Comments

Health Affairs encourages readers to engage in discussion via comments on our Web site.

• To RESPOND to a particular article: Click on the link "Submit a response to this article" in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article.
• To READ responses to a particular article: Click on the link "View responses" in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article.

Comments to:

Tara Sussman, Robert J. Blendon, and Andrea Louise Campbell Will Americans Support The Individual Mandate? Health Affairs, May/June 2009; 28(3): w501-w509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [Figures Only] [PDF] [Full Text] [Reprints & Permissions]

Comments:Submit a response to this article

Comments published:

Individual Mandate: Misleading Summary

Michael B. Mundorff   ( 22 April 2009 )

Room In The Middle

Bett Martinez   ( 27 April 2009 )

Individual Mandate: Misleading Summary 22 April 2009
Michael B. Mundorff, Data Project Manager Primary Children's Medical Center Send comment to journal: Re: Individual Mandate: Misleading Summary Michael.Mundorff{at}iMail.org Michael B. Mundorff	I do not fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of the article. However, the press release that accompanied it stated that "only" 48 percent favored the stand-alone mandate. Since according to your accompanying Exhibit 1, the confidence interval for the overall figure includes the 50% benchmark, as do most of the substrata, deducing that "an individual mandate does not have broad support" given the statistical uncertainty is, in my view, unjustified. It would be more correct to state only that it is not as popular as the "shared responsibility" option. There is no similar exhibit for the "shared responsibility" choice (i.e., would the confidence interval for that option exclude 50%?), although Exhibit 2 supports the view that it is preferred to the stand-alone mandate.
Room In The Middle 27 April 2009
Bett Martinez, Principal Bett Martinez Insurance Solutions Send comment to journal: Re: Room In The Middle well-being{at}pacbell.net Bett Martinez	I was surprised and pleased to find that both Dems and Repubs agree by over 80% that coverage for all is "the right thing to do" and that this was the most compelling reason for both. I deal "up close and personal" on a daily basis with the difficulties of obtaining individual coverage for people who need it, and are not covered by the administration's stimulus plan -- either they are contract employees; individual business owners; downsized in hours but have not lost their jobs, so they qualify for COBRA but not ARRAS; or their company went bankrupt so there is no COBRA. From this vantage point, I can tell you that the vast majority by current standards (60%+) are declined for coverage due to health status, and most others are rated up -- that is, pay a higher premium. We're told that if everyone were mandated to be in the pool, these people could be covered without breaking the insurance company. I'm not really sure, since here in California the state is trying to cut a deal with insurers to keep premiums more stable. There are a million reasons for increasing costs. But if there is unity around the notion that covering everyone is the right thing to do, it's a very good starting point.