-group markets, where basically you ended up with very high prices,” he said. “It’s not just idle conjecture that the mandate matters.”

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, warned of "disastrous consequences" for consumers if the mandate goes away. “Companies are going to have to make some very difficult decisions and it’s going to be a very challenging environment," he said.

Among those choices could be to simply stop selling insurance plans to individuals and small businesses, and focus on employer health benefits and private plans in Medicare and Medicaid, Gruber said. This would make it harder to find insurance to buy.

The experiences in Massachusetts and other states won't necessarily be duplicated under a national health care reform program that lacks a mandate, however, said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and a former health official in the Obama administration.

The law would provide health insurance subsidies to people earning between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, Pollitz said. New federal insurance market regulations also make it harder for health insurance companies to skirt rules prohibiting discrimination as they did in states like Washington and Kentucky, she said.

“Is that necessarily fatal? I don’t think so,” Pollitz said. “I think most of the uninsured would rather have coverage. I mean, why wouldn’t you?”

Earlier on HuffPost:

FOLLOW BUSINESS

Get ready for the "death spiral." Harsh questioning by conservative Supreme Court justices Tuesday sparked concern that the health care reform law's individual mandate could be stricken. Without i...
Get ready for the "death spiral." Harsh questioning by conservative Supreme Court justices Tuesday sparked concern that the health care reform law's individual mandate could be stricken. Without i...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15,361
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (195 total)
03:48 PM on 06/14/2012
How do the 'originalists' on the Supreme Court justify overturning laws passed by Congress. There is nothing in the constitution that gives them the power to do so nor, as far as I know, is there any evidence to show that this was the intention of the founding fathers. It is only case law --- which they have felt free to ignore -- which gives them this power
08:59 PM on 06/14/2012
The Supreme Court has had the authority to judicially review the acts of the legislative branch since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and the practice is a firmly established part of American jurisprudence, regardless of what the thuggish louts of the Roberts Court believe.
10:14 PM on 06/14/2012
yes, quite, it is based on case law, not the 'original' wording or meaning of the Constitution, or the 'original' intent of the founders, which they say they are applying
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jneedhamp
02:22 AM on 04/10/2012
More corporate lobbying of the Supreme Court. The Health Insurance industry REALLY wants Obamacare, and Obama REALLY wants the cornerstone (only) achievement of his administration!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan laurie
Us Not Them Finally
06:52 AM on 04/05/2012
If we can take the house back and further the number of senate control. We will put in a single payer. Just if the men grow balls.
03:38 PM on 04/04/2012
This law is a mess. Concessions to the insurance lobby, and the politicians they have purchased have left it vulnerable to Judicial review. The law tries to balance capitalism and socialism, and it ends up with the worst of both. It's time for a single-payer, universal system.
More of our resources towards taking care of our sick, and less wasted on marketing, lobbying, executive salaries, and profits that only profit a few people.
08:07 PM on 03/31/2012
The next time I'm faced with screaming Americans chanting USA! USA! USA!, I think I'll just quietly pull out my Ontario Health Card and hold it up for them to see.
barrada nicto
Optimism is necessary.
04:53 PM on 04/01/2012
Please do.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank1946
Tell the Truth
04:16 PM on 03/31/2012
A basic Policy, covers only what was covered in 1965, Medicare and Medicaid, with limits
on expensive stuff.............organ transplants, Hip/Joint replacements, emphasis on CHEAP
cost and basic stuff, not expensive and exotic services which Hospitals love.

Make it part of Medicare or Medicaid................ ! Abolish Standards of Care which the
Medics use to justify high costs. If expensive servicres are desired then 50 % C0-Pays
necessary to pay for them.

Congress knows all this, Just Do It ! Mandate is the legal path to Hell !
photo
frdm399
Freedom is about choice
03:48 PM on 03/31/2012
I think the guy in this video has a pretty good argument against the mandate. I wonder if the Supremes have watched this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo
photo
Sandman911
Self employed gun toting Bible thumper.
02:23 PM on 03/31/2012
Don't you just love it when government tries to fix things. I often imagine how well the people would be doing if they just didn't have a central government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maxom
Just flew over the coo coo's nest
09:36 PM on 03/31/2012
We DON'T have a central government.....we have the Washington Dept of Clowns trying their best to ruin a once thriving and powerful country. One which was based on and grew on free enterprise, small businesses and hard working people. The ''Land of Milk and Honey".....well, they have 'milked' it dry of all the hMoney and now are trying to tell us we HAVE to buy insurance or they will fine us....Somewhere the Clowns have jumped the track and are on the wrong train....It's time we put them back in their place and let them know that THEY represent US.....not the other way around... let's.CLEAN HOUSE (and Senate) in November.
photo
Sandman911
Self employed gun toting Bible thumper.
03:35 PM on 04/01/2012
Maxom, I owe you a drink on me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Devaron Namsaar
07:17 PM on 03/30/2012
I cannot stress highly enough that there ARE certain parts of this Health Care Bill that MUST be struck down... The Mandate that says YOU MUST and YOU WILL is outlandish and unreasonable by any standards... The government is NOT the sovereign of this country it is the people that is the sovereign and the government is the servant of the people. If we allow this government to mandate this Health Care bill we have turned this country upside down, we have created a dictatorship no longer a republic or a democracy. The issue at stake here is not about conservative or liberal, democrat or republican it is about your right to choose.
It is about you being the sovereign or the government being your master.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Calli Preston
Armchair Politician :-)
06:59 AM on 03/31/2012
The Constitution is sovereign. Some people believe it is meant to be strictly interpreted, not changed. Some people believe it is a living changing document. Our government is set up with three branches, the SCOTUS interprets whether or not the other two are adhering to the constitution. In the past legal precedent was used, now corporate interest and money have corrupted our courts. The insurance companies and other lobbies own all three branches of your government and are rewriting the Constitution, thereby becoming your sovereign.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan laurie
Us Not Them Finally
06:57 AM on 04/05/2012
Have you ever heard of "Adverse selection"???? here is how it works. For a health plan to exist other than single payer of Govt option which is really the same thing..Why. Cause if only those who want the plan support it the cost of the plan since most of the people need the services now will be beyond imagination..Do you UNDERSTAND???????
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
luvbeingright
Tolerating the Intolerant
04:39 PM on 03/30/2012
Nobamacare?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
IndependentRule
There are two many Parties in Washington..
01:34 PM on 03/30/2012
Repeal the entire law and begin again. THINK this time a little about the Constitution.......
photo
kanook67
The future is not what it used to be.
03:11 PM on 03/30/2012
Don't worry, it's a Republican Supreme Court therefore everything the Liberals do will be deamed to be unconstitutional.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
IndependentRule
There are two many Parties in Washington..
05:38 PM on 03/30/2012
I am not worried. The Act was terrible to begin with. Rushed and not read. That is no way to help people. Spending 18 months "Trying not to lose".
photo
marymeade2
I prefer liberty over tyranny
10:49 PM on 03/30/2012
That is irrelevant now. Both Republicans and Heritage have backed away. Heritage filed amicus briefts against it to the Supreme Court. So, they've obviously changed their attitude towards a mandate. Maybe, they got the clue when most Americans said NO and maybe they did some Constitutional research on the fact that it did not meet Constitutional limits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:15 PM on 03/30/2012
No, that won't happen because the WHOLE BILL is going DOWN!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Horner
01:15 PM on 03/30/2012
Oddly enough, the court has no problem with a mandate that everyone pays into a national retirement system (Social Security and Medicare), but seems to have a problem with requiring people to buy third party health insurance.

So, if the Public Option had staid in the bill, there wouldn't be a constitutional issue. People would have been required to either pay into a national government system or to opt out and buy private insurance. Medicare essentially already worked this way with Medicare Advantage.

Weird that not including a nation government run system might be what the court uses to strike all or part of the law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
IndependentRule
There are two many Parties in Washington..
01:36 PM on 03/30/2012
we are not paying our SS to Goldman Sachs. Is that what you want? Pay our Social Security to PRIVATE financial firms. That would be the equivalent argument. Actually I would do better at retirement had I took all my SS and put it in the SPY beginning 30 years ago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Devaron Namsaar
07:22 PM on 03/30/2012
Socail Security and Medicare ARE NOT MANDATES... they are voluntary only... Please write to the Social Security Administration and ask them IF you are required to have a social security number for any reason, I did, and the answer is NO...YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED.
I wrote book some years ago titled "America Held Hostage" and I discussed the difference between a US citizen and an American citizen, there is a legal difference and you should know it, every person in this nation should know it... if they all did this would be a very small and proper government not the gigantic overblown dictatorship it is trying to be.
photo
556ball
Waiting for liberals to wake up.
01:08 PM on 03/30/2012
Waaaaah. Deal with it.

:)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giglawyer
Lions are unconcerned with the opinions of sheep.
12:55 PM on 03/30/2012
The death spiral started for this law the day it was passed. This law was never intended to be a final solution - it was written to fail in order to force a single payer system on to the country.

I am all for single payer. But, I am all for a lot of things that the majority of the country doesn't seem to support, like gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. But billions and billions have been spent on this legislative gimmick. Its shameful, and I can't wait to see it overturned in toto.