Re:Health Bill Would Add 3.8% Tax on Investment Income
by mattchew on Monday March 22, 2010 @09:35AM
(#1210239)
If the rule is cannot deny coverage, high risk people will buy the cheap policy and then switch when they need the expensive benefits. For that matter low risk people will switch if they roll snake-eyes and need to schedule something expensive like reconstructive surgery. This is essentially the same adverse selection logic that justifies the mandate.
*
People choosing to buy or not buy insurance has gotten reframed, and I find it interesting to see how effectively the switch took place.
In 2008, your hypothetical 25 year old would have been portrayed as a victim, if anything. Screwed over by the greedy health insurance companies who make it impossible to get decent coverage at a reasonable price.
In 2010, he's the bad guy. It's his fault the system is broken. He is morally obligated to buy that health insurance now, and if he argues that he's getting a crappy deal for what he is paying, it's him who is being selfish and greedy.
There are certainly identity politics tangled up in health care reform, but I was talking about the reframing of an issue and fickle public opinion.
If you can afford health insurance, and health insurance is available to you, and you decide not to buy it because you're 25 and you don't think you'll need it, you don't deserve my sympathy. If you can't afford health insurance, you deserve whatever we can do to make health insurance affordable to you. Please don't try to drag me into identity politics. This isn't a "rich vs. poor" issue.