In the past 24 months, several cities and states have introduced legislation intended to achieve universal health insurance in their respective locales. Vermont and Massachusetts both require employers to pay expensive penalties to the state for every employee that does not receive health insurance. San Francisco and New York City both require certain employers to spend a minimum amount per employee per hour if they do not offer coverage. In 2006, Maryland passed legislation stipulating a particularly onerous spending minimum that unabashedly singled out Wal-Mart. That law would be in effect today had a federal court not overturned it, rightly calling it "an [overreaching] effort to demonize that employer for political gain."¹

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent healthcare proposal could not only keep this cultural trend alive, but strengthen it significantly. The new plan would force all Californians to purchase health insurance, and would require employers with 10 or more workers to either provide health insurance or pay a 4 percent payroll penalty. And that is just the beginning. The plan would be the most comprehensive reform to date, with interventions ranging from expanded access to subsidized public programs to funding for "Healthy Action Incentives/Rewards" programs to "encourage people to adopt healthy behaviors."²

Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger's proposal will energize activist legislators in other states even if it fails to become law, because it unofficially marks healthcare reform as the new "proactive" and "courageous" thing to do. One editor-in-chief of a Washington publication commented, "I would not be surprised if 30 states end up copying what California does on health coverage—if it's successful."³

Success in that sentence, of course, means politically expedient, not economically sound. Government programs never need to be proven successful in order to be emulated; they need merely to be popular. For example, the popular Massachusetts health insurance reform led by Mitt Romney has already inspired several states to investigate similar programs, and it will not even go into effect until July 2007. It has yet to be implemented, much less tried and tested. Pass now, tweak later.

More saddening is that failures do not constitute counter-evidence in the minds of those who believe that the perfectly executed program is always just a few budgeting maneuvers away. Tennessee's experiment with universal health insurance, called TennCare, culminated in open revolt by the taxpayers when legislators admitted the only way to keep the program afloat was to institute a state income tax.⁴ Current legislators behave as though TennCare—or England's NHS, for that matter—never happened.

The push for government involvement in healthcare and health insurance continues, aided by (among other things) the ability of time and terminology to obfuscate cause and effect. The push, however, should be in the opposite direction, toward free-market reforms that respect the rights of doctors and consumers.

____

¹ Ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz. July 19 2006.

² "Gov. Schwarzenegger Tackles California's Broken Health Care System, Proposes Comprehensive Plan to Help All Californians." Press release from the Office of the Governor of California, Jan 8 2007

³ Davies, F. "Schwarzenegger's Politics May Be Huge Influence on 2008 Campaign" San Jose Mercury News, Jan 14 2007

⁴ Poole, P. "Governor Schwarzenegger Should Go to Nashville" American Thinker, Jan 17 2007

©2005-2010 The Lucidicus Project, all content unless otherwise noted.