Also from the TNR interview:
I also think the other lesson that has come out, chiefly from Massachusetts and from Vermont… thinking through what is a minimal benefits package everybody should have. We’re trying to balance out the fact that if you add more required services to it, it’s going to cost a lot more. What is it that we are really trying to insure? I think we are working our way towards coverage against catastrophe, where catastrophe is defined relative to somebody’s disposable income, along with some cost-effective primary care services basically.
This sounds a lot like Martin Feldstein’s concept for health reform. It does not sound like the reform plan that will likely come to pass. So unfortunately, I don’t think we are working our way towards this goal; rather, I think we’re moving headlong in the opposite direction.