• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Case Against Individual Mandates

    Individual mandates cause headaches.

    Health insurance companies are for it. Ted Kennedy is for it. Nancy Pelosi is for it. Even some Republicans are supportive. What is “it”? “It” is a proposed requirement that would force every American to buy health insurance or face some type of fine or other punishment. “It” is more commonly known as the individual mandate, and “it” is terrible public policy.

    1. Individual Mandates are an Unprecedented Violation of Individual Liberty – According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a federal individual mandate for health insurance would be unique and unprecedented because it would “impose a duty on individuals as members of society” and would “require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated” by the government. CBO determined that among all of the federal rules, the requirement that all young men register with Selective Service is the closest legal requirement to an individual mandate. According to President Barack Obama HHS nominee Dr. Sherry Glied: “Developing a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”

    2. Individual Mandates Will Not Solve Uninsured Problem – The number of Americans without health insurance is a problem that requires changes to public policy. The cost of care that the uninsured receive is passed on to the insured and drives up health care costs for all Americans. Mandates will not solve this problem. Evidence from state experiments with individual mandates suggests that people will still forgo insurance.  A recent Health Affairs study of various legal mandates, including health insurance, found that the range of compliance varied greatly. In Massachusetts, the first state to enact an individual mandate with tax penalties and fines, the public authorities have already exempted approximately 60,000 persons from its terms.

    3. Individual Mandates Will Not Solve Free-Rider Problem – Even people with health insurance still inflict significant cost shifting onto the health system. According to research by the Urban Institute, people who have health insurance account for at least 30 percent of uncompensated care delivered to the non-elderly.

    4. Individual Mandates Are Expensive – From Obama appointee Dr. Glied: “Funds diverted from uncompensated care would not be sufficient to pay for the subsidies needed to cover most uninsured people. Eliminating the free-rider problem through universal insurance might make the health care system more fair, but it wouldn’t make it less costly.”

    5. Individual Mandates are a Special Interest Bonanza – When government mandates that people purchase health insurance, it must define a minimum set of covered benefits that satisfies that mandate. Health care providers who wish to stay in business then must lobby Congress to make sure their products and services are included in the minimum benefits package. The mandate then becomes a means through which special interests use government to force transfers of funds from consumers to the health care sector.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    13 Responses to The Case Against Individual Mandates

    1. Centaur, Purcellvill says:

      The Individual Mandate scares me; it reminds me of "forcing people to be free," which is really just another form of slavery. This mandate takes the decision-making power out of the hands of the citizen and the family and places it in the hand of the government. I don't think I need to mention how capitalism provides an environment for better health care service, consistent technological advancement and dedication to exceptional service, and expectation of real progress in the future.

      But most frightening to me is the idea that the family is not trusted to make decisions with their own guidance and prudence – this infringement is RIDICULOUS. I would highly encourage everyone to visit parentalrights.org if you are outraged by such a usurpation of power.

    2. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      The Democrat Liberals do not think that the People can make their own decisions and in a way, they are right! Look at how many people turn to the Government for help, constantly! Look at how we have turned from a self surviving Nation into a bunch of dependent wimps that have to have the Government make a ruling, decision or law about even the tiniest thing!

      Dependence on the Government was never more noted than when Hurricane Katrina nailed New Orleans. What should have been intelligent people lost all common sense and survival instinct by waiting for help instead of helping themselves! What we saw was an entire City of people waiting for the Government to do for them even as the storm and the water was bearing down. Simply amazing – simply appalling! THIS is why the Democrat Liberals know that we The People, cannot do anything without the Government.

      People, we've done it to ourselves – each and every one of us!

    3. John Hyland, Appleto says:

      For several years now, statistics from the government about the mythical 46 million without insurance, has never received any legs from the nations media.

      Of the 46 million, near 1/3 are in upper income brackets and can afford any insurance they may want. Another 1/3 are eligible for existing government programs but fail to sign up. Many millions are the 20's and 30's group who believe they don't need any. Then there are about 10 million who are not eligible as they are not citizens. So, that leaves maybe between 5 and 10 million who really need help. Just a simple program for them is all we need.

    4. Thomas, Northern NY says:

      It's kind of funny. They want to force you to buy insurance, not actual health care, just the coverage. After the premium is paid, they don't care what happens to you. Or – are they actually counting on a revenue flow from the people that would rather just pay the tax?

      At any rate, it should be clear to any rational human being that it is none of their (the government's)business.

    5. Kevin, Charlotte, NC says:

      I honestly am aghast that something like this is seriously being considered in the United States of America, the "Land of the Free". The essence of freedom is that individuals are able to make decisions affecting their own fate, even if those decisions sometimes turn out to be poor decisions. I just cannot believe the American government is about to tell its citizens they are required to purchase something, and if they don't, they will be socked with a heavy tax penalty. This is surely a sign that individual liberty is dying in this country, being replaced by the nebulous fantasy of collectivism. I am simply shell-shocked by how profoundly things are changing in just the first few months of this administration.

    6. Pingback: OBAMA-CARE: long waits, lower quality, rationing, control… « FactReal

    7. RJ, Charlotte, NC says:

      I am terribly worried that the Government is got it's nose so deeply into the individuals private business that it may take a revolution

      to successfully remove it. I can't believe we are letting our government (that supposedly works for us) tax us if we do and tax us if we don't. How did we let ourselves get into this mess? It's like the Iraq war, get into it with no plans for escape.

    8. Pingback: Fix Health Care Policy | Public Option Is Not Dead Yet

    9. BP, Uniontown, OH says:

      This does not surprise me knowing Obama and liberals tend toward tyranny for their own self gratification. So, how do we fight this legally?

    10. G-Man, VA says:

      All right, all right, the likes of these knuckle-heads (Axlerod, the Emmanuel brothers, Van Jones, Gibbs, and other Statist appointees) HAVE GOT TO GO! What are the legal options for removing political appointees? If there aren't any options other than voting out the "appoint-er," then do we really have a Government "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE?"

      G-Man opines…

    11. Pingback: Fix Health Care Policy | Step Back and Start Over on Health Care

    12. Raymond Nichols, Mas says:

      I am a citizen of Massahusetts. Let me get that out of that way first and foremost. What I've seen here since this Health Tax, or Insurance mandate, whatever you would like to call it, is that this has become an embarassment to this government. What you see our elected officials tell you about what the majority of these citizens think, is pure BS. Let me tell you what has happened in my case.

      2007, the mandate goes into effect. For the first time ever, I am required to purchase my health option with the company I work for to provide coverage to my wife and myself. This runs about 245 monthly, totalling about 3,040 dollars taken out of my wallet. The actual estimate would be about 2300 dollars after taxes. This is 2300 dollars from just me that would have been spent into this states economy. Think about that as you debate the Health care reform that is on the table now, in a time when the economy is still down, we are going to mandate that you give billions of dollars to the health industry on a weekly basis? What will that do to the state of the economy?

      Anyways, back to the story. I had United Health Care. They were great, they paid a lot of a prescription my wife needed, and covered more then 75 percent of an expensive prescription I needed at one time.

      Now, December 2008 comes around, and I am notified in an effort to cut costs, my company will be switching health care companies from United Health Care to Aetna. This lowers my companies premiums they pay, but still my payment remains the same. Also those prescriptions I told you about for my wife? Aetna covered 2 dollars on a 65 dollar prescription. Their benefits didn't cover anything, and they refused to pay the majority of any routine doctor visits. It was a nightmare, but a company I was forced to live with. It's the law!

      Now, December 2009. SUDDENLY Mass notifies the company I work for that the health insurance they provide doesn't meet state minimum requirements and they would have to direct every single one of their employees in Mass to the Health Connector to set up insurance. Well, as an employee that is bad news. My company loves it tho, because now they have to pay absolutely zero dollars towards my health care. The state of Mass offered me 13 plans, the cheapest being 413 dollars a month! that's about 95 dollars a week, or roughly 5000 dollars a year. That is just under double my previous payment. My Annual Deductible is set at 4,000 dollars! Talk about a grinch. This means that if I go to the ER, or a DRs Visit. I have to pay the full amount until it reaches 4,000 dollars before my 25 copay, or 150 ER copay kicks in. That means I'm in it for 9,000 dollars before any coverage occurs. This is a sticks and bones policy, and just outright stealing. The worse part about it is that Mass holds you down, while the health companies take the money. How is this legal? It isn't and sounds a lot like Involuntary Servtitude. Something similar happened in Mass a long time ago, anyone every hear of the Boston Tea Party? Of course I did not sign up for the Health Insurace they offered, so I saved myself atleast 5,000 dollars. I'll establish my own little health fund on the side, and in the event something happens, I'll deal with it then, and do what most people do. Make payment plans to pay it off. Over my lifetime, this will save me a lot of money, and puts me in total control of my own health.

      Now, I'm not against them trying to regulate Health Insurance, but they are doing it in such away right now, that it gives partial control of the government to a billion dollar private industry. It also allows for more corruption to take place, as their are no mentions of caps they can charge to a consumer. How is it that a premium of a 27 year old in one state, is so drastic in another? The answer is because in those other states, it isn't against the law to not have Health Insurance.

      This Health Reform bill that will not get passed by the voters, has no mention of a cap. This will corrupt the white house and this country in such a way, that the response could be Unmeasurable. We are talking about forcing billions of dollars, weekly, not yearly, Weekly out of the economy and into the Private health insurance corporations. Think about it, everyone with a full time job will pay atleast 60 bucks with an employer sponsered plan, and over 120 with no employer help. This would be disastorous for this nation. It isn't universal Health care.

      Sorry for the long rant, but I just can't see this happening all over the USA, and wish it never occured in Massachusetts.

    13. Pingback: Health Care Updates | thelobbyist

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×