Romney eyes penalties for those lacking insurance

The Boston Globe ^ | 6-22-05 | Scott S. Greenberger

[Final Authority]

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? That is the question. If more people had insurance so that hospitals did not have to write off unpaid treatment then the price would come down because they wouldn't have to load up the bills on paying patients. The idea of insurance is quite simple. Pool resources and share the risk. When that occurs the total cost of health care will not go down but the impact individually will. The cost is what it is but if we spread out who pays and add to that the number of payers, each payer pays somewhat less.

[inquest]

What's the difference between socialized medicine and mandatory insurance? The insurance premium becomes indistingushable from a tax, and everyone has to be enrolled in the system. Sure you get the semblance of having a choice of which particular company to go with, but in reality it's not much of a choice, as is proven by states that have mandatory auto insurance. The insurance companies become appendages of the government in everything but name.

[Final Authority]

See, your are only looking at the mandatory aspects of the plan. Even now, more than 80% of folks have, through there own sense of personal responsibility or by way of employment, have elective health insurance. To say that mandatory insurance will cause these people to choose a poorer plan possibly, is nonsense. Instead of calling it mandatory insurance, call it, mandatory participation. Under Mitt's plan apparently, one, if they have any means, must participate in the society of those financially and socially responsible.

[inquest]

To say that mandatory insurance will cause these people to choose a poorer plan possibly, is nonsense.

Not at all. You're assuming that insurance companies remain static no matter what happens. The reality, however, is that they know now that they have to compete for people who would otherwise go uninsured. Take away that possibility, and they won't have to work as hard to make people want to be insured.

On top of that, if the state makes insurance (or "participation", whatever difference that terminology makes) mandatory, then that will necessarily reduce further opportunities for new insurance companies to start up and compete with the existing ones, because the state will start to impose more stringent "standards" regarding who can and can not be an insurance company. What that translates to is that only people with political connections will be able to start a company. That's what happens when mandatory auto insurance is imposed. You get a state-protected cartel.