Health care mandates are allegedly necessary for politicians to claim that their health-care plans provide universal coverage. The argument by Krugman and Klein is that healthy people will stay out of plans, driving up the cost of premiums. But how many of the uninsured today lack coverage because they don’t think they will get sick or injured? Very few. If insurance premiums were cheaper, as most Democratic candidates imply it would be under their plans, then why would more healthy people decline coverage?
The only plausible reason why compulsory insurance would be needed is that premiums might not be lower, but might rise and compulsory insurance is the only to make sure that healthy people buy more expensive insurance. Massachusetts’s compulsory insurance system has not yielded lower premiums for residents, but higher ones!
Now, Obama pointed out that mandates are unnecessary if insurance is affordable at the 14 Nov. 2007 Democratic debate after Hilary Clinton said his plan would leave out 15 million Americans, without explaining what she meant by that or how she came up with that figure. For this, Obama was smeared by Krugman, and now Krugman and Klein blame Obama if any Democratic health-care plan is defeated. But it was Clinton who deserves any blame — she made disingenuous charges against Obama. To blame Obama for pointing out the Clinton and Edwards don’t address problems with compulsory insurance is just mean-spirited.
Mandates would force consumers to buy insurance that might be too expensive and might provide only limited coverage (e.g., high deductibles). Getting a high premium, high deductible plan does not get universal health-care. Clinton and Edwards and their backers have turned universal coverage into a fetish. You might have health insurance but you still won’t be able to afford medical care.
