Health insurance to drive?
“WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Virginia threw out the controversial plank of President Obama’s health-care law that requires Americans to buy coverage… In a ruling issued yesterday Judge Henry Hudson struck down the so-called “individual mandate” provision as unconstitutional. He said the federal government does not have the authority to order people to purchase coverage.”
This sounds right. Can we really force citizens to purchase financial services? That is essentially what the new health-care law does by fining adults who do not purchase health insurance by 2014.
The key word here though is force. In order to cover more people, keep healthcare a free market institution, and keep insurance premiums down we need to expand the pool of healthy people paying in to the system. We should not force Americans to purchase health insurance, but we should strongly encourage them. Like I said back in October 2009, they should treat health insurance like car insurance, where as you cannot operate a motor vehicle (which is proven year after year on American highways perfectly capable of disabling otherwise healthy persons in a single instant) without health insurance to cover the civic risks. Or maybe you could require basic coverage to purchase a home or start a business?
And like car insurance, there should be affordable discount plans marketed to healthy Americans, in order to meet the minimum requirements for institutional privileges like driving, or owning a home, or starting a business. We need more people to pay into healthcare and we need to keep it a private enterprise. Again, the key is to encourage, not to force.
What about the people that say we would should NOT expand coverage for more Americans? I am not so cynical to think that these people do not care about the low income sick and disabled. I understand that they presume the uninsured are given exceptions and options anyway. And for the most part they are right. However, unpaid-for emergency room visits and critical care by the uninsured are more costly to the system than just expanding the insurance pool. Should be interesting how it plays out. I applaud the judge, but condemn the blind partisanship he has to rule on and is sure to follow.
Latest posts by Robert O'Hara (Posts)
- The dawn of Syrian conflict - August 29, 2013
- Of Russian resets and NSA leaks - August 12, 2013
- Too much news is good news for Mullah Omar - July 25, 2013
- Trayvon Martin, tragedy and injustice - July 14, 2013
- Republican hangover: it’s not the message, it’s the messenger - November 15, 2012
Print This Post
If I want to drive a car, I am not “encouraged” to purchase car insurance. I am required to buy it.
So if we treat health insurance like car insurance, then shouldn’t we be forced to have insurance if we’d like to seek medical attention?
We aren’t forced to buy life insurance. But when we die, no one else is responsible to pay for our funeral costs. Why should I be forced to continue to cover the costs for those who have no health insurance?
You are not forced to buy car insurance. You can live a normal year of your life without getting car insurance, and not have the government overlooking wether you got it or not, and then fining you if you did not. You can also choose to not drive. That is the difference and it is a big one.
Your other arguments and questions are good ones.