How Americans are adverse to personal responsibility

Being forced by law to act in your own interest is not acting responsibly. Responsibility is taking voluntary intitiative to make a choice, and then accepting the consequences of that choice.

In general, no moral argument can be made for requiring people to buy personal health insurance–just as no moral argument can be made to force people to buy housing when they prefer to be homeless (amazingly, some people do). It is not like liability on a car, more like collision.

The exception is coverage for emergency conditions that you will receive treatment for as an obligation by others without even an opportunity for you to refuse–such as major medical emergencies and accidents. Since simply by existing, you put hospitals at risk of having to provide that treatment, a case can be made for requiring you to purchase bare bones emergency coverage insurance.

But it is not practical. More than a third of the unisured are in the country illegally–how are you going to force them to do something just by passing a law? Many of the rest already flout auto insurance laws.

What is far more practical is the current proposal to give everyone a taxbreak for purchasing insurance (not just those who get it as a job benefit as now). We currently punish those who actually do take responsibility by taxing them more than we do those who have the insurance given to them. Then those who don’t buy insurance will be paying higher taxes–the extra can then be used to reimburse hosptials directly for their EMTALA expenses.

That would be fair, and except for the last part is what the President is proposing.