[G]ov. Phil Scott’s campaign says he “misspoke” during a Thursday debate when he mischaracterized his role in enacting an individual health insurance mandate earlier this year.
Under questioning from Republican challenger Keith Stern during a Vermont Public Radio debate, Scott repeatedly said he had not signed a bill ordering mandatory health insurance in Vermont.
In fact, he signed Act 182 in May. The bill creates a statewide health insurance mandate as of Jan. 1, 2020.
On Friday, Scott campaign spokesperson Brittney Wilson said the governor was trying to make clear that the statute does not order a financial penalty for those who don’t buy insurance. Such enforcement details have not yet been decided.
“The governor was setting the record straight — because of the false and misleading claim made by Keith — saying that no financial penalty was involved,” Wilson said. “He meant ‘financial’ mandate, not ‘individual’ mandate.”
Stern isn’t buying that explanation, arguing instead that Scott had strategically “dodged” a question about an unpopular policy initiative.
“He knew exactly what he was saying,” Stern said in a telephone interview Friday.
The state Legislature took action on mandatory health insurance because Congress, in a tax overhaul approved last year, eliminated the financial penalty for the federal individual mandate as of 2019.
Experts say the lack of a federal penalty will cause some people – presumably those who are young and healthy – to drop their health insurance. And that could increase costs for those who keep their coverage.
That effect is more than theoretical: Both MVP Health Care and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont have attributed a portion of their proposed 2019 Vermont Health Connect rate hikes to the loss of the federal individual mandate penalty.
The Scott administration initially was lukewarm about a Vermont individual mandate but later endorsed the idea as a way to keep the health insurance market stable.
The Legislature subsequently approved a mandate that will take effect in 2020, when Vermonters will be required to have “minimum essential” health coverage. In the meantime, a working group is meeting to formulate recommendations on administration, enforcement and exemptions for the state mandate.
Scott – whose aversion to new taxes has been well-documented – has made clear that he does not favor a financial penalty for those who don’t comply with Vermont’s mandate. When he signed the bill, a spokesperson suggested the mandate might instead be backed by “something like an incentive.”
But during Thursday’s debate, Scott seemed to say that he and the Legislature had not actually approved an individual mandate for 2020.
Stern, of North Springfield, asked the governor why he had “enacted a statewide individual health insurance mandate” when a financial penalty for failing to comply would essentially be the same as a tax.
“Why did you sign this new health tax when you pledged no new taxes?” Stern asked.
“The individual mandate wasn’t my initiative,” Scott replied. “It was long before me. And you’re right, the federal government did take it away. Nobody has instituted that at this point in time. The Legislature passed legislation to study it once again. But it’s not something that I believe.”
Scott then reiterated his aversion to a financial penalty. “I’m not looking to force people to pay a penalty on something that they can’t afford,” he said. “So this is a study. It wasn’t implemented. It was a study that the Legislature put forward.”
But when Stern pressed him about the mandate itself, Scott flatly declared that, “again, I haven’t signed anything that puts an individual mandate into place” – contradicting the language of Act 182.
Later, he insisted that, “it’s a study. It was a study on the individual mandate as (to) whether we should be moving forward with that.”
The federal individual mandate is a key feature of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” It’s deeply unpopular with conservatives, and Scott already has lost support among Republicans since signing new gun laws earlier this year.
Stern predicted that the individual mandate issue will hurt Scott at the polls.
“It’s going to be very unpopular when people find out that they’ll get penalized for not buying something they can’t afford,” Stern said.
But Wilson said Scott simply misspoke when he claimed that no mandate had been enacted. She said the clear message is that the governor objects to imposing financial penalties on residents who don’t comply with the mandate.
“The governor was correct to say that tax penalty was not instituted. It’s being studied,” Wilson said. “As a reminder, the governor has said he does not support a financial penalty for those who do not have health insurance, but would like to see the working group identify incentives.”
Stern and Scott are the sole Republican gubernatorial candidates on the Aug. 14 primary ballot. On the Democratic side, there are four candidates for governor – James Ehlers, Christine Hallquist, Brenda Siegel and Ethan Sonneborn.
