Thaddeus.net Blog

One of the few things that people on both sides of the aisle agree on when it comes to health care reform is that there should be some level of protection for people with preexisting conditions. For all the talk of repeal, I don't think you'll see a single Republican candidate this Fall talking about getting rid of that provision in the bill.

One of the biggest points of division is with the individual mandate that requires people to have health insurance. Several attorneys general across the country are today threatening to sue to prevent the individual mandate and you hear a lot of conservatives decrying the idea of forcing people to pay for a service.

What most people don't realize is that the two policy questions are very tightly intertwined.

If the promised lawsuits are successful in stripping out the mandate, then it will have some pretty significant consequences. If insurers are forced to allow people with preexisting conditions to buy policies but we don't mandate coverage, then people will just save their money and wait until they get sick to buy policies; after all, the insurance companies won't be able to turn them down. That means that the years of premiums that the insurers depend on while someone is in good health to cover care when they get sick or injured are unavailable. It also means that we'll be in the same boat we are now where people without insurance are relying on expensive emergency care rather than preventative care.

The end result of all of this is that the insurers won't be able to provide coverage and government will be left to cover the bill. In time, you can count on either a public option or a extension of Medicare to pop up as a solution to the bankrupt insurance companies and ballooning costs. It's ironic that we'd actually end up closer to single-payer socialized medicine if we strip out the individual mandate that conservatives are so strongly against.