Chief Justice Roberts touched on something that I had neither thought of or heard anyone else mention before. He said, "You cannot say that everybody is going to participate in the substance abuse market or pediatric services and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase."
Health care is a very broad descriptor, and so is health insurance. If we split up insurance into different types of insurance such as broken leg insurance, substance abuse insurance, getting cancer insurance, building-collapsing on you insurance does their argument hold?
Presumably, it's the same case. Take substance abuse, of course, some people are much more likely to need it. If there's still community rating, the people whom it benefits will buy and those that aren't benefited won't buy it. The insurance death spiral occurs so the insurance doesn't exist.
Should that type of insurance be mandated to ensure the market exists? Does that mean all types of insurance should be mandated?
Is it different because these sub-insurances are grouped together?
No comments:
Post a Comment