This came along before I started reading the Cato blog regularly but I am definitely a member of The Anti-Universal Coverage Club.
- Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.
- “Universal coverage” could be achieved only by forcing everyone to buy health insurance or by having government provide health insurance to all, neither of which is desirable.
- In a free society, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.
- If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”
That does not mean that I am opposed to everyone having access to health care, but a mandate that every person buy insurance or that the government will pay for insurance (by taxing “the rich” naturally) is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility.
Senator Bennett is one of the main sponsors of the Healthy American Act, which would force all Americans to buy (or be provided) health insurance. This stems from the faulty assumption that having everyone insured will improve service and cut costs. It’s not working out that way with RomneyCare in MA. Think price controls, reduced quality, and higher cost.
We’ve had laws for years that require every motor vehicle to be insured. But we still have uninsured drivers. How can that be? It’s against the law! Forcing people to have medical insurance won’t function any better.
Both of our senators need to go.
Forcing Americans to buy health insurance is likely to be worse than the car insurance laws – with car insurance you are only required to carry liability insurance where the health insurance will probably be the equivalent of comprehensive insurance.