This Article Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pauly, M. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pauly, M. V. Related Collections Insurance - Employer-Based System

Health Affairs, Vol 13, Issue 2, 21-33
Copyright © by Project HOPE

Journal Article

Making a case for employer-enforced individual mandates

An employer-enforced individual mandate has some substantial advantages over the mixed employer and individual mandate embodied in the Clinton administration's proposed health plan. Economic reasoning strongly suggests that almost all of the cost of an employer mandate will fall on workers and that in any case the incidence of an individual mandate is the same as that of an employer mandate. However, an individual mandate is easier for voters to understand, avoids administrative complexities and inequities, and eliminates the chance of adverse employment effects of mandated employer coverage.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. V. Pauly Blending Better Ingredients For Health Reform Health Aff., November 1, 2008; 27(6): w482 - w491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Brodie and R. J. Blendon The Public's Contribution to Congressional Gridlock on Health Care Reform Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 1995; 20(2): 403 - 410. [PDF]