President Obama has stated that "under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry [car] insurance." The question is, "Is it fair to compare compulsory health insurance with government mandated [car] insurance?"
There are two reasonable and juxtaposed perspectives in this debate. Proponents of the plan stress benefits such as the availability of lower cost plans as the cost of insurance is spread among a larger pool of healthy individuals as well as less healthy. There is no question that the health of the insurance industry itself depends upon the ability to function and provide services at a profit. The most logical approach to profitability would be to collect premiums from those who would be less likely to make claims. President Obama raised concerns when he addressed the March White House Health Care Summit. His statement that nearly 1 in 6 Americans are without health insurance is a snapshot statistic that is alarming. Whether or not we are to believe the actual number, President Obama's point was to emphasize the need for all Americans to have coverage. If a substantial number of the uninsured are healthy and young individuals, who are not likely to use health care insurance, it should be true that existing coverage would not be affected except to be available at a lower cost. However, many young Americans insist that they cannot afford health care insurance. The argument is that these individuals can be swayed to favor health insurance if it's available at a lower cost.
Opponents of mandatory health care coverage argue that it's not fair to compare health care insurance with the required car insurance because the choice to have a car is up to the individual. During an interview on MSNBC's Hardball, Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity said, "When you have health care, that is a choice that impacts yourself, drivers' insurance impacts others that you may have an accident with." Sen. Jon Kyl (Rep.-Ariz.) called the proposed health care requirement a "stunning assault on liberty". One interesting argument against mandatory health insurance comes from a surprising source. In the March 26, 2008 issue of the Christian Science Monitor, article authors Kyle Manheim and Jamie Court consider the possibility that requiring Americans to carry health insurance is unconstitutional claiming that, "In constitutional terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process" or a "taking of property." And that such "unfunded mandates" are "unlike any form of government regulation we've seen."
Most Americans agree that our system of health care needs to improve. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll last fall, 62 percent of the respondents favored a universal, government-run medical insurance program. Still we remain divided as to the best way to implement change.
