The comparison is a little shaky, but interesting. As a driver it's reassuring for me to know that other people on the road are insured in case one of them hits me. I won't have to shoulder the price of someone else's mistake. With health care, the "shared responsibility" works a little different, but it comes down to this: Insurance costs can't be controlled without everyone required to buy in.
Here’s another example to help put it into perspective that the Wall Street Journal recently used:
Imagine that parking tickets were only 25 cents. Would drivers have much reason to feed parking meters? The answer, of course, is no. Paying a fine would be cheaper than putting a dollar or more into a meter. A weak coverage mandate would have the same result.
Think about it. If insurers cannot turn away anyone, and yet people are allowed decide not to buy insurance, what would happen? Unhealthy or sick individuals would purchase coverage, while younger, healthier individuals would conclude that they could save money by skipping it. As a result, the overall group of people insured would be less healthy, and thus the costs to each of them would increase.
What would happen next? Responsible people who are currently healthy would be hit with paying a lot more money. Without a doubt, some of them will decide that coverage is too expensive and will drop out. Which increases costs again, as the group loses even more of its healthier — and thus less expensive — participants.
By keeping healthy people in the insurance mix, the individual mandate will help keep average premium costs low. Pure and simple.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has a great blog post about the need for an individual mandate. It's worth the read.
Tell us what you think at our Facebook page.
— Susan with Regence
