I have noticed a lot of people complaining about the personal mandate. I understand the sentiment behind this and why it would make some feel uncomfortable, but the policy logic is extremely compelling.
To be specific, the personal mandate and the coverage of pre-existing conditions go hand in hand. It is difficult to have the latter without the former, else the revenue model breaks down.
If we cover pre-existing conditions but there is no mandate, then people can sit back and wait to get ill before acquiring insurance. Then, because you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, the insurance company is forced to take you and begin paying out for you immediately. The trouble is that the incentives create a situation where at any given time, everyone who is paying their premiums is drawing 10-100x that amount in benefits, while those who would normally represent the healthy many, whose premiums ordinarily subsidize the sick few, would have an incentive to stay out of the picture. After all, why bother paying insurance unless (until) you are sure you will use it?
The plan is not even remotely affordable without the personal mandate. The mandate is necessary for the bill to be economically sound.
|