prev
next
Political Hotsheet
Should Americans Be Forced to Get Health Coverage?
5192097On Wednesday, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, unveiled his long-awaited health care reform bill.
Like virtually all other proposals, Baucus' bill requires that Americans get health insurance. It also penalizes those who do not, to the tune of up to $3,800 for a family of four. (Those who cannot afford insurance are eligible for subsidies or government programs such as Medicaid.) This so-called "individual mandate," as President Obama has noted, would make health insurance more like car insurance – something that you legally must have, not something that you can decide whether or not to opt into.
That fact isn't sitting well with people like Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, who told MSNBC's Chris Matthews last month that the government shouldn't be forcing health insurance on Americans.
"When you have health care, that's a choice that impacts yourself," he said. "Drivers' insurance impacts other drivers you may have accidents with."
That's not exactly true – Americans shoulder much of the cost when their uninsured countrymen visit emergency rooms, after all. But the argument that the government is going too far is being made by libertarians like Michael D. Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who in an interview characterized the individual mandate as "a significant intrusion in individual liberty and decision making."
The government, he said, is effectively "requiring individuals to buy a specific product simply by virtue of being a citizen." He said the health care mandate differs from something like auto insurance because driving is a privilege.
The health care industry strongly backs the mandate, and not just because it potentially means millions of new customers. The industry worries that once they can no longer reject health insurance applicants with preexisting conditions, people will, in the absence of a mandate, simply wait until they get sick to get insurance.
Or, as the New America Foundation's Len Nichols told National Public Radio: "You can't require insurers to take all comers, which is the fundamental lynchpin of insurance reform, unless everybody comes."
Many of those who presently don't come are young people, many of whom bet on their good health rather than purchase expensive health insurance policies. While health care reform would mean more access to inexpensive coverage, the mandate would take away their option and mean they are forced to effectively subsidize care for older Americans.
In an effort to convince young people that's a worthwhile trade-off, the president on Thursday told college students that those among them without insurance "live one accident or one illness away from bankruptcy."
And while most Americans surely feel that's an unacceptable level of risk, Cato's Tanner says going without insurance should still be their choice to make.
"There are lots of things that people do that aren't very smart," he said. "We should all eat better and exercise more, but that doesn't mean we should be doing morning exercises out in the square like they do in North Korea. Freedom sometimes means the freedom to be stupid."
Do you agree? Share your thoughts below.
More recent health care coverage:
Despite Criticism, Baucus' Bill May Hold
Obama Tells Students, Let's Go Change the World
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. Like virtually all other proposals, Baucus' bill requires that Americans get health insurance. It also penalizes those who do not, to the tune of up to $3,800 for a family of four. (Those who cannot afford insurance are eligible for subsidies or government programs such as Medicaid.) This so-called "individual mandate," as President Obama has noted, would make health insurance more like car insurance – something that you legally must have, not something that you can decide whether or not to opt into.
That fact isn't sitting well with people like Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, who told MSNBC's Chris Matthews last month that the government shouldn't be forcing health insurance on Americans.
"When you have health care, that's a choice that impacts yourself," he said. "Drivers' insurance impacts other drivers you may have accidents with."
That's not exactly true – Americans shoulder much of the cost when their uninsured countrymen visit emergency rooms, after all. But the argument that the government is going too far is being made by libertarians like Michael D. Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who in an interview characterized the individual mandate as "a significant intrusion in individual liberty and decision making."
The government, he said, is effectively "requiring individuals to buy a specific product simply by virtue of being a citizen." He said the health care mandate differs from something like auto insurance because driving is a privilege.
The health care industry strongly backs the mandate, and not just because it potentially means millions of new customers. The industry worries that once they can no longer reject health insurance applicants with preexisting conditions, people will, in the absence of a mandate, simply wait until they get sick to get insurance.
Or, as the New America Foundation's Len Nichols told National Public Radio: "You can't require insurers to take all comers, which is the fundamental lynchpin of insurance reform, unless everybody comes."
Many of those who presently don't come are young people, many of whom bet on their good health rather than purchase expensive health insurance policies. While health care reform would mean more access to inexpensive coverage, the mandate would take away their option and mean they are forced to effectively subsidize care for older Americans.
In an effort to convince young people that's a worthwhile trade-off, the president on Thursday told college students that those among them without insurance "live one accident or one illness away from bankruptcy."
And while most Americans surely feel that's an unacceptable level of risk, Cato's Tanner says going without insurance should still be their choice to make.
"There are lots of things that people do that aren't very smart," he said. "We should all eat better and exercise more, but that doesn't mean we should be doing morning exercises out in the square like they do in North Korea. Freedom sometimes means the freedom to be stupid."
Do you agree? Share your thoughts below.
More recent health care coverage:
Despite Criticism, Baucus' Bill May Hold
Obama Tells Students, Let's Go Change the World
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 670 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- WH says criticism of its handling of IRS story is "legitimate"
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 121 Comments
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
The government needs to butt out. Quit giving things to people who sit on their duffs, refuse to work, smoke crack, sell drugs, have babies they cannot afford, and buy CRAP with their food stamps that makes them FAT and drives health care costs up!!!!
If people are to have the "freedom to be stupid" and not buy health insurance, then hospitals and other health care facilities should have the freedom to turn these irresponsible people away.
I really don't understand why so many people seem more worried about the ability of the insurance industry to be able to survive more than they do people surviving. The insurance industry is an unnecessary middleman causing us to spend way more than any other people in the world on our medical care; they bring nothing of any value to the healthcare table; they regularly deny treatment that doctors have ordered; they spend enormous amounts of money on trying to find ways to deny claims and lobbying Congress to prevent healthcare reform; they reward their employees for the number of claims they are able to deny; they're one of the few business that receives money up front and may never have to do anything for that money. Germany has a healthcare system that is government run with private insurance companies too. Those insurance companies must be non-profit and must cover 100% of all claims for any who asks. Compare that with what we have.
Have you ever considered that "government-run" just means the government is paying the bill, not choosing your doctor or having any say in what treatments you receive (which the insurance industry currently does). I would gladly pay more in taxes to not have to worry about not receiving medical care when I need it. The savings to me and my employer for health insurance coverage would more than offset any tax increase. Of course, this is a single-payer system I'm talking about, and that wasn't even allowed to be a part of the current discussion due to our elected officials being bought off by the health insurance industry. Who do you think is circulating all the ridiculous lies about government-run healthcare?