Three must read blog postings over the past few days at the WBUR Commonhealth Blog:

First, Nancy Turnbull turns the transparency table on Health Plans and cites four categories where more transparent disclosure by health plans would be in the public interest:

Health plans are among the most enthusiastic advocates of transparency in health care. As health reform continues to be implemented through the imposition of a mandate on most of us to purchase private coverage, this same level of transparency should be extended to health plans, too. With more understanding and public accountability, about where our health insurance dollars are going, we might really begin to be able to dig into the difficult but critical task of moderating cost increases so that we can sustain the progress we’re making on expanding health coverage.

Thus far, the silence from Plan reps is deafening. When the phone doesn’t ring, you know it’s them…

Second, surprise, surprise, Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation assesses the constitutionality of the Chapter 58 “individual mandate” and finds nothing wrong with it; in fact, seems like she kinda likes it:

…as I see it: no one is born with the right to be taken care of by everyone else, at no cost to himself, though this was the status quo before the mandatory insurance law. Since none of us wants to see dying bodies lying ignored on the steps of the local emergency ward, the only fair solution is to make everyone at least acknowledge some personal resonsibility for his own care should it be necessary.

Holy crackers!

Third, Michael Widmer from Mass. Taxpayers tries to defend the (undefendable — forgive us, editorial comment) Romney Administration’s bare bones interpretation of “fair and reasonable” employer participation as 25% participating employees or 33% premium contribution by employers:

…the beauty of Massachusetts health care reform law is that it represents a true partnership of shared responsibility among government, employers, and individuals.

A true partnership has some semblance of balance and equity. As we look at the results so far, seems to us that the employer leg of the three legged stool is coming up pretty darn short. More to come on this…
John McDonough

Addendum: Also add to the must-read list is a response to Widmer from “Peter,” who comprehensively responds to Widmer’s points and summarizes the arguments for strengthening employer responsibility in light of Blue Cross’ move to lower the required employer contribution to 33%. An excerpt from an outstanding post:

So relaxing the [minimum employer contribution] guideline will have all kinds of negative public policy effects: lead other plans to adopt the same policy; make insurance less affordable to workers (particularly those with lower incomes); dilute the impact of the individual mandate; and begin to drain existing employer money out of the health insurance market. And, perhaps most damaging of all, it just gives more pause to many who supported health reform, despite deep concerns that the “shared responsibility” was not really very equitably shared. At some point, the broad coalition that has supported reform, despite it being far from a perfect law for any of us, is bound to begin to break apart. Through the individual mandate, we’re already requiring many uninsured people to pay more for crummier coverage than most of us have. Now we might sanction making coverage crummier for everyone else. If this change goes unchallenged, it might just be enough to tip me over that edge.