As noted in the Times' article, reaction has been mixed. Groups representing employers and health care providers indicate approval because of the plan's proposal to lower costs. Union and consumer groups, however, expressed concern with the plan's underlying proposal to shift costs from a shared responsibility between employers and employees to one between consumers and taxpayers, which could cause employers to drop their health care plans.
I think both groups have it right: clearly, lowering the cost of coverage has to be a top priority of any health care reform. But I'm not sure if that will make as much of a difference in a system that from the beginning eliminates employer involvement. If employers were to dump their health care plans in response to the availability of the state-run plan, the result could be a (possibly significant) gap in coverage – at least initially.
This also raises a broader question: if we were to have a single, state-run plan (or, possibly, any well-regulated private market system) that has lowered costs so that they are affordable or subsidized for all, should employers still be a part of the equation? What do you think?
Comments are closed for this post.
