MA buy health insurance or pay penalty approach has resulted in more insured....NEWS?

In an article for the New York Times, Kevin Sack reported an increased in people with insurance in Massachusetts after that state passed a law stating that people could buy health insurance or pay a penalty. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/policy/03health.html?th&emc=th)

For purposes here, first, why is this news? Nothing like making it a fine-able offense not to have health insurance to provide incentive for...buying insurance.

Political stakeholders love this because it increases gross numbers of insured.
Health insurance companies love it because it sells more health insurance.
Physicians love it because they now have increased client base.

Win, win, win, right? But how about the consumers. Read the article, what jumps out is the increase in preventive care...that is the cheapest way for health insurers and medical services providers to make the most money. Finite costs for finite actions. What is not described is how many more patients have been treated for needed medical conditions and whether the new "insurance" pays for it.

Downside mentioned in the article? Not enough doctors....inability to get appointments.

Now, you could argue that the solution to the health services crisis will be achieved in baby steps, but ....where is the consumer motivated baby step here?

Preventive services are affordable and usually if you tally up what you want to be screened for it will amount to less than the cost of annual premiums.

The health services crisis is based on the lack of access, affordability and quality of needed medical services and this issue remains unaddressed.

This is not a baby step but a distraction. Mandatory health insurance that focuses on making sure citizens get check-ups, even if they have to wait to get them is worse than doing nothing to address the problem because it diverts attention away from consumer concerns for health services and assistance in paying for them when they are needed. While MA self-congratulates, it has done nothing to help sick people in Massachusetts.

But nothing is all bad. The sliding scale approach feature is a good thing because it represents a cost control for insurance companies. As long as such scale includes legislative mandates that insurance companies must cover specific health services costs, the sliding scale is a possible win for consumers. Without such mandates, we've already seen that health insurers cover too little for what they charge...self-regulation doesn't work and cost controls are necessary for providers and insurers. For those who balk at this while they defend a law that forces people to buy a health insurance product, go back to school and re-study capitalism.