A federal judge in Florida ruled last week that the health care reform law is unconstitutional because it requires every American to purchase health insurance—the so-called individual mandate. The Senate held a hearing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and the House will soon follow. Everyone expects the question to end up in the Supreme Court.
I’m not a Constitutional scholar; I’m a health care guy. I don’t know whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional. But I do know that Florida judge is right about one thing: if you strike the individual mandate from the health reform law, you have to strike the whole thing. If you don’t have that reform, you simply can’t have all the rest.
Here’s the situation as it is now. In some states, health insurance companies have been allowed to pick and choose whom they’ll cover. Some companies have chosen to insure only healthy people, which means other insurance companies in the same market have to do the same just to compete. If health insurers insure only healthy people, premiums can be nice and low, but many people who are not so healthy get left uninsured. Covering only healthy people isn’t right.
On the other hand, if health insurers are required to accept everyone, but not everyone is required to buy health insurance, healthy people often opt out—at least until they get sick. Then they buy. That’s the market we currently have in New York. But an insurance market that covers only sick people leads to very expensive insurance premiums.
Imagine how expensive homeowner’s insurance would be if every single house insured against fire routinely burned down—or if you could buy homeowner’s insurance as soon as you smelled smoke! It wouldn’t work. And it isn’t working for health insurance either.
The simple fact is that health insurance works best by spreading the cost of health care among a broad cross–section of the community—from the most healthy to the most ill—that is, when everybody pays for health insurance but not everybody uses it.
The solution, which will be law beginning in 2014, is the middle ground. Health insurance companies will be required to cover everyone, and everyone will be required to buy health insurance. While many states (including New York) already have laws that require health insurers to cover everyone, the requirement on the other side of the equation—that each person buy health insurance—will be new.
And that requirement, the individual mandate, is what’s being debated now in the courts and in Congress. Do we as individuals have a right not to buy health insurance? That’s the question making its way to the Supreme Court. And the answer will determine whether health insurers are not just required but are actually able to cover all Americans.
WHAT IF THE “EVERYONE” CAN’T AFFORD TO BUY HEALTHCARE?
Than the government will give you a credit to help pay for your insurance or if you qualify it might be free.
Can you explain why it is okay to require everyone who drives to have auto insurance–but it is unconstitutional to mandate that all people have health insurance? What is the difference?
they don’t mandate that you buy the car.
I was thinking the same thing.
You are mandated to have auto insurance because you are putting others at risk. The insurance is there to ensure that if you hurt someone or damage their property, they are not responsible for your actions. Health care, on the other hand, is there for your benefit. If you don’t choose to get insurance, you are at the mercy of the system. Of course, no one gets turned away for medical procedures (it’s more of what type of care you get). The real problem is that health insurers have made it so difficult for PCP’s that there’s a shortage and people aren’t desciplined to go to their PCP’s for simple ailments and use the ER’s instead.
One of the fundamental issues is freedom of choice. The US Constitution does not mandate insurance coverage so I wonder how the Federal Law can stand up as a mandate under the US Constitution. The comments are compelling for spreading health costs across the community rather than insurance companies picking and chosing but again, we have freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and this law violates those freedoms from my perspective. I would advocate that Health Care Insurance move away from for profit to non profit to avoid the pitfalls of the companies being driven by the bottom line for profits rather than providing coverage at a reasonable cost. The other player should be those that bill for health care services-if they are for profit then again the bottom line usually rules.
Dave,
Thanks for the “just plain, common sense” explanation!!
I do recall Preferred Care enjoyed a very great reputation when we were invoved with “Community Rating”. I also recall we were not very profitable !
JAD
I am not sure if we should have to buy health insurance-it’s complicated! We don’t have to buy other insurances for instance car insurance BUT enough things require you to show proof of insuranceI am thinking DMV etc that most people do have it and those wthout face consquences.I am really for personal responsibility.I am healthy,have worked hard all my life and paid for health insurance for the “what if”.To do that I may have to give up other things(fancy car,vacation) my choice and I chose to pay for health care coverage.But others take poor care of themselves and then either by being in the pool or just not having insurance are using my dollars.I am not happy with this system.So the question comes how do we do this fairly?How does everyone share the burden and the blessing of health insurance?
I very much appreciate your open minded thoughts. It helps explain the complexities of the new health care laws. Your comments appear to be apolitical, well thought out and contain a lot of common sense. Thank you , I have learned a lot.
There are many problems with healthcare and the healthcare reform law. One big thing everyone seems to be missing is, there’s no end. This leaves it open to become a money siphon and a political debate forever. (More than likely, what the politicians want). A sound economical plan can not be created and implemented until there is a common goal. Lower healthcare costs, that is not a goal, as that is too open ended. Tell us what are healthcare costs are now, and then what is an acceptable level to lower them to. Give a number that people can hold the government accountable to. Give us a number that we can hang our hats on and say, Now, we have an efficient health care system.
Forcing this new health reform bill will continue to suffocate the small businesses and stiffen job creation. This mandate is unconstituitional and the goverment we pay for and elected should be able to come up with a compromising solution. Listen to the what the voters had to say last Nov.!!
If it becomes Law that a person HAS to buy health insurance and will get penalized if he / she does not, that is an infringement upon a person’s Freedom To Choose. The more rights that are taken away from the citizens in a country, the more Socialist that country becomes. What has happened to this country??? EVERYONE used to be PROUD to be an American why? BECAUSE OF FREEDOM! Take away a person’s right to choose, and you take away their freedom. It truly scares me how more and more involved the government is getting in the personal lives of its citizens. It’s time we take a stand and fight for our freedom. Besides, is a person who can’t afford to buy health insurance going to be penalized?? Many people don’t have it because they can’t afford it, and now with the price of gas and food going up and up and up and there being no cost-of-living increase, how is a person to survive??? Many people already are having to make sacrifices to make ends meet.
I realize this blog is not about legality …
But I think the mandate portion is clearly unconstitutional, in addition to being of questionable morality and dubious economic efficacy.