Gov. Jay Nixon and the insurance mandate
Barb ShellyMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon made some news this week by stating during a question-and-answer session with reporters that he opposed the individual mandate.
“I think I’ve been pretty clear…that the health insurance mandate is not something that I think is a good thing,” Nixon said, according to the report.
Republican critics tore into that remark like a pack of bloodhounds. So the governor is against Obamacare? Where has he been all these three years? Why isn’t his name on the brief that the state attorney general sent to the Supreme Court?
It’s a bit of a stretch for Nixon to say that he’s been “pretty clear” that he doesn’t like the insurance mandate. He’s stayed as far away from the health care issue as he can get away with.
But I have to say that I’m heard the governor say at least once that he opposed the individual mandate. That was a few months ago when he visited with The Star’s editorial board. We asked him about creating an insurance exchange in Missouri, as the Affordable Care Act mandates, and he basically said he, like just about everybody, was waiting for the Supreme Court ruling on the individual mandate. And he did say, “I’m opposed to the individual mandate.”
At the time, my colleagues and I were mostly focused on Nixon’s waffling over whether Missouri needs to increase its ridiculously low cigarette tax. His statement about the insurance mandate seemed like a disingenuous nod to public sentiment, but it wasn’t the topic of the day and we let it pass.
The Affordable Care Act and its insurance mandate is definitely the topic of this week, though. So when I saw that Nixon had repeated his statement of opposition, I e-mailed his press handlers with a couple of questions:
Does the governor support universal insurance coverage without penalties or denial because of pre-existing conditions?
And if he does, what mechanism would he use to create a broad insurance pool of healthy people, so that insurers could cover all sick people?
It’s fine to say you oppose the individual mandate. But insurers can’t be expected to only insure people who are sick. If Nixon can’t propose another way to get healthy people into the pool, then he can’t oppose the mandate and at the same time claim to be on board with the ideal that affordable health care should be available to all Americans.
It’s been a couple of hours and I haven’t heard back from Nixon’s office. I’ll update this post if I do.
Phil Cardarella
10 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s be clear: the mandate was for the benefit of the Insurance Industry, not the public. It makes it easier for them to comply with the other parts — like no denial based on pre-existing conditions. The other parts of the law can go on — they will just cost the insurance companies more.
Perhaps Jay is more liberal than you think and wants to have the more rational public option as the way to handle the problem of covering everyone.
Surely our Guv would not be waffling for political reasons!
Mark Hastert
10 months, 3 weeks agoI’d be content if they threw the mandate out and kept everything else. It would certainly put the insurance companies in a snit.
George Hunsucker
Northland
10 months, 3 weeks agoAll of you progresssssssssssssssssssives are crazy if you think the insurance industry will stick around if they are forced to take preexisting conditions at standard rates. This is merely another example of your failed “leader” telling people, in this case corporations, what the hell to do.
Hopefully the SCOTUS will toss the entire piece of crap out, but you never know. I had no idea they would say states cannot protect their citizens, but they did yesterday….
A brave new world our children will inherit—
Kent Mueller
10 months, 3 weeks agoWell, evidently Mark hates insurance companies. But then Obama chose to make them the bogie man.
It sounds like Phil and Mark are braced for the Court to overrule the mandate, but they are in denial that the Court might strike down most or all of the law. We don’t know what will happen, but I think that is the most likely ruling.
And Phil, how about being honest about your desire for a public option? Either you don’t understand what would happen, or you really are for the federal government to be the lone single provider of health care in this country. Anyone with any sense can see that if the federal government competes with private healthcare, the government will win. Obama laid that out early on. He knows it. I’m sure you do to. Just look at it. The benefits will be designed by congressmen…..and the cost will be borne by the taxpayer. And the private sector can compete with that? And when the private sector is wiped out, then the feds will be the only game in town. So, Phil, how about just coming out and saying you want the federal government to be the sole provider of healthcare instead of just calling it a rational option.
George Hunsucker
Northland
10 months, 3 weeks agoAnd of course Kent, in a single payer system, congress will of course exempt itself from its more onerous aspects…
Kent Mueller
10 months, 3 weeks agoSorry, Barb, but I think it’s pretty hard for the Star to defend not discussing this earlier, at the time he first said this. We are to believe the editorial board can only concentrate on one line of questioning and not react when other things are discovered? That just isn’t believable.
The Star has jumped all over Republicans and Conservatives for far less. Opinion is, by definition, biased. It has to be that way. But there is a difference between presenting a bias through opinion writing and being stridently political between parties.