Much has been said — on both sides — of last week’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding Pres. Barack Obama’s health-care reform law.
The law is intended to help millions of Americans without insurance purchase it.
Many have argued that the court’s decision leaves rising medical costs as an unresolved issue of concern.
A key provision, the individual mandate, is the most controversial element of the law. It mandates that individuals carry insurance or pay a fine, or as the court ruled it, a tax. In Minnesota, we already require drivers of vehicles to carry insurance. And vehicle insurance carries a clause to cover scenarios involving uninsured motorists.
But haven’t we already been picking up the costs of the uninsured when they need medical attention? Our society is built upon the premise that we won’t let our citizens suffer. We all, through taxes and insurance, assist by paying for the medical needs of people who don’t have insurance. And hospitals and clinics end up eating some of those costs.
Nobody wants to see more taxes being collected from them unnecessarily. But what’s the alternative? Letting babies whose parents choose to purchase three-wheelers and boats instead of insurance die?
Of course that’s an extreme example. In many cases, parents are choosing between paying mortgages and buying food instead of insurance. And they know that should they or their children need medical attention, civilized society will assist them with their hospital and clinic costs.
One alternative may be to require that adults who choose not to be insured to sign a waiver so that society won’t help them pay their medical costs. But certainly, we couldn’t do that with children.
The law’s major goal is to expand access to health insurance by making more people eligible for Medicaid and by offering subsidies to help families pay for insurance.
One estimate, published by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, projects that by 2020 some 32 million Americans who would be uninsured without the law will have coverage.
Clearly, the Affordable Care Act isn’t perfect. And it’s likely that officials of both parties will seek changes to the law. Hopefully, those changes will address questions about how this expansion of access to health insurance will be accomplished.
