More details on the Baucus plan from Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear in the NY Times:

Mr. Baucus’s proposal would offer low-cost catastrophic insurance asan option for people 25 and younger. Policy experts say many people in this age group cannot afford comprehensive coverage or see no need for it.

“The idea of a stripped-down benefits package for people who have a good income and choose not to buy health insurance makes a lot of sense,” said Stan Dorn, a senior research associate atthe Urban Institute. “But a catastrophic insurance policy does not make sense for lower-income people, because they cannot afford medical cares hort of catastrophic expenses. A catastrophic policy does not cover routine care.”

Excuse me. The point of universal coverage is that everyone, sick or well pays the same amount. The entire community is one risk pool. People who are well pay more than they get out on average so that when they get sick they will be able to pay the same rates as before and get the same comprehensive insurance. See here for the moral case for universal comprehensive insurance

If you do not do it that way then nobody will be able to get inexpensive comprehensive health insurance. There will be two risk pools: the golden youth and the geezer ghetto. Everyone, youth and geezer,s will be worse off. Geezers now and youth when they attain geezerhood.

If you allow the young to escape into the neverland of cheap, high out of pocket insurance you have essentially eliminated any rationale for mandatory health insurance. There is no risk pooling between the old and the young, the sick and the healthy. All that the mandate does is generate business for health insurers.

If this is the way that reform is going to look we might as well just scrap it.