Next, look at this morning's Health plan urged for La.'s kids. It sounded great, until I got to
The most controversial part of the plan would likely be the "individual mandate" requiring private coverage for children in households with incomes above three times the federal poverty rate. About 14,000 children would fall into this category, according to the policy paper.
To help those families afford coverage, the state could negotiate with private insurers to provide low-cost policies that provide basic coverage. Another option is to let wealthier families buy into the LaCHIP program. [If these things actually happen along with this mandate, I might ungrit my teeth. Either of these sound like good ways to work toward universal coverage.]
[Health and Hospitals Secretary Fred] Cerise said he expects the individual mandate to be controversial, but that it's the only way to achieve universal coverage.
"If you are going to . . . cover the entire population, then the only way to get there is with a mandate, because (otherwise) you're going to always have people who opt out," he said. "With kids, we think that's a legitimate policy discussion to have."
It's not always an "option" to not insure yourself or your child; sometimes it is a financial decision, rather than a "policy discussion." It worries me when the state, any state, decides it will tell people what they can afford. This is not the answer to locking Charity.