What I have yet to see anyone address is that the insurance mandate is a
violation of the most fundamental right to choose what kind of healing system
to subscribe to, and healing is inextricably linked to beliefs.
Americans have been voting with their feet and dollars, choosing from the
multitude of alternatives to orthodox medicine. That’s why the orthodox
system has been pushing a reform which consolidates a monopoly for itself,
eliminating competition from more cost-effective alternatives. The
billions of dollars it has spent in public relations has succeeded in
framing the issue so large numbers of people have been lulled into to
thinking insurance equals health care equals orthodox medicine. It’s a lie.
Details at http://bluegreenbytes.com/w/hquest/insfree.htm and
http://bluegreenbytes.com/w/hquest/insfac01.htm

The other framing they have succeeded in making pervasive is the demonization
of those who choose to be in full control of their healthcare, branding lack
of insurance as the cause of the problem and insurance as the solution.
The problem here is the acceptance of the premise that there is
an “external cost the average uninsured person imposes on society
as a whole because he is uninsured.”
First, the reason there’s uncompensated care is not because of lack of
insurance but because they can’t afford it – ie poverty.
Second, Mr. Graham’s article shows that the uninsured pay more in taxes than
they receive in uncompensated care, so the external cost is negative.
Third, has anyone considered the possibility that the opportunity cost of
insurance exceeds the benefit, so that the uninsured are actually saving
society as a whole more than would be saved by alternate arrangements?
For example, spending the money on education, eating better, and living close
enough to work to get exercise while commuting may produce far more benefit
in reducing poverty, improving health, reducing healthcare costs, and
reducing uncompensated care, than spending the money on insurance.
All 3 of these invalidate the original premise.

Health insurance itself has engendered an entitlement mentality (“the best when I need it for as little personal cash outlay as possible”), and unfortunately (and perhaps predictably) less personal responsibility for one’s health.

We cannot look at health care any longer as our grandparents did; it’s not the same beast and delivers far more value. If we really want health care costs to go down, we must take more personal responsibility for our health AND our personal health care cost. The insurance $$$ pool (and government $$$ pool) drive UP health care costs.

Ponder this: many of us think nothing about taking on a 5-6 year car note for that $45,000 dream car – is it as important as our health? Of course not. Yet, the thought of paying $45,000 to stay alive and healthy is anathema to us.

We all have the right to make choices that better (or worsen) our health… to spend that $10 at the grocery store for hearty salad fixings that will serve as two or three meals, instead of the fast food greasy burger and shake… to cancel cable TV and go to the health club each night with our families… eat an apple instead of french fries…

If we insist on inexpensive health care, then our right (to make good or poor health choices) truly is an obligation to make good health choices. Why should my coworker pay for my self-induced diabetes, lung cancer, heart bypasses?

(Of course I haven’t addressed the multitude of non-self-inflicted illnesses and conditions.)

I must say, as this issue has taken hold, I’ve considered the fact that I have abused and neglected my body throughout my life – I have smoked and gone for long periods without exercise. Most likely I will experience health issues related to my self-abuse. And I truly do not have the right to demand/expect that others pay for my mistakes. Will I accept it if it’s offered? You betcha.

But I cannot help but wonder: would I have behaved differently if that option weren’t available?

Contrary to popular opinion in the media, the Individual Mandate, not the so-called public option is the key to stopping Obamcare in its tracks. Stop the Individual Mandate and the whole bill will unravel for lack of funding and mandatory participation in the scheme!

This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this “public option” provision everyone keeps fixating on – Wyden/Bennett and the Bacus bill are prime examples of this.

Individual Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was) .

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped:

(a) Federal Regulation aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Government Subsidies aka MIDDLE CLASS MEDICAL WELFARE

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

Obamacare or any other plan that constains Individual Mandates is a corrupt bargain that benefits DC Politicians, Big Union, Big Industry, and Big/Nanny Government. The losers that get stuck with the bill and socialist medicine are the young, the elderly, the taxpayer and small business.

Its amazaing how stupid the left really is – they dont even know when they are being scammed lol!

“…but am less convinced about X.”

…Specifically, I’m not convinced that X(i) needs to equal the full value of B(i). Consider the existing employer-based system. At most, the value of X is 43% of B (where X is federal only). Yet this is apparently enough to make employer-based coverage quite popular, and in fact seems to be high enough to encourage some excess spending.

Of course the real reason for the individual mandate is not to penalize free ridership– as Linda points out, it doesn’t even impact insured people that much. Instead, the purpose is to force participation in a pool with mandatory (2:1) community rating. So as far as the state is concerned, the cost of uninsurance is not A, it’s the cost of lost revenue B(i) that the individual failed to pay into the pool.

I agree with B=C, or at least B(i)=C(i), but am less convinced about X.

It’s probably better to forget about A. The only one really talking about it is Obama, as a red herring to try to justify his insurance fiasco.

A is the average amount society is willing to spend on the uninsured. You’ve said that’s about $1000 for every insured person.

B is the minimum amount people would be required to spend on health insurance. This will always be higher than A, given current insurance costs.

C is the fine, which could be set to A.

But unless things fundamentally change, A is nowhere near to equaling B.

That works out to less than 3 percent of what we spend in healthcare every year as a nation.

That’s called a rounding error for the human condition. There is no (signficant) “free rider” problem at all.