Health Insurance and False Comparisons
Posted on Monday September 17, 2007 at 9:51am.
CNN reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton is to announce a "mandatory health care proposal." It would require all Americans to have health insurance.
Of course, Clinton wants the government to pay for people who can't afford insurance (a supposed cost of $110 billion, though the article doesn't say over what time period, and we can agree it'll cost more than that if put into practice, like everything else does).
Of course, Clinton's plan also requires large businesses to pay for some of their employees' insurance (hello, Walmart). It's a good thing that this has no "public" costs and no unintended consequences. Big businesses like Walmart won't react in any way to these new requirements. They won't increase their prices to offset their increased staffing costs, hurting all the working folks who benefit from low prices. They won't cut back on hiring due to increased costs per employee, hurting people who need jobs. They'll just contribute to health insurance, if a new law tells them to, and let their shareholders take the hit. Because that's how big businesses do things.
A Clinton adviser compares the plan's so-called "individual mandate" — which requires everyone to have health insurance — to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance...States require drivers to have auto insurance to protect other drivers in the event of an accident. With auto insurance, there is at least the premise that it is required in order to prevent one's rights from being violated by another's actions. The logic is that an uninsured driver is likely (depending on his income, obviously) to not be able to pay for the damage he causes to someone else's property or health. One can only make this argument for health insurance by stretching the logic beyond its limits — the old, "people-without-health-insurance-cost-society-money" argument.
Of course, Clinton wants the government to pay for people who can't afford insurance (a supposed cost of $110 billion, though the article doesn't say over what time period, and we can agree it'll cost more than that if put into practice, like everything else does).
Of course, Clinton's plan also requires large businesses to pay for some of their employees' insurance (hello, Walmart). It's a good thing that this has no "public" costs and no unintended consequences. Big businesses like Walmart won't react in any way to these new requirements. They won't increase their prices to offset their increased staffing costs, hurting all the working folks who benefit from low prices. They won't cut back on hiring due to increased costs per employee, hurting people who need jobs. They'll just contribute to health insurance, if a new law tells them to, and let their shareholders take the hit. Because that's how big businesses do things.