Weird Priorities
June 12th, 2006 by Jeb Foster
What’s more important to you: your car or your health?
Even if you are really attached to your car, I assume (and hope) you’d pick the latter. Next question: of the two, your car and your person, which are you required by law to insure?
The answer, of course, is the car. Doesn’t this scheme imply that your ‘89 Subaru’s body, drive train, and transmission are somehow worth more than your flesh, blood and vital organs? Call me naive, but I think this reveals a truly bizarre set of priorities.
That’s why Massachusetts’ recent plan [discussed in an earlier post by Megan] requiring that all its residents possess health insurance by July, 2007 makes a lot of sense to me. Although I haven’t read all of the fine print or taken the time to parse all of the arguments for and against (excuse: I’m the new guy), it just seems to make so much sense; if you’re required to insure your car, shouldn’t you be required to insure your self?
For those of you who aren’t sure what the Massachusetts plan involves, here is a quick run-down:
- The Massachusetts legislature, with the governor’s authorization, has mandated that all its residents obtain health insurance by July, 2007, or face the possibility of fines up to $1000.
- Insurers are obligated to enroll over 100,000 people who are eligible for Medicaid. They’re also required to offer incentives, in the form of more attractive health care plans, to people who can afford insurance but have so far opted not to get it.
- The state plans to pony up $1.2 billion in subsidies each year to low-income people who can’t afford coverage.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who’s seriously considering a presidential run in 2008, is traversing the country to tout his state’s pioneering plan. Although it remains to be seen whether it will actually work as intended, Romney at least seems to be confident enough to stake his all-but-official bid for the White House on its success.
What are the kinks in the plan? Is it too good to be true? Who opposes it and why? How has a universal health care plan, something that has eluded both Republicans and Democrats for years, all of a sudden become a reality in Massachusetts? As you can see, I need to do more research! … In the meantime, leave a comment if you have any insights!
June 13th, 2006 at 7:06 am
What if you are a Christian Scientist? You are required to purchase insurance for something you may never use?
June 13th, 2006 at 8:18 am
That hadn’t occurred to me, and I wonder if the Massachusetts legislature has considered it. It does seem unfair to force someone to pay for coverage they won’t use–for treatment they don’t believe in. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!
June 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Shoot, many Americans pay for a LOT of stuff from which they’ll never benefit. Isn’t that true of Welfare, Medicaid, and so on? I help fund firefighters, and even though I’ve never directly benefitted from them it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in contributing to the cause. That might be one justification for this mandatory health insurance issue.
Personally, I wouldn’t use car insurance if it wasn’t required. I’m responsible enough to keep cash lying around to pay for fender-benders that are my fault.
Also, I believe Gov. Mitt Romney is Mormon. They certainly believe in modern medicine, so it’s possible he overlooked the Christian Science crowd. However, I think it’s more likely that he’s justifying the requirement because all sorts of people pay for stuff they’ll never use.