Mandate Malpractice

The American Spectator ^ | 6/23/2006 | David Hogberg

[neverdem]

Last week the American Medical Association endorsed a health insurance mandate that would require individuals and families in the United States who could afford health insurance to purchase it. Although the mandate is largely targeted at upper-income folks, it is likely a first step toward a mandate that would require all people to purchase health insurance.

There is a one-word response to the AMA's recommendation: Whoa!

It is premature to advocate a national health insurance mandate when the U.S. is blessed with a federal system. Under our system, state governments can act as "laboratories of democracy," testing new policies. This gives citizens more insight into the effectiveness of a policy when deciding whether to adopt that policy nationally.

We have exactly such a situation right now regarding a health insurance mandate. Back in April Governor Mitt Romney signed into law a health insurance reform that required all people in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. The experience of Massachusetts (and possibly a few other states that might follow suit) should give us ample information on the effectiveness a health insurance mandate.

Whether a health insurance mandate will work is a matter of considerable debate among health care policy wonks. Those in favor argue that such a mandate is a matter of personal responsibility -- that individuals have a responsibility to purchase health insurance so that, if they get sick, they do not slough their medical costs off on the taxpayers. Ultimately, a mandate could save taxpayers money.

A mandate may also force policymakers to focus on the price of health insurance. When employers are expected to provide health insurance, many policymakers aren't concerned what it will cost. But when individuals (i.e., a lot of voters) must pay for it themselves, politicians look for ways to make health insurance cheaper. For...

[Jaysun]

I'm with you. Revoke the free ER mandate. People go to the ER for everything from sprained ankles to depression. It's absurd. It clogs up the process and makes it harder for real emergencies to be treated.

[Kozak]

Where in your demented mind did you come up with the idea I want the government to support me? All I ask is that they LEAVE me the hell alone. Kinda like what you want when they mandate you HAVE insurance.

[neverdem]

Human-to-Human Infection by Bird Flu Virus Is Confirmed

A Natural Sense of Justice

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[pageonetoo]

I'm with you. Revoke the free ER mandate. People go to the ER for everything ...

couldn't find a pic of a hispanic anchor baby... but socialism is what I started with, on this thread, and it is still the problem, as I see it!

(ps- My dementia is none of your business)

[Jaysun]

(ps- My dementia is none of your business)

Dementia isn't so bad, most crazies are nice and thin.

I've been eating pudding all day and have forgotten where I put my ninja boots. What were we discussing again? Oh yes, a suitcase full of meat for every boy and girl.....

[dljordan]

"There are arguments in favor of mandatory health insurance."

There are NO arguments force forcing someone under threat of law to purchase something. How far has this country fallen when this type of thinking is prevalent? The AMA and the insurance companies are joined together at the hip. It's about greed and money not concern for the welfare of Americans.

"Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . . to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic ... The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."

Benjamin Rush, Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Indepenence.