Tuesday, April 24, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Liberals have asserted on these pages that mandating health insurance is the same as mandating auto insurance. They argue that health insurance bears the cost of uninsured people going to emergency rooms the same way that auto insurance bears the cost of uninsured motorists. And they say that breathing puts a person in the market for health insurance the same way that driving a car puts a person in the market for auto insurance. It sounds so logical. But it’s specious.
A person can avoid buying auto insurance by not driving, just as a person can avoid buying health insurance by paying for health care directly. Being in the market for health care does not put one in the market for health insurance, and the Supreme Court justices discerned this point in the oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Health insurance is only one way to pay for health care, and not a very efficient one at that. Would it be efficient to pay for oil or tire changes with auto insurance? Any doubt what would happen to the cost of oil and tire changes? It makes sense to cover normal wear and tear on your auto directly and use insurance to pay for major damage, and so it does with health care. That keeps costs down.
Why institute an inefficient system, just because it exists, by making it mandatory?
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy