In the quest for universal health insurance coverage, a proposal was made to mandate employers equaling a given size to offer coverage or assist their employees in paying for the health insurance.
This proposal has many advocates.
Big Pharma finds the plan attractive because it would reap great benefit from it. Millions of new customers could afford to purchase medications who might not have otherwise afforded them.
The American Medical Association supports the Mandate Proposal because it feels that all people could then afford care, either through employment or through subsidies.
The America’s Health Insurance Plan Lobby supports the proposal because it sees patients as no longer being rejected for preexisting conditions and would not be penalized for statistics that put them in higher risk categories.
On the flip side, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce rejects the proposal because it fears the plan puts too much pressure on existing companies. In trying to meet the mandate, companies will downsize their staff or will declare bankruptcy under the new fiscal demands.
Both sides have valid reasoning. This highlights the complexity of the problem where there might be more than just two sides, but a third that has not been considered.
How about companies getting tax deductions to fund the employee coverage? If a business does not have to find the money to cover the staff, less operational costs would keep the company fiscally solvent.
