![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On The "Broccoli Mandate"
Jun. 25th, 2012 10:02 amAs we wait yet another day for the Supreme Court to decide what they are going to do with Obamacare / PPACA, I thought I'd second the views on the individual mandate that were stated in this thread. I'd excerpt it, but the whole thing is golden:
No one will wake up tomorrow with an unscheduled million dollar emergency that only a refrigerator full of broccoli might solve. Nor can they go to a restaurant and demand, and recieve, free broccoli. And if everyone was required to buy broccoli, they'd still need insurance. They might be healthier, but all of the problems caused by large numbers of uninsured would still exist. The argument that health insurance is no different than broccoli, tomatoes, potatoes, cars or movie tickets is belied by the realities of the US healthcare market compared to other countries. One of these things is not like the others.
Now, setting aside all of that, the major reason why requiring the purchase of insurance is different than buying broccoli is because the former is necessary and proper for carrying out the regulation of interstate commerce, specifically the health insurance industry. The latter is not. Congress wants insurance companies to sell to those with pre-existing conditions, and Congress can write regulations requiring just that. But that won't work unless everyone (or nearly everyone) has insurance. The mandate is incidental to regulating the insurance industry. By contrast, there is no "insurance death spiral" caused by a lack of a broccoli mandate.
FWIW, I also think that if Congress had called it the "guaranteed issue and emergency room admittance fee," this conversation probably wouldn't exist.
No one will wake up tomorrow with an unscheduled million dollar emergency that only a refrigerator full of broccoli might solve. Nor can they go to a restaurant and demand, and recieve, free broccoli. And if everyone was required to buy broccoli, they'd still need insurance. They might be healthier, but all of the problems caused by large numbers of uninsured would still exist. The argument that health insurance is no different than broccoli, tomatoes, potatoes, cars or movie tickets is belied by the realities of the US healthcare market compared to other countries. One of these things is not like the others.
Now, setting aside all of that, the major reason why requiring the purchase of insurance is different than buying broccoli is because the former is necessary and proper for carrying out the regulation of interstate commerce, specifically the health insurance industry. The latter is not. Congress wants insurance companies to sell to those with pre-existing conditions, and Congress can write regulations requiring just that. But that won't work unless everyone (or nearly everyone) has insurance. The mandate is incidental to regulating the insurance industry. By contrast, there is no "insurance death spiral" caused by a lack of a broccoli mandate.
FWIW, I also think that if Congress had called it the "guaranteed issue and emergency room admittance fee," this conversation probably wouldn't exist.
