Government mandating healthcare Free chat ty
These mandates apply only to those health insurance policies controlled by state health insurance laws - usually policies purchased by small businesses and individuals.Most large companies avoid state mandates by self-insuring under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which exempts self-insured companies from state oversight.However, economists recognize that employee benefits are a substitute for wages in the employee's total compensation package.Higher benefits often force employees to take lower wages whether they like it or not.The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique.However, the federal govern-ment's new mandates - banning "drive-through" baby deliveries and requiring that any cap on mental health benefits be the same as the cap on physical health benefits - apply to all insurance.Moreover, Congress appears likely to pass even more mandates in the future.
Lower-income employees are most likely to lose coverage.
According to a 1989 study by health economists Gail Jensen and Jon Gabel, mandated coverage increases premiums by 6 to 8 percent for substance abuse, 10 to 13 percent for mental health care and as much as 21 percent for psychiatric hospital care for employee dependents. Since 1974, many large- and medium-sized employers have escaped the cost-increasing impact of state health benefit mandates by self-insuring under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
As a result, thousands of employers have been able to offer health insurance policies tailored to their employees' needs and their companies' budgets.
How Much Do Mandates Increase the Cost of Health Insurance?
The Milliman & Robertson analysis of 12 of the most common mandates is based on policies in a representative state.
First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society.