One of the major roadblocks to the Health Care bill and one of the reasons it will probably be declared unconstitutional is because of the “individual mandate” that requires a purchase of insurance. Almost every economist agrees it is necessary to mandate that people buy insurance for the same reason people are mandated to buy car insurance. If it isn’t required, free riders will overwhelm the system.
The difference between requiring individuals to buy insurance, on the one hand, or requiring them to pay a tax and then providing a service (like Medicare) escapes me.
Here is what Paul Krugman wrote about the mandate in today’s New York Times:
Indeed, conservatives used to like the idea of required purchases as an alternative to taxes, which is why the idea for the mandate originally came not from liberals but from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. (By the way, another pet conservative project--private accounts to replace Social Security--relies on, yes, mandatory contributions from individuals.)
Let’s hope that at least five members of the Supreme Court can rise above their partisanship and find the law constitutional. Given the Court’s decisions in the 2000 election and the Citizens United cases, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Don't hold your breath on the supreme court upholding the Affordable Health Care Act. If you do, you will have to use Tea Bagger Care for your insurance. (Everyone for themselves.)
ReplyDelete