Mandating health insurance
There are reasonable arguments for taxing the public and providing subsidies for specific people in need.But why should we re-engineer the insurance market to serve a function it was not meant to serve?In order to make coverage affordable in the absence of a mandate, we would have to subsidize the program so that insurers did not charge sicker people higher premiums.
But practical questions remain in any case about whether the individual mandate is the best strategy for achieving universal health coverage and overhauling the country’s increasingly costly health system.The individual market will most likely not completely collapse in the absence of an individual mandate, because the premium tax credit will probably shoulder most of the burden the mandate bore.However mandate repeal will have consequences, especially for relatively high income Americans, who are ineligible for premium subsidies.Those who cannot afford private insurance are offered a subsidized public option. In a legal memo published in December by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.Experts on both sides of the aisle have criticized the mandate for forcing people to buy a product from a private company, but some conservatives have suggested that the mandate is not even allowable under the U. C., three lawyers argue that a person’s failure to purchase insurance does not count as interstate commerce, and therefore Congress lacks the authority to regulate it.
For subsidy-ineligible Americans — those who purchase insurance from the individual market and whose incomes are above 400 percent of the poverty line — rising premiums represent a very real increase in the cost of coverage.